1st Level Human characters... do you allow feats?

[Yrnes]

Our first few forays into 5e I allowed the variant rule to allow human characters to have a feat instead of a +1 bonus to each ability score. It seemed silly not to, or else humans seemed underpowered in comparison to the other races. However, after seeing how powerful the feats have been (especially at level 1), I’m now leaning in the other direction.

If the rule is allowed, almost all the players will go human to pick up a feat. If it is not allowed, none of them will. I feel like this is an uncharacteristically short-sighted aspect of this edition. Does anyone have any similar issues or fixes for it?

[Daishain]

Some "fixes" out there.

-Limit which feats can be taken at first level by variant human

-Disallow variant human and/or adjust standard human to make it more appealing without the feat (the first bit is understandable, but leads to almost no one picking human without the second bit)

-Grant everyone a first level feat and slightly adjust encounter strength to compensate (gives everyone that extra something unique about their character from the onset. It does increase party strength, but not by a huge degree. This is particularly popular with players and DMs coming from 3.5)

Mix and match to taste

[Myzz]

the only "fix" that makes sense to me would be to make all races essentially equal, requiring a complete overhaul. Everyone gets +2 +1 to stats, then 1 skill, 1 lang, 1 tool. The only difference then is the fluff. Note that darkvision would be removed. Then have buy back options for things like darkvision (trade a tool prof for example for darkvision). Racial casting could be bought trading in skill and tool... You could limit or unlimit the buy back as much as you deemed apporpriate.

It seems silly that ALL elves have Longsword, SHortsword, Shortbow and Lonbow proffs... Thats a cultural bonus, and Urchin Elves raised in human cities would not have those proficiencies... But you could offer those back at the cost of thier skill bonus...

[Forrestfire]

In my game, I gave everyone a feat at level 1, and humans got an extra. There are enough character-defining feats in 5e that to make someone play something that's not their concept until level 4 just seems needlessly cruel.

[youtellatale]

I felt this way at first also. Then we played for several months and my opinion has changed. I think much of this is dependent upon the theme and feeling of the campaign. We started out our first mini-campaign with 4 Variant Humans and a Wood Elf. When we kick off our new campaign in two weeks we'll have one Variant Human, one mountain dwarf, a wood elf, a halfling, and a half-orc. The other races really do bring something to the table mechanically (and especially RP-wise). As a variant human you're giving up quite a bit to get something pretty awesome (a feat). The +1 to two stats (note this is not a +2 to one stat) and a feat and a skill proficiency is nice but IMO doesn't completely outshadow someone who gets +2 Con, +1 Wis, +1hp/level, Darkvision, 1 tool proficiency, Stonecunning, Dwarven resilience and Dwarven combat training (just one example).

Do your campaigns ever have anything happen at night? In a dark cave? Remember that walking around with a torch lit is not always the best idea when other creatures can see you in the dark. It's pretty well balanced so long as the campaign is balanced also. If there is only combat in open areas during daylight hours then the Human Variant is going to seem very, very good. But put in trees, caves, and/or darkness and suddenly being able to trade -5 to hit for +10 damage doesn't matter when you're Surprised and the Goblins pick you apart from 50 or 60 feet away. Remember that the races are somewhat balanced, but it's not supposed to be a=b=c, they should feel different and have different advantages and disadvantages. If they're all the same, they all have the same weaknesses and monsters will exploit those weaknesses.

[Myzz]

alternatively...

From what I've seen so far, giving an ASI (not just a feat, but let them choose) to all races at character creation would work, IF you have the players use standard array vice rolling. My bet would be that most players will essentially get 2-3 "ASI's" when they roll over standard array...

[DanyBallon]

In my game, two characters are human, one is a variant human as the player wanted to get the Dungeon Delver feat to fit with his background story, while the other player choosed to go with the base human as +1 to all stats allowed him to get starting stats that reflects the abilities of his character.

You could also give an extra skill and/or language for the base human in order for it to be more interesting.

[Fwiffo86]

No, we do not allow feats at first level.

But that is more due to us not using feats at all. You might want to give it a try. A large chunk of weirdness is eliminated by not using them.

[Malifice]

In my game, I gave everyone a feat at level 1, and humans got an extra. There are enough character-defining feats in 5e that to make someone play something that's not their concept until level 4 just seems needlessly cruel.

I do the same.

[mephnick]

I allow everyone a feat from a chosen list, some of the weaker/flavourful ones. Keen Mind, Tavern Brawler, Weapons Master, etc. I allow the extra variant human feat to be anything.

So far I find offering the weaker bonus feats has given people less reason to actually choose variant human, so I don't have a lot of experience on how powerful it is.

[Wolfsraine]

If you disallow feat for human, just let them choose +2 to any ability and +1 to any other instead of the +1 to all abilities. That's what I would do, but then again, I wouldn't disallow feats in the first place.

[Easy_Lee]

Variant humans are balanced with the feat in mind. Many racial features, dark vision being a common example, are unattainable through feats at all. Many of these features create a significant, though sometimes situational, advantage over humans.

That said, certain feats on certain builds are better than others, particularly early on. Few can stand up to the polearm mastery fighter or crossbow expert fighter, ranger, or rogue at level one.

It seems to me that the most reasonable approach, if one fears variant human abuse, is to limit the variant human bonus feat choice to only half-feats. Many humans might choose Resilient, while some may choose athlete or keen mind. Regardless of feat selection, half feats bring their bonus stats in line with other races while still giving them a versatile bonus feature.

[Tenmujiin]

The reason variant humans are so popular is because there are so many character defining feats rather than because feats are powerful, I've found. The players in my group just don't want to be not playing their character concept until lv4 and so unless they have a specific race in mind for RP reasons they just go variant human. I'd suggest either giving everyone a feat at lv1 as others have said or starting at lv4 so everyone can start with a feat if they want.

[D.U.P.A.]

If you disallow feats, you may then change that to ASI, basically +2 to third ability score. This would make humans almost half elves.

[SharkForce]

if you look at it, other races are getting far more total value, and will catch up just fine.

the result is that certain classes which rely on feats more heavily to define them benefit a great deal from variant human at level 1, but tend to fall behind (or at least go even) later on.

[unwise]

The majority of people will choose humans if you allow the feat. Isn't that great? It is really nice to play in a game where the elf or dwarf is the odd one out. Having a PC party that is not a freakshow and somewhat matches the local demographics is great in my book.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I played AD&D where humans were hard garbage like the base human in 5E. Nobody played Humans outside of novelty value

In 3.5/PF Humans were a popular choice for everything because a free feat/skill is just that good HOWEVER it didn't invalidate every other race.

The separation between races is less glaring than in other editions so I say leave it be.IMO variant Human is the base Human and was only dropped for fear of options scaring away new players ie stuff that never happens

[bokodasu]

So far, I do, but I've been thinking about a couple of options:

1) Give all the other races a choice between +1 to their main stat and a feat, or the standard +2/+1. (Variant human stays as-is.)

2) Give all the races +1 to any stat and a feat, under the "adventurers are special" idea.

3) Disallow feats.

I kind of want to try all three, but I think my players would revolt if I tried that last one. Maybe with a different group.

Anyway, not everyone IRL picks Variant Human, even if everyone here thinks it's always the optimal choice. In our party we have a half-elf, a tiefling, two gnomes, a dwarf, two variant and one standard humans (the plain human rolled all odd stats).

(Also the party's not that big, some of those are replacement characters for ones that have died.)

[Vizzerdrix]

The majority of people will choose humans if you allow the feat. Isn't that great? It is really nice to play in a game where the elf or dwarf is the odd one out. Having a PC party that is not a freakshow and somewhat matches the local demographics is great in my book.

Yes. We must keep the party pure.

[Easy_Lee]

Anyway, not everyone IRL picks Variant Human, even if everyone here thinks it's always the optimal choice.

It's really not, it just looks good on paper. As has been said, the main reason why we see so many variant humans in build concepts is because feats are central to so many character concepts, especially melee. Rather than wait until level 4, or be forced to give up stat progression in order to take the feat, many take variant human specifically so that they can start with the feat.

If you want to take away the feat, just give variant humans an extra +2 stat points to spend as they choose. That gives them +4 points total, same as a mountain dwarf, while keeping the versatility.

[EvanescentHero]

It's really not, it just looks good on paper. As has been said, the main reason why we see so many variant humans in build concepts is because feats are central to so many character concepts, especially melee. Rather than wait until level 4, or be forced to give up stat progression in order to take the feat, many take variant human specifically so that they can start with the feat.

If you want to take away the feat, just give variant humans an extra +2 stat points to spend as they choose. That gives them +4 points total, same as a mountain dwarf, while keeping the versatility.

This is why I think I'll give everyone a feat at first level next time I run something. I don't want my players to have to wait until fourth for their characters to play the way they want them to!

Alternatively, I might just start at a higher level.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I really like the idea of giving an early feat, at level 1 or 2. It seems like it would add a lot to each character's mechanical flavor. I don't want to put down hard limits that limit the creativity of my players, but I worry about balance. Like each fighter/paladin walking around with heavy armor master, or every level 1 character having two attacks from polearm/crossbow master.
I guess if I want to try something like that I'll need to have a session zero where we can create characters and negotiate a bit over character concepts and balance.

[bokodasu]

{scrubbed}

In-combat, probably no, but out-of-combat, you can beat out someone proficient in a skill by having a better stat than they do (sometimes). Which, hey, everyone's always saying how fighters have no options, there you go. This one knows more history than the wizard and more nature than the druid! He's a master of perception and can pick all the locks! And he gets a discount on armor, since his Dex is so high he doesn't have to sell his house for platemail.

[SharkForce]

It's really not, it just looks good on paper. As has been said, the main reason why we see so many variant humans in build concepts is because feats are central to so many character concepts, especially melee. Rather than wait until level 4, or be forced to give up stat progression in order to take the feat, many take variant human specifically so that they can start with the feat.

If you want to take away the feat, just give variant humans an extra +2 stat points to spend as they choose. That gives them +4 points total, same as a mountain dwarf, while keeping the versatility.

with no other features at all (well, ok, no features apart from a single skill proficiency), +2 to one attribute and +1 to two others is pretty weak.

[Fwiffo86]

{scrubbed}

Gives them better base saves for all others, raises their base skill checks, gives them more attributes points than anyone else, giving them overall better save throws than any other class (except monk I suppose). That's what I'm seeing anyway.

2 saves good vs 4 bad isn't nearly as bad for the fighters

[Daishain]

with no other features at all (well, ok, no features apart from a single skill proficiency), +2 to one attribute and +1 to two others is pretty weak.

More than just a little weak, that just gives them the same stats as the Half Elf, with only slightly more flexibility. But the half elf has the skill proficiency along with a bunch more other useful features on top of it.

[ZeshinX]

I give them +2/+1 to ability scores of their choice, a free skill proficiency of their choice, and a free saving throw proficiency of their choice. Feats I like, but they are strictly gained via trading away an ability boost in the games I run.

[Easy_Lee]

with no other features at all (well, ok, no features apart from a single skill proficiency), +2 to one attribute and +1 to two others is pretty weak.

That is a good point. According to the PHB, a feat is equivalent to two stat points, since ASIs may be exchanged for one feat. So, if we agree that one feat is equivalent to two stat points, then we can see that even variant humans are an inferior race selection, in spite of their popularity.

I like the suggestion of +2/+1 to any two stats, +1 skill, and +1 save proficiency. That seems like the most balanced, versatile approach.

[Slipperychicken]

I think each of the races get benefits which are comparable to the benefits variant humans get, but it's less straightforward how they're supposed to be helpful. The benefit of an extra attack each round or +10 to damage is obvious, but perks like rerolling 1s or having advantage on saving throws have value which is less clear than damage.


IMO variant Human is the base Human and was only dropped for fear of options scaring away new players ie stuff that never happens

I think it's because feats themselves are a variant rule in 5e. The default core mechanics (including races) need to function without referring to variant rules, so it wouldn't make sense to have default humans get feats.

[Fwiffo86]

I think it's because feats themselves are a variant rule in 5e. The default core mechanics (including races) need to function without referring to variant rules, so it wouldn't make sense to have default humans get feats.

This is exactly how I feel as well. Divorcing feats from the listed core mechanic necessitated this variant rule. I suppose you could just group them under the "optional feats" rule section as the race section.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Just reiterating I think they removed feats and magic items out of cowardly fears that they would scare away new players with too much complexity

Because of that Humans got screwed over with a halfassed bandaid version that we have as the base while the real version is editorial.mandated "Optional" rule

Yeah an optional rules that gets its own chapter in the PHB.

[DanyBallon]

Actually, the Player's Hanbook, is optionnal. The free basic pdf IS the core of D&D 5e.
Still, playing a standard human can be really fun, not every game needs to get fully optimized build to have fun. As long as the player gets to flesh out his character the way he intend, using feats or not, and is having a blast, it's all that matters. If at your table, no one is having fun with standard human, then just don't use it. If you and your players prefer that all races start with a feat, then so be it. It's your game, do whatever changes you need and have fun playing :smallsmile:

edit: formating and correcting errors

[Vogonjeltz]

Our first few forays into 5e I allowed the variant rule to allow human characters to have a feat instead of a +1 bonus to each ability score. It seemed silly not to, or else humans seemed underpowered in comparison to the other races. However, after seeing how powerful the feats have been (especially at level 1), I’m now leaning in the other direction.

If the rule is allowed, almost all the players will go human to pick up a feat. If it is not allowed, none of them will. I feel like this is an uncharacteristically short-sighted aspect of this edition. Does anyone have any similar issues or fixes for it?

Personally I always play humans in RPGs, pretty much regardless of the incentives or disincentives for the other races.

However, in regard to your dilemma, you should be aware that the racial bonuses for other races exceed those of the human. If we were to itemize the value of everything the variant Human is actually less valuable than the standard human, and both are less valuable than any subrace of Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, etc...

The reason for this is that most of the racial bonuses are things that can be gained in part via feats.

Dwarven Combat Training = 1/2 of Weapon Master
Tool Proficiency = 1/3 of Skilled

Dwarven Toughness = 1/2 of Toughness
Dwarven Armor Training = 1/2 of Lightly Armored and 1/2 of Moderately Armored. (combined with the fact that Mountain Dwarves get +2 str this is actually exactly like 2 free feats).

Darkvision = 1/3 of Skulker
Keen Senses = 1/3 of Skilled
Elf Weapon Training = 1/2 of Weapon Master
Cantrip = 1/3 of Magic Initiate
Mask of the wild = 1/3 of Skulker

And so forth and so on. Human variant just lets the player customize more at the cost of itemization value, so it's a net loss.

[Mandragola]

I think it's true that feats are very powerful. Actually I do think a variant human can be more powerful than other characters at 1st level. There are things you can only really do with a variant human, like have polearm master at level one, or dual-wielder, sharpshooter, spell sniper or GWM. All of those will make a genuine difference which isn't open to other races.

The advantages the other races get really do matter though, and they kick in quite soon. Most obvious of these is darkvision, which most other races get.

I must say that overall my experience is that humans don't dominate, in the groups I've played in. In two groups I play in, with a total of 12 characters (though two of us will be GMing at any time) there are currently three humans. They are the most common race, but they aren't the majority of characters.

In general I'm seeing a pretty even split of races. There doesn't seem to be a definitive "best" race in 5th. I remember that in 3.X you saw quite a lot of dwarves, but that's not really the case any more.

I must say I think humans are probably the least interesting race mechanically. There's actually kind of nothing to them at all that's fixed. Any two stats get boosted, you get any skill and language, and any feat. So they can be taken in any direction - which is probably a good thing really.

Anyway on the subject of whether I'd allow variant humans, I do allow them and I don't regret doing so from having played them. They work fine and are quite fun.

[Maxilian]

Yes i always allow feats, the human variant let players create their character concept at early lvls

[rollingForInit]

Actually, the Player's Hanbook, is optionnal. The free basic pdf IS the core of D&D 5e.
Still, playing a standard human can be really fun, not every game needs to get fully optimized build to have fun. As long as the player gets to flesh out his character the way he intend, using feats or not, and is having a blast, it's all that matters. If at your table, no one is having fun with standard human, then just don't use it. If you and your players prefer that all races start with a feat, then so be it. It's your game, do whatever changes you need and have fun playing :smallsmile:

edit: formating and correcting errors

Feats at level 1 aren't just for fully optimising a build (I take that you mean to optimise combat). There are plenty of character concepts that might require a feat from start. For instance, being super-observant (Observant), being a language freak (Linguist), having a very specific set of skills for a specific class that cannot be achieve only from class+background (Skilled), a person with a murky past who can lie extremely well about it (Actor) ... and so on. Neither of those are very "optimal" in terms of combat.

[Longcat]

We play it RAW, i.e. feats are allowed. Non-variant human is really lackluster and effectively does not exist.

[DanyBallon]

Feats at level 1 aren't just for fully optimising a build (I take that you mean to optimise combat). There are plenty of character concepts that might require a feat from start. For instance, being super-observant (Observant), being a language freak (Linguist), having a very specific set of skills for a specific class that cannot be achieve only from class+background (Skilled), a person with a murky past who can lie extremely well about it (Actor) ... and so on. Neither of those are very "optimal" in terms of combat.

Someone playing by the base rules can just say that since he have above than average wisdom, he is super observant. no feat needed for character concept. But I do agree that there are feats that help define a character concept without being about optimisation. My only concern over these boards (and many others as well), is that there seems to be vocal majority? that think that unless you play with feats, you can't have fun, and since standard humans don't have them they are wothless, to which I strongly disagree.

[Longcat]

Someone playing by the base rules can just say that since he have above than average wisdom, he is super observant. no feat needed for character concept. But I do agree that there are feats that help define a character concept without being about optimisation. My only concern over these boards (and many others as well), is that there seems to be vocal majority? that think that unless you play with feats, you can't have fun, and since standard humans don't have them they are wothless, to which I strongly disagree.

It's not necessarily about the comparison between human and variant human, but rather human vs other player races. Unless you start to arbitrarily pile on (RP) disadvantages on other races, which the default setting does not do, human always seems like a lackluster choice.

[SharkForce]

Someone playing by the base rules can just say that since he have above than average wisdom, he is super observant. no feat needed for character concept. But I do agree that there are feats that help define a character concept without being about optimisation. My only concern over these boards (and many others as well), is that there seems to be vocal majority? that think that unless you play with feats, you can't have fun, and since standard humans don't have them they are wothless, to which I strongly disagree.

standard humans are bad because half of their racial features are wasted on stuff you don't care much about. it's not "i don't have a feat", it's "i really don't care in the slightest if my character has my 3 least important attributes 1 point higher".

[Fwiffo86]

standard humans are bad because half of their racial features are wasted on stuff you don't care much about. it's not "i don't have a feat", it's "i really don't care in the slightest if my character has my 3 least important attributes 1 point higher".

Just throwing this out there:

We found that in our game (no feats) that the base human bonus of +1 to all attributes makes a huge difference when your adding ASI's instead of feats.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Just throwing this out there:

We found that in our game (no feats) that the base human bonus of +1 to all attributes makes a huge difference when your adding ASI's instead of feats.

Nothing like having a Fighter with a 10 Int and 11 Cha thanks too base human.......yay

[Easy_Lee]

Nothing like having a Fighter with a 10 Int and 11 Cha thanks too base human.......yay

In theory, it could be cool for a human monk who rolls stats, gets a bunch of odd numbers, and wants to be good at all saving throws...

It's kind of a niche thing, the exact opposite of how the "versatile" humans are supposed to be. IMO, WotC didn't think this one through.

[Xetheral]

In theory, it could be cool for a human monk who rolls stats, gets a bunch of odd numbers, and wants to be good at all saving throws...

It's kind of a niche thing, the exact opposite of how the "versatile" humans are supposed to be. IMO, WotC didn't think this one through.

I don't think they meant "versatile" as "can be built to be an optimal choice for any class" but rather as "any given human is versatile because higher all-around stats make them better at a wide variety of tasks/classes".

In other words, a human fighter is more likely to have the 13 int required to multiclass wizard, and therefore has more options, which in turn makes them more versatile.

[Jacob.Tyr]

In the future, I'm going to go the "Free Feat" at level 1 for everyone, and allow variant humans to get a second one. Or, more realistically, I'm just not going to start at level 1 ever again. I'm tired of playing level 1 characters, and I don't think I'm ever going to run a game at level 1 again. So few character concepts work, combat feels like rocket tag, and balance is half the party not having anything to do after a few rounds of combat...

[TrollCapAmerica]

In theory, it could be cool for a human monk who rolls stats, gets a bunch of odd numbers, and wants to be good at all saving throws...

It's kind of a niche thing, the exact opposite of how the "versatile" humans are supposed to be. IMO, WotC didn't think this one through.

Yeah I know that's what was intended too it just doesn't click. I remember AD&D humans getting a similar bad deal back in the day and it still doesn't stick well with me

[SharkForce]

Yeah I know that's what was intended too it just doesn't click. I remember AD&D humans getting a similar bad deal back in the day and it still doesn't stick well with me

AD&D humans *wish* they had a deal that was only that bad. everyone else got +1 to an attribute and -1 to another, but it was very easy to put your -1 where it didn't matter (anywhere from about 9-14 in most attributes was functionally the same, with an even larger range of no difference in some), and when you put the +1 in the right place it could be a rather substantial difference. the benefit? they could choose any class (yay, i guess... nobody else gets the "privilege" of being a paladin in a time of sadistic DMs and players who hated them), and they could dual class. that is, if they had enough ridiculously high attribute rolls (at least a 15 in their old class's prime requisite(s) and at least 17 in their new class's prime requisite(s). of course, everyone else got to multiclass, which humans couldn't do (except that it was a heck of a lot less theoretical, because you just had to qualify for all your classes, not have amazing attributes), so that was kind of a wash.

[Mandragola]

The trouble with the non-variant human is that they don't have the great all-round stats you think they are going to have. If you compare the stat arrays of humans vs one of the +2/+1 races then, so long as you play a class where those stats are relevant, the only difference is that the human has one dump stat improved by +1. So yeah, the fighter has int 10 instead of 8 or whatever.

Two reasons why this happens:

First, a +2 is really about equivalent to +1 in three stats. It means you only have to buy a 14 with your points, so you've got two points spare to spend elsewhere. An elf ranger only spends 7 points to get his dex up to 16 but it costs the human 9 points. That's equivalent to two of the other +1s that the human gets.

Second, odd numbers are irritating. More often than not, you'll want to make that 9 into a 10, costing you a point. Now ok, you're turning a -1 modifier into a 0 for just one point, and that's nice, but you're still spending a point on a stat that you almost never use. Some dump stat that you have no proficiencies in now succeeds on an extra 5% of dice rolls, so that might make a difference once in your character's entire career. The wood elf ranger doesn't care that he's got a charisma of 8, because somebody else does the talking anyway, and having charisma 10 isn't suddenly going to make you the party "face" (you hope!).

So that really is the trade-off. The human has a better dump stat. The elf has darkvision, weapon proficiencies, proficiency in perception, faster movement and lives for hundreds of years.

[DanyBallon]

...The wood elf ranger doesn't care that he's got a charisma of 8, because somebody else does the talking anyway, and having charisma 10 isn't suddenly going to make you the party "face" (you hope!).

It's only my personal opinion, but I really hate this kind of metagaming. For me the only reason to get a dump stat is if you've got a roleplay reason to do so, or if you roleplay such a disability. Unfortunately, many players just doesn't care and go around as if there was no penalty for having a dump stat. Depending of your style of game, you never know when the "face" get separated or caught into something and it's up to you to do the talking. For such a reason I prefer characters that are pretty balanced all around. Plus in 5e maxing your primary stat is less a necessity.

Edit: Just to clarify my thought, I'm not pointing at anyone, I'm just stating that I really dislike stats dumping for reason other than because it fit the character concept.

[Kurald Galain]

In my game, I gave everyone a feat at level 1, and humans got an extra. There are enough character-defining feats in 5e that to make someone play something that's not their concept until level 4 just seems needlessly cruel.

I completely agree. I prefer 5E with more options, not less (for the same reason, I give people an additional trained skill every 3 levels).

[AvatarVecna]

I have two IRL groups I've been playing with, and we've been doing 5e for a while now.

The first group is rather large (7 players, not counting the DM), and our game has a bunch of "built as a PC" NPCs in the party. There's a decent mix of races, and there's both standard and variant humans in the party, but the variant humans aren't ridiculously more capable just because they have a feat...at least, not very noticeably. We're currently only level 3, but everyone's having a blast.

The second group is technically of a similar size (being that the total number of people is also 8), but the most we've ever had at once is 5 players and a DM. In that game, the only person who's ever played a variant human is me, and it was so I could play a rogue who had Dungeon Delver at first level. Despite that, it was relatively balanced, if for no other reason than the fact that the games that DM has run have had tons of dark caverns and dungeons to explore, resulting in my lack of darkvision making me one of the less capable members of the party.

Ultimately, I think it usually balances out well. If I observed it to be a problem in a group I was running, I'd probably either change so that the variant human gets a free ASI that can't be a feat, or that all characters get a free feat at 1st level, with variant humans getting an extra one.

[Fwiffo86]

The trouble with the non-variant human is that they don't have the great all-round stats you think they are going to have. If you compare the stat arrays of humans vs one of the +2/+1 races then, so long as you play a class where those stats are relevant, the only difference is that the human has one dump stat improved by +1. So yeah, the fighter has int 10 instead of 8 or whatever.

Two reasons why this happens:

First, a +2 is really about equivalent to +1 in three stats. It means you only have to buy a 14 with your points, so you've got two points spare to spend elsewhere. An elf ranger only spends 7 points to get his dex up to 16 but it costs the human 9 points. That's equivalent to two of the other +1s that the human gets.

Second, odd numbers are irritating. More often than not, you'll want to make that 9 into a 10, costing you a point. Now ok, you're turning a -1 modifier into a 0 for just one point, and that's nice, but you're still spending a point on a stat that you almost never use. Some dump stat that you have no proficiencies in now succeeds on an extra 5% of dice rolls, so that might make a difference once in your character's entire career. The wood elf ranger doesn't care that he's got a charisma of 8, because somebody else does the talking anyway, and having charisma 10 isn't suddenly going to make you the party "face" (you hope!).

So that really is the trade-off. The human has a better dump stat. The elf has darkvision, weapon proficiencies, proficiency in perception, faster movement and lives for hundreds of years.

If you ignore the optional feats and focus on ASIs, this becomes much more significant. Base humans with a +1 across the board suddenly have 10-14 more attribute points to add (depending on class).

[xroads]

Wow. I never really looked at the human specs before. The base specs are pretty weak in light of the other races. Might be useful for players who roll a lot of odd numbers, but pretty weak otherwise.

I'd probably allow the variant rule. Seems like it evens things out.

[Bubzors]

In the future, I'm going to go the "Free Feat" at level 1 for everyone, and allow variant humans to get a second one. Or, more realistically, I'm just not going to start at level 1 ever again. I'm tired of playing level 1 characters, and I don't think I'm ever going to run a game at level 1 again. So few character concepts work, combat feels like rocket tag, and balance is half the party not having anything to do after a few rounds of combat...

I whole heartedly agree. Screw starting at level 1. Our group has been playing for years starting with 3Rd edition. After our first real campaign we all realized we hated the first two levels and since then have started either level 3 or 4. 3 let's you get your archetype stuff and play a bit before deciding on feats or ASI. Your also still low enough level to get the feeling of growing into power over the course of the campaign.

And yes, totally allow variant humans. Next time my group has decided to have everyone start with a feat also