| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 15:19:32
I just got Tasha's Cauldron of Everything yesterday from Amazon. I've looked at the very first section and I skipped ahead to wizards. I noticed bladesinging is no longer elven only (I'm not against this concept, as I feel it fits elves, but I can see other cultures developing the same idea of mixing fighting and casting without even having to "steal" the ability from elves). I also saw the order of scribes and loved it from a roleplay standpoint (the fact that I turned Sleyvas literally into a talking artifact spellbook with ties to the red knight and Deneir already probably has some play into that feeling).
However, in the very beginning, they do one thing with some optional rules that at first glance don't SEEM game breaking, but they would seem to have some serious balance issues to me. Essentially, you no longer are forcing certain races to have certain stat bonuses. Also, if a race gets some kind of proficiency, you can swap it for another proficiency (there's a table to go along with it). For the proficiency thing, some races get some proficiencies that generally aren't considered unbalancing because they'll also get the same proficiencies from most classes. So by default its not usually a major bonus, but if you KNOW you'll get that proficiency from your class, then suddenly it becomes a bonus. So, from this, what's the real advantage to being a human then?
To give an example here, let's compare the two versions of human to a mountain dwarf
HUMAN
+1 to 6 ability scores
VARIANT HUMAN
+1 to 2 ability scores
1 skill of your choice
1 feat of your choice
MOUNTAIN DWARF with Tasha's rules
+2 to any 2 different ability scores
Longer life
speed of 25, but also not affected by wearing heavy armor
darkvision
poison resistance and advantage on poison saves
proficiency with 2 simple and 2 martial weapons (which can be traded under the new rules for similar weapons or theoretically 4 tool proficiencies)
1 tool proficiency (which can be traded for a simple weapon proficiency)
stonecunning
proficiency with light and medium armor (which could be traded to be either light armor and a simple/martial weapon or tool OR alternatively no armor proficiciencies and 2 more simple/martial weapons or tools)
So, I have to ask, what's the advantage to being human in these rules. You have so many more options as a non-human race, and all the versatility of being human is given away. With the variant human, you gain a feat and a skill that you can put into anything, but at the same time, you're getting LESS ability score bonuses (i.e. the variant human only got a total of +2 whereas the dwarf got +4 in abilities and could put them wherever they wanted). Add into that that a lot of feats aren't that great.
So, back to the main question... aside from person feel, if a DM were to adopt these rules is there any reason a player would want to play a human? Since I'm betting half the characters and NPC's in the game are human, doesn't this seem like a severe oversight? I mean, if they were going to do this, shouldn't they provide some means to provide some means for humans to be a viable mechanical choice? I'm not against these rule options in theory (versatility is nice, though they could have set some kind of limits without making DM's have to come up with options...).
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 19 Dec 2020 : 07:40:10
Master Rupert,
quote:
My distrust of them does not extend so far as yours. My distrust is limited to their setting support, nothing else.
That is true. I've had some first hand experiences (one of them at Winter Fantasy 2000) that were pretty remarkably awful. I'm not looking to call out people by name from WotC (and I won't), but I'll say anyone familiar with the zoo debacle would be familiar with the cavalcade of insanity that followed and thus demonstrated the inherent willingness to... creatively... reimagine things. haha ;)
Best regards,
|
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 18 Dec 2020 : 14:00:55
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Rupert,
Damn, I'd love to see that too. Though, to be perfectly frank here, I would question there shared data anyhow. They lied through and through during 4e on releases about interest, etc. in the edition. Their motives would likely skew any report. It would be interesting nonetheless to see what they decide to put out for consumption.
Best regards,
I hardly believe they are lying here. Unlike in 4e, D&D is quite popular and selling like hot cakes right now. And as I said, the new generation of players has interests way different to those of the old players. For instance, dwarves represent certain stereotypes they don't identify with, while tieflings has an incredible appeal to non-binary players. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 18 Dec 2020 : 11:58:23
Kind of getting back to my feat idea above (this will be slightly off topic). My next campaign is likely to be in the Birthright setting. I'm going to allow humans their beginning feat and 'disallow' feats when gaining levels. By 'disallow' I mean that only ASIs will be gained with feats only being acquired either trough the Training action (and then only when I approve it) or gained through magic items that bestow such abilities on them (a magic helm that grants the Alertness feat, for instance). Of coarse, certain blood abilities may add a feat as well, but that's a separate mechanic. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 23:20:29
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Yeah, but you pay in groups. So, if you buy a book there, it benefits all the accounts associated (a DM and up to 5 players, IIRC). You may have the book in the flesh, but maybe your player don't, and so he got benefited. There is the bundle, but no fee. If you don't pay, you only get access to basic 5e (the free rules) -- and yes, you can use the free rules to create characters in the app, so I guess those count for the statistics.
And yes, it's only for people using their site, and yes, it's more numerous people than one may think. D&D Beyond is mostly used by new players (in contrast to us old timers, who prefer a pdf or the trusty pen & paper), who mostly are female and non-binary players (generally speaking), and as the percentage in the playerbase of the latter 2 rises (which is great!), the races they resonate more with (such as dragonborn and tieflings) will rise in popularity.
Hmm, actually it said you can share it with 12 people in 5 separate "campaigns", but then you have to HAVE 12 people at the time willing to share & pay, and the way groups come together .... I'd bet you'd be more likely to get the 5 at a time and then end up having someone leave the group and someone new come in and have to share to the new person all the old stuff without them paying anything. If someone played in multiple groups with multiple DM's (I did when I was younger, not anymore by a longshot) that might be a problem. But the way things have always gone when I was the DM, I had to provide the tools and the players might chip in a bit here and there (usually because some of my players couldn't afford the extras, not even new rulebooks as they came out, etc..). So, like for etools for 3.5e, I footed 75% of the cost, but if I recall, its add ons were only like $5 each or so, not $30, and they had group packages too for multiple books to lessen the cost. Granted, I had to install it on 3 of my PC's so everyone could use it (personal laptop, desktop, and an old work laptop), and this lets everyone install it on their personal system if they buy a subscription
Anyway, didn't really mean to turn this into any sort of gripe about the tool cost. I'm just hashing it out in my head as I type. It still seems kind of high, and as you note, it seems skewed by the user base that's using it. I'd suspect (without anything to back up what I'm about to say) that a lot of those folk aren't buying all the add ons, so the other optional races aren't even available to them in the program. Then again, they may all be buying just the wildemount and/or maybe the new theros book, since they have a lot of races in those. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 23:03:19
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Rupert,
Damn, I'd love to see that too. Though, to be perfectly frank here, I would question there shared data anyhow. They lied through and through during 4e on releases about interest, etc. in the edition. Their motives would likely skew any report. It would be interesting nonetheless to see what they decide to put out for consumption.
Best regards,
My distrust of them does not extend so far as yours. My distrust is limited to their setting support, nothing else. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 22:06:50
Master Rupert,
Damn, I'd love to see that too. Though, to be perfectly frank here, I would question there shared data anyhow. They lied through and through during 4e on releases about interest, etc. in the edition. Their motives would likely skew any report. It would be interesting nonetheless to see what they decide to put out for consumption.
Best regards,
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 21:41:57
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
And yes, it's only for people using their site, and yes, it's more numerous people than one may think. D&D Beyond is mostly used by new players (in contrast to us old timers, who prefer a pdf or the trusty pen & paper), who mostly are female and non-binary players (generally speaking), and as the percentage in the playerbase of the latter 2 rises (which is great!), the races they resonate more with (such as dragonborn and tieflings) will rise in popularity.
Not contesting anything... Just wondering, has WotC shared usage demographics? I rarely go to their site, any more, so I'd not seen any kind of breakdown like that. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 20:06:55
Yeah, but you pay in groups. So, if you buy a book there, it benefits all the accounts associated (a DM and up to 5 players, IIRC). You may have the book in the flesh, but maybe your player don't, and so he got benefited. There is the bundle, but no fee. If you don't pay, you only get access to basic 5e (the free rules) -- and yes, you can use the free rules to create characters in the app, so I guess those count for the statistics.
And yes, it's only for people using their site, and yes, it's more numerous people than one may think. D&D Beyond is mostly used by new players (in contrast to us old timers, who prefer a pdf or the trusty pen & paper), who mostly are female and non-binary players (generally speaking), and as the percentage in the playerbase of the latter 2 rises (which is great!), the races they resonate more with (such as dragonborn and tieflings) will rise in popularity. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 19:47:48
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
We got an updated top 5 from D&D Beyond here (https://www.geeknative.com/103964/the-most-popular-dd-races-in-dd-beyond-in-2020/):
1. Human
2. Half-Elf
3. Dragonborn
4. Tiefling
5. Half-Orc
It seems 2020 saw a rise in the popularity of non-Tolkienian races, but humans are still top 1. This is going to change post-Tasha's, surely, with dwarves entering the top 5 again thanks to min/maxers
So, its based on only people using D&D beyond to make their characters? I don't, and noone I know does (granted the pool of local gamers I deal with is maybe all of 20 people). Everyone I know either does it with pen and paper or has some PDF they found that helps them quickly do it. So, out of curiosity, from the folks here, how many actually use the D&D beyond app to make their characters? Also, since you can create unlimited characters, if one person were to create dozens of dragonborn just to skew their results, would it?
I've never actually checked out the app until right now. Do you really have to pay like 30 bucks to get access to a book in their software that you may have already bought a real copy of (I just randomly clicked the Theros book)? I see there's some legendary bundle for $760 to have access to 40 books. Plus an annual fee on top of that. I'd be intrigued to try it out, but that's steep entry. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 19:40:50
Or, at the very least, humans are going to drop off completely as they'll be supplanted by the custom lineage with its darvkvision and +2 stat bonus. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 19:36:51
Yes, it will change post-Tahsa's, but I'm positive what we'll see is the Custom Lineage taking the #1 spot (What? I can take a feat, keep darkvision and look like whatever my favorite race is? Sign me up!) |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 17:30:00
We got an updated top 5 from D&D Beyond here (https://www.geeknative.com/103964/the-most-popular-dd-races-in-dd-beyond-in-2020/):
1. Human
2. Half-Elf
3. Dragonborn
4. Tiefling
5. Half-Orc
It seems 2020 saw a rise in the popularity of non-Tolkienian races, but humans are still top 1. This is going to change post-Tasha's, surely, with dwarves entering the top 5 again thanks to min/maxers
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 12 Dec 2020 : 00:38:38
Senior Scribe keftiu,
Nice! I wasn't sure what the timeframe would be on the search results! :) I was hedging at 6.1 seconds myself. Google was performing well on that search! :)
Best regards,
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 21:36:57
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I didn't read the entire thread after my last post but I came up with this afterwards: Every 5th level a human can gain +1 to an ability score or one benefit from a standard feat. Most feats have 3 benefits to offer. This would mean that, by 15th level, they could have acquired another bonus feat. By 20th level they could have 4 extra ability points (2 ASIs). But, given that the idea behind humans is drive/ambition and adaptability...they can mix/match what they want from various feats to build something really unique.
Example:
5th Level - +5 bonus to Initiative (Alert feat)
10th level - +5 bonus to passive Perception and passive Investigation (Observant feat)
15th level - Advantage on concentration checks (War Caster feat)
20th level - Increase speed by 10 feet (Mobile feat)
This isn't perfect, of course. Some feats may have to be disqualified or modified from this. For instance, Ritual Caster really only has one benefit so the DM either needs to disqualify it from this house rule or allow only the initial rituals with no chance to learn more later.
I think this is doable without being too powerful, especially when one considers that most play is over before reaching 15th level.
Yeah, this would need some work only because of the "how do you break out the feats" thing, but its working towards the right direction. "Choosing their own skill" isn't as powerful as many folks thing (especially a lot of folks who play older versions and haven't ever built a character in 5e). Its pretty easy to do that given the background system, which basically says "if your background gives you a skill that you get from elsewhere, just choose something else". Then when you consider that most backgrounds that fit a class also offer similar skills, you can see where its pretty easy to get a skill that you can freely pick from. So, given that a lot of races get some skill as a bonus, if they want a free to choose skill, they just need to pick a background that gives a skill that matches one they get from their class or their race already.
Maybe straight up a second feat at 1st level or possibly proficiency in a second skill (or maybe the second feat comes in at 4th level character instead of right up front). Actually, I think I favor the feat over an additional skill, because if they want the skill, there's a feat to get a skill. That puts a lot of their power up front mind you, but then so do a lot of the races as well (i.e. having darkvision from the start is very helpful, so is having cantrips like minor illusion or halfling's ability to hide that's made so much easier). Given that most other races have a total of +3 bonus, also giving humans a +2 in one of their two abilities and +1 in the other to match at the start would make sense. This gives them a lot more versatility, makes them a valid choice again. I still feel for dragonborn after having looked at them, but given that the majority of players are doing humans, NPC's are humans, etc... I think they need to worry more about balancing for humans. Separately, they could also redesign dragonborn as well. |
| keftiu |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 21:19:00
Took four seconds to google “D&D Beyond most popular races.”
https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-d-beyond-updated-character-popularity.656950/ |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 21:13:47
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I'm still wondering why humans need a mechanical edge to be relevant lorewise... I mean, really, there is a need to repeat that dragonborn are among the top 5 most played race, and they are mechanically the weakest race in D&D 5e so far?
I'd actually be very surprised by that statistic, and I wonder how they even remotely came across it. There are so many households that don't report to WotC, that just getting the data might be hard. Not saying they aren't a popular race, but top 5 seems high. I'd expect human, dwarf, elf, half-elf and then that last spot would be hard to pick between halfling, gnome, genasi, aasimar, tiefling, dragonborn, minotaur, centaur, aarakocra, tabaxi, etc... amongst the published races. Did they limit it to the PHB? If they're pulling it from a site, it might be skewed by the people that go to said site (for instance, I know a lot of folks didn't go to WotC forums even when they had them, because of a number of reasons). It can also be skewed by how many people responded. In my own 5e games, noone has been interested in playing a dragonborn, though I was interested in their history and culture from novels and such. Still, I know they have a following, and I can understand why. Its actually kind of odd for me that I have played a squirrel (kercpa) and am interested in a lot of animal humanoids (wemics, tabaxi, bearfolk/urskans, aarakocra that look like parrots, centaurs and a size medium hybsil, etc...) and I haven't really considered playing a dragonborn. I guess in my mind I think of them as NPC's or too alien, since most of the things I'd play are either mammalian like or bird like.
It almost certainly is drawing on D&D Beyond's data. There's a lot of furries out there, and a lot of non-furry fans who want their character to look more distinct than "fancy human," with dragonborn as the least-human race in the PHB.
Can you point me to the actual data source? I found one thing online that said that dragonborn were the 5th most used, and it was using data from a reddit poll that had about 80 respondents, and even at that, the "5th" spot was shared with another race. So data can be vastly skewed given that its only folks going to reddit (who might share interests), a small pool, etc..I'm not at all opposed to the idea, I would just be surprised by the statistic, given what I've seen and heard from folks. Then again, the number of animal/bird races provides a lot more different options, so that may drive that particular group down (whereas for reptilians there's lizardfolk and dragonborn.... maybe I could find kobold somewhere if I looked besides a third party... not sure if there's any others). |
| keftiu |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 08:56:59
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I'm still wondering why humans need a mechanical edge to be relevant lorewise... I mean, really, there is a need to repeat that dragonborn are among the top 5 most played race, and they are mechanically the weakest race in D&D 5e so far?
I'd actually be very surprised by that statistic, and I wonder how they even remotely came across it. There are so many households that don't report to WotC, that just getting the data might be hard. Not saying they aren't a popular race, but top 5 seems high. I'd expect human, dwarf, elf, half-elf and then that last spot would be hard to pick between halfling, gnome, genasi, aasimar, tiefling, dragonborn, minotaur, centaur, aarakocra, tabaxi, etc... amongst the published races. Did they limit it to the PHB? If they're pulling it from a site, it might be skewed by the people that go to said site (for instance, I know a lot of folks didn't go to WotC forums even when they had them, because of a number of reasons). It can also be skewed by how many people responded. In my own 5e games, noone has been interested in playing a dragonborn, though I was interested in their history and culture from novels and such. Still, I know they have a following, and I can understand why. Its actually kind of odd for me that I have played a squirrel (kercpa) and am interested in a lot of animal humanoids (wemics, tabaxi, bearfolk/urskans, aarakocra that look like parrots, centaurs and a size medium hybsil, etc...) and I haven't really considered playing a dragonborn. I guess in my mind I think of them as NPC's or too alien, since most of the things I'd play are either mammalian like or bird like.
It almost certainly is drawing on D&D Beyond's data. There's a lot of furries out there, and a lot of non-furry fans who want their character to look more distinct than "fancy human," with dragonborn as the least-human race in the PHB. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 08:46:47
I didn't read the entire thread after my last post but I came up with this afterwards: Every 5th level a human can gain +1 to an ability score or one benefit from a standard feat. Most feats have 3 benefits to offer. This would mean that, by 15th level, they could have acquired another bonus feat. By 20th level they could have 4 extra ability points (2 ASIs). But, given that the idea behind humans is drive/ambition and adaptability...they can mix/match what they want from various feats to build something really unique.
Example:
5th Level - +5 bonus to Initiative (Alert feat)
10th level - +5 bonus to passive Perception and passive Investigation (Observant feat)
15th level - Advantage on concentration checks (War Caster feat)
20th level - Increase speed by 10 feet (Mobile feat)
This isn't perfect, of course. Some feats may have to be disqualified or modified from this. For instance, Ritual Caster really only has one benefit so the DM either needs to disqualify it from this house rule or allow only the initial rituals with no chance to learn more later.
I think this is doable without being too powerful, especially when one considers that most play is over before reaching 15th level. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 30 Nov 2020 : 07:03:50
Master Zeromaru X,
Well, I don't think they (or any other character) needs the mechanical edge. I do think that lore and mechanics should often be separate from one another. :)
Best regards,
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Nov 2020 : 00:39:49
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Aside from Breath Weapon being pretty boring, what fixes do they need? At least, compared to what they were in 4th Edition?
They only have a pretty weak breath weapon and a situational damage resistance, that I feel it is the equivalent to 4e's draconic heritage (that gave them +CON mod to healing surge value).
And they have nothing more. They lack any skill proficiencies, that other races have in 5e. In 4e, dragonborn had a +2 bonus to history and intimidation, so I could give them a proficiency in history only, if giving it too intimidation feels to powerful, as it's combat applicable.
I do like that. Might have to use that in our games as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
They also lack an ability to replace "dragonborn fury" (+2 to attack rolls when bloodied). 5e orcs have their critical hit stuffs, so dragonborn can have something similar.
Unfortunately there's no "bloodied" condition in 5E or really, anything equivalent. Maybe they could have advantage on their next attack against someone who hit them in a previous round (sort of like Hellish Rebuke's ability)?
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for the vHuman, two +1s, an extra Skill proficiency, and a free Feat is still pretty decent. When you're talking about adding a new ASI to that, do you mean an additional +2 / two +1s? Or simply just another +1?
Just another +1.
I like it. I might have to add that to them as well, so they get a Skill Proficiency, a bonus feat, and a +2/+1 stat allocation. Really, the one who suffers the most from these changes of Tasha's is the normal Human. They really get absolutely nothing here. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Nov 2020 : 17:54:16
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I'm still wondering why humans need a mechanical edge to be relevant lorewise... I mean, really, there is a need to repeat that dragonborn are among the top 5 most played race, and they are mechanically the weakest race in D&D 5e so far?
I'd actually be very surprised by that statistic, and I wonder how they even remotely came across it. There are so many households that don't report to WotC, that just getting the data might be hard. Not saying they aren't a popular race, but top 5 seems high. I'd expect human, dwarf, elf, half-elf and then that last spot would be hard to pick between halfling, gnome, genasi, aasimar, tiefling, dragonborn, minotaur, centaur, aarakocra, tabaxi, etc... amongst the published races. Did they limit it to the PHB? If they're pulling it from a site, it might be skewed by the people that go to said site (for instance, I know a lot of folks didn't go to WotC forums even when they had them, because of a number of reasons). It can also be skewed by how many people responded. In my own 5e games, noone has been interested in playing a dragonborn, though I was interested in their history and culture from novels and such. Still, I know they have a following, and I can understand why. Its actually kind of odd for me that I have played a squirrel (kercpa) and am interested in a lot of animal humanoids (wemics, tabaxi, bearfolk/urskans, aarakocra that look like parrots, centaurs and a size medium hybsil, etc...) and I haven't really considered playing a dragonborn. I guess in my mind I think of them as NPC's or too alien, since most of the things I'd play are either mammalian like or bird like. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 29 Nov 2020 : 05:59:51
I'm still wondering why humans need a mechanical edge to be relevant lorewise... I mean, really, there is a need to repeat that dragonborn are among the top 5 most played race, and they are mechanically the weakest race in D&D 5e so far? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Nov 2020 : 03:44:11
Let's not have that argument again, please. |
| Azar |
Posted - 29 Nov 2020 : 00:58:11
The "racist" argument is beyond me; I and the people I play with can separate reality from fiction (and vice versa) just fine. Anyone who believes that the inclusion of standard-issue drow or orcs is automatically indicative of real-world prejudice needs to thoroughly examine their assumption. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 28 Nov 2020 : 23:44:26
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Aside from Breath Weapon being pretty boring, what fixes do they need? At least, compared to what they were in 4th Edition?
They only have a pretty weak breath weapon and a situational damage resistance, that I feel it is the equivalent to 4e's draconic heritage (that gave them +CON mod to healing surge value).
And they have nothing more. They lack any skill proficiencies, that other races have in 5e. In 4e, dragonborn had a +2 bonus to history and intimidation, so I could give them a proficiency in history only, if giving it too intimidation feels to powerful, as it's combat applicable.
They also lack an ability to replace "dragonborn fury" (+2 to attack rolls when bloodied). 5e orcs have their critical hit stuffs, so dragonborn can have something similar.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for the vHuman, two +1s, an extra Skill proficiency, and a free Feat is still pretty decent. When you're talking about adding a new ASI to that, do you mean an additional +2 / two +1s? Or simply just another +1?
Just another +1. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Nov 2020 : 14:55:37
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Dragonborn have been the neglected race of 5e since the beginning. This optional rule actually benefits them, albeit if only a little, lol. As a mainly dragonborn player, I've never used the official dragonborn, but some fanmade fix I found in a forum, lol.
And no, their goals aren't about balance since at least, last year. Or more.
My fix to this particular issue would be to always go Vhuman, and give them an extra ASI. That would balance them a little.
Aside from Breath Weapon being pretty boring, what fixes do they need? At least, compared to what they were in 4th Edition? Honestly I'd love to see some sort of Breath Marking ability like we got in 4E! The ability to Mark many enemies in an area with that would be awesome.
As for the vHuman, two +1s, an extra Skill proficiency, and a free Feat is still pretty decent. When you're talking about adding a new ASI to that, do you mean an additional +2 / two +1s? Or simply just another +1? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 28 Nov 2020 : 14:44:00
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Arcanamach,
quote:
But regardless, I completely agree they should have done something for humans to make them more attractive.
Out of curiosity, why do you think they made it to where human's are not that attractive to play?
Best regards,
read the first entry into all this. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 28 Nov 2020 : 05:28:20
Master Arcanamach,
quote:
But regardless, I completely agree they should have done something for humans to make them more attractive.
Out of curiosity, why do you think they made it to where human's are not that attractive to play?
Best regards,
|
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 22:44:39
Yeah I've seen that before. I think that stat comes mostly from organized play. In the last 3-4 groups I've played in (over the past 4 years) I've seen very few humans played. I don't know if that corresponds to most tables or not, but it's been my experience. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 00:50:08
Weird. If you don't see humans in play, perhaps something changed in your group, because humans are the most used race in 5e, and by wide margin compared to the others.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dd-survey-results-summary
|
|
|
