Humans being picked every time

[Ramshack]

So I've DM'd the Phandelver adventure and am now DMing the HoTDQ adventure.

One player went human in Phandelver and pretty much outhsined everyone else due to his feat selection for the first 3 levels. Now in HoTDQ everyone went human for the early feat.

I don't mind so much, I would do the same thing, but I dislike that everyone feels the other races are invalidated by the bonus feat humans get. I was thinking of allowing all races to start with a bonus feat and if someone wants to play a human that can start with +1 to all 6 attributes instead of the feat variant.

Do you think this would be fair / balanced will it upset the difficulty of HoTDQ?

[Metahuman1]

Wasn't humans always being picked a design goal up till 3e and then in 3e became a problem that they only sorta kinda fixed in 4th by making feats totally worthless and the extra powers you could pick form not snazzy and giving better stat buffs to pretty much every race?

[DrLemniscate]

So I've DM'd the Phandelver adventure and am now DMing the HoTDQ adventure.

One player went human in Phandelver and pretty much outhsined everyone else due to his feat selection for the first 3 levels. Now in HoTDQ everyone went human for the early feat.

I don't mind so much, I would do the same thing, but I dislike that everyone feels the other races are invalidated by the bonus feat humans get. I was thinking of allowing all races to start with a bonus feat and if someone wants to play a human that can start with +1 to all 6 attributes instead of the feat variant.

Do you think this would be fair / balanced will it upset the difficulty of HoTDQ?

Well, you could allow a max point buy of 14 or 16. That way, the +2 stat bonus that other races give becomes more appealing at level 1.

[Corinath]

Makes sense in a low level adventure. Doesn't make as much sense in higher level adventures. Trading 6 points of ability score for one feat isn't terribly great. Additionally, humans likely are the most popular race anyhow, so, meh?

Let'em play how they want to play.

[ambartanen]

I was worried about this before but in our Mines of Phandelver adventure we only had 50% variant humans... because I chose half-elf and our druid was elf. Now I started DMing and everyone is playing variant humans. They just completely outperform the other races from an optimization perspective so long as an appropriate feat is available.

[Kerilstrasz]

Do you think this would be fair / balanced will it upset the difficulty of HoTDQ?

Imho, i d stay stick with the book..
other races get other useful goodies like darkvision, lucky, immunities etc etc..

if you see that everyone get humans for the feat, present various occasions to show them their fault..
- Sneaking in dark areas with no darkvision ( they try to sneak unnoticed so have a light source would be unwise)
- force em to take half long rests due to other reasons (they hunt or be hunted)
- ..

nuh.. these aren't too much of a deal..

hmm..

uh.. Have them enjoy much less hospitality, help, information, trust, discount etc etc when dealing with other races
because they are all humans.. wouldn't be better if they had a dwarf to vouch for them when into a dwarvish settlement ?

you don't have to use the above as "punishment" .. it is not your place as DM to punish.. it is just a subtle lesson, to tell them
that RP usually tramps fighting skills...

[Ramshack]

I was worried about this before but in our Mines of Phandelver adventure we only had 50% variant humans... because I chose half-elf and our druid was elf. Now I started DMing and everyone is playing variant humans. They just completely outperform the other races from an optimization perspective so long as an appropriate feat is available.

Exactly, I think the other players feel less useful during this period as people with feats get to do more exciting things. I don't want people to feel like they made the wrong decision by picking a dwarf or elf over a human.

[Ramshack]

Imho, i d stay stick with the book..
other races get other useful goodies like darkvision, lucky, immunities etc etc..

if you see that everyone get humans for the feat, present various occasions to show them their fault..
- Sneaking in dark areas with no darkvision ( they try to sneak unnoticed so have a light source would be unwise)
- force em to take half long rests due to other reasons (they hunt or be hunted)
- ..

nuh.. these aren't too much of a deal..

hmm..

uh.. Have them enjoy much less hospitality, help, information, trust, discount etc etc when dealing with other races
because they are all humans.. wouldn't be better if they had a dwarf to vouch for them when into a dwarvish settlement ?

you don't have to use the above as "punishment" .. it is not your place as DM to punish.. it is just a subtle lesson, to tell them
that RP usually tramps fighting skills...

I don't want to punish them for choosing human which is why I'm not taking away the variant human option, but instead trying to make all other options seem just as appealing. I like a diverse group and want players to make characters they envision. I know one player really wanted to play a gnome but ultimately felt the feat was too much to give up. My thought process is make everyone get a feat so they can choose based on the race itself and not feel they are missing out on anything.

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't want to punish them for choosing human which is why I'm not taking away the variant human option, but instead trying to make all other options seem just as appealing. I like a diverse group and want players to make characters they envision. I know one player really wanted to play a gnome but ultimately felt the feat was too much to give up. My thought process is make everyone get a feat so they can choose based on the race itself and not feel they are missing out on anything.


Banning variant human isn't going to stop players from making characters they envision.
What feat was it, by the way? That may just be a problem with that particular feat.

[ambartanen]

Exactly, I think the other players feel less useful during this period as people with feats get to do more exciting things. I don't want people to feel like they made the wrong decision by picking a dwarf or elf over a human.

Giving more feats is not the way to go. They are ridiculously powerful at low levels. My three man group went through three encounters that should have been deadly for a four person group and finished it off by defeating a CR 3 creature that should have been a deadly encounter for a seven person group. All that without getting a short rest. The werewolf even had immunity to weapons so the fighter couldn't use his best attacks. Now that they have gained second level, they can probably steamroll multiple werewolves in a single fight.

[Ramshack]

Barbarian / Fighter with the Great Weapon Master Feat. Was the character in Phandelver

In HoTDQ the players wanted to take feats so they can play the characters they wanted at level 1 instead of having to wait 4 levels such as:

One player wanted to play a dual crossbow user but didn't want to wait till level 4 to play the character they wanted.

Another took Dual Wield so they could get off hand damage and bigger weapons.

And another wanted polearm master.

All didn't want to wait 4 levels to play a character style they wanted.

As such they essentially had to choose between playing the character they envisioned mechanically or the character they race they wanted. And all of them felt a 4 level wait to play the character how they wanted to was too long a wait.

[Ramshack]

Giving more feats is not the way to go. They are ridiculously powerful at low levels. My three man group went through three encounters that should have been deadly for a four person group and finished it off by defeating a CR 3 creature that should have been a deadly encounter for a seven person group. All that without getting a short rest. The werewolf even had immunity to weapons so the fighter couldn't use his best attacks. Now that they have gained second level, they can probably steamroll multiple werewolves in a single fight.

Well my players are taking the feats anyway, I just thought why not give them the feats but still let them play the races they wanted to. Instead of forcing them all to go human.

[ambartanen]

Well my players are taking the feats anyway, I just thought why not give them the feats but still let them play the races they wanted to. Instead of forcing them all to go human.

Well, they are taking feats for a mechanical benefit or at least I don't see what kind of roleplaying concept is being ruined by not having those feats. None of them really do stuff visible to people in the world, after all.

[Demonic Spoon]

Barbarian / Fighter with the Great Weapon Master Feat. Was the character in Phandelver

In HoTDQ the players wanted to take feats so they can play the characters they wanted at level 1 instead of having to wait 4 levels such as:

One player wanted to play a dual crossbow user but didn't want to wait till level 4 to play the character they wanted.

Another took Dual Wield so they could get off hand damage and bigger weapons.

And another wanted polearm master.

All didn't want to wait 4 levels to play a character style they wanted.

As such they essentially had to choose between playing the character they envisioned mechanically or the character they race they wanted. And all of them felt a 4 level wait to play the character how they wanted to was too long a wait.
The only one of those things that constitutes a character concept is dual-wielding crossbows, and I'm pretty sure you can do that anyway without the feat, just not quite as well. You don't need polearm master to use polearms. You don't need dual wield to TWF.

[Shadow]

Barbarian / Fighter with the Great Weapon Master Feat. Was the character in Phandelver

In HoTDQ the players wanted to take feats so they can play the characters they wanted at level 1 instead of having to wait 4 levels such as:

One player wanted to play a dual crossbow user but didn't want to wait till level 4 to play the character they wanted.

Another took Dual Wield so they could get off hand damage and bigger weapons.

And another wanted polearm master.

All didn't want to wait 4 levels to play a character style they wanted.

As such they essentially had to choose between playing the character they envisioned mechanically or the character they race they wanted. And all of them felt a 4 level wait to play the character how they wanted to was too long a wait.

I am *considering* allowing all players to start with a feat if they wish. DM overrule in play if it's too powerful at level 1. If taken, this feat represents your first ABI (for which you get nothing at that level) and must be eligible by level 6 at the latest. Kind of like giving them the feat on credit. Variant human not available as a choice.
If they choose one that I overrule as too powerful, they can have it at class level 2-3 (and the first couple of levels FLY by in this edition) of the class that they started with, following the same ABI eligibility requirements listed above.


The only one of those things that constitutes a character concept is dual-wielding crossbows, and I'm pretty sure you can do that anyway without the feat, just not quite as well. You don't need polearm master to use polearms. You don't need dual wield to TWF.

On this one I would rule that the intent is clearly (to me) to indicate a blade/bow combo, and as such crossbow expert doesn't work the way that they think it does.
Why would firing in melee not offer disadvantage anymore if you don't actually threaten them in some way? One handed melee weapon ruling to get trhe extra attack from x-bow expert with me.

Plus, what he said (vvv), where two weapon fighting references melee weapons, which disallows dual weilding hand x-bows without the dual weilder feat.
Now when you look at the dual weilder feat, it specifically says that neither of the one handed melee weapons have to be light, which disallows dual weilding hand x-bows entirely.

Put those two things together, and it seems quite obvious that my assertion that the extra attack portion of x-bow expert (inherently) requiring a melee weapon was correct.

[DrLemniscate]

The only one of those things that constitutes a character concept is dual-wielding crossbows, and I'm pretty sure you can do that anyway without the feat, just not quite as well. You don't need polearm master to use polearms. You don't need dual wield to TWF.

You need the feat to use Dual Hand Crossbows.

Two-Weapon Fighting specifically references light melee weapons.

The upside of this is that with the Crossbow Expert feat, you already get the effects of a TWF Fighting Style in that your modifier is already added to the bonus shot.

[DrLemniscate]

I am *considering* allowing all players to start with a feat if they wish. DM overrule in play if it's too powerful at level 1. If taken, this feat represents your first ABI (for which you get nothing at that level) and must be eligible by level 6 at the latest. Kind of like giving them the feat on credit. Variant human not available as a choice.
If they choose one that I overrule as too powerful, they can have it at class level 2-3 (and the first couple of levels FLY by in this edition) of the class that they started with, following the same ABI eligibility requirements listed above.

You could just let them start at level 4 then. Give them more of the stuff that gets them hyped when making characters, and don't take things away from them that they would have gotten later. Also improves the chances of your campaign seeing level 20 by a little bit.

[Shadow]

You need the feat to use Dual Hand Crossbows.

Two-Weapon Fighting specifically references light melee weapons.

The upside of this is that with the Crossbow Expert feat, you already get the effects of a TWF Fighting Style in that your modifier is already added to the bonus shot.

Even with the Dual Weilder feat, dual weilding hand crossbows cannot be done according to RAW.
Read the feat.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the onehanded melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
This also specifically mentions melee weapons.

If you want to use two weapons:
(a) they must both be light melee weapons
--or--
(b) you must have the dual weilder feat to ignore the light requirement
--or--
(c) you must have the crossbow expert feat and one of them must be a hand crossbow -- this does not change the regular requirements of the other hand, so the first weapon must comply with either (a) or (b), and must therefore be a melee weapon.

[BRC]

Even with the Dual Weilder feat, dual weilding hand crossbows cannot be done according to RAW.
Read the feat.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the onehanded melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
This also specifically mentions melee weapons.

If you want to use two weapons:
(a) they must both be light melee weapons
--or--
(b) you must have the dual weilder feat to ignore the light requirement
--or--
(c) you must have the crossbow expert feat and one of them must be a hand crossbow (this does not change the regular requirements of the other hand, so the first weapon must comply with either (a) or (b).
If you can get over the "Reloading without a free hand" thing (RAW does not mention needing a hand to reload), Crossbow Expert and two Hand Crossbows works just fine. Crossbow Expert does not mention making a melee attack to fire the hand crossbow as a bonus action.

AND you get dex to damage on both attacks, even without a fighting style.

[ambartanen]

But you do need a free hand to reload crossbows. Maybe not by RAW but just by common sense.

[Steel Mirror]

I've been playing with the variant where all PCs get a feat at level 1, and while it is very powerful, it hasn't been a problem for us. Everyone is more powerful, after all, so all it means is that I have to throw slightly more powerful encounters at them to keep things interesting. They've still had challenging encounters, so it doesn't feel like they steamroll everything.

In fact, what the free feat does is enhance the feeling that each character has a niche where they shine. The Barbarian chose Dual Wielding and Sentinel (she is the only human), and she is an absolute beast in melee that keeps the back rank safe. The Monk chose Alertness, so he's always at the front of the party, scouting, and his ability to not be surprised has already saved his life multiple times. The Warlock chose the feat that gives her more spells, and makes good use of those. The gnome Divination Wizard chose lucky, and he definitely feels like he's prepared for a quick trick or escape for any situation. And so on.

Since the DM can always twist the dial and make encounters more dangerous, I would recommend that anyone who is thinking of instituting the free feat rule give it a try. The players feel cooler, they feel like they contribute to the party in a meaningful way, and it's always a source of great amusement at the table when someone's feat choice saves their life or gets the party out of a sticky situation where they would have otherwise been in serious trouble. It's my favorite take on feats in D&D so far, and it seems a pity not to let your players enjoy them until level 4!

[pwykersotz]

Yeah, for my first major 5e game I'm DM'ing (I've done a few one-shots) I've actually said no to Variant Human. I'll uncork it later, but for now I want to keep feats in the realm of level 4 and later.

[Shadow]

If you can get over the "Reloading without a free hand" thing (RAW does not mention needing a hand to reload), Crossbow Expert and two Hand Crossbows works just fine. Crossbow Expert does not mention making a melee attack to fire the hand crossbow as a bonus action.

AND you get dex to damage on both attacks, even without a fighting style.

In order to be fighting with two weapons to begin with, both of them must be light, one handed melee weapons.
So you cannot fight with two hand crossbows.
In order to remove the light requirement, you need the DW feat, but this does nothing for crossbows as it specifies melee.
So you still cannot fight with two hand crossbows.
If you take the crossbow expert feat, one of the weapons can be a hand crossbow, but it says nothing of the first weapon. Following the rules, you still cannot fight with two hand croswsbows. You can fight with one hand crossbow and a melee weapon, and you can only do that if you have this feat.

The feat says that you can make an attack with a hand crossbow in your off hand as a bonus action. It does not say that you ignore all two weapon fighting requirements if you weild two hand crossbows.

[BRC]

But you do need a free hand to reload crossbows. Maybe not by RAW but just by common sense.
Shhhhhhhhhhhh.

And actually, RAI (if you squint and tilt your head jusssttt right, and even then) kind of supports hands-free reloading.

Crossbow Expert allows characters to wield a melee weapon in one hand, and a hand crossbow in the other.
If we assume the intent was to make that build viable, we must also assume that it was intended to allow characters to reload their crossbows without a free hand (In my group we're fluffing it that he's got a thing mounted on his hip that he can use to slot in a new bolt).


In order to be fighting with two weapons to begin with, both of them must be light, one handed melee weapons.
So you cannot fight with two hand crossbows.
In order to remove the light requirement, you need the DW feat, but this does nothing for crossbows as it specifies melee.
So you still cannot fight with two hand crossbows.
If you take the crossbow expert feat, one of the weapons can be a hand crossbow, but it says nothing of the first weapon. Following the rules, you still cannot fight with two hand croswsbows. You can fight with one hand crossbow and a melee weapon, and you can only do that if you have this feat.
Nope. Two-crossbows bypasses the TWF rules altogether. That's also why it adds dex to damage even without the fighting style, and why you can do it without a light weapon in your main hand.
The hand crossbow attack from crossbow expert isn't a TWF attack, it's a totally separate use of the bonus action.

It's like this.
everybody can wield a shortsword in each hand, attack with one, and use their bonus action to attack with the other according to the TWF rules.
The TWF feat says "Ignore the part of the TWF rules that limits you to light weapons".
Even without the feat, you can hold a longsword in each hand, you'll just look silly and only be able to attack with one.

Crossbow Expert does not say "You may use the TWF rules to attack with a hand crossbow".
It says "When you attack with a one-handed melee weapon and are wielding a hand crossbow in your other hand, you make use your bonus action to attack with the hand crossbow". It's not a new use of TWF, it's a new ability altogether.

Yes, it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but in this case it's a goose. A goose duel-wielding hand crossbows in defiance of all logic, but looking awesome while doing so.

[Steel Mirror]

Crossbow Expert allows characters to wield a melee weapon in one hand, and a hand crossbow in the other.
If we assume the intent was to make that build viable, we must also assume that it was intended to allow characters to reload their crossbows without a free hand (In my group we're fluffing it that he's got a thing mounted on his hip that he can use to slot in a new bolt).
That, or have a dozen loaded crossbows strapped all over his body, so that he can fire his handbow, drop it, and pull a fresh loaded one constantly over the course of combat. Matrix style.

Granted, having a dozen crossbows loaded and under tension strapped to yourself would be far more dangerous to yourself than any prospective foe, but there is a reason it's not called "Rule of Boringly Realistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool)". :smallwink:

[Shadow]

Nope. Two-crossbows bypasses the TWF rules altogether. That's also why it adds dex to damage even without the fighting style.
The hand crossbow attack from crossbow expert isn't a TWF attack, it's a totally separate use of the bonus action.

No, it doesn't.
If you attack with two weapons, you are two weapon fighting.
The feat says that you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding It does not say that you ignore all two weapon fighting requirements if you wield two hand crossbows.

[BRC]

No, it doesn't.
If you attack with two weapons, you are two weapon fighting.
The feat says that you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding It does not say that you ignore all two weapon fighting requirements if you wield two hand crossbows.

I edited in a response in my last post. But read Crossbow Expert, nowhere does it mention Two Weapon Fighting.

Yes, you are fighting with two weapons, but you are not Two Weapon Fighting.

[Pex]

No, it doesn't.
If you attack with two weapons, you are two weapon fighting.
The feat says that you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding It does not say that you ignore all two weapon fighting requirements if you wield two hand crossbows.

Pft. That's for the DM to decide.

[Shadow]

Yes, you are fighting with two weapons, but you are not Two Weapon Fighting.

And this is exactly the kind of garbage that doesn't pass at my table, which is exactly why I love 5e's return to DM empowerment.
That's semantic garbage, and it has no place at the table.


Pft. That's for the DM to decide.

Any DM that wants to overrule it is welcome to, but the rules don't support it.

[Scirocco]

It just mentions attacking with a one-handed weapon you can use your bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. No where does it mention light weapons or two-weapon fighting. That and you're ignoring the loading quality. Also, as has been said two-weapon fighting only refers to light melee weapons, which a hand xbow isn't.

The RAW supports it, it's a cool thing to do, and it's not overpowered at all. If you want to rain on someone's parade, that's all well and good, but there's no particularly good reason to do so.

[Shadow]

It just mentions attacking with a one-handed weapon you can use your bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. No where does it mention light weapons or two-weapon fighting. That and you're ignoring the loading quality. Also, as has been said two-weapon fighting only refers to light melee weapons, which a hand xbow isn't (which is exactly why you can't fight with two of them, even if you have the XbX feat).

The RAW supports it, it's a cool thing to do, and it's not overpowered at all. If you want to rain on someone's parade, that's all well and good, but there's no particularly good reason to do so.

RAW does not support it.
It actually is OP.
Gaining two weapon attacks (or 3, 4 or 5) when you should have less, from the relative safety of range, is very powerful, especially at low levels where a single attack can take down a mob. Reading the feat incorrectly allows a player the potential to take down two mobs per round, every round, from range, at level one.
That's basically the definition of OP.
By reading the feat correctly in conjunction with the TWF rules, they have to get into melee for that opportunity, which balances it.
Risk vs. reward.

[BRC]

RAW does not support it.
It actually is OP.
Gaining two weapon attacks (or 3, 4 or 5) when you should have less, from the relative safety of range, is very powerful, especially at low levels where a single attack can take down a mob. Reading the feat incorrectly allows a player the potential to take down two mobs per round, every round, from range, at level one.
That's basically the definition of OP.
By reading the feat correctly in conjunction with the TWF rules, they have to get into melee for that opportunity, which balances it.
Risk vs. reward.

But RAW DOES support it.

Two weapon fighting says "Make an attack with a light melee weapon, use your bonus action to make an attack with another light melee weapon"
The Two Weapon Fighter feat says "You may use Two Weapon Fighting with non-light weapons". Not "When you make an attack with a one-handed melee weapon, you may use your bonus action to make an attack with a second one-handed melee weapon. Do not add your ability bonus to damage on this second attack."

The Fighter Two Weapon Fighting Style says "When Two Weapon Fighting, add your ability bonus to damage with the off-hand attack". NOT "When you make an attack with a light one handed melee weapon, you may use your bonus action to make an attack with a second light one handed melee weapon".

When feats and abilities want to modify Two Weapon Fighting, they explicitly say they are modifying the Two Weapon Fighting rules,
If Crossbow Expert was using Two Weapon Fighting rules, it would say "When Two Weapon Fighting, you may use a hand crossbow in your off hand", or something to that effect.

[Shadow]

I'm done arguing your semantics. The intent is quite clear to anyone not trying to munchkin the TWF rules. There is already a thread about this, if not multiple. If you want to continue arguing about it, do it in one of those. This thread is about Humans and thier variant and fully able-to-be-ruled-as-unavailable racial option.

[BRC]

I'm done arguing your semantics. The intent is quite clear to anyone not trying to munchkin the TWF rules. There is already a thread about this, if not multiple. If you want to continue arguing about it, do it in one of those. This thread is about Humans and thier variant and fully able-to-be-ruled-as-unavailable racial option.
I'm arguing RAW.
If you want to interpret RAI, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

But you are correct about the subject of the thread.

To me, the issue is that there are a lot of very fun character builds that require at least one feat to function, and before then the player is just kind of waiting to get the feat they need to play the character they ACTUALLY want to play. It's not as bad as 3e with it's feat trees, but it's still there.

I'd support more experienced groups simply starting at 4th level so as to avoid the whole "I'm not really playing the character I want to" thing from putting a damper on the game/requiring anybody with a feat-dependent character concept to play a Human.

[ambartanen]

To me, the issue is that there are a lot of very fun character builds that require at least one feat to function, and before then the player is just kind of waiting to get the feat they need to play the character they ACTUALLY want to play. It's not as bad as 3e with it's feat trees, but it's still there.

What are these character concepts that actually require feats? The only one I have heard so far is someone who wants to shoot two hand crossbows in the same round (note that duel wielding hand crossbows is still fine, you just only shoot one per round) and that really isn't a character concept so much as a wish to have two ranged attacks four levels before anyone else could.

[Soular]

While RAW does allow a Crossbow Expert to re-enact a John Woo film, I am doubt that it was RAI.

Either way, a character running around with two hand crossbows, rapid firing them multiple times a round while bolts just magically deplete from their quivers would simply not fly in our games. Just like my Halfling Barbarian concept that enters battle wearing nothing but a Borneo indian penis-sheath.

Sometime common sense and sensibilities must take precedence.

[BRC]

What are these character concepts that actually require feats? The only one I have heard so far is someone who wants to shoot two hand crossbows in the same round (note that duel wielding hand crossbows is still fine, you just only shoot one per round) and that really isn't a character concept so much as a wish to have two ranged attacks four levels before anyone else could.
Swashbuckler with a rapier in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other.

Duel-wielding (or Sword and Board) Battlemage (Requires Warcaster).

Crossbow Sniper who picks off his enemies from great distances (Does not REQUIRE sharpshooter, but you really want it to make the concept stick)

A non-spellcaster who nevertheless uses a few select spells. (Spellcasting Initiate feat).

A Monk who specializes in wrestling (Requires Grappler feat).

I'm AFB at the moment, but there are more. They don't really work without the feat.

Take the Wrestler for example. "Yes, I'm a Wrestler, a member of an order of martial artists who practice wrestling...but I didn't really GET how to do more than grab my opponents until I cleared out a few dungeons with you guys!"

[Shadow]

Swashbuckler with a rapier in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other. No feat needed, you can attack with one or the other until you get the feat

Duel-wielding (or Sword and Board) Battlemage (Requires Warcaster). also requires some combat and casting experience, and that should be reflected in play

Crossbow Sniper who picks off his enemies from great distances (Does not REQUIRE sharpshooter, but you really want it to make the concept stick) you said it, does not require feat

A non-spellcaster who nevertheless uses a few select spells. (Spellcasting Initiate feat). rogue , fighter and monk already have options for this, no feat needed; barb's the only one without the option as of this moment

A Monk who specializes in wrestling (Requires Grappler feat). anyone can grapple, no feat needed

I'm AFB at the moment, but there are more.

in blue for you

[ambartanen]

Swashbuckler with a rapier in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other.

Duel-wielding (or Sword and Board) Battlemage (Requires Warcaster).

Crossbow Sniper who picks off his enemies from great distances (Does not REQUIRE sharpshooter, but you really want it to make the concept stick)

None of these require a feat, they are just better when they get the feat- almost like gaining levels makes the characters better at what they are doing. The basic concepts work just fine without feats though.


A non-spellcaster who nevertheless uses a few select spells (Spellcasting Initiate feat).
You don't have to rely on Magic Initiate, several races give you access to some spellcasting- high elf, drow, tiefling, forest gnome. Still, if a character concept absolutely relies on having access to spells from the very beginning yet cannot be represented by any spellcasting class or race, Magic Initiate might be necessary. Seems like a very flimsy argument though.


A Monk who specializes in wrestling (Requires Grappler feat)
Ok, this one is legitimate. There really is no way to do any meaningful grappling unless you get access to the pin condition.

[Dark Tira]

I agree that wielding 2 hand crossbows is kinda dumb since it's purely stylistic. Keep it a secret from Shadow but by RAW you only need 1 hand crossbow to trigger and use the extra attack.

[ambartanen]

I agree that wielding 2 hand crossbows is kinda dumb since it's purely stylistic. Keep it a secret from Shadow but by RAW you only need 1 hand crossbow to trigger and use the extra attack.

Actually, since we are getting very technical, by RAW it needs to be loaded and if you just used it to attack, it isn't loaded :smallbiggrin: Being a Crossbow Expert you can, of course, reload it but by then you have missed your trigger.

[BRC]

in blue for you

The builds are PLAYABLE, but they don't FEEL like the character in question. It can take over a month out of game to hit 4th level, during that time the player isn't playing the character they want to play. They're just waiting to be able to play that character.

If they want to build a luchador-inspired wrestler monk, that's who they want to be playing from day one. NOT a monk who just kind of grabs people until one day he learns how to pin. Without the Grappler feat, all you can do with Grapple is stop somebody from moving.

And yes, Combat and Casting experience should be reflected in play: By the characters starting at level 4, having already gained some experience.

I'm suggesting that more experienced groups might not want to deal with the tutorial-esque experience of levels one and two, and can start the campaign as more seasoned adventurers with access to at least one feat to make their build work.

The original problem was that everybody was picking Humans, because they wanted access to a feat from the very start of gameplay. Starting the campaign at a higher level means players can pick more interesting races without giving up access to the feat that makes their character work/build fun to play.

[Dark Tira]

Actually, since we are getting very technical, by RAW it needs to be loaded and if you just used it to attack, it isn't loaded :smallbiggrin: Being a Crossbow Expert you can, of course, reload it but by then you have missed your trigger.

Nah they actually went through this with a lot of scrutiny on the Wizards forums. There is no loaded state for weapons and if there were you could reload as part of the initial attack action assuming you have ammo.

[Shadow]

I agree that wielding 2 hand crossbows is kinda dumb since it's purely stylistic. Keep it a secret from Shadow but by RAW you only need 1 hand crossbow to trigger and use the extra attack.

I'm going to respond to this onec and not respond to it again.

The feat requires that the crossbow already be loaded in order to use the bonus action attack. As you would have just fired the xbow, it is no longer loaded, and thus does not fit the criteria for the feat to proc a secondary shot.
Any DM would be well within his rights to tell you that XbX cannot be used to gain a second attack from the same hand xbow until such time as your class grants you the Extra Attack ability.

[Mystic Muse]

And this is exactly the kind of garbage that doesn't pass at my table, which is exactly why I love 5e's return to DM empowerment.
That's semantic garbage, and it has no place at the table.

See, I'm a DM and perfectly fine with my players doing this.

It has no place at YOUR table.

[Dark Tira]

I'm going to respond to this onec and not respond to it again.

The feat requires that the crossbow already be loaded in order to use the bonus action attack. As you would have just fired the xbow, it is no longer loaded, and thus does not fit the criteria for the feat to proc a secondary shot.
Any DM would be well within his rights to tell you that XbX cannot be used to gain a second attack from the same hand xbow until such time as your class grants you the Extra Attack ability.

Any DM pretty much is within his rights to tell you anything. That is completely irrelevant to RAW.

[Shadow]

Any DM pretty much is within his rights to tell you anything. That is completely irrelevant to RAW.

Arguments about RAW are themselves completely irrelevant under 5e, if you want to go that route.

[Dark Tira]

Arguments about RAW are themselves completely irrelevant under 5e, if you want to go that route.

If you believe that then you might want to leave discussing RAW to those who it is relevant for.

[MeeposFire]

THis is silly at worst the feat allows you to wield a melee weapon and a hand crossbow which you then fire as your action and then again as a bonus action without using two weapon fighting at all.

[Shadow]

If you believe that then you might want to leave discussing RAW to those who it is relevant for.

So your suggestion is to leave the discussions about rules only to those that are trrying to munkin the rules.
Gotcha.
Because every single one of these debates all boils down to someone trying to game the system, which is what 5e is designed to guard against by leaving the judgement calls to the DMs instead of tying every single concievable concept to a specific rule.

[Dark Tira]

So your suggestion is to leave the discussions about rules only to those that are trrying to munkin the rules.
Gotcha.
Because every single one of these debates all boils down to someone trying to game the system, which is what 5e is designed to guard against by leaving the judgement calls to the DMs instead of tying every single concievable concept to a specific rule.

RAW isn't about munchkinning the rules. It's about what the rules actually say so everyone has a common ground to work on. If RAW works then there is no reason to fix anything. If it doesn't work then everyone has a place to start houseruling from.

[ambartanen]

I'm suggesting that more experienced groups might not want to deal with the tutorial-esque experience of levels one and two, and can start the campaign as more seasoned adventurers with access to at least one feat to make their build work.

I don't think the first levels feel that much like a tutorial and besides enough things are different in this edition that going through a three session tutorial might not be that bad of an idea. That said, any DM is welcome to start their game at 4th or 5th level if that's what they want. It doesn't quite fix the problem with variant humans though. If you are a 4th level character that isn't variant human, you can have one of the following three- a feat, a +4 on primary stat or multiclassing. If you are a 4th level variant human, you get a feat for free and one of those three things. Even if one feat is all a particulal player wants, the other options are too good to pass up easily.

[Shadow]

RAW isn't about munchkinning the rules. It's about what the rules actually say so everyone has a common ground to work on. If RAW works then there is no reason to fix anything. If it doesn't work then everyone has a place to start houseruling from.

5e isn't about houserules.
5e isn't about rules as written.
5e isn't about rules as intended.

5e is 100% about the DM interpreting the rules as written. Not the player, mind you. The DM.

@v: Lemme look and find some links, and I'll PM you. I'm not going to derail this thread any further than it's already gotten.

[ambartanen]

5e isn't about houserules.
5e isn't about rules as written.
5e isn't about rules as intended.

5e is 100% about the DM interpreting the rules as written. Not the player, mind you. The DM.

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea but I very much doubt the designers would agree with you. They want to sell books to the players every bit as much as they want to sell them to the DMs so they aren't going to write them in a way that makes it pointless for the players to read them. Not to mention that the rules are written to be a hell of a lot more than a vague inspiration for DMs.

[ZeshinX]

In response to the original post, you're the DM. What you say, goes. Disallow variant human if you dislike the idea of an all-human party, or find people are giving up their preferred race selection because they feel they need to to keep parity with the human character and his/her bonus feat.

Remove the bonus feat and replace it with a bonus saving throw proficiency, or another bonus skill prof, or a tool proficiency.

Ultimately, the DM makes the call. It's not DM vs Players, but the DM sets the tone and the rules that are followed. If a player decides they don't want to play under your rules, which is unfortunate, then that's their call. I suspect most would accept one of the above compromises. They might sulk a bit, but they'd get over it.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm done arguing your semantics. The intent is quite clear to anyone not trying to munchkin the TWF rules. There is already a thread about this, if not multiple. If you want to continue arguing about it, do it in one of those. This thread is about Humans and thier variant and fully able-to-be-ruled-as-unavailable racial option.

If you're arguing over RAW, you are necessarily arguing semantics. In fact, semantics are pretty important in defining the terms of any reasonable debate.

[ambartanen]

Remove the bonus feat and replace it with a bonus saving throw proficiency, or another bonus skill prof, or a tool proficiency.

I was toying with the idea of changing it so the variant human chooses a feat that gives a stat boost but doesn't gain the stat boost. So they might take weapon master for weapon proficiency or resilient for a save proficiency or one of the armor proficiency feats or one of the other weird feats that give stranger perks.

[ZeshinX]

I was toying with the idea of changing it so the variant human chooses a feat that gives a stat boost but doesn't gain the stat boost. So they might take weapon master for weapon proficiency or resilient for a save proficiency or one of the armor proficiency feats or one of the other weird feats that give stranger perks.

I prefer keeping it simple myself. Dissecting feats might work, but it adds mostly unneeded complexity (and complexity is something 5e seems determined to avoid). Whatever would work for you though. My fix is not allowing variant human. Someone that complains about +1 to all ability scores not being good enough has no place at my table anyway. :smallwink:

[BRC]

I brought this up with a friend, who suggested giving everybody a bonus feat at 1st level in exchange for reduced point buy. -3 or -4, perhaps with the additional caveat that you can't start with any stats at 18.

[ambartanen]

I brought this up with a friend, who suggested giving everybody a bonus feat at 1st level in exchange for reduced point buy. -3 or -4, perhaps with the additional caveat that you can't start with any stats at 18.

You can't buy any stats over 15 with point buy anyway. I am not sure what that changes.

Reducing point-buy will just make munchkins take the feat and have two dump stats instead of one. Doesn't seem like a meaningful enough penalty for someone optimizing their character. I mean, humans already lose the equivalent of at least 4 point buy for choosing the variant and that choice is pretty much a no-brainer for anyone who has fewer than 5 odd valued stats.

[JamesT]

Almost every time I put together a theoretical character build, I find that I could do it better with a Variant Human. That's not good.

When try to build a character with a vanilla Human I can almost always make it better with another race. Also not good.

In the spirit of keeping humans as the most flexible race, I'd prefer if they could get a +2 and +1, respectively, to any two ability score of their choice, and get two bonus skills. I think that puts them about even with the other classes.

[Pex]

What are these character concepts that actually require feats? The only one I have heard so far is someone who wants to shoot two hand crossbows in the same round (note that duel wielding hand crossbows is still fine, you just only shoot one per round) and that really isn't a character concept so much as a wish to have two ranged attacks four levels before anyone else could.

A spellcaster who wants to concentrate on spells, especially one who wants to buff himself and fight, needs a feat to become proficient in Constitution checks.

[ambartanen]

A spellcaster who wants to concentrate on spells, especially one who wants to buff himself and fight, needs a feat to become proficient in Constitution checks.

But all that does is buff the chance of success from 70% to 80% (or 91% for War Caster with that advantage). You need the feat to make the mechanics more likely to work out but the feat doesn't give you a power you didn't already have.

[Vowtz]

It's just better to let everyone start with 1 feat, variant human would get two.

This way variant would still be better than all others, but ceases to be an obligation, and all races can have fun from level 1.

I hope DMG comes with this option.


Ps: Since that is not the only thing I'm waiting fixes for, it seems I'm hoping DMG to almost completely rewrite PHB

[Theodoxus]

When did 'Attack with a melee weapon' become 'attack with a hand crossbow'? Tl/DR version: when did the hand crossbow become a melee weapon?

[Corinath]

It's just better to let everyone start with 1 feat, variant human would get two.

This way variant would still be better than all others, but ceases to be an obligation, and all races can have fun from level 1.

I hope DMG comes with this option.


Ps: Since that is not the only thing I'm waiting fixes for, it seems I'm hoping DMG to almost completely rewrite PHB

You could always just make that a home-brew ruling in your games?

Regarding the rest of the thread:

And I'm not a fan of homogenizing things, in general. The races aren't necessarily meant to be "even", just different. You could play against class, just because you wanted to. Who cares. Just like the argument going on about mundane vs magical. It's not meant to be even. Just different. Play what's fun to you. If you have someone at your table who is Tier 1-ing the **** out of the room, it's more likely that they're just not out to play with people, and that's less on the game and more on the player.

If they want to all play variant humans, let them. They're not as interested in RP it seems.

[EvilAnagram]

This is the easiest fix you could possibly have: Don't allow variant humans. The PHB only made that option available because there's a tradition of allowing humans to take feats at level 1. hey knew it was broken, so they made it a "variant" rule. Don't use the variant rule. Trow it aside, say it's broken, and move on.

[Shadow]

When did 'Attack with a melee weapon' become 'attack with a hand crossbow'? Tl/DR version: when did the hand crossbow become a melee weapon?

But they aren't Two Weapon Fighting. They're simply fighting with two weapons.
The problem is that they don't want to admit how truly ridiculous that is, because they're too interested in findnig exploits, loopholes and ways to game the system.
:amused:

[JamesT]

This is the easiest fix you could possibly have: Don't allow variant humans. The PHB only made that option available because there's a tradition of allowing humans to take feats at level 1. hey knew it was broken, so they made it a "variant" rule. Don't use the variant rule. Trow it aside, say it's broken, and move on.

See the post I wrote above. I agree that variant humans are potentially too powerful at low levels. However, non-variants seem underpowered. I was trying to come up with a happy medium.

[EvilAnagram]

See the post I wrote above. I agree that variant humans are potentially too powerful at low levels. However, non-variants seem underpowered. I was trying to come up with a happy medium.

Non-variant humans get twice as many ability bumps as everyone else. That's not bad. At the most, give them the choice of a skill to have proficiency in as per the variant.

[Racsel]

Is that hard to read the book? In mine it rules "When you use the attack action with a one handed weapon (it doesn't say melee anywhere, and hand crossbow is a one handed weapon), you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

Wich means only 1 extra shot (ammunition property says you load the weapon as part of the attack, action, so only 1 shot) with a hand crossbow in the offhand, consuming your bonus action for the round. So a ranged attack that does 1d6 + dex mod damage per round.
Why? Cause by RAW this is not considered two-weapon fighting, exactly like the "Polearm master" feat. You add ability mod cause it isn't "two weapon fighting" normal rules.


And in the thread topic, I'd say all characters should start with a free feat, humans with 3 skill/tool's prof or 1 skill/tool + 1 feat, they choose. (Diversity Op)

[Kaiisaxo]

The builds are PLAYABLE, but they don't FEEL like the character in question. It can take over a month out of game to hit 4th level, during that time the player isn't playing the character they want to play. They're just waiting to be able to play that character.

If they want to build a luchador-inspired wrestler monk, that's who they want to be playing from day one. NOT a monk who just kind of grabs people until one day he learns how to pin. Without the Grappler feat, all you can do with Grapple is stop somebody from moving.

And yes, Combat and Casting experience should be reflected in play: By the characters starting at level 4, having already gained some experience.

I'm suggesting that more experienced groups might not want to deal with the tutorial-esque experience of levels one and two, and can start the campaign as more seasoned adventurers with access to at least one feat to make their build work.

The original problem was that everybody was picking Humans, because they wanted access to a feat from the very start of gameplay. Starting the campaign at a higher level means players can pick more interesting races without giving up access to the feat that makes their character work/build fun to play.

I support starting at a higher level, 4th is the new first and all.


In response to the original post, you're the DM. What you say, goes. Disallow variant human if you dislike the idea of an all-human party, or find people are giving up their preferred race selection because they feel they need to to keep parity with the human character and his/her bonus feat.

Remove the bonus feat and replace it with a bonus saving throw proficiency, or another bonus skill prof, or a tool proficiency.

Ultimately, the DM makes the call. It's not DM vs Players, but the DM sets the tone and the rules that are followed. If a player decides they don't want to play under your rules, which is unfortunate, then that's their call. I suspect most would accept one of the above compromises. They might sulk a bit, but they'd get over it.

It isn't just the DMs game, it is everybody's. Everybody playing humans is a symptom of dissatisfaction with the rest of the races, disallowing humans will only make things worse. A DM that unilaterally decides to forbid things out of a misplaced sense of hurt sensibilities will quickly be left with no players.


I was toying with the idea of changing it so the variant human chooses a feat that gives a stat boost but doesn't gain the stat boost. So they might take weapon master for weapon proficiency or resilient for a save proficiency or one of the armor proficiency feats or one of the other weird feats that give stranger perks.

Please don't, there are many classes that are somehow gimped at something they used to be good at and they get to solve that with feats -that in a way are the new feat taxes-. monks no longer being good at grappling -solved with grappler-, bards no longer having party level buffs -magic initiate to grab bless-, sorcerers no longer being better than wizards with weapons and worse no longer being proficient with the weapons they get in their starting package -weapon master- Seriously the solution is to start at 4th level, or house rule those feats to go with the classes by default.


If they want to all play variant humans, let them. They're not as interested in RP it seems.

I take offense to that one, I for one completely dislike the base human, but not for it being underpowered, but rather because it is too powerful all around, and I can't empathize with a character that has no flaws, it feels more like a lazy gamist construct than a true race.

[JamesT]

Non-variant humans get twice as many ability bumps as everyone else. That's not bad. At the most, give them the choice of a skill to have proficiency in as per the variant.

It's decent, but no +2s will deter a lot of people. The ability to easily start with two 16s is attractive.

[GreenETC]

I agree that variant humans are potentially too powerful at low levels. However, non-variants seem underpowered. I was trying to come up with a happy medium.
I agree entirely. While I didn't have this issue when I ran the game with my friends, it is more than abundantly clear that for specific character builds, Variant Humans just make things much more powerful, or just makes things possible, to the point of even being ridiculous or necessary.

A Barbarian with Polearm Master, a Fighter with Great Weapon Master, or a Ranger with Sharp Shooter are all insanely strong in early game. Heavy Armor Mastery practically negates half the damage you take at level one, but I'm expecting it will be worthless at higher levels. Spell Sniper allows a Warlock or Bard to shoot people with Eldritch Blasts from 240ft away around cover.

On the flip side, a Paladin or Cleric need War Caster in order to cast their spells while holding a shield and fighting with a weapon out and any wrestler needs Grappler or they can't even hold somebody down without getting their face beaten in. Not to mention there's pretty much no reason for a caster to ever care about feats, since most of the mental stat ones are horrible.

Non-variant Humans just can't stand up to that. The bonus to your unused stats are worthless unless you start multi-classing in weird ways, and that's even a variant rule and highly discouraged this edition by Extra Attack and 4th level Ability Bonuses.

[Vhaluus]

for those arguing about reloading with a crossbow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

now admittedly they are rather large irl, but this is a fantasy setting so I see no issue with hand held repeating crossbows. Just make them pay 3x the cost for their starting crossbows and call them repeating.

Suddenly RAW and 'logic' are the same. magical.

[Sartharina]

But they aren't Two Weapon Fighting. They're simply fighting with two weapons.
The problem is that they don't want to admit how truly ridiculous that is, because they're too interested in findnig exploits, loopholes and ways to game the system.
:amused:[Agreement]Even then - if you're not Two Weapon Fighting, you can't use your Bonus Action to make an attack at all! And Crossbow Expert requires you to make a melee attack, or at least be wielding a Melee Weapon, to make an attack with a hand crossbow.

Frankly, I think I'd let people dual-wield Hand Crossbows without the feat, because they're 'light' weapons, and ignore the rule that TWFing requires melee weapons. Crossbow Expert allows a person to go Pirate "Sword+GunCrossbow" style, enjoying the flexibility of a hand crossbow in one hand and greater damage of a Rapier in the other.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that Melee is less safe than Ranged combat, aside from higher damage output on both sides. Enemies have Ranged weapons/attacks too, and Hand Crossbow damage kinda sucks unless you're dual-wielding.
for those arguing about reloading with a crossbow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

now admittedly they are rather large irl, but this is a fantasy setting so I see no issue with hand held repeating crossbows. Just make them pay 3x the cost for their starting crossbows and call them repeating.

Suddenly RAW and 'logic' are the same. magical.

Repeating crossbows require two hands to use - one to operate the 'autoloader', and the other to stabilize+aim the crossbow. You reload two hand crossbows quickly by using two fingers of the other hand on each. :smalltongue:

[Vhaluus]

easy, reload like a shotgun in movies. throw crossbow, catch with same hand on the autoloader, flick arm to load, throw and catch again to fire.

[Shadow]

Let's move the dual crossbow discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367844-Rogue-Dual-Wield-Hand-Crossbows&p=18092012#post18092012) back to its home, shall we?

[Falka]

It's a variant, you should only allow it if you want everyone to go Human.

[VeliciaL]

If having a feat is really a problem, I really don't see why you couldn't just start the game at level 4...

[Deox]

Feats themselves are not inherently available to players. The same goes with multiclassing and the variant human. To encourage more non-humans, just don't allow feats/multiclassing/variant humans. Keep it simple.

I echo a previous suggestion of adding something to skills, or other proficiency.

[randomodo]

If they want to all play variant humans, let them. They're not as interested in RP it seems.

Playing human and RPing aren't mutually exclusive, nor does wanting to have a distinguishing feat at first level necessarily mean that someone isn't interested in RP. Indeed, the mechanics of having a feat can frequently dovetail nicely into roleplaying issues - for example, what pscyhology does the charcter have that makes her a sentinel? Why is your barbarian devout enough to have clerical spells?

[Gnaeus]

Honestly, there are lots of reasons not to play variant humans. My bard was a half elf because the 2 extra proficiencies (humans only get 1), the extra language, and the +2 cha boost were more helpful to me than any single feat. Cloth casters who want to wear armor, rogues who want to be halfling for easy hiding, gnome magic resistance, etc are all reasons to play non-variant humans. And I can't tell you the joy I felt when I sat down at one table and realized the entire party had darkvision. Yes, there are certain strong combos that take advantage of the early feat. But I think the generic human advantage in any build is much less than in previous editions, if it exists at all. That may, of course, change as they print more and better feats.

[Chen]

The builds are PLAYABLE, but they don't FEEL like the character in question. It can take over a month out of game to hit 4th level, during that time the player isn't playing the character they want to play. They're just waiting to be able to play that character.


This is pretty flimsy logic. If I want to play a Wizard who throws big fireballs around, I need to wait until 5th level. Is me saying "aw but my first level wizard has no good fireball spells, its not the character I want to play" reasonable? A monk can grapple but can't pin without a feat. It just means he's not a great grappler yet.

[ZeshinX]

This is pretty flimsy logic. If I want to play a Wizard who throws big fireballs around, I need to wait until 5th level. Is me saying "aw but my first level wizard has no good fireball spells, its not the character I want to play" reasonable? A monk can grapple but can't pin without a feat. It just means he's not a great grappler yet.

I find this to be the result of the Concept vs Build mentality towards character creation that sprung up around 3e. I'm sure it existed prior, but it seemed to gain serious traction around 3e.

I'm all for a little optimization and making sure you have yourself an effective contributor, but I find the Build mentality focuses more on the numbers first, then deals with a character concept.

I generally build the opposite way. Create a character concept, then see what I can do build-wise to support that concept. In many cases, it ends up being more a role-played concept as opposed to roll-played (meaning the concept is less about the class (or classes) and more about the personality elements). Some concepts work better with certain classes, and sometimes the concept + class combos inspire me to play classes I never thought I'd play.

Thankfully I've always had a DM that supports this approach fervently when I've played, and I support this approach when I DM. I don't punish the Build Optimizers, but I always lean game moments more towards those playing a concept.

5e seems to really encourage the Concept over Build. At least to me.

[Trasilor]

It seems the first game was very combat heavy - hence why the feat seemed so powerful. Move the game to less combat (or a more even split) and you will find that the guy who wields two weapons is powerless when trying to influence the local nobles. :smallamused:

[Racsel]

[Agreement]Even then - if you're not Two Weapon Fighting, you can't use your Bonus Action to make an attack at all! And Crossbow Expert requires you to make a melee attack, or at least be wielding a Melee Weapon, to make an attack with a hand crossbow.

Why people keep saying this? In crossbow expert is says attack with a weapon, it doesn't say anywhere "melee"

[Endarire]

Given the choice between waiting levels (plural) and getting what I want right now, chances are I'm going for right now unless there's an extreme drawback.

[captpike]

I'm done arguing your semantics. The intent is quite clear to anyone not trying to munchkin the TWF rules. There is already a thread about this, if not multiple. If you want to continue arguing about it, do it in one of those. This thread is about Humans and thier variant and fully able-to-be-ruled-as-unavailable racial option.

intent does not mater when talking about RAW. you might as well flip a coin, it would have as much impact as what you think they meant when they made a rule

[captpike]

You could always just make that a home-brew ruling in your games?

Regarding the rest of the thread:

And I'm not a fan of homogenizing things, in general. The races aren't necessarily meant to be "even", just different. You could play against class, just because you wanted to. Who cares. Just like the argument going on about mundane vs magical. It's not meant to be even. Just different. Play what's fun to you. If you have someone at your table who is Tier 1-ing the **** out of the room, it's more likely that they're just not out to play with people, and that's less on the game and more on the player.

If they want to all play variant humans, let them. They're not as interested in RP it seems.

or they are RPing a caster who wants to live, so he does the best he can to win every fight as easily and quickly as he can.

[captpike]

But they aren't Two Weapon Fighting. They're simply fighting with two weapons.
The problem is that they don't want to admit how truly ridiculous that is, because they're too interested in findnig exploits, loopholes and ways to game the system.
:amused:

the problem is that your one of those people who does not understand what RAW means. when I look at a rule I read it and try to understand what it says in the context of the system. when you read it, you try and understand what you think it should mean, then insist that is what it says, even if that is clearly not the case.

[Shadow]

And your problem is that you keep following me around and posting what basically amount to personal attacks rather than discussing the issue at hand, so welcome to my Ignore List.

[captpike]

{Scrubbed}

[Ramshack]

No, it doesn't.
If you attack with two weapons, you are two weapon fighting.
The feat says that you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding It does not say that you ignore all two weapon fighting requirements if you wield two hand crossbows.

Sorry Shadow you're wrong.

I e-mailed Wizards they confirmed you can dual wield light crossbows with the feat and your dex modifier is added as bonus damage with the off hand crossbow shot.

[Ramshack]

Hello Matt,

Thank you for contacting us at Wizards of the Coast.

For your first question. The rules as written do mean that you can have more than one fighting style, but you can't have the same one twice.

As for your second questions, you would be able to add your bonus modifiers as the second attack is still an attack and would follow the rules laid out on page 193-194 under "Making an Attack"

If you have any other questions or concerns, please let us know! We are happy to help.

Thank you and happy gaming!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.


To login to your account or update your question, please click here.

Sarah M.
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
Customer Question By CSS Web (Matt McCue) (08/24/2014 10:12 AM)
I have two questions reference rules as written in the Players Hand book for dnd 5th.

One for the fighter's fighting style ability it reads:

"You adopt a particular fighting style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can't take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again."

Does this mean you can only pick one fighting style ever, or does it mean you can't select the same fighting style more than once. But can have two different fighting styles.


Second question.

Crossbow Expert Feat.

"The feat states: When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

Is this bonus attack made with or without the bonus damage from the creatures dex modifier.

Thank you!

********************
Page Number: 72, 165
Book Name: 5th Edition Player's Handbook

[Ramshack]

Back to the original point of my post I did not think it would cause so much outrage to offer everyone a bonus feat at level 1, and remove the variant human option. So that people had the mechanical advantage they want and get to pick the race that they want. I felt it was a happy medium. Sure they will be stronger at level 1 as a whole. but a few extra goblins quickly fixes that problem.

I think I will try it out as no one has offered a compelling argument as to why it wouldn't be a fair compromise other than outrage that that's not how the rules were written. If it doesn't work I wont offer it in future sessions.

[Shadow]

Sorry Shadow you're wrong.

I e-mailed Wizards they confirmed you can dual wield light crossbows with the feat and your dex modifier is added as bonus damage with the off hand crossbow shot.

I contend that Sarah M is wrong, via Chris Tulach:


I would definitely suggest having a discussion with your DM if you have elements of your character that are open to rules interpretation, as others have said. It is not a priority for us to create a homogenous game experience.
Unless it appears in official documentation (like a FAQ or the Player's Guide), a ruling on general D&D rules (as opposed to Adventurers League specific rules) from someone in the administration is just a guideline from another DM.
This edition really puts a lot more weight on DM interpretation to make the game move along, and the D&D Adventurers League embraces that philosophy when possible.

Emphsis mine.
As I've been saying, 5e is more concerned with RAI and DM interprtation than it is with RAW.
As that answer was not part of official errata or any other official documantation, Sarah's ruling is just a guideline from another DM, and as such one that is not supported by the official documentaion.
So my interprtation of RAW is just as valid as yours, or hers for that matter.

[Ramshack]

This is the easiest fix you could possibly have: Don't allow variant humans. The PHB only made that option available because there's a tradition of allowing humans to take feats at level 1. hey knew it was broken, so they made it a "variant" rule. Don't use the variant rule. Trow it aside, say it's broken, and move on.

I;m not in the habit of taking things away from my players. I'd rather them all have access to the feat and play a race they like than feel obligated to play a human in order to get the feat. I really think offering a free feat to everyone at level 1 and doing away with the variant human option together works best. The players get the feat they want and the race they want.

[Ramshack]

I contend that Sarah M is wrong, via Chris Tulach:


Emphsis mine.
As I've been saying, 5e is more concerned with RAI and DM interprtation than it is with RAW.
As that answer was not part of official errata or any other official documantation, Sarah's ruling is just a guideline from another DM, and as such one that is not supported by the official documentaion.
So my interprtation of RAW is just as valid as yours, or hers for that matter.

That's a fair point, and as the DM you make the final rulings in your game. My players, other DMs in my area and I have agreed to defer to a Wizards of the Coast ruling via the above e-mail method when a disagreement over rules appear.

Though as a DM you ultimately make the rules at your table. To each their own.

[Cambrian]

I'll see how things go. If humans do become too popular I'll likely disallow the alternate human.

But there are many racial abilities that taken together are on the same level as feats: Getting proficiencies, resistances, Darkvision, a larger stat bonus (with stat buy a 14 rather than 15 is an extra 2 points to spend on another stat).

Someone as early as page one did bring up intangibles: Being a different race means you interact differently with other cultures. A dwarf for instance would be invaluable when dealing with other dwarves (at the same time possibly a hindrance when dealing with orcs, but usually then the answer is swords not words).

If you want to play a more durable version of a class then the dwarf is often a good option. It's a little strange that the dwarf might be best for making unique characters that are more melee oriented than generally envisioned. Even so with their stats and many bonuses there is enough there to want to play one as a Fighter or other martial class.

The elven trance can provide a unique niche for a character-- as a Ranger, Rogue, Druid, etc... you have the ability to scout or gather party supplies each morning while everyone still sleeps. The Druid could even get back and rest for an hour allowing them to freely use their wildshape in that time. A party with two elves can have someone stand guard all night and have everyone fully rested in 8 hours. Outside of that proficiencies (especially perception) are always appreciated as are darkvision and the sub-race bonuses.

Halflings have several strong abilities. Lucky for example is incredibly strong-- want to reduce critical failures from 1/20 to 1/400? Assuming a roll is 50/50 Lucky works out to be equivalent to a +0.5 modifier. It doesn't seem like much, but given it applies to all attacks, ability checks, and saves that is actually quite a huge mechanical advantage-- especially with bounded accuracy. It actually gets to be a better bonus the more likely you are to succeed on the roll-- if rather than 50% you were 75% likely to succeed then the effective bonus is +0.75. In other words with Lucky you're very reliable with your proficiencies. There is also the Nimbleness feature that can not be replicated with a feat.

This statement might be contentious: Gnome Cunning alone is better than a feat-- few things target those saves and are not spells. You might want a feat more than Gnome Cunning but compared to other defensive feats Gnome Cunning is more potent. The rest of the gnome is good but that ability alone is simply amazing. I want to nod to the flavor with the trinkets and small beasts abilities-- so much RP opportunity and a trinket or woodland could be a hilarious work around for some challenges.

Half-orcs are very much skewed towards melee combat, but they bring enough that players making a martial character shouldn't over-look them. Tons of RP potential there--though unfortunately, like drow and tieflings, there is a non-mechanical disadvantage on character interactions. I suppose the inspiration system could be put to good use if the player embraces role-playing with the stigma in mind.

I'm hopeful players will see the potential the non-human races bring. I'm happy if 1-2 players are non-human and don't feel crippled by their decision.

[Warskull]

I don't think Human Variant is necessarily too good.

They get a huge power boost at level 1, making them amazing for low level adventures. However, over time I think things swing back towards regular humans or non-human races.


Hill Dwarf gets +20HP over 20 levels, a non trivial boost on top of the +2 con bonus dwarves get.
Half-elves get a great stat spread, two free skills, and a mixed bag of goodies that is useful all game
Half-orcs basically get x3 crit
Halflings reroll 1s on d20 rolls, meaning they have to roll 1 twice in a roll to autofail attacks.
Normal humans get +6 stats, which is quite good in the long term


Human variants are super good at level 1, but the utility of the other races evens out and the perk of getting a free feat loses its relative power as the classes pick up their first feats. Think of it this way, if instead of getting a free feat at level 1 variants got a free feat at level 4, would you still play them?

HotDQ only goes up to level 7, when you mix in the follow up it should smooth out.

[edge2054]

So I've DM'd the Phandelver adventure and am now DMing the HoTDQ adventure.

One player went human in Phandelver and pretty much outhsined everyone else due to his feat selection for the first 3 levels. Now in HoTDQ everyone went human for the early feat.

I don't mind so much, I would do the same thing, but I dislike that everyone feels the other races are invalidated by the bonus feat humans get. I was thinking of allowing all races to start with a bonus feat and if someone wants to play a human that can start with +1 to all 6 attributes instead of the feat variant.

Do you think this would be fair / balanced will it upset the difficulty of HoTDQ?

I don't really think it's fair no. Darkvision, bonus proficiencies (sometimes weapon or armor proficiencies), +3 stat bonuses, sometimes free cantrips. Vs. 3 extra stat points.

Keep in mind too that your players may be taking human for RP reasons. There's not a lot of place for non-humans in FR. The pantheon, heroes, and geography are all human dominated. In twenty years of playing in the FR I've had one memorable non-human character and I swapped her for a human at about level 7.

Moving the campaign to a less human centric home brewed world might tip the balance. Of course it would be lot more work. Otherwise I'd say your players are reflecting the natural bias in the setting.

[Falka]

I advise giving an extra feat to everybody at level 1, I've tried it and it was nasty. It completely trivialises the game early on.

The variant Human kinda balances itself out because he lacks almost any other good trait besides the feat and the extra skill. I'd abuse the fact they don't have Darkvision.

[Timeras]

I'd abuse the fact they don't have Darkvision. So you want to punish players for playing Humans (even one who chose the "normal" Human). You could just honestly tell them not to play the variant Human. This would also save Halfling and Dragonborn characters the trouble of spending significant parts of the campaign helpless in the darkness because they share the weakness you are abusing without getting a feat.

[Falka]

So you want to punish players for playing Humans (even one who chose the "normal" Human). You could just honestly tell them not to play the variant Human. This would also save Halfling and Dragonborn characters the trouble of spending significant parts of the campaign helpless in the darkness because they share the weakness you are abusing without getting a feat.

No, I'd just want it to make a difference. Normally people do not pay much attention to vision rules, making the Human sound oh so awesome in all circumstances.

Just by applying rules in RAW, you'll soon notice that having vision is important. This is something that usually players forget, and I constantly track which kind of lighting they use and how far it reaches. Else why do you even give some races Darkvision? So you want the Humans to get the cake and eat it too?

[Timeras]

So you want the Humans to get the cake and eat it too? Of course not. You wrote that you would abuse the lack of darkvision. That is much more than just applying the rules about light and vision. Abusing suggests that you intentionally have huge parts of the campaign happen in darkness just because there are human characters.

[unwise]

I am experiencing the same thing as the OP. The only people who don't choose to be a human with a bonus feat are the classes who really don't have any particularly great options. Generally squishy casters. Even then, we did ended up with a dwarf wizard, as the player could not see the point in being a high elf and getting a free cantrip if they can already cast some, they chose the medium armor proficiency instead. I am yet to see an iconic race/class combination in this edition.

Given that level 3 was discussed as the base starting level of most characters, if I were the OP I would be rather reluctant to change the game balance around to accommodate level 1 characters. At level one you really don't have mechanical support for your character concept anyway, that is kind of intended. They are the apprentice tiers, if players don't feel like playing at that power level, I would just start them at higher level.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Exploring dungeons with torches is cool!

Sun rods can eat a ****.

***

IMO if feats are overpowered at low level but you still want feats just houserule some limited level scaling onto them. Like Heavy Armor Master reduces 1 point of damage per 2 levels to a maximum of 3 points.