Suggested Alternative - Feats at 1st level

[NeoSeraphi]

Lots of tables enjoy the optional feat system and the feats offered in this edition allow for a good amount of customization. That said, a lot of people on this forum are suggesting variant human as a starting race specifically for the bonus feat at level 1.

To avoid the constant humans at my table that I saw at 3.PF, I implemented this rule which my players love:

Every character gets a feat (not an ASI) at 1st level. The variant human is not available as a race.

This prevents my players from feeling like they are delaying their build by not playing human, and also lets early characters have more interesting options.

I offer this suggestion to DMs using the optional feat system.

[DireSickFish]

How has this worked out in play? Do you find the PC's to be significantly stronger? do you have to ramp up challenges?

[NeoSeraphi]

On the contrary. I've found that with out feats, classes like fighter, ranger and paladin have very little to do until 3rd level. Feats help them keep up, with full casters.

[Easy_Lee]

I like the idea. PCs will be a little bit stronger, but party balance and specific character builds would have a much greater impact on party power than the single feat. As long as you don't break the stat caps or bounded accuracy, it should be well within the DM's ability to scale encounter power levels accordingly (add a mob here, add a feat or spell there, etc).

[EvanescentHero]

Do you limit the feats they can choose at all?

I think variant human is too powerful and so have disallowed it at my table, but maybe I'll play with this rule in my next campaign.

[Gwendol]

I like it a lot. It doesn't seem overpowering.

[themaque]

Very tempted to try this, someday since my idea queue is pretty long already.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/47339252.jpg

how has it worked in practice?

[Easy_Lee]

Do you limit the feats they can choose at all?

I think variant human is too powerful and so have disallowed it at my table, but maybe I'll play with this rule in my next campaign.

Out of all of the feats, the only one I personally limit is lucky. This one feat is better than the indomitable fighter feature, even after indomitable scales up. That's way too strong, so I just take out lucky.

Beyond that, polearm master and crossbow expert are exceptional, but really just enable their respective build options. So I think you'd be fine with just kicking out lucky if you're going to kick out anything.

[pwykersotz]

I might do something like this in the future, but for now I've banned Variant Human. I feel like there's enough going on at low levels to not need the extra feat, and it cuts down on character creation effort to have one less thing to bother with.

Once my players and myself get a little bored with the norms though, this might be fun to try.

[Flashy]

I also do this and I love it. Wouldn't go back.

I've found that rather than making characters substantially more powerful it tends to make them substantially more distinct (especially for the first few levels).

It means that builds that rely on feats can be on from the start, rather than having to wait two levels for similar characters with different weapon combat styles to be meaningfully different from one another.

[Daishain]

I've suggested doing much the same on a few occaisons. Only catch I see is that would move people from playing almost only humans to almost never playing humans. The standard human is very much a meh option save for a few MAD builds aiming for lots of 14's, especially when comparing it to the half elf

At the same time, humanity is supposed to be the dominant race in most campaign worlds, having them underrepresented as far as heroes go doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suspect that this would need to be paired with adjustments to the human's racial features that make them an attractive option without the feat.

[NeoSeraphi]

Limiting the feats chosen (like Polearm Master or Sharpshooter) may be necessary, but I didn't think so.

Clerics starting the game with War Caster just lets them not worry about their shields, for example. The monk in the group took Athlete and feels more free to take Charger later. My warrior got Heavy Armor Master, and my knowledge cleric got Ritual Caster.

They're all happier.

[Kryx]

I've always been temped to shrink feats to half the size and offer a feat or 1 ability score increase at 2,4,6,8,10,etc.

It's a double edged sword though - it encourages more customization, but also more min-maxing.

[NeoSeraphi]

I've suggested doing much the same on a few occaisons. Only catch I see is that would move people from playing almost only humans to almost never playing humans. The standard human is very much a meh option save for a few MAD builds aiming for lots of 14's, especially when comparing it to the half elf

At the same time, humanity is supposed to be the dominant race in most campaign worlds, having them underrepresented as far as heroes go doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suspect that this would need to be paired with adjustments to the human's racial features that make them an attractive option without the feat.

I personally could care less if humans are an unattractive option as long as they aren't crowding out every other option.

In that case, how about humans get to increase 2 scores by +1, a free skill proficiency, and a weapon proficiency of choice?

[Flashy]

Limiting the feats chosen (like Polearm Master or Sharpshooter) may be necessary, but I didn't think so.

I entirely agree with this. Polearm Master and Sharpshooter are powerful feats but when you're allowing players to build a feat into their starting setup they aren't remarkably more powerful than anything else. I haven't had any difficulty at all with players outshining one another in combat because of this system.

[Spacehamster]

I personally could care less if humans are an unattractive option as long as they aren't crowding out every other option.

In that case, how about humans get to increase 2 scores by +1, a free skill proficiency, and a weapon proficiency of choice?

Would put three ability scores with +1 and a skill, ditch the weapon prof. This makes sense since humans are supposed to be versatile and a +1 in 3 stats
can be helpful if said human wants to multiclass. :) +1 in CON and +1 on the two classes main abilityscore. :)

[NeoSeraphi]

Would put three ability scores with +1 and a skill, ditch the weapon prof. This makes sense since humans are supposed to be versatile and a +1 in 3 stats
can be helpful if said human wants to multiclass. :) +1 in CON and +1 on the two classes main abilityscore. :)

Interesting. The versatility was the human's main draw in 2E. Instead of +1 to 3 scores, what about +1 to 2 scores, free skill proficiency, and the ability to completely ignore requirements for multiclassing?

[Spacehamster]

Interesting. The versatility was the human's main draw in 2E. Instead of +1 to 3 scores, what about +1 to 2 scores, free skill proficiency, and the ability to completely ignore requirements for multiclassing?

Both would work nicely but think that removing the req would set up for some completely bonkers builds(which by all means can be fun ofc)
Just thought +1 on 3 stats would make sense since a total of +3 is the most common amount. :)

[Easy_Lee]

Would put three ability scores with +1 and a skill, ditch the weapon prof. This makes sense since humans are supposed to be versatile and a +1 in 3 stats
can be helpful if said human wants to multiclass. :) +1 in CON and +1 on the two classes main abilityscore. :)

That makes the human pretty universally inferior to half elves, though. I'd say the current human, with its straight +1 and extra skill, is a perfectly valid choice. Variant human is better, though adding a bonus feat for everyone at level 1 would make variant human comparatively less powerful even if it was kept around. Further, in the case of certain builds such as monks, a +1 across the board is useful.

If I was going to change humans in any way, I would add quick to master where they learn new languages and skills faster than other races, as per the standard rules for learning those things.

[Daishain]

Interesting. The versatility was the human's main draw in 2E. Instead of +1 to 3 scores, what about +1 to 2 scores, free skill proficiency, and the ability to completely ignore requirements for multiclassing?
Most people planning to multiclass are going to meet the requirements anyways, also, +1 to 2 scores and a free skill is something the half elf has, in addition to several other features. Again, players end up with having no reason to pick it.

If going in this direction, how about gaining extra proficiencies the first time they multiclass? Say a human sorcerer multiclasses with fighter. Instead of medium armor and almost nothing else, they get heavy armor, a single skill off the fighter list, and one of the two save proficiencies. (debating on the save, that might be a tad too strong)


Both would work nicely but think that removing the req would set up for some completely bonkers builds(which by all means can be fun ofc)
Just thought +1 on 3 stats would make sense since a total of +3 is the most common amount. :)
+3 is indeed the most common amount, but it typically comes paired with five or so other items. Resistances, free skills, extra senses, even free spell casting.

Let me put it this way, many people, myself included, think standard human is too weak to seriously consider for any build. This is in spite of it having a total ability bonus of +6

[NeoSeraphi]

Most people planning to multiclass are going to meet the requirements anyways, also, +1 to 2 scores and a free skill is something the half elf has, in addition to several other features. Again, players end up with having no reason to pick it.

If going in this direction, how about gaining extra proficiencies the first time they multiclass? Say a human sorcerer multiclasses with fighter. Instead of medium armor and almost nothing else, they get heavy armor, a single skill off the fighter list, and one of the two save proficiencies. (debating on the save, that might be a tad too strong)

That seems like it'd be overly complicated, since it would require you to draw up a list for each of 12 classes.


Variant human is better, though adding a bonus feat for everyone at level 1 would make variant human comparatively less powerful even if it was kept around

Actually, I believe that if Variant Human was kept alongside the bonus feat at 1st level we'd see a lot of variant humans grabbing Lucky and Resilient early, both of which make it harder for the DM to deal with them at early levels. More of a pain than anything, which is why I banned it.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, I believe that if Variant Human was kept alongside the bonus feat at 1st level we'd see a lot of variant humans grabbing Lucky and Resilient early, both of which make it harder for the DM to deal with them at early levels. More of a pain than anything, which is why I banned it.

Seems like the real problem is the lucky feat, not variant humans. Already said how I feel about that feat.

[FightStyles]

Well, non-variant humans recieve +6 to stats total, however, that is rather underwhelming. Therefore, allow them to choose where to put those ASI's but limit them to a max +2 in one stat. Therefore, they could go (+2, +2, +2, +0, +0, +0), (+2, +2, +1, +1, +0, +0), (+2, +1, +1, +1, +1, +0), or (+1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1).

It's versatile and desirable while keeping up with the flexibility of a human.

[DanyBallon]

Instead of giving a full feat at 1st level for everyone, what about creating something equivalent to traits in PF? In addition to backround, it would allow more customisation without stepping onto the variant human or risking everyone picking the Lucky feat at 1st level?
For sure, this will requires a lot more work, but there's already a multitude of traits in PF that could be converted.

[NeoSeraphi]

Instead of giving a full feat at 1st level for everyone, what about creating something equivalent to traits in PF? In addition to backroug, it would allow more customisation without stepping onto the variant human or risking everyone picking the Lucky feat at 1st level?
For sure, this will requires a lot more work, but there's already a multitude of traits in PF that could be converted.

The large majority of traits in PF are skill bonuses and situational attack bonuses. 5E tries to avoid situational +1s and thus the two systems are incompatible.

Edit: Additionally, this is mostly what the background system is. A trait system on top of the background system would solve no problems and would be redundant.

[themaque]

Actually, I believe that if Variant Human was kept alongside the bonus feat at 1st level we'd see a lot of variant humans grabbing Lucky and Resilient early, both of which make it harder for the DM to deal with them at early levels. More of a pain than anything, which is why I banned it.

While I can see the point or contention with Lucky, I don't see resilient being that bad. It's just makes him harder to kill.

[Person_Man]

I personally would not suggest giving a free feat at 1st level, especially if you're starting at level 1 and any of the players have not played 5E before. Many of the best Feats highly encourage tactical specialization. (Crossbow Expert, Sentinel, Heavy Weapon Master, etc). You don't want a brand new player to lock themselves into a specific tactic before they've had a chance to try out the rules for a while.

[MrStabby]

How about Humans get +1 to 4 stats of their choice and the Bard's Jack of all trades ability?

Yes it would be less good to be a human bard then, but I don't see many of those anyway.

[Bharaeth]

If people are looking for alternative incentives for the variant human without giving a bonus feat, what about giving them a 'Heroic Effort' trait, like in 4e Essentials? Something like 1/day they get to add +3 to a dice roll, after they have seen the roll but before the results are announced? That was quite powerful, and kinda represents humans' versatility and gumption.

Or just giving them a 3rd save proficiency?

Either would be powerful and interesting, and not step on others' toes. Although if they have the extra save proficiency, and then later try to get Resilient, it might get silly...

Or just an extra +1 to saves?

[calebrus]

Every character gets a feat (not an ASI) at 1st level. The variant human is not available as a race.

In my game, I made up some house rules on character creation, and ASIs work differently.
An ASI can be used for: +2 to one stat
+1 to two stats
+1 to one stat and one Minor feat
one Major feat
Standard array.
At creation, every character gets one ASI, but the initial ASI cannot be used for +2 to one stat and must be used on one of the other three options available.

I split feats up between Major and Minor feats.
Major feats remain as is.
Minor feats have had any +1 stat benefits removed. There are a couple of exceptions, such as the Armor feats, which retain the +1 Str/Dex and are actually Major feats because of this.
Minor feats now come with a +1 to any stat of your choice. This makes many of the less desirable feats much, much more desirable.
It ended up being somewhat even of a split between them. I think I had somewhere around 24 Major and 18 Minor, or something like that. I'd have to check to be certain.

This works really well for us.
It allows some customization at lower levels by offering another +1 to a stat or two. And standard array means that extra point or two doesn't unbalance anything or get their stats too high earlier than the game plans for.
It allows for a character to get a feat that they really want without needing to be human at the cost of one or both of those extra +1s.

edit:
I have banned the human variant, but I altered the base human to keep them a legitimate option.
A human gets:
+2 to one ability of their choice
+1 to three ability scores of their choice
one extra skill or tool proficiency of their choice

[PotatoGolem]

I've done this for the campaign I DM, and it's really helped to set characters apart and allow them to have very distinct fighting styles from the beginning. It also means that not everyone plays human characters, which is nice. I gave humans extra skill and tool proficiencies, to keep the whole "jack of all trades" vibe from 3.x that my group likes, but other fixes could work too.

[Easy_Lee]

I personally would not suggest giving a free feat at 1st level, especially if you're starting at level 1 and any of the players have not played 5E before. Many of the best Feats highly encourage tactical specialization. (Crossbow Expert, Sentinel, Heavy Weapon Master, etc). You don't want a brand new player to lock themselves into a specific tactic before they've had a chance to try out the rules for a while.

I can definitely +1 the sentiment here. Many of my players took more than a few levels to figure out their character builds. Indeed, some of them took the lucky feat and never used it, because they forgot that they had it or didn't understand how it worked.

Knowing your players is important in any game, and that includes realizing that their grasp of game mechanics is often lesser than your own. Giving them too many options early on, particularly this kind which can lock them in to a specific character type, can be problematic.

With this in mind, holding off on the bonus feat, if you plan to give one, may be a good idea. This would be particularly appreciated by barbarians, monks, and the like who may not otherwise get feats at all.

[DireSickFish]

Playing the standard way I have not noticed much human dominance int he games I've been in. Half Elf seems more represented this edition, but other than that we have all kinds of crazy races.

[Chronos]

I've toyed with the idea myself, except leaving in variant humans (who would then get two feats at 1st). They would still be a strong choice for any class, but feats for everyone would dilute the overwhelming advantage they have. It would certainly make the PCs more powerful, but I think WotC aimed a bit low on the power level in this edition, anyway. And casters (who are more powerful than mundanes) get less benefit from feats, so it'd help a bit with balance, too.


Quoth Easy_Lee:

Further, in the case of certain builds such as monks, a +1 across the board is useful.
Beg pardon? Monks are one of the least MAD classes in the game. They have no need whatsoever for Int or Cha, and very little for Str (even if you want to go shoving, you can just use Open Hand Technique).

[Easy_Lee]

Beg pardon? Monks are one of the least MAD classes in the game. They have no need whatsoever for Int or Cha, and very little for Str (even if you want to go shoving, you can just use Open Hand Technique).

The reason would be if one wanted to build a character who can succeed on any save. In that (admittedly limited) case, regular human can be beneficial if one has the right point buy or rolled stats. Such a character might even consider a monk 14 / paladin 6 build. But I'm just being theoretical.

[Spacehamster]

The reason would be if one wanted to build a character who can succeed on any save. In that (admittedly limited) case, regular human can be beneficial if one has the right point buy or rolled stats. Such a character might even consider a monk 14 / paladin 6 build. But I'm just being theoretical.

Paladin 6 Shadow monk 14 would be pretty cool. :) Would it work with dueling style, use short sword in mainhand for the monk and use offhand for flurry of blows bonus attacks?

[Easy_Lee]

Paladin 6 Shadow monk 14 would be pretty cool. :)

With the mage slayer feat? Hell yeah! Not to get too far off topic =)

[Vogonjeltz]

That makes the human pretty universally inferior to half elves, though. I'd say the current human, with its straight +1 and extra skill, is a perfectly valid choice. Variant human is better, though adding a bonus feat for everyone at level 1 would make variant human comparatively less powerful even if it was kept around. Further, in the case of certain builds such as monks, a +1 across the board is useful.

If I was going to change humans in any way, I would add quick to master where they learn new languages and skills faster than other races, as per the standard rules for learning those things.

Worse, the way things are budgeted, some feats are worth half an ASI some are worth a full ASI.

Human (standard) gets +6 ability score points, or 3 ASI.
Human (variant) gets +2 ability score points, or 1 ASI + 1 feat (also 1 ASI in value), and 1 skill proficiency (or 1/3 of the Skilled feat).

Arguably the variant is actually weaker, in terms of point value. The only actual benefit is being able to refocus the least beneficial ability scores bonus points into things that synergize better with your character concept. Otherwise it's actually a net loss.

Spacehamster's proposal would be: +3 ability score points (or 1.5 ASI) + 1 skill (.75 ASI) + 1 weapon proficiency (.125 ASI)

This means the SHP is worth 2.375 ASI, the Variant Human is worth 2.75 ASI, and the Standard Human is worth 3 ASI
High Elf Value: +2 dex (1 ASI), +1 Int (.5 ASI), Perception Prof (.75 ASI), Weapon Prof (.5 ASI), cantrip (.25 ASI), 1 extra language (.083333 ASI) total value: 3.08333 ASI.

This doesn't even include the Darkvision, Trance, Immunity to Magical Sleep, and Advantage on Charm Saving Throws which can't actually be acquired via a feat. Arguably the High Elf is worth upwards of 4 ASI to the Human's 3 value.

[Myzz]

I wanted to do the "everyone starts with a Feat at level 1, no variant Humans" thing with the campaign I'm running. First 5e campaign as DM, only played in one other one...

But decided to stick to RAW, for our first session. I too am glad to hear that its working well.

I also like the "+2, +2, +2" variant for humans, but I'm thinking that might be a bit too strong... The other "+2, +1, +1, +1, +skill, +Lang, +tool" might be better. More versatility, without being outright number crunchy superior (unless it was skill, lang, OR tool. Then I might use the +1 each variety, maybe limit tools to artisan tools)

[D.U.P.A.]

The feat thing of humans was probably done to encourage more people to play humans, as they were meh at least in 4th edition, where you played human only if you did not like the optimal race for the class. The world is again populated mostly by humans (it stands also for custom worlds because of poor imagination by most DMs) and PCs are again special snowflakes, outlander races, the only representatives in all around area.

[Myzz]

In regards to Humans being the most numerous... I'd argue that goblins are perhaps the most numerous... Maybe Orcs, with Humans being 3rd.

[NeoSeraphi]

In regards to Humans being the most numerous... I'd argue that goblins are perhaps the most numerous... Maybe Orcs, with Humans being 3rd.

If we're counting monstrous races I have no doubt that the Thri-Kreen or some other insectoid race is the most numerous. Hives are very productive.

[Strill]

I personally could care less if humans are an unattractive option as long as they aren't crowding out every other option.

In that case, how about humans get to increase 2 scores by +1, a free skill proficiency, and a weapon proficiency of choice?

Compare that to Half-elf. +2 CHA, +1 to any two other scores, TWO free skill proficiencies, Darkvision, immune to charm, and all sorts of other stuff. What you have there is nowhere near enough to make a race.

[D.U.P.A.]

Yes, but one does not simply walk into goblin village. I had in mind more civilized player races which are not hostile most of the time.

[Solusek]

Every character gets a feat (not an ASI) at 1st level. The variant human is not available as a race.


Good idea. If I ever run a 5th ed game I will be stealing this house rule. It seems like fun for the players. :)

[Gritmonger]

Worse, the way things are budgeted, some feats are worth half an ASI some are worth a full ASI.

Human (standard) gets +6 ability score points, or 3 ASI.
Human (variant) gets +2 ability score points, or 1 ASI + 1 feat (also 1 ASI in value), and 1 skill proficiency (or 1/3 of the Skilled feat).

Arguably the variant is actually weaker, in terms of point value. The only actual benefit is being able to refocus the least beneficial ability scores bonus points into things that synergize better with your character concept. Otherwise it's actually a net loss.

Spacehamster's proposal would be: +3 ability score points (or 1.5 ASI) + 1 skill (.75 ASI) + 1 weapon proficiency (.125 ASI)

This means the SHP is worth 2.375 ASI, the Variant Human is worth 2.75 ASI, and the Standard Human is worth 3 ASI
High Elf Value: +2 dex (1 ASI), +1 Int (.5 ASI), Perception Prof (.75 ASI), Weapon Prof (.5 ASI), cantrip (.25 ASI), 1 extra language (.083333 ASI) total value: 3.08333 ASI.

This doesn't even include the Darkvision, Trance, Immunity to Magical Sleep, and Advantage on Charm Saving Throws which can't actually be acquired via a feat. Arguably the High Elf is worth upwards of 4 ASI to the Human's 3 value.

I'd have to take issue with the ASI equivalence. ASI allows +1 to two, or +2 to one - which the human and the variant human do not allow - to be equivalent, the human would have to allow +1 or +2, with a grand total of no more than +6 overall - and the variant would have to allow +2 to one - so I don't think that the human or variant human are == to 1 or 3 ASI - there is a less-than quality, so I'd suspect it might play out at 2/3 of an ASI - so a normal human is 6/3 or 2 ASI, instead of 3.

Not an argument for "better" by any means - but there is a positive to being able to select which abilities are bonused (which the +1 to every stat isn't really implementing, since there is no choice) while other races are +2 to 1 and +1 to another, both pre-selected for you. I suspect that a +2 to one selected stat is still not == 1 ASI, as with the ASI you get to choose, where with the racial you don't.

[Icewraith]

Keep the +1s across the board since half of them don't "matter" anyways and give humans a Language, Skill, and Weapon/Tool proficiency (which should be worth about a feat). If you're going to do the mile wide/inch deep thing, go full bore.

Oh No! That human character got +1 to three stats when other races get a +2 to one stat (usually one they care about) and +1 to another, and +1 to three other stats their class probably doesn't care about, and they were never going to spend an ASI on boosting later anyways!

[Malifice]

Actually, I believe that if Variant Human was kept alongside the bonus feat at 1st level we'd see a lot of variant humans grabbing Lucky and Resilient early, both of which make it harder for the DM to deal with them at early levels. More of a pain than anything, which is why I banned it.

I've done just his (everyone gets a feat at 1st, variant humans gain 2) in my campaign.

My healing rules are a little grittier, and it works fine.

You could just run it with base 'non-variant' Human (+1 to all stats) and give everyone a feat at 1st?

[SharkForce]

You could just run it with base 'non-variant' Human (+1 to all stats) and give everyone a feat at 1st?

you could, but then we're straight back to humans really sucking. +1 to 6 stats is only marginally more useful than +1 to 2 stats, and even that is only because a fair number of classes have a third-most important attribute (wisdom on a ranger, dex on many casters, int for EK and AT archetypes).

then you sit down and compare that to races that get +2 to a stat, +1 to another, and a bunch of minor benefits and it quickly becomes obvious that humans are *really* not looking good at all from a mechanical perspective.

[Strill]

Actually, I believe that if Variant Human was kept alongside the bonus feat at 1st level we'd see a lot of variant humans grabbing Lucky and Resilient early, both of which make it harder for the DM to deal with them at early levels. More of a pain than anything, which is why I banned it.

Who cares about Resilient that early? What is +2 to a save going to do?

[SharkForce]

Who cares about Resilient that early? What is +2 to a save going to do?

about the same thing as the archery combat style, which is usually rated as having one of the best bonus of any combat style currently in the game.

except instead of being for something that causes a relatively minor effect and at which you will get lots of retries, saving throws frequently apply to something fairly major which you may only get one shot at.

yeah, it's not "go ahead and hit me with that hold person spell, i'm not afraid", but it definitely does make a difference. it's more important in the late game, of course, when spell DCs mean that non-proficient saves with poor saving throws almost need a 20 to make, but it's still significant.

[mephnick]

I have a list of feats characters can take at first level. They include stuff like Tavern Brawler and Linguist, but not the good feats like Polearm Master or Lucky.

[Strill]

about the same thing as the archery combat style, which is usually rated as having one of the best bonus of any combat style currently in the game.

except instead of being for something that causes a relatively minor effect and at which you will get lots of retries, saving throws frequently apply to something fairly major which you may only get one shot at.

Archery style does not cause minor effects. It causes hits which means more kills which means less damage and saves. The fact that you can do it every single turn is what makes it good.

[SharkForce]

Archery style does not cause minor effects. It causes hits which means more kills which means less damage and saves. The fact that you can do it every single turn is what makes it good.

hitting with an attack is minor. hitting repeatedly is pretty significant over time, but still not as major as, say, webbing a dozen goblins and shutting them out of the fight for a few rounds. or, to flip it the other way round, not as major as your fighter not getting held while standing in the middle of 5 goblins.

[Chronos]

How good a bonus to a roll is depends on how often the roll is made. Attack rolls are made all the time-- Usually once per round, even at low levels. Saving throws of any particular sort are made much more rarely: You can see entire encounters go by without ever having to save at all, much less a save of a particular sort.

[D.U.P.A.]

Giving a feat at the start to each race is not a good idea. Because this way all non-human races can get +3 to their main stat, which means that they are just superior to humans because of their 18(+4) stat, especially if it is a powerful stat like dexterity, which means that nonhuman character gets +1 initiative, +1 ac, +1 to attack rolls compared to humans.

[Gnaeus]

Who cares about Resilient that early? What is +2 to a save going to do?

How good a bonus to a roll is depends on how often the roll is made. Attack rolls are made all the time-- Usually once per round, even at low levels. Saving throws of any particular sort are made much more rarely: You can see entire encounters go by without ever having to save at all, much less a save of a particular sort.

Unless you are a caster. In which case constitution saves to maintain concentration will be made a significant % of the time you get hit. You want to keep that bless or hex going, its a significant part of your damage output. The extra hp and the reduced chance of some random SoD's are just bonuses.

[NeoSeraphi]

Giving a feat at the start to each race is not a good idea. Because this way all non-human races can get +3 to their main stat, which means that they are just superior to humans because of their 18(+4) stat, especially if it is a powerful stat like dexterity, which means that nonhuman character gets +1 initiative, +1 ac, +1 to attack rolls compared to humans.

It's only not a good idea if you care if human is an attractive option. I do not, and I'm sure lots of 3.5 DMs coming into 5E also would prefer having no humans at their table to having no non-humans at their table.

[FightStyles]

You could also balance the intial feat a little. I've always like thee 4d6 drop the lowest, but you must pick the stat is for as you go along. Keep hoping your wizard gets that 17 in INT, (with the potential +3 of race and feat bringing it to 20), but you wait until the end and roll an 8. =-P

[D.U.P.A.]

It's only not a good idea if you care if human is an attractive option. I do not, and I'm sure lots of 3.5 DMs coming into 5E also would prefer having no humans at their table to having no non-humans at their table.

Why you do not like humans as PCs?

[NeoSeraphi]

Why you do not like humans as PCs?

It's not that I don't like them. It's just that if you're picking a human at my table, you're doing it for the RP Invisibility, not for any specific bonuses.

A player playing a human can expect, reasonably (unless I've homebrewed the world otherwise) that when he enters a town, most of the guards, officials, and leaders will all be human. That no one will be racist or rude towards him (at least not in a city, or if they are they aren't in a position of power with a few exceptions), and that pretty much no one will hate or discriminate against him or notice him because of his race.

You don't get that as a tiefling or a half-elf or a half-orc. There are humans that are disgusted, reviled, or upset by other races, and that comes up at my tables often enough that human seems like a decent choice just to avoid it. So you can get RP Invisibility with meh game characteristics, or strong specialized game characteristics with the racism and hatred that comes with being in a human-run world.

[Person_Man]

Side note: In 1E and 2E, humans were the generic crud race. They had 0 abilities, no bonuses, no penalties, no class restrictions. Every other race had several useful abilities, and thus you always played a non-human if you could meet the ability score requirements.

You only played a human one if you rolled really well and wanted to be a Paladin, rolled really poorly and couldn't qualify for another race, you wanted to do some odd duel or multi-class combo that only humans qualified for, or were playing in a rare high level game with a class that only humans could reach high levels.

[Gwendol]

To be fair, humans typically did not have a level cap while other races did. I guess that could be chalked up as an advantage.

[Mr.Moron]

You don't get that as a tiefling or a half-elf or a half-orc. There are humans that are disgusted, reviled, or upset by other races, and that comes up at my tables often enough that human seems like a decent choice just to avoid it. So you can get RP Invisibility with meh game characteristics, or strong specialized game characteristics with the racism and hatred that comes with being in a human-run world.


I wonder how much this is true of other tables as well? I certainly tend to run my games with little to none of this kind of racism. I tend to present the world as rather accepting place, and at any particular level in society you'll tend to see a pretty represent cross-section of the population as a whole. Except in cases where I'm looking to characterize someone as a "Total ****" not likely to go past low-level stereotyping in terms of bigotry.

However, if I'm on the minority on this it's probably something that's good to take into account when talking about the general case.

[Gritmonger]

It is situational. Current campaign world has a dearth of and mistrust of elves and fey due to a massive conflict of law versus chaos. I don't usually invoke racial mistrust unless reasons, and even then there are ways to subvert the trope. Truly unusual characters can expect an amount of gawking and questions, but if it is societal, there may be laws and ordinances. All of it is with player foreknowledge and consent.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'd have to take issue with the ASI equivalence. ASI allows +1 to two, or +2 to one - which the human and the variant human do not allow - to be equivalent, the human would have to allow +1 or +2, with a grand total of no more than +6 overall - and the variant would have to allow +2 to one - so I don't think that the human or variant human are == to 1 or 3 ASI - there is a less-than quality, so I'd suspect it might play out at 2/3 of an ASI - so a normal human is 6/3 or 2 ASI, instead of 3.

Not an argument for "better" by any means - but there is a positive to being able to select which abilities are bonused (which the +1 to every stat isn't really implementing, since there is no choice) while other races are +2 to 1 and +1 to another, both pre-selected for you. I suspect that a +2 to one selected stat is still not == 1 ASI, as with the ASI you get to choose, where with the racial you don't.

True, this inflexibility is a slight weakness in the equivalency. However, the value would seem to depend on whether or not the ultimate class chosen relies on those stats as primary or tertiary stats. I suppose we could go to the lengths to weight them by subclass. I'm not sure it's worth the added effort though.

Technically you can get +2 to a single stat if you pick the appropriate feat. This allows a variant Human to have +2 to any one stat, +1 to another stat and some rider abilities (similar to the way other races have racial abilities), along with a skill proficiency of their choice. The problem inherent is that those other rider abilities are effectively only valued at .5 ASI, which is always less than the value of the other racial benefits that other classes have.

So variant humans get flexibility at the cost of power. If you are going to take a class that most benefits from the racial attributes anyway, you are better off from a meta perspective taking the non-human option.

[SharkForce]

i'd up the value of the human variant a bit to reflect that all the bonuses can be expected to always be in applicable things. a half-elf warlock doesn't care about darkvision so much if they intend to pick up devil's sight, for example. a variant human, on the other hand, can be expected to choose things that are always useful.

in contrast, i would thus reduce the value of the non-variant human. at least 3 of the attribute bonuses are probably going to be put into attributes which are likely not considered particularly valuable.