You mean, the standard human is too weak. 3 or 4 of those +1s are going to be essentially wasted on 99% of characters, as most classes only really need 2 or 3 high stats to function.
I made a standard array Variant Human because I definitively wanted his INT the lowest. Turned out to be a much better character than I wanted from a single feat. He was supposed to be a witless and useless but lucky doofus. He ended up being too much of a good DMG/Tank—the opposite of what I wanted. So, I scrapped him. :(
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I like to homebrew a rule that every players starts with a free feat. Its amazing that I went from DMing for a party of 4/5 variant humans to none. It requires a minor balancing tweak, but I find it really lets people build the character they envision.
I like to homebrew a rule that every players starts with a free feat. Its amazing that I went from DMing for a party of 4/5 variant humans to none. It requires a minor balancing tweak, but I find it really lets people build the character they envision.
Variant Human starting with two two feats would still be pretty tempting. Unless you are just intent on making human unselectable.
I like to homebrew a rule that every players starts with a free feat. Its amazing that I went from DMing for a party of 4/5 variant humans to none. It requires a minor balancing tweak, but I find it really lets people build the character they envision.
Variant Human starting with two two feats would still be pretty tempting. Unless you are just intent on making human unselectable.
Seriously. I dont know how you didnt wind up with level 1 PAM sentinels or crossbow expert sharpshooters.
I like to homebrew a rule that every players starts with a free feat. Its amazing that I went from DMing for a party of 4/5 variant humans to none. It requires a minor balancing tweak, but I find it really lets people build the character they envision.
Variant Human starting with two two feats would still be pretty tempting. Unless you are just intent on making human unselectable.
I think if you give everyone a feat you'd have to disallow variant human. You'd probably have to bug regular human though because lordy that's bad.
I’ve been playing with the same group every week without fail for 2 years. (Maybe missed 3 weeks in 2 years) PAM Sentinel and Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter were fun the first time - and really only for like the first 8 levels. Killing giants in one turn doing the same 3 attacks over and over and over again for an entire campaign really losses it’s fun.
So allow me to be more in depth with my opinion on Feats and Variant Human now that this seems to become a big topic.
Variant Human is just basically every Human 3rd edition on word. The thing is that Feats were made more powerful in 5th edition, so that level 1 bonus feat has become so inticing to many people. Added on to this are builds that require certain feats to work, like with Crossbow Expert, and this along with the massive increase in newbie interest in D&D (newbies have always had the habit of choosing Human, or the most dramatic race they can in all editions) has led to the common use of Variant Human. It also doesn't help that Non-Variant Human is the most boring thing possible.
Problem is, while Feats are stronger than they used to be they now also come at the cost of Ability Score Improvements (even the Variant Human one is, though since the Improvements are +1 all it tends to hurt less), which in the long run tend to actually be more useful. You may be thinking, what about the Feats that give Ability Improvements? So many are just too situational, some of them involve things that some DMs would never have, and others still just have lame effects not worth losing an ability score increase over. And frankly, several Racial Traits end up more useful than most Feats as well.
For instance with Durable, it just puts a lower limit on healing hit points from when you expend hit dice. Which in 99% of cases is because you took a short rest. It doesn't change the likelihood of the higher rolls, it's not a bonus, it doesn't allow you to use hit dice another way. It does give you a +1 to Constitution, but only evens matter to modifers, so unless your Constitution is at 19, you already have Proficiency with Constitution Saves, and your not a dwarf/tiefling/half-orc. Why would you take it? You wouldn't.
Now that may be low hanging fruit, but the problem is a third of the feats are like that. The other two-thirds are divided between some actually good stuff that depends on builds, race, or getting it on an odd number; and some okay stuff that is tempting, but is just crap enough that your character is taking a hit. Some of the best feats are XGE or Eberron Content. I can always justify 1 feat on to any character, 2 on most. Feats, despite being more in depth and powerful than other editions, aren't worth the investment and thus characters tend to feel less special and personal.
This is why typically when I DM, I have players gain 1 Feat and 1 Ability Point per Ability Score Improvement Feature. You probably thought I hated Feats, no I love them. It's just the choice between 2 Ability Increases or a Feat feels like it ruins creative development. Also, they need more Feats with more variety and reasons that an odd numbered Ability Score may be useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Discuss!
Elves. Nuff said.
You mean, the standard human is too weak. 3 or 4 of those +1s are going to be essentially wasted on 99% of characters, as most classes only really need 2 or 3 high stats to function.
I am better than any variant human.
(prove me wrong)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Did you get a feat at level 1?!
Yes, mage slayer. Unfortunately, I am yet to meet a single spellcaster...
Sure, feats are nice, but having a massive naked AC is nicer.
I made a standard array Variant Human because I definitively wanted his INT the lowest. Turned out to be a much better character than I wanted from a single feat. He was supposed to be a witless and useless but lucky doofus. He ended up being too much of a good DMG/Tank—the opposite of what I wanted. So, I scrapped him. :(
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
How often are you naked?!
As many times as I go to jail. Which in D&D is every other day.
Ha! You don't seem like that great of a criminal. Perhaps you need a new line of work!
Humans are supposed to be the most populous, without variant human I doubt we’d have as many PC humans.
Elves in general seem stronger, other than for a few feat heavy builds.
Humans would be more “balanced” if vision rules are followed.
Non-drow Elves are the Marty Stu/Mary Sue of D&D races for sure, esp. if you play by Adventurer's League rules.
Witness: "Well, I'm not entirely sure on height or hair color or whatever, but he was definitely naked if that helps."
I like to homebrew a rule that every players starts with a free feat. Its amazing that I went from DMing for a party of 4/5 variant humans to none. It requires a minor balancing tweak, but I find it really lets people build the character they envision.
Variant Human starting with two two feats would still be pretty tempting. Unless you are just intent on making human unselectable.
Seriously. I dont know how you didnt wind up with level 1 PAM sentinels or crossbow expert sharpshooters.
I think if you give everyone a feat you'd have to disallow variant human. You'd probably have to bug regular human though because lordy that's bad.
I’ve been playing with the same group every week without fail for 2 years. (Maybe missed 3 weeks in 2 years) PAM Sentinel and Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter were fun the first time - and really only for like the first 8 levels. Killing giants in one turn doing the same 3 attacks over and over and over again for an entire campaign really losses it’s fun.
So allow me to be more in depth with my opinion on Feats and Variant Human now that this seems to become a big topic.
Variant Human is just basically every Human 3rd edition on word. The thing is that Feats were made more powerful in 5th edition, so that level 1 bonus feat has become so inticing to many people. Added on to this are builds that require certain feats to work, like with Crossbow Expert, and this along with the massive increase in newbie interest in D&D (newbies have always had the habit of choosing Human, or the most dramatic race they can in all editions) has led to the common use of Variant Human. It also doesn't help that Non-Variant Human is the most boring thing possible.
Problem is, while Feats are stronger than they used to be they now also come at the cost of Ability Score Improvements (even the Variant Human one is, though since the Improvements are +1 all it tends to hurt less), which in the long run tend to actually be more useful. You may be thinking, what about the Feats that give Ability Improvements? So many are just too situational, some of them involve things that some DMs would never have, and others still just have lame effects not worth losing an ability score increase over. And frankly, several Racial Traits end up more useful than most Feats as well.
For instance with Durable, it just puts a lower limit on healing hit points from when you expend hit dice. Which in 99% of cases is because you took a short rest. It doesn't change the likelihood of the higher rolls, it's not a bonus, it doesn't allow you to use hit dice another way. It does give you a +1 to Constitution, but only evens matter to modifers, so unless your Constitution is at 19, you already have Proficiency with Constitution Saves, and your not a dwarf/tiefling/half-orc. Why would you take it? You wouldn't.
Now that may be low hanging fruit, but the problem is a third of the feats are like that. The other two-thirds are divided between some actually good stuff that depends on builds, race, or getting it on an odd number; and some okay stuff that is tempting, but is just crap enough that your character is taking a hit. Some of the best feats are XGE or Eberron Content. I can always justify 1 feat on to any character, 2 on most. Feats, despite being more in depth and powerful than other editions, aren't worth the investment and thus characters tend to feel less special and personal.
This is why typically when I DM, I have players gain 1 Feat and 1 Ability Point per Ability Score Improvement Feature. You probably thought I hated Feats, no I love them. It's just the choice between 2 Ability Increases or a Feat feels like it ruins creative development. Also, they need more Feats with more variety and reasons that an odd numbered Ability Score may be useful.