Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6399109" data-attributes="member: 5100">I would totally be down for a game like that. As it is, I'm allowing feats, but making a heavy emphasis on the "you're 4th level, so you get two ability points". If there's a particular feat someone wants, so be it, but it's not assumed.That considered, my wife really just wants to show up and play, so I'm usually left doing the statistic analysis to make her characters work. She gained 4th level, last night, with her elven fighter. I listed off a couple of feat choices (with analysis) and the only one that really caught her attention was Resilience (Dexterity), which brings her to an 18 and gives her some comfort around casters. She might pick up Tough, but I wouldn't put money on it. The most/all of the other players are taking feats, too, but I don't think anyone has a shopping list, so I doubt I'll see any taken beyond 8th level, as a rule. The feats just don't jump out, unless you've got something specific you're looking for. That suits me just fine.Back to the main topic:I think the humans with +1 to all make a very nice "default". Each of the other races are going to be slightly better at something, but none will be as balanced as a human. It's a study in min-maxing vs. max-minning; the human has fewer weaknesses. The variant human is at least on-par with the other races. If nothing else, a good number of feats grant a +1 to some ability score. So, the human who wants to play an archer Fighter, say, puts a +1 into Dex and the other into Con. Then, he takes Resilience (Dexterity), which gives him a +2 Dex/+1 Con -- better than what either high or wood elf grants. The weapon proficiencies are redundant with the class's. He trades in darkvision for an extra save proficiency. He can choose to spend the extra skill in Perception or something else. Having seen it in play, the cantrip won't be missed for a Fighter, nor would I expect the woodsy stealth to be (for a Fighter). That means, at worst, the character is behind an elven archer by either 5' of movement or a language -- either of which could be argued away by the freedom to select what stat gets the secondary +1.You may disagree with my valuation, but it would come down to some subjective calls. That fact, alone, makes a pretty strong argument that the human isn't objectively underpowered. I'm sure there are some play styles that would find the human at a disadvantage, but that's still not absolute. The groups I've played with have generally found well-rounded characters to have better survival.</blockquote>

Verification