Human's odd ability bonuses are poor game design practice

[jamesb]

The odd bonus of humans either makes it arbitrary if you get any useful bonus when rolling for stats or skews buy point system. It's a step backwards, not forwards.

Looking back at 3.5, while most of the ability bonuses were even. Items, spells, racial adjustments, etc...; there were a few odd level boosts. Every 4th level you get +1, but that was likely to be added to another +1 at level 8 and had more to do with scaling. There were tomes ranging in +1 to +5, which really could have been just +2, +4 and +6 for epic level. Ability damaging spells like Ray of Enfeeblement started at 1d6+1 and went up to 1d6+5 as you leveled, but that was so you could get an effect even at minimized roll and you can't escape odd numbers on the dice without doubling...which brings me to my next point...

So what's the solution? I'm not sure why we're still using this scale of ability scores that's been grandfathered down. It seems to be supporting poor game design decisions. Rolling 4d3d1 and five gives you the ability score without the extra table new players have to learn. Sure, it doesn't feel as epic, but works the same. This solves the cases above that weren't odd and takes out the need for the even padding. It would bring to question if they are flattening the system and progression curve too much with 5e design, but we'll see as things unfold if there's slower power creep and rules bloat like in other systems.

So for 5e, what do you suggest as an alternative to the +1 to all abilities? Should we give +2 in two random abilities? Let the player choose an ability for +2? Just give them a feat instead as the optional rule?

[CyberThread]

Humans benefit from something called,

[rlc]

um, you get ability score increases at certain levels in this edition, too.
op doesn't know what he's talking about.
sage

[Yuki Akuma]

"+1 to an ability score" bonuses are much more common in 5e - almost every race gets them, every "Ability Score Advancement" gives you two +1s to arrange as you wish, and several feats also include +1 to an ability score in addition to other things.

Magic items that improve ability scores also simply set them to 19, now, instead of granting a bonus.

As ability scores cap out at 20, now, I don't see why this is a big deal.

[Merc_Kilsek]

As ability scores cap out at 20, now, I don't see why this is a big deal.

It's not honestly. Just some people get so focus on using other editions rules/math they over look or think how a different edition does it.

I've seen a few post (not this forum) laughing at the red dragons 22 AC. Making comments like: "lol my 20th level fighter has a BaB +20 with a +5 dragon bane sword, 34 strength, etc etc. Dragons suck so bad!! This edition is crap.". :smallsigh:

[obryn]

A bunch of +1's are fine. If you're doing point buy, you save by buying 1 less than what you wanted. If you're rolling, it's just fine. And you increase your stats later.

[rlc]

It's not honestly. Just some people get so focus on using other editions rules/math they over look or think how a different edition does it.

I've seen a few post (not this forum) laughing at the red dragons 22 AC. Making comments like: "lol my 20th level fighter has a BaB +20 with a +5 dragon bane sword, 34 strength, etc etc. Dragons suck so bad!! This edition is crap.". :smallsigh:

that is one of the nerdiest things i have ever read in my life.
and i'm on a dungeons and dragons forum right now.

[pwykersotz]

Another thing to remember is that odd stats are weirdly synergistic with feats in this edition. That human with a 13 in strength? Instead of getting +2 to strength and 'wasting' that extra point can take Tavern Brawler (or other :smalltongue:) and get both the numeric benefit of an even stat and extra feat effects. I think it's a decent change...though for what it's worth I do agree that I'd rather have score matter more than score -10 divided by 2.

[jamesb]

I've not read 5e phb, so I didn't know about the synergistic nature of the other +1s. I don't like the staggered release of core and I want a better look at the system before I go investing in it. So I don't have as clear of a picture of the system as a whole. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about as far as game design...

The thing is...this is the equivalent of getting 1/2 of a skill point in 3.5. Sure it stacks if you cross classed into a skill, if you started throwing around 1/2 bonuses on items, potions, etc.. it'd be more relevant. Why make something randomly useful/useless based on fractions of a point or if you're at odd or even? If you're trying to simplify rules it doesn't help to use fractions of a point.

[Kurald Galain]

The odd bonus of humans either makes it arbitrary if you get any useful bonus when rolling for stats or skews buy point system. It's a step backwards, not forwards.
I'm not seeing the problem here.

If your stats are random, well, any random number plus one equals another random number. Add one to everything and it's still random, so why is that a problem?

If your stats are point buy, then you can easily tweak the point buy so that all your important stats are odd, add one for being human, and you've got good stats. Again, why is that a problem?

Finally, I'd expect most groups to use the Feat rules, which means you can take a feat at level one instead, and that may well be the best option for most human characters.

[rlc]

I've not read 5e phb, so I didn't know about the synergistic nature of the other +1s. I don't like the staggered release of core and I want a better look at the system before I go investing in it. So I don't have as clear of a picture of the system as a whole. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about as far as game design...

The thing is...this is the equivalent of getting 1/2 of a skill point in 3.5. Sure it stacks if you cross classed into a skill, if you started throwing around 1/2 bonuses on items, potions, etc.. it'd be more relevant. Why make something randomly useful/useless based on fractions of a point or if you're at odd or even? If you're trying to simplify rules it doesn't help to use fractions of a point.

yep, reading this post just reaffirms that you, indeed, don't know what you're talking about.
the basic rules are free to download, and address every single one of your concerns.
this also isn't 3.5, so what they did in that edition isn't important.

[Yuki Akuma]

the basic rules are free to download, and address every single one of your concerns.

No, it doesn't. Feats aren't in the basic rules, and they solve part of this 'problem'.

[TheOldCrow]

I agree with the OP that humans are lackluster and their bonus +1s doesn't work well with rolling, point buy, and especially the standard array. The variant human is better, since a feat is interesting. I think it should have been +1 to three stats and a feat, to keep humans on par with non-humans in point value plus goodies.

If I were designing races, I'd do away with stat bonuses altogether, since they tend to work out wonkily with point buy in value, and not at all sometimes with other generation methods. Everyone would just have racial abilities instead, and would just buy what they wanted for stats with their point buy points (number of points could be raised by 5-6 to make up for the loss).

[Merc_Kilsek]

I've not read 5e phb, so I didn't know about the synergistic nature of the other +1s. I don't like the staggered release of core and I want a better look at the system before I go investing in it. So I don't have as clear of a picture of the system as a whole.

You can read the basic D&D 5e rules online for free from wizard website. There is enough information out there to educate yourself on this edition. As for staggered, I believe only 4th wasn't staggered. Even other edition (plus Pathfinder) was. Just the nature of releasing rpg books.


That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about as far as game design...

In general? Maybe. You yourself say you lack a basic level of information on this edition.


The thing is...this is the equivalent of getting 1/2 of a skill point in 3.5. Sure it stacks if you cross classed into a skill, if you started throwing around 1/2 bonuses on items, potions, etc.. it'd be more relevant. Why make something randomly useful/useless based on fractions of a point or if you're at odd or even? If you're trying to simplify rules it doesn't help to use fractions of a point.

It is not that big of a deal to have a stat that is a odd number. To me it really seems more like nitpicking then a real concern to a system design. If that 13 really bugs you, just erase it and make it a 12 - problem fixed! But I don't think you would.

[jamesb]

This was my concern after reading the basic rules. I do have the basic understanding of 5e. I also looked into the play testing early on.

For the one that asked about why it's a big deal with point buy or rolling ability scores...
Mechakoopa made the point elsewhere that unmodified ability scores are capped at 15 from point buy in character creation. With 27 points you can get 13,13,13,13,13,10. With a +1 to all you've maxed out in five abilities for bonuses.
For the rolling, the bonuses being arbitrary in usefulness could mean you get a +1 to every modifier or none of them (rare, yes). It's really more relevant to the ones you find useful being heads or tails. With splitting that +2, if I ended up with two odd abilities I wanted to improve, I could get +1 in two categories at 4th rather than one.
These half points are a level of number crunchiness I could do without in an edition that seemed to want to go back towards roleplay. With the system being a flattened version for progression these discrepancies stand out more.

I made comparisons to 3.5 because I've extensive experience with the system. I don't think anyone is an expert at 5e (it'd take nearly 3+1/2 years of 8 hours a day to hit 10k hours).
I asked for solutions on how this could be done better. If you think it's the best way or doesn't need changing, that's fine. I can respect people that don't agree or have different opinions. It helps my understanding when they can explain why. This is the point I usually tell an rpg group to 'play nice children'. For the rest, to that end, here is your 'courteously link': http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

[obryn]

I think you're getting this tone because you're asserting it's poor game design, when there's no evidence to support that claim.

[Sir_Leorik]

This was my concern after reading the basic rules. I do have the basic understanding of 5e. I also looked into the play testing early on.

For the one that asked about why it's a big deal with point buy or rolling ability scores...
Mechakoopa made the point elsewhere that unmodified ability scores are capped at 15 from point buy in character creation. With 27 points you can get 13,13,13,13,13,10. With a +1 to all you've maxed out in five abilities for bonuses.

IMHO, that's a sub-optimal use of the point buy system. If you're playing a Human, and not using the Variant Human rules, you're better off buying a 15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10, and then adding +1 to each score, for a final result of 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11; this way you end up with a 16 (which you should put into the most important stat your class needs), and you only end up with one odd stat.

Of course if you really want to rock the point buy system, you get the following stats: 15, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8. Then add +1 to the 15 and the 14, for: 16, 15, 12, 12, 10, 8 and take a feat that grants a +1 to a single ability score (like Actor or Heavy Armor Master) into the 15, for a final result of: 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8. Your character will be very good at one or two things, as opposed to mediocre at everything.


For the rolling, the bonuses being arbitrary in usefulness could mean you get a +1 to every modifier or none of them (rare, yes). It's really more relevant to the ones you find useful being heads or tails. With splitting that +2, if I ended up with two odd abilities I wanted to improve, I could get +1 in two categories at 4th rather than one.
These half points are a level of number crunchiness I could do without in an edition that seemed to want to go back towards roleplay. With the system being a flattened version for progression these discrepancies stand out more.

You have a few options. You could adopt point buy. You could play a different race. You could buy the PHB and actually learn the rules.


I made comparisons to 3.5 because I've extensive experience with the system. I don't think anyone is an expert at 5e (it'd take nearly 3+1/2 years of 8 hours a day to hit 10k hours).
I asked for solutions on how this could be done better. If you think it's the best way or doesn't need changing, that's fine. I can respect people that don't agree or have different opinions. It helps my understanding when they can explain why. This is the point I usually tell an rpg group to 'play nice children'. For the rest, to that end, here is your 'courteously link': http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

5E isn't 3.X. It is a different edition, and if you want to critique 5E you should learn the rules and play a few sessions. I for one welcome any constructive criticism you might have, once you've had a chance to play the game.

[rlc]

No, it doesn't. Feats aren't in the basic rules, and they solve part of this 'problem'.
well, if we're going with technicalities, then feats were one of his suggestions, not one of his concerns. but, it does mention the human variant that gets a feat. so, yes, it does.


This was my concern after reading the basic rules. I do have the basic understanding of 5e. I also looked into the play testing early on.

For the one that asked about why it's a big deal with point buy or rolling ability scores...
Mechakoopa made the point elsewhere that unmodified ability scores are capped at 15 from point buy in character creation. With 27 points you can get 13,13,13,13,13,10. With a +1 to all you've maxed out in five abilities for bonuses.
For the rolling, the bonuses being arbitrary in usefulness could mean you get a +1 to every modifier or none of them (rare, yes). It's really more relevant to the ones you find useful being heads or tails. With splitting that +2, if I ended up with two odd abilities I wanted to improve, I could get +1 in two categories at 4th rather than one.
These half points are a level of number crunchiness I could do without in an edition that seemed to want to go back towards roleplay. With the system being a flattened version for progression these discrepancies stand out more.

I made comparisons to 3.5 because I've extensive experience with the system. I don't think anyone is an expert at 5e (it'd take nearly 3+1/2 years of 8 hours a day to hit 10k hours).
I asked for solutions on how this could be done better. If you think it's the best way or doesn't need changing, that's fine. I can respect people that don't agree or have different opinions. It helps my understanding when they can explain why. This is the point I usually tell an rpg group to 'play nice children'. For the rest, to that end, here is your 'courteously link': http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

in the tiny chance that you wouldn't benefit from raising your stats, there is a variant human that gets a feat. you'd still lose the +1 from that, but you'd get other stuff for free. actually, you could choose this anyway.
when you divide a number, you round it down, with maybe on exception.
these are in the basic rules.
it's fine if you don't like something, but your dislike should be based on what that system does wrong, not what another one does.

[Kornaki]

Mechakoopa made the point elsewhere that unmodified ability scores are capped at 15 from point buy in character creation. With 27 points you can get 13,13,13,13,13,10. With a +1 to all you've maxed out in five abilities for bonuses.

No, because if you took a couple 15s you could bump them up to 16 and get a larger bonus.

[HylianKnight]

I would like to point out that 5E's ability increase system actually seems to eliminate old +1 issues.

You gain +2 to one ability score, or +1 to two. So if you end up with a few odd numbers, you can bump up two at a time and get the benefits of two modifiers increasing instead of the usual one.

So yeah, assuming you reach 4th level, +1 across the board is going to be very beneficial.

[Sartharina]

Finally, I'd expect most groups to use the Feat rules, which means you can take a feat at level one instead, and that may well be the best option for most human characters.
The alternate human is hands-down the best option, to the point that I'm thinking of banning it at my tables. Free Feat worked in 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder because feats were rather ****ty in those systems.

The +1 to All Attributes allows you to point-buy up to an odd number, and get even numbers. Or, it increases the value of rolled numbers by increasing odd numbers to even ones.

The only race that doesn't get a +1 to an attribute is Mountain Dwarf, and that extra +1's to make the subrace more appealing to classes that don't benefit from the Armor Mastery.

[Kurald Galain]

The alternate human is hands-down the best option, to the point that I'm thinking of banning it at my tables.

That's a shame, because it's also hands-down the most interesting option.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Speaking as someone who always liked to try for "well rounded" stats even if it mean my caster had lower casting stat I highly appreciate an across the board +1 personally.


That's a shame, because it's also hands-down the most interesting option.

Humans were already always a good choice in 3.5 on having a bonus feat when everyone got 1 anyways and most of the time you wanted whole groups of feats in a build. Now there are no feat chains and other races don't get any to start with and you still want to give them one... yeeaaah

I don't know about you but my instinct is simpler, just give everyone a bonus feat at level 1 if your that interested in them. Might put the game in easy mode for some things but at least everyone gets one.

I strongly suspect this "optional" feature will be even less optional then in classic WOD.

[rlc]

humans get more of a choice, but depending on how you look at it, some races have their own race specific feats. let's say you're the scout of the party. playing an elf means that you can take a long rest and still have time to scout ahead for a couple hours and come back before everybody else is done with theirs. hobbits get a free reroll.

[akaddk]

No they're not.

/thread

[Keko]

Humans seem a very solid and appealing option to me indeed.
Standard human not as feat humans (they are just great).

If you plan to play a well rounded character that needs multiples stats, as a multiclass standard human may be better.

You have also to consider that now, opposed to 3.5 (I don't know about 4Ed), is increasing a stat to an even number that costs more. In 3.5 raising a 13 to a 14 was 1 point, now it is 2, effectively saving many points. And as maximum starting score is 15 you get a 16 with your +1.

With a feat you can get another +1 to be in par with other races that gets a +2 but you get another +1 to a stat you want, as opposed to the fixed one of other races, essentially trading other race abilities for the rest of the feat benefit and a skill proficiency (not only nothing to sneeze at, but just plain good).

As giving a free feat at level may be a bit strong, I would give it at level 4-5, soon enough to create the concept of character you have in mind, but also late enough for an increase in power level and not to invade humans niche (actually 2 feats at level one are very powerful)

[Sartharina]

If we do "One feat at level 1 for everyone", then Alternative Human is banned for that very reason.

Frankly, I like that humans are now actually effective Generalists with their +1 to all attributes going on.

[HorridElemental]

Each of the feats are more powerful than what they were in 3.P/4e but compared to all the racial traits everyone else gets... They are about the same.

Take everything a race gives you outside of the ability score adjustments and really what you get is a feat or little more than a feat worth of abilities (in some cases more, in some cases the same).

So I don't see the feat gained at level one all that more powerful unless you specifically try to break the game. Going off memory, is there even a single feat, that if taken at first level, really breaks the game? There are a bunch of nice things but nothing too crazy (yet).

[Sartharina]

Actually, most races have powers that are less than a selected feat. They're largely loaded with flavorful chaffe that shore up tertiary abilities, and a half-bonus to primary or secondary functions. Alternative Humans get a boost to their primary ability stronger than any other race's.

[Falka]

That's a shame, because it's also hands-down the most interesting option.

Meaning overpowered. Giving a feat at level 1 is broken.

A lot of feats make low level threats become trivial. Heavy Armor Mastery offers 3 damage reduction for physical attacks, which means that Kobolds and many critters will hit for almost 0 damage.

[akaddk]

A lot of feats make low level threats become trivial. Heavy Armor Mastery offers 3 damage reduction for physical attacks, which means that Kobolds and many critters will hit for almost 0 damage.

I took down a 2nd-level fighter with two crits from two kobolds in one round. Taking 6 damage off of those attacks wouldn't have saved him.

[Falka]

I took down a 2nd-level fighter with two crits from two kobolds in one round. Taking 6 damage off of those attacks wouldn't have saved him.

But you know, nothing can save you from two lucky crits. It does work against reliable damage and that's what is the feat for (and most feats, btw).

I'm completely sure that my group wouldn't waste half of their resources during Chapter 1 of HotDQ if the Paladin had that feat.

[ambartanen]

I would go further than the initial statement- keeping abilities in the 8-20 range with the old style modifiers is terrible and lazy game design, a completely unnecessary complication to the system that confuses new players and is utterly useless to experienced ones.

Now this is clearly not going to be a popular opinion so I'll try to explain what I mean as best as I can.

5e even more than previous editions stresses the importance of your character's primary stat. Due to the low slope of the power curve and reworking of magic items, it is really important that your primary stat is maximized at first level which essentially means you have to start with a +3 in it. Taking that in mind and assuming a race gives you +2 in your most important attribute and a +1 in one of the other important ones, point buy allows for only a few meaningful distributions at the start and these are:

A +3, +2, +2 that comes with a choice of +1, 0, 0 or +1, +1, -1 to your weaker attributes.
A +3, +3, +2 that comes with a choice of 0, 0, -1 or +1, -1, -1 to your weaker attributes.

The default human racial power essentially allows you to increase one of those 0s and -1s by one step (and leaves you with an odd numbered weak attributed that is never worth increasing).

To boot, the above distribution is strictly better if you never ever leave any (useful) abilities at an odd numbered value and means any attribute gains are much better off being one +2 rather than two +1s.

Unfortunately there are a few factors that won't allow me to completely throw out the current attribute system in my games. All of them, however, simply look like bad design to me. At best they can be attributed to traditional "charm" carried over from earlier editions of DnD. Anyway, these are:

Sub-optimal racial selection penalizes your character. Trying to be an elven wizard, half-elf paladin, gnome ranger and so on means that in order to be good at your job, you will have lower abilities than optimal race/class pairings. This is a minor penalty that doesn't seem to serve any particular function... I suppose you could say it reflects how some races have aptitudes but it really doesn't since that elven wizard will just be worse in some random other area like being very grouchy or incapable of tearing a wet napkin. Basically you are forced to make your weak abilities even weaker in order to keep your primary attribute high.
Poor racial selection really penalizes your character. Trying to be an elven paladin, dwarven wizard, dragonborn cleric and so on means you are objectively worse at your job than a race that has some aptitude for this.
Feats probably exist and now mess with attribute allocation in uneven ways. There are some great feats for physical attributes while the mental ones have a smaller selection of weaker feats and Wisdom doesn't even have a meaningful feat associated with it- most people who want a bonus to wisdom will already be proficient with it's save.
Ability drain exists and means in this one specific quite rare super annoying corner case, an odd-valued ability is useful.


As for rolling attributes and getting odd values that way, the PHB doesn't provide a good way to actually roll for attributes since they must be capped at 15 pre-racial bonuses in order to be balanced. The best my group has come up with was rolling 7*(3d6k2+3)k6 but we all ended up using point buy. Anyway, the 8-15 range the system is based on gives no good rolling potential so you might be better off rolling a d4 for the -1 to +3 attribute range.


Going off memory, is there even a single feat, that if taken at first level, really breaks the game?
There are a few, most notably Great Weapon Master that allows you to one shot two CR 3 creatures in a single action. There are a few others that are almost as powerful either allowing you to all but ignore attacks from weak creatures or one shot anything that might think of fighting a low level party. Feats are just much better than any racial powers for combat purposes and, as we all know, DnD is just a combat simulator. Ok, so maybe that's half-sarcastic but the fact remains that 5e only puts any effort into modelling combat.

[akaddk]

I would go further than the initial statement- keeping abilities in the 8-20 range with the old style modifiers is terrible and lazy game design, a completely unnecessary complication to the system that confuses new players and is utterly useless to experienced ones.
Gee, don't embellish to the point of absurdity and make random, gross assumptions on behalf of all players everywhere...

Of all the new players who I've introduced through the play test or seen introduced to the play test or the final 5e rules, none of them have been "confused" as to why their stats were limited to 20. Of all the experienced players that I've introduced through the play test or seen introduced to the play test or the final 5e rules, all of them bar two (out of roughly thirty in the last two years) have remarked that it's a great idea to limit stats to 20, and the two who thought it was crap were hardcore Pathfinder fanatics (you know the type, the ones who bring up Pathfinder at every possible opportunity regardless of context and denigrate every system that isn't Pathfinder so that you're absolutely and utterly certain beyond any shadow of doubt that they prefer Pathfinder).

This indicates to me that the rest of your argument's aren't even worth reading let alone considering.

[hymer]

There are a few [feats that really break the game if taken at level 1], most notably Great Weapon Master that allows you to one shot two CR 3 creatures in a single action. There are a few others that are almost as powerful either allowing you to all but ignore attacks from weak creatures or one shot anything that might think of fighting a low level party. Feats are just much better than any racial powers for combat purposes and, as we all know, DnD is just a combat simulator. Ok, so maybe that's half-sarcastic but the fact remains that 5e only puts any effort into modelling combat.

You do realize that Great Weapon Master's +10 to damage comes with a -5 penalty to-hit, right? Even if those two CR 3 opponents had AC 10 and are standing so you can reach both, and you're guaranteed to kill them if you hit, there's something like 50% chance you're killing one, 25% you kill two, and 25% you kill none. The real odds are going to be way worse. If there are survivors, you're going down with more than 50% probability when their turn comes.
The DR3 from Heavy Armor Master is cute at level 1, but not for much longer. Magical weapons and non-weapon damage ignore it outright, so at higher levels it's pretty much a wasted effect. If you're fighting ONLY creatures that do d4 damage, sure, HAM is pretty darn powerful. But why would you? There will be encounters when you rock (vs. a gang of kobolds), and there will be encounters when you're getting your mileage (vs. a few orcs) and some where you're not really better off (vs. spellcasters). Consider a raging barbarian has resistance to weapon damage, and at 2nd level, a druid gets an extra pool of hp from wild shape. Those scale a whole lot better.
All in all, these feats have their uses, but they definitely do not break the game.

[ambartanen]

This indicates to me that the rest of your argument's aren't even worth reading let alone considering.

Well, it's a good thing you didn't read the rest of it then or you would have realized I have nothing against limiting attributes to 20 >.> I can see how that part of a single sentence might have been misleading but my argument is that the system should drop attributes altogether and just have the modifiers in the -1 to +5 range. The "confusing" part isn't having the Str/Dex/Con... split (although it takes people a little time to get comfortable with the distinction) but having to explain to a new player what point buy is and how it interacts with racial modifiers, how assigning attributes works and how to convert attributes to modifiers when attributes don't have a meaningful function in the system. I have never been in a 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder game where new players didn't have their attributes calculated and assigned by the more experienced players or GM only to finally be told that modifiers is the only thing they need to care about.

[Falka]

You do realize that Great Weapon Master's +10 to damage comes with a -5 penalty to-hit, right? Even if those two CR 3 opponents had AC 10 and are standing so you can reach both, and you're guaranteed to kill them if you hit, there's something like 50% chance you're killing one, 25% you kill one, and 25% you kill none. The real odds are going to be way worse. If there are survivors, you're going down with more than 50% probability when their turn comes.
The DR3 from Shield Master is cute at level 1, but not for much longer. Magical weapons and non-weapon damage ignore it outright, so at higher levels it's pretty much a wasted effect. If you're fighting ONLY creatures that do d4 damage, sure, Shield Master is pretty darn powerful. But why would you? There will be encounters when you rock (vs. a gang of kobolds), and there will be encounters when getting your mileage (vs. a few orcs) and some where you're not really better off (vs. spellcasters). Consider a raging barbarian has resistance to weapon damage, and at 2nd level, a druid gets an extra pool of hp from wild shape. Those scale a whole lot better.
All in all, these feats have their uses, but they definitely do not break the game.

GW Mastery's strength comes from being able to get reliable damage out of nowhere. Just play a Cleric or a Bard (that give an extra d4 to rolls) and you've nullified the downsides of the feat.

Regarding the DR: You don't pick Feats for level 15, when you actually need to level up your character to get there.

Magical weapons aren't supposed to be common. And the DR refers to physical damage dealt by slashing, blungeoning and piercing attacks. It doesn't refer to weapons.

If you think that -3 damage is meaningless, that's denying a 16 STR or 16 DEX from your opponent. That's gaining 3 effective HP per hit you take, so you will waste less resources (instead of needing to heal after one hit, you heal after two). In the long run, this feat is strongish through most of the character's career. It's something that people notice when they actually sit down and play the game and isn't inmediately obvious through theorycrafting.

What kind of other racial feature is as strong as 3 DR? Point me a single one.

[akaddk]

I can see how that part of a single sentence might have been misleading but my argument is that the system should drop attributes altogether and just have the modifiers in the -1 to +5 range.
Which would be terrible game design.

[ambartanen]

You do realize that Great Weapon Master's +10 to damage comes with a -5 penalty to-hit, right? Even if those two CR 3 opponents had AC 10 and are standing so you can reach both, and you're guaranteed to kill them if you hit, there's something like 50% chance you're killing one, 25% you kill two, and 25% you kill none. The real odds are going to be way worse. If there are survivors, you're going down with more than 50% probability when their turn comes.
And having advantage on the attack roll, achievable in a variety of different ways including on any attack by a barbarian, cancels the -5 penalty. So what we're left with is that two good rolls for a level one barbarian without GWM kill a CR2-3 creature in two rounds while two good rolls for a level one barbarian with GWM kill two CR2-3 creatures in one round. Sure, maybe you roll poorly and then you don't kill anyone but GWM doesn't make that any worse. Also having to land two 75% hit-chance hits to kill something means you kill it in two rounds with a 56.25% probability while having to land a single hit to kill it with a 50% chance gives you a 75% chance to kill it in two rounds.


The DR3 from Heavy Armor Master is cute at level 1, but not for much longer.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? It's very very good at low levels when no one has magic weapons, enemies hits have low total damage, you have fewer hit points, less opportunity to heal and enemy casters have one or two spells at most and are extremely unlikely to use them to deal damage. Based on my experience with 5e so far which consists of fighting goblins, giving the fighter HAM would have turned the fights from dangerous victories to complete steamrolls of the poor goblins. They rolls 1d6+2, by the way, which means that HAM gives him something between 37.5% damage reduction and total damage immunity.


Consider a raging barbarian has resistance to weapon damage, and at 2nd level, a druid gets an extra pool of hp from wild shape. Those scale a whole lot better.
Ok, so your barbarian first halves all damage received and then reduces it by three making him all but immune to damage from most attacks of creatures CR 1 and below. A maximum roll on 1d6+2 hits him for 1 damage (or 2 if you first subtract and then divide, can't seem to find anything on it in the rules).



All in all, these feats have their uses, but they definitely do not break the game.
Some do at level one, that's why they aren't supposed to be available until later.


Which would be terrible game design.That's an even more nuanced and thoughtful response than I expected.

[TheOldCrow]

What kind of other racial feature is as strong as 3 DR? Point me a single one.

Well, Darkvision comes close, considering the penalties for blindness. Indoors, underground, and night all are dark, so there is plenty of opportunity to use it. Every non-human except halflings has it, so Darkvision is the standard, not the exception. Basically humans and halflings all have the disad, Night Blindness.

But that aside, I do agree that HAM is overpowered at 3 DR. I recommended to them to make it 1 DR on my playtest questionnaire. That would seem fair to me, especially since it is only a half-feat with that +1 Str.

I am really interested to see what everyone's opinions on the races will be after several months of playing. I personally don't think humans are all that for the long haul, but in a low level campaign I suspect they will be popular.

[hymer]

GW Mastery's strength comes from being able to get reliable damage out of nowhere. Just play a Cleric or a Bard (that give an extra d4 to rolls) and you've nullified the downsides of the feat.

Can you explain exactly how that works? The downside being -5 to-hit, you nullify it by throwing actions and resources at it so as to reduce it by half? What? You could get those as bonuses rather than penalty-reductions to your 2d6+3 (average 10, equal to the bonus you'd get from GWM) to damage. Do the math, double damage at half chance to hit is the same, only with more risk of overkill and less advantage on a crit.
However that is, tt's hardly a game breaker, which is what I'm arguing against.


Regarding the DR: You don't pick Feats for level 15, when you actually need to level up your character to get there.

This is true. Why are you telling me this?


Magical weapons aren't supposed to be common. And the DR refers to physical damage dealt by slashing, blungeoning and piercing attacks. It doesn't refer to weapons.

It does refer to weapons. "[...]bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons."


If you think that -3 damage is meaningless, that's denying a 16 STR or 16 DEX from your opponent. That's gaining 3 effective HP per hit you take, so you will waste less resources (instead of needing to heal after one hit, you heal after two). In the long run, this feat is strongish through most of the character's career. It's something that people notice when they actually sit down and play the game and isn't inmediately obvious through theorycrafting.

I don't think it's meaningless. In fact I mentioned cases where it's great, cases where it's good, and cases where it makes no difference. There is of course a fourth category, cases where it makes little difference.
It is not denying a 16 ability score, as that includes a bonus to-hit, saves, and in the case of dex initiative and possible AC. What it does is very specifically reduce damage from non-magical weapon attacks by three, no more, no less.
I don't know why you brought up the 'play vs. theorycraft' thing.


What kind of other racial feature is as strong as 3 DR? Point me a single one.

I wasn't arguing that, but since you ask: None of them has to be. The feat is the better part of what a human gets for being a human. They also get stat increases and proficiency in a skill. A wood elf (say) gets stat increases and proficiencies in a bunch of weapons. The feat then has to be equal to all the rest the elf gets; darkvision, keen senses, fey ancestry, trance, extra movement, and the ability to hide in certain cases where others can't. I don't think one is obviously better than other at all. In fact, they are very hard to compare.


And having advantage on the attack roll, achievable in a variety of different ways including on any attack by a barbarian, cancels the -5 penalty. So what we're left with is that two good rolls for a level one barbarian without GWM kill a CR2-3 creature in two rounds while two good rolls for a level one barbarian with GWM kill two CR2-3 creatures in one round.

No doubt useful if you ever get into that situation, but not gamebreaking - unless the game threw that encounter at you and expected you to lose (in which case the problem exists elsewhere than in the feats - looking between the DM screen and the DM's chair might be appropritate, or at the published adventure that didn't take the players winning into consideration). And the advantage on attack rolls (which, just so we don't misunderstand each other, is only on a raging barbarian's attack, which hopefully for the barbarian is most of them) also works without GWM, giving you the same approximately 25% boost in expected damage on that attack.

Edit: It's Reckless Attack that grants advantage on the attack rolls, not rage. My bad.


Well, that's the point, isn't it? It's very very good at low levels when no one has magic weapons, enemies hits have low total damage, you have fewer hit points, less opportunity to heal and enemy casters have one or two spells at most and are extremely unlikely to use them to deal damage. Based on my experience with 5e so far which consists of fighting goblins, giving the fighter HAM would have turned the fights from dangerous victories to complete steamrolls of the poor goblins. They rolls 1d6+2, by the way, which means that HAM gives him something between 37.5% damage reduction and total damage immunity.

Well, 1d6+2 is 5.5 on average, reduced to 2.5 with HAM (approximately 55% damage reduction). You're gonna feel pretty good while this goes on. :smallsmile: But you're not breaking the game. You're supposed to beat those goblins, after all.


Ok, so your barbarian first halves all damage received and then reduces it by three making him all but immune to damage from most attacks of creatures CR 1 and below. A maximum roll on 1d6+2 hits him for 1 damage (or 2 if you first subtract and then divide, can't seem to find anything on it in the rules).

Yeah, I don't know how those two interact either. Regardless, the goblins should probably run away by now if they can only attack that raging barbarian. His rage won't last forever, and the surviving gobbos will make the next battle that much harder. And they will have some advice for their friends on who to attack first.


Some do [break the game] at level one, that's why they aren't supposed to be available until later.

I don't think the scenarios you've suggested were broken. The feats were very useful in particular niches, and had some considerable use in general in combat. But the game went on pretty much as it should. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[obryn]

Which would be terrible game design.
No, going straight to modifiers is an extra degree of simplification unless your actual 8-20 stat provides added value on top of it.

Look at Mutants and Masterminds, for example. I wouldn't call that terrible game design.

[akaddk]

No, going straight to modifiers is an extra degree of simplification unless your actual 8-20 stat provides added value on top of it.

Look at Mutants and Masterminds, for example. I wouldn't call that terrible game design.

I was just going with the flow by making a sweeping generalisation based on no empirical evidence, a fundamental lack of game design theory understanding, and no sources whatsoever to back up my claims. You know. 'cause that seems to be the thing to do in this thread.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Well, Darkvision comes close, considering the penalties for blindness. Indoors, underground, and night all are dark, so there is plenty of opportunity to use it. Every non-human except halflings has it, so Darkvision is the standard, not the exception. Basically humans and halflings all have the disad, Night Blindness.


Well are torches and other lighting options no longer standard adventuring gear then? Gods know I always pack a lot.

While they probably should give out seeing in the dark a bit less like candy its hardly the first time humans have been short changed there and I've rarely if ever heard it brought up as a serious problem. I suspect like many things the typical DM only wants to screw with you that way occasionally whatever logic might say about it.

[Falka]

Can you explain exactly how that works? The downside being -5 to-hit, you nullify it by throwing actions and resources at it so as to reduce it by half? What? You could get those as bonuses rather than penalty-reductions to your 2d6+3 (average 10, equal to the bonus you'd get from GWM) to damage. Do the math, double damage at half chance to hit is the same, only with more risk of overkill and less advantage on a crit.
However that is, tt's hardly a game breaker, which is what I'm arguing against.

+10 damage is especially reliable when you can deny most of its effect through a Bless or just by exploiting an Advantage situation.

It's interesting that you seem to disregard the component of reliability, since the -5 is by no means hard to pass by, when you want to sell me that 2d6 +3 offer 10 point of damage in a reliable way (that's just the average, not what will always happen if I hit with the weapon - unlike with GWM).

If probability doesn't work for me, it shouldn't work for your example either.

But anyways, you still haven't told me how can you get a sudden +10 damage per hit with any other class feature or low level spell. Considering AC values do not skyrocket at low levels and the highish would be around 15, I'd take my chances with a roll where I get Advantage most of the time (Barbarian) + Blessing.


This is true. Why are you telling me this?

Because you are trying to tell me that giving a gamebreaking feat at level 1 is okay because it will be worthless at level 15, when you just admit that the feat gives the character a stupid advantage at level 1.

The thing is: considering how much people in this forum complain about Wizards getting spells that makes encounters trivial, I'm stunned when I come across with people that think it's okay that a Fighter can get this one at level 1 to ignore 75% of his incoming damage, and a +1 boost to STR.


It does refer to weapons. "[...]bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons."

I phrased it incorrectly. I mean, you shouldn't interpret it as only handmade weapons. Natural weapons (such as claws, fangs) are also treated as weapons when you calculate damage. So it would also apply to a wolf's attack.


I don't know why you brought up the 'play vs. theorycraft' thing

Because I've tried this in game, I saw what it happened and you came up with a theorycrafting argument about how it balances out 6 levels later. Which makes me think that you're talking for the sake of theorycrafting and not understanding quite well the kind of situation that allowing these perks produces. I had a game where I allowed PCs to get a feat at level 1. I was throwing werewolves at them at level 3 and they stomped them like it was nobody's business thanks to Feats like Sharpshooter and GWM. You vastly underrate player savvyness and how they coordinate their efforts to maximise their effects.

Games shouldn't be a trivial grind through the adventure, I want to challenge my players and allow them to feel a sense of accomplishment.



I wasn't arguing that, but since you ask: None of them has to be. The feat is the better part of what a human gets for being a human. They also get stat increases and proficiency in a skill. A wood elf (say) gets stat increases and proficiencies in a bunch of weapons. The feat then has to be equal to all the rest the elf gets; darkvision, keen senses, fey ancestry, trance, extra movement, and the ability to hide in certain cases where others can't. I don't think one is obviously better than other at all. In fact, they are very hard to compare.

It is a variant for a reason: because it's an overpowered variant. It gives way too control for a player to decide the specialization of a PC at an early level. Trance doesn't really help you steamroll through a level 1 adventure. DR does.


No doubt useful if you ever get into that situation, but not gamebreaking - unless the game threw that encounter at you and expected you to lose (in which case the problem exists elsewhere than in the feats - looking between the DM screen and the DM's chair might be appropritate, or at the published adventure that didn't take the players winning into consideration). And the advantage on attack rolls (which, just so we don't misunderstand each other, is only on a raging barbarian's attack, which hopefully for the barbarian is most of them) also works without GWM, giving you the same approximately 25% boost in expected damage on that attack.

Playing a D&D game isn't about winning always though headbutting. If an encounter is balanced, then it's up to the players to beat it. Fighting your way through stuff isn't the only option you have - these kinds of feats, however, encourage linear grinding and remove risk from the PC's decisions.

If you want to put a strawman and suggest that it's my fault that I am not challenging them enough, I'm sorry - but I got the "players are always right" speech too many times. The more space you give players to pick stuff, the more they tend to abuse it if it's overpowered. They know I don't allow level 1 Feats anymore and I admit Feats on a per-case basis. The PHB doesn't oblige me to accept the system anyways - it's a variant.


Well, 1d6+2 is 5.5 on average, reduced to 2.5 with HAM (approximately 55% damage reduction). You're gonna feel pretty good while this goes on. :smallsmile: But you're not breaking the game. You're supposed to beat those goblins, after all.

You are not supposed to steamroll on them. The half of a D6 is 3, so assuming you get average scores, you're just taking 2 damage per hit when you should be taking 5. That means that a Paladin can use twice Lay on Hands to heal himself while a regular one could only use it once. So it's saving them a lot of resources.

[ambartanen]

I don't think the scenarios you've suggested were broken. The feats were very useful in particular niches, and had some considerable use in general in combat. But the game went on pretty much as it should. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Not how it seems to me as one of the players in the adventure. We've now had eight clashes with these goblins, where each fight has been against anything between two and six CR 1/2 creatures. These fights have consistently strained our resources and luck to the breaking point, where we always come out of them barely alive and often with at least one person rolling death saving throws. Just to put this in some context, everyone in the group is very familiar with different editions of DnD and we are all quite fond of optimizing. The last campaign I DMed for them, each character in the group could single-handedly take out CR 10-12 creatures at level six- the amount of class level optimization combined with monster race templates I was forced to come up with for antagonist design to even occasionally produce a challenging encounter was ridiculous. Anyway, these goblins are now kicking our asses without doing anything all that incredibly tricky but the GM is getting a little lucky on dice rolls.

The group has a human fighter using the bonus feat option. He chose for his feat GWM and the only reason we are struggling is that the goblins consistently attack from range and use their racial power to always stay too far for the fighter to hit. So far in seven fights, he's attacked once- it was a goblin riding a wolf, a total of CR 1 encounter. He won initiative and killed both with a single swing even though the wolf takes two hits to bring down for anyone else.

Now, had he chosen HAM instead, we could have steamrolled the goblins. The fighter got hit four times on the first day for a total of 20ish damage. It meant that our healer had to use up Cure Wounds after the first hit (since 12 hp is not enough to take two), we had to take a short break to heal up after the second and the third and fourth dropped him to rolling death saves. Had he had HAM he could have taken all four hits before being fully healed up with that first Cure Wounds.

So, yes, a feat on first level isn't the equivalent of getting unlimited wish spells at no cost but a carefully chosen feat can be extremely powerful. Even if you are okay with the party steamrolling encounters (it rarely bothers me personally even if too much of it just gets tedious), what about balance between player characters? GWM at fourth level balances out with a spellcaster's fireball but even if you give out free feats to everyone, what can a spellcaster choose that compares to GWM, HAM or Sharpshooter? The magic aptitude feat on it's own gives spellcasting that can rival any first level spellcasting class and actually matches the best a warlock can dish out.

But, yes, the feats don't break the game. They are, however, much more powerful than they were in 3e and giving out a bonus feat now is equivalent to giving players three starting feats for free in 3e.


I was just going with the flow by making a sweeping generalisation based on no empirical evidence, a fundamental lack of game design theory understanding, and no sources whatsoever to back up my claims.
I actually included all of those. If you have trouble understanding any step of my reasoning, I will gladly provide mathematical proof backing up my statements. Of course, so far you've just insulted me three times without actually providing any argument or, in fact, proof that you even read my original post. I can't tell if you are genuinely trying to annoy me or just have terrible reading comprehension. Assuming it's the first, congratulations- you've succeeded.

[TheOldCrow]

Well are torches and other lighting options no longer standard adventuring gear then? Gods know I always pack a lot.

While they probably should give out seeing in the dark a bit less like candy its hardly the first time humans have been short changed there and I've rarely if ever heard it brought up as a serious problem. I suspect like many things the typical DM only wants to screw with you that way occasionally whatever logic might say about it.

If it is dark, then the party would need a light source that projects bright light to at least 60' for most races to be viewing things the same way. Hooded lanterns do 30' bright then 30' more in dim for humans and halflings, but would be 60' bright for all other races. If you are looking into dim light you take disadvantage on your Perception rolls to spot stuff. A party with have-and-have-not Darkvisions will be seeing their surroundings in different ways. Bullseye lanterns have bright light out to 60' and dim 60' beyond that, so the party will all see the same stuff within its beam. The human though is blind to anything to the left or right, but his pal the elf can see around himself to 60' in dim light. Plus, a party without humans or halflings has the option of going lightless in situations where it might benefit them. For example, if they wanted to travel at night, but did not want any enemies within a few miles to be able to spot their light, they could just travel without the light. Or scout ahead down a dark hallway, or get as close to the monsters which also have darkvision before the monsters notice.

I also have to say, if the DM is not using it, that does not mean that's not how light conditions and Darkvision work, it just means it is being ignored either because it is too complicated to deal with or it is too overpowered to deal with. If the character is not using it, it is just like someone getting HAM and then not wearing heavy armor.

[Mr.Moron]

+10 damage is especially reliable when you can deny most of its effect through a Bless or just by exploiting an Advantage situation.


Eh. I think this is an overstatement. Long story short: Yes in most cases Power Attack is an overall when averaged across a large number of attacks.

However, if you're using an attack with Bonus Damage (Smite, Maneuver, etc..) this increase is generally pretty marginal at best and in some cases actually lowers expected output. Power attack makes you lose a lot of reliability in exchange for those gains and even with advantage and another bonus (like bless) your chance of doing nothing is non-trivial. This is exaggerated the harder your opponent is to hit initially.

There are going to be a lot of situations where your increase to expected output just doesn't outweigh the risk of doing nothing or losing resources & carrier effects.

[obryn]

I was just going with the flow by making a sweeping generalisation based on no empirical evidence, a fundamental lack of game design theory understanding, and no sources whatsoever to back up my claims. You know. 'cause that seems to be the thing to do in this thread.
I think you seem a little angry about elfgames, man. Here and in other threads.

[EvilAnagram]

If it is dark, then the party would need a light source that projects bright light to at least 60' for most races to be viewing things the same way. Hooded lanterns do 30' bright then 30' more in dim for humans and halflings, but would be 60' bright for all other races. If you are looking into dim light you take disadvantage on your Perception rolls to spot stuff. A party with have-and-have-not Darkvisions will be seeing their surroundings in different ways. Bullseye lanterns have bright light out to 60' and dim 60' beyond that, so the party will all see the same stuff within its beam. The human though is blind to anything to the left or right, but his pal the elf can see around himself to 60' in dim light. Plus, a party without humans or halflings has the option of going lightless in situations where it might benefit them. For example, if they wanted to travel at night, but did not want any enemies within a few miles to be able to spot their light, they could just travel without the light. Or scout ahead down a dark hallway, or get as close to the monsters which also have darkvision before the monsters notice.

I also have to say, if the DM is not using it, that does not mean that's not how light conditions and Darkvision work, it just means it is being ignored either because it is too complicated to deal with or it is too overpowered to deal with. If the character is not using it, it is just like someone getting HAM and then not wearing heavy armor.

Slight addendum to what you've already said, but Dragonborn also don't have Darkvision.

[TheOldCrow]

Slight addendum to what you've already said, but Dragonborn also don't have Darkvision.

Whoops, so they don't. Completely overlooked that. So we can have three members in the vision challenged party!

[hymer]

+10 damage is especially reliable when you can deny most of its effect through a Bless or just by exploiting an Advantage situation.

It's interesting that you seem to disregard the component of reliability, since the -5 is by no means hard to pass by, when you want to sell me that 2d6 +3 offer 10 point of damage in a reliable way (that's just the average, not what will always happen if I hit with the weapon - unlike with GWM).

If probability doesn't work for me, it shouldn't work for your example either.

But anyways, you still haven't told me how can you get a sudden +10 damage per hit with any other class feature or low level spell. Considering AC values do not skyrocket at low levels and the highish would be around 15, I'd take my chances with a roll where I get Advantage most of the time (Barbarian) + Blessing.

Let’s be clear on this 'reliability'. I’ll take a barbarian for example, and we’ll see how it works out:

A raging barbarian with 16 str attacks with a greatsword: +5 to-hit, advantage, and dealing 2d6+5 (average 12) damage – +3 from str 16, +2 from rage.
Against AC 10, he hits 96% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 11.52
Against AC 13, he hits 87.75% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 10.53
Against AC 15, he hits 79.75% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 9.57
Against AC 17, he hits 69.75% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 8.37

The same barbarian, but now using the option from HWM: +0 to-hit, advantage, and dealing 2d6+15 (average 22) damage – +3 from str 16, +2 from rage and +10 from HWM.
Against AC 10, he hits 79.75% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 17.545
Against AC 13, he hits 64% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 14.08
Against AC 15, he hits 51% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 11.22
Against AC 17, he hits 36% of the time, for a total average damage per attack of 7.92

All of that is ignoring crits (which is in your favour, as crits don’t multiply HWM damage). What we’re seeing is a much greater damage against opponents that are easy to hit, and a much smaller one against ones that are harder to hit, until the point when it is no longer useful to use the HWM bonus.
Are these numbers really game breaking in your view? They aren’t in mine. At AC 13, the HWM effect is pretty close to a d6 extra damage. That’s hardly game breaking, now is it? The best I could find is that it will be pretty good against something a like a brown bear with AC 11 and 34 hp (you probably kill it in two hits, where without it, you’d have to hit four times). Being good at killing bears, however, does not break the game at all, unless the campaign pits you against them all the time.
I don’t know how much hp the average goblin is going to have, but my bet is that 2d6+5 is going to be quite enough to reliably kill him. Using HWM would considerably reduce efficiency against such foes, so you don’t want to use it there, either.
HWM is not a universal damage boost, and it risks overkill. There will be plenty of fights where you won’t use it at all, and others where using it will make a negligible difference. This is not a ‘steamroll any encounter’ effect.

Edit: I just realized, Reckless Attack doesn't come online until level 2, so there won't be easy advantage on level 1.


Because you are trying to tell me that giving a gamebreaking feat at level 1 is okay because it will be worthless at level 15, when you just admit that the feat gives the character a stupid advantage at level 1.

You’re exaggerating what I said, making me sound like a complete idiot. Please don’t put words in my mouth.


The thing is: considering how much people in this forum complain about Wizards getting spells that makes encounters trivial, I'm stunned when I come across with people that think it's okay that a Fighter can get this one at level 1 to ignore 75% of his incoming damage, and a +1 boost to STR.

I haven’t seen any of those complaints for 5th edition yet. Literally. Even if I had, you should address your concerns to those complainers, not to me who has said nothing of the sort.
The 75% is incorrect - another exaggeration. For it to be true, enemies would deal on average 4 damage per hit, and all of it with weapons. Lowly goblins, I’m informed, deal 1d6+2 (that’s close enough to 55% ignored damage as makes no difference). A quick look through the creature stats in the back of the PHB indicate that 5.5 or 6.5 is pretty standard for low-level adversaries – unless they are a raging barbarian as well. In a similar manner, first level spellcasters will have cantrips dealing damage unaffected by HAM.
75% is not supportable.


I phrased it incorrectly. I mean, you shouldn't interpret it as only handmade weapons. Natural weapons (such as claws, fangs) are also treated as weapons when you calculate damage. So it would also apply to a wolf's attack.

No argument here.


Because I've tried this in game, I saw what it happened and you came up with a theorycrafting argument about how it balances out 6 levels later. Which makes me think that you're talking for the sake of theorycrafting and not understanding quite well the kind of situation that allowing these perks produces. I had a game where I allowed PCs to get a feat at level 1. I was throwing werewolves at them at level 3 and they stomped them like it was nobody's business thanks to Feats like Sharpshooter and GWM. You vastly underrate player savvyness and how they coordinate their efforts to maximise their effects.

You assume I haven’t tried it, then. Anecdotal evidence (especially considering your demonstrated tendency to exaggerate and misrepresent) is dismissed.


Games shouldn't be a trivial grind through the adventure, I want to challenge my players and allow them to feel a sense of accomplishment.

Start a thread on how to get help challenging your players. It’ll help you much more than complaining about the rules.


It is a variant for a reason: because it's an overpowered variant.

Can you substantiate that in any way? Is there a tweet from a developer who thinks this is the case? A blog where someone says they did it that way for the reason you say? Or are you again putting words in other people’s mouths?


It gives way too control for a player to decide the specialization of a PC at an early level. Trance doesn't really help you steamroll through a level 1 adventure. DR does.

DR can definitely be very useful for certain encounters. 35’ movement, dash as a bonus action, and a bow means you can kite an awful lot of melee and leave them without a chance to hurt you, which is also useful for certain encounters. Two elves in a party coordinating their trances means there’s someone with proficiency in Perception awake without any hassle. Being immune to sleep turns encounters against enemies who use sleep on their heads. Encounters in a forest or when the weather is foggy makes for the ability to be unseen and get plenty of easy sneak attacks, or to avoid the encounter alltogether.
Each by themselves is not as good as DR 3, or even DR 3 vs. non-magical weapons, all things being equal. But I certainly wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them as a package deal.


Playing a D&D game isn't about winning always though headbutting. If an encounter is balanced, then it's up to the players to beat it. Fighting your way through stuff isn't the only option you have - these kinds of feats, however, encourage linear grinding and remove risk from the PC's decisions.

If you want to put a strawman and suggest that it's my fault that I am not challenging them enough, I'm sorry - but I got the "players are always right" speech too many times. The more space you give players to pick stuff, the more they tend to abuse it if it's overpowered. They know I don't allow level 1 Feats anymore and I admit Feats on a per-case basis. The PHB doesn't oblige me to accept the system anyways - it's a variant.

More words for my mouth, how lovely. Once again, I suggest making a thread so you can get some help. This isn’t the place.


You are not supposed to steamroll on them. The half of a D6 is 3, so assuming you get average scores, you're just taking 2 damage per hit when you should be taking 5. That means that a Paladin can use twice Lay on Hands to heal himself while a regular one could only use it once. So it's saving them a lot of resources.

Your math is a little… rushed. But the sentiment seems to be one of resource management now. No doubt you’re right that fewer resources get used when less damage is taken. It’s just nowhere near a level where I’d call it broken. So one PC takes less damage, and has pretty much perpetual disadvantage on stealth and in all likelihood a poor dex score. Is there really nothing you can do to challenge that PC's player?

@ ambartanen: Sounds to me like we’re pretty close, actually, semantics on the word ‘broken’ aside. I have similar worries about a second level druid getting to be a bear with a 34 hp bonus pool several times a day, for example. I’ve no doubt that some options are going to be quite strong at certain points, like how you feel when you go from one to two attacks or first get 3rd level spells. But I think I’ll be able to take it in stride when/if someone gets a level or two in a sweet spot. :smallsmile:

[HylianKnight]

The alternate human is hands-down the best option, to the point that I'm thinking of banning it at my tables. Free Feat worked in 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder because feats were rather ****ty in those systems.

Wait, what? Putting aside the part where Free Feat was MORE valuable in 3.5/Pathfinder because of the necessity of feat chains and getting your character "online" as soon as possible, they have a pretty simple formula in place for feats vs ability scores this edition.

1 Feat = +2 to an ability score.

Now the alternative human gives up +4 for 1 feat and 1 skill proficiency. We also know that a feat gets you 3 skill proficiencies in 5e.

So one way of looking at the alternative human option is to trade +4 for a 1.3 Feats, as opposed to the standard rate of +4 for 2 Feats.

Far from being ban-worthy, the alternative human could be the strictly worst option for many characters.

[Muenster Man]

It's not quite the equivalent of losing +4 to ability scores because not all ability scores are of equal value for each class. Those four points are probably going into your 4 least favorite abilities for that class. That's why most people prefer to lose those points in favor of a feat and a skill proficiency

[obryn]

It's not quite the equivalent of losing +4 to ability scores because not all ability scores are of equal value for each class. Those four points are probably going into your 4 least favorite abilities for that class. That's why most people prefer to lose those points in favor of a feat and a skill proficiency
This is true. OTOH, it could mean the difference of +1 on 4 different saves and stats for skill checks, which is relevant.

[Kurald Galain]

1 Feat = +2 to an ability score.

Now the alternative human gives up +4 for 1 feat and 1 skill proficiency. We also know that a feat gets you 3 skill proficiencies in 5e.

So one way of looking at the alternative human option is to trade +4 for a 1.3 Feats, as opposed to the standard rate of +4 for 2 Feats.

Such math rarely actually works.

It is pretty obvious from the feat list that the good ones (on the right character) are worth more than +2 to their primary stat, and that the worst are much less. It is also obvious that +2 to your primary stat is much more useful than +2 to some other stat, let alone your 4th or 5th choice; and of course that a +1 to skills you actually build your character for is much better than +1 to skills you're not intending to use ever.

Just because you can trade one of X for two of Y doesn't mean that 1X is worth 2Y.

[obryn]

Such math rarely actually works.

It is pretty obvious from the feat list that the good ones (on the right character) are worth more than +2 to their primary stat, and that the worst are much less. It is also obvious that +2 to your primary stat is much more useful than +2 to some other stat, let alone your 4th or 5th choice; and of course that a +1 to skills you actually build your character for is much better than +1 to skills you're not intending to use ever.

Just because you can trade one of X for two of Y doesn't mean that 1X is worth 2Y.
This is correct, too. For reference, would you take a feat that gave you nothing but +1 to your 4 worst saves? I probably wouldn't. The +1 to your 4 worst saves isn't nothing, but the feat is clearly the superior option, for anyone who could benefit from a feat (that being, just about everyone.)

In many cases, it will amount to +2 to main stat, +1 to valuable secondary, +feat benefits, given that a lot of feats give you stat bonuses, too.

[ambartanen]

@ ambartanen: Sounds to me like we’re pretty close, actually, semantics on the word ‘broken’ aside. I have similar worries about a second level druid getting to be a bear with a 34 hp bonus pool several times a day, for example. I’ve no doubt that some options are going to be quite strong at certain points, like how you feel when you go from one to two attacks or first get 3rd level spells. But I think I’ll be able to take it in stride when/if someone gets a level or two in a sweet spot. :smallsmile:

Seems that way, yes. I am also not terribly happy about the moon druid's shapeshifting ability but I won't complain about it too much. For all the conventional wisdom that the druid was the most powerful class in 3.5e, we rarely had any druids in a group full of min-maxers.


Putting aside the part where Free Feat was MORE valuable in 3.5/Pathfinder because of the necessity of feat chains and getting your character "online" as soon as possible
That's hardly the case. A level 12 pathfinder character would have at least seven feats. A level 12 5e character will have at most three (well, maybe four for a human) and needs to take a significant hit to their abilities to obtain that many. A single feat in 5e is mostly equivalent to a chain of 3-4 pathfinder feats and you can see that by the fact that several of them are the combination of a whole chain.

[Kurald Galain]

A single feat in 5e is mostly equivalent to a chain of 3-4 pathfinder feats

There is absolutely no way that one 5E feat is worth four PF feats, no.

[HylianKnight]

That's hardly the case. A level 12 pathfinder character would have at least seven feats. A level 12 5e character will have at most three (well, maybe four for a human) and needs to take a significant hit to their abilities to obtain that many. A single feat in 5e is mostly equivalent to a chain of 3-4 pathfinder feats and you can see that by the fact that several of them are the combination of a whole chain.

But that's exactly my point! In Pathfinder you needed to chain together several feats over a period of several levels before gaining the benefit. Therefore, getting those feats as quickly as possible was of the up most importance. Now in 5 you can just grab, say, Great Weapon Master at level 4 and be done with it.

One of the problems I keep running into is that people seem to be in this 3rd edition mindset of 'feats were nothing but upside before, much stronger now, and therefore must be more valuable.' But in 3rd, feats were a thing you got for free and there were relevant feats to be taken for any character up to level 20. Now though, feats are designed under the assumption that you are making a very real sacrifice to take them in the first place. Further, what are these characters that actually WANT to trade all their stat bonuses for the feats available? The design philosophy seems to be that characters might take a feat or two to specialize in. Some players might go feat crazy and take one at every opportunity, but that's hardly optimal, right? At the very least it will be outside the norm.


For example, let's say I'm playing a straight-up Wizard. Even if I get an 18 for my intelligence, can you point me to 5 feats I'd want to take over those stat boosts to give me more HP, better concentration rolls, better saves, higher AC?

If you're rolling human, and you're NOT planing on using every single stat boost on feats, then the base line definitely seems to be the better option.

[Tehnar]

The "problem" with variant humans is that you get your cake and eat it too. The variant human lets you have a feat and a max primary ability by lvl 8. Which for all other races is only possible at level 12 (unless you are picking one of those +1 to attribute feats, though to me they seem a very specific pick). I am assuming point buy, not rolling for stats.

So unless you are going with something very specific in mind (like dwarf for medium armor), from a optimization perspective, there is no reason not to go human.

[Kurald Galain]

The "problem" with variant humans is that you get your cake and eat it too. The variant human lets you have a feat and a max primary ability by lvl 20.
Considering most campaigns will never reach level 20, what you get by that time is not really relevant for an optimization perspective.

I'd expect any player that cares for it to have a maxed out primary by level four. It's not that hard (the odds of rolling at least one 16 are about 57%; then add +2 racial and +2 for your first feat; done). Of course, for most characters a feat will actually be better than +1 to hit anyway.

[Tehnar]

Sorry, I meant lvl 8, not 20. Also am assuming a point buy system.

[rlc]

5e even more than previous editions stresses the importance of your character's primary stat.
I don't see a problem with this. It solves all of the MAD complaints that there have been over the years. But, for those who still want that, there are still options. Heck, most martial classes can even pick their most important stat.

[Person_Man]

I think that having seperate Ability Scores and Ability Score Modifiers is a terrible holdover that they kept so that people could roll d6's to generate their ability scores. It should be eliminated entirety, because it's unintuitive to use (you basically need to memorize the ability score bonus chart) and odd ability scores are pointless.

I would prefer something closer to True20, where you just get +1, +2, +3, etc.

Alternatively, they could stick with 3-18 (since having 18 Whatever is semi-iconic for being the best at something) and have ability score modifiers equal your Ability Score minus 10 (18 Strength grants you +8 to your check) and your base Ability Score Defense would just be equal to your Ability Score.

[ambartanen]

One of the problems I keep running into is that people seem to be in this 3rd edition mindset of 'feats were nothing but upside before, much stronger now, and therefore must be more valuable.' But in 3rd, feats were a thing you got for free and there were relevant feats to be taken for any character up to level 20. Now though, feats are designed under the assumption that you are making a very real sacrifice to take them in the first place. Further, what are these characters that actually WANT to trade all their stat bonuses for the feats available? The design philosophy seems to be that characters might take a feat or two to specialize in. Some players might go feat crazy and take one at every opportunity, but that's hardly optimal, right? At the very least it will be outside the norm.
I think we are arguing the same point here. Feats are more powerful now, not every character is expected to have them and they come at a real cost. That's why having one feat at first level is a much bigger bonus than it is in 3.5e/Pathfinder.


For example, let's say I'm playing a straight-up Wizard. Even if I get an 18 for my intelligence, can you point me to 5 feats I'd want to take over those stat boosts to give me more HP, better concentration rolls, better saves, higher AC?
There are currently no particularly good feats for casters especially clerics or druids, that's true. Why would you choose the feat option as a human though? Well, maybe you want +2 on your primary attribute instead of a point on your 4th, 5th and 6th attribute that might not even give you anything at all. Add to that the extra goodies it gives you and it will quite often outweigh the benefits the +1 to everything. War caster also has some very nice benefits for melee oriented arcanists and clerics.

[akaddk]

I think you seem a little angry about elfgames, man. Here and in other threads.
You're funny.

[obryn]

There are currently no particularly good feats for casters especially clerics or druids, that's true.
I don't think anyone (except a Monk) would ever regret taking Resilient in a commonly-targeted save. Wisdom is the biggie, but both Con and Dex are nice, too. It comes with a +1 to a stat, too. I'd go Con for a caster, since that's your Concentration rolls, too.

Likewise, the feat that gives Advantage on Concentration checks is solid.

[Muenster Man]

The Alert feat is useful to any character

[Sartharina]

And the "Lucky" feat is also extremely powerful.

[Sir_Leorik]

There is absolutely no way that one 5E feat is worth four PF feats, no.

Would you believe 3 and three quarters Pathfinder feats? :smallwink:

[Caelic]

There are currently no particularly good feats for casters especially clerics or druids, that's true.


I don't know, I think War Caster is almost a must-have.

[EvilAnagram]

Would you believe 3 and three quarters Pathfinder feats? :smallwink:

I'll give you two feats and a goat. Final offer.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'll give you two feats and a goat. Final offer.

Swap the goat for a sure-footed mule, and we may have a deal. :smalltongue:

[HylianKnight]

I think we are arguing the same point here

Agreed, we're just reaching different conclusions.


Why would you choose the feat option as a human though? Well, maybe you want +2 on your primary attribute instead of a point on your 4th, 5th and 6th attribute that might not even give you anything at all. Add to that the extra goodies it gives you and it will quite often outweigh the benefits the +1 to everything. War caster also has some very nice benefits for melee oriented arcanists and clerics.

I'm confused, what +2 to your primary stat? You have to choose two different stats that each get +1 with the alternate human. And don't forget the point you're not getting towards your 3rd best stat.

And my point isn't that they're are NO feats worth taking for hypothetical Wizards, it's that there doesn't seem to be SIX that are worth it. Because once you use subsequent ability boosts in lieu of feats while leveling up, then what you've done is sacrificed higher ability scores in exchange for getting whatever feat you wanted 4 levels faster.

Honestly, that seems like fair trade to me. Some characters/players will want it, some won't, which is exactly how racial options should be.

[Snails]

And my point isn't that they're are NO feats worth taking for hypothetical Wizards, it's that there doesn't seem to be SIX that are worth it. Because once you use subsequent ability boosts in lieu of feats while leveling up, then what you've done is sacrificed higher ability scores in exchange for getting whatever feat you wanted 4 levels faster.

(Apologies to HylianKnight, for I think I misread his point. But my arguments below still make sense.)

There are not supposed to be six feats that are attractive for any particular PC. There are supposed to be 1 or 2 in the PHB. If you want more you need to buy a splatbook or a campaign setting.

The design goal is to make the exercise of choosing a feat to be completely optional for lowish level PCs. Thus powerful stacks of 3-4 feats should not exist in the PHB.

[ambartanen]

Agreed, we're just reaching different conclusions.
Or maybe just thinking about it differently. My point is that a feat is a powerful choice for a human at first level, not that feats in general are all awesome and everyone will always prefer them to stat boosts.


I'm confused, what +2 to your primary stat?
You get +1 to two stats from human. You can also get another +1 (to your primary stat) from the feat you choose. Thus you get +2 to your stat of choice.


And my point isn't that they're are NO feats worth taking for hypothetical Wizards, it's that there doesn't seem to be SIX that are worth it.

True, particularly for casters but probably for everyone with the current feat selection. Snails is right though, you aren't supposed to always prefer feats to stat increases just some of the time. By level 12 and later, many people will likely give feats quite a bit of consideration since their primary stat is already at 20. The power of the alternative human power is that you get one of these feats at first level.