The power of Variant Human

[asorel]

A not entirely uncommon sentiment on this board and others appears to be that the Variant Human is over powered as a race. Such claims have lead me to make an informal analysis on the Variant Human's power level (apologies if this has been done before). Before I begin, I would like to point out that:


This is not meant to be a mathematically rigorous finding. The strategies used are subjective and only comment on relative power, and should be treated as such.
I am making a small number of basic assumptions, though I have no doubt that denizens of this forum will vehemently disagree with them. The assumptions are:




Feats are for the most part balanced properly. Which is to say, taking a Feat is equivalent to the +2 ASI opportunity cost. I defend this assumption by the fact that, even if this were not the case, such imbalance is an issue with the Feat in question and not with the Variant Human.
The other (core) races are more-or-less balanced against one another, with no painfully obvious power gap between them. Again, it is possible that this is not the case, but I have yet to see power complaints on any fora against any race except for Variant Human, and occasionally Aarakocra.



Now, let us begin. This is a fairly simple undertaking at its core; I will simply take a race other than the Variant Human, list out the features of both it and the Variant, remove any common features, then compare what is left. I have chosen the Half-Elf, as it is the race most similar mechanically to the Variant Human, facilitating this process.

Half-Elf Features:

Darkvision
Fey Ancestry
Skill Proficiency (x2)
Common
Elvish
Language of Choice
+2 CHA
+1 to two of choice


Variant Human Features:

Skill Proficiency
Common
Language of Choice
1 Feat
+1 to two of choice


Taking out what's available to both, we're left with Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, Elvish, and +2 CHA for the Half-Elf, and the Feat for the Variant Human. As I mentioned earlier, I'm assuming that the Feat is equivalent to an ASI in terms of power level. An ASI (2 points to put into Ability Scores however one pleases) is slightly stronger than +2 to CHA, as those points are limited in placement. Therefore, proper balance dictates the Half-Elf getting a few minor bonuses to counteract the Feat, which is exactly what we see. Ergo, the Variant Human can be said to be balanced.

[Wartex1]

Well, certain feats are incredibly powerful and is a huge help if you get them before level 4, like Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master.

[asorel]

Well, certain feats are incredibly powerful and is a huge help if you get them before level 4, like Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master.

As I said, even if certain feats may be deemed overpowered, that's more an issue with the feat than it is with the race. Persistent bonuses are better the earlier you get them, but the same is true of stat increases.

[ad_hoc]

What you haven't considered is that Variant Humans usually start with 2 16s and a feat.

Other races usually start with 2 16s and racial abilities.

Variant Humans can get a feat and keep up with ability progression.

I am not sold that they are overpowered. I see why they are popular. I think that is a good place to be because humans should be popular.

Half-Elf might be overpowered.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree. The reason why variant humans come up so often is because, for many builds, they are the only acceptable race. Blade pact warlocks in particular, due to their stat requirements, their need for a few feats to keep up in long term DPR, and their ability to pick up devil's sight to fix lack of Darkvision, are easiest to build with variant human.

[ruy343]

I agree wholeheartedly: (variant) humans aren't terribly overpowered, and frankly, should be the most common/popular race in the game. In reality, the race is simply the most versatile, and allows you to play however you would like (especially with feats), but if another race fits your character concept better, then that is where they'll shine.

However, in the case of some of the (very) powerful feats, a DM could rule that certain feats are only available to players at levels 4 and above to restrict the power gamers in the early levels (although that's not really necessary).

[Giant2005]

I have never thought Variant Humans were OP and I never thought anyone else thought that either. It is my understanding that the complaints are more along the lines of "Variant Humans are too popular due to the fact that they are capable of having character defining feats at creation".

As an aside, I couldn't disagree more about the Half-Elf and the Variant Human being balanced - in no way shape or form is an ASI equal in quality to Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, Elvish, and +2 CHA.

[BRC]

I'm wondering if the answer isn't to designate certain, less-powerful feats as acceptable for anybody to take at level 1, with the understanding that they don't get their normal feat at 4th level.
Stuff like Sentinel, Tavern Brawler, maybe Crossbow Expert. A few select feats that might be core to somebody's image of their character. If you're idea for your character relies on Tavern Brawler, it might be okay to let them take it a few levels early.

[asorel]

As an aside, I couldn't disagree more about the Half-Elf and the Variant Human being balanced - in no way shape or form is an ASI equal in quality to Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, Elvish, and +2 CHA.

It depends on how you weigh each of the utilities. Fey Ancestry and the Proficiency are always beneficial, but Darkvision and speaking Elvish are a bit more situational. Darkvision's range is the same as that of a torch (and the light cantrip), which means its benefits are less tangible unless the entire party has Darkvision, or you happen to be scouting ahead farther than 60 feet. Speaking Elvish is no doubt useful, but there aren't many situations in which speaking Common but not Elvish becomes an important factor.

[Giant2005]

It depends on how you weigh each of the utilities. Fey Ancestry and the Proficiency are always beneficial, but Darkvision and speaking Elvish are a bit more situational. Darkvision's range is the same as that of a torch (and the light cantrip), which means its benefits are less tangible unless the entire party has Darkvision, or you happen to be scouting ahead farther than 60 feet. Speaking Elvish is no doubt useful, but there aren't many situations in which speaking Common but not Elvish becomes an important factor.

I actually think that Darkvision is the greatest ability of the bunch there. It might not be flashy but it is something that you really, really miss when you don't have it. As for speaking Elvish, I find it less useful than the other effect: being able to read Elvish. Elvish is one of those ancient languages that DMs love to have ancient tomes written in and knowing how to read them can be extremely useful.
But the real bottom line is that if you are playing a Half-Elf, the odds are that the reason you chose that race is because you are a Warlock, Sorcerer, Paladin or some Homebrew that also makes good use of Charisma. If you make good use of Charisma, that +2 Cha is already equal to an ASI and everything else is just a bonus.

[Mr.Moron]

Is something tuned incorrectly?

Is something taken at an overwhelmingly high rate compared to other options?
If that option was removed, are there any other functional options left?

If the answer to both these questions is "Yes" you probably have a mechanic that's incorrectly tuned at least and possibly degenerate. ("Balanced" and "Overpowered" aren't terribly useful terms).

Are variant humans chosen at an overwhelmingly high rate compared to other options? Yes at least in the context of these forums.

Are there functional character options that don't involve variant human? Yes.

Therefore I can say that at least in the context of this forums preferred optimization-central playstyle variant human is probably incorrectly tuned compared to other options.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I don't think variant humans are over-powered per se. They aren't even optimal for a lot of builds. What they are is flexible, which means they fulfill more kinds of build than other races.

On the other hand, there are a lot of racial bonus sets that are at least as good as a feat and often better. Mountain Dwarf and Half-Orc come to mind immediately.

If you aren't playing one of the character focuses these racial abilities skew towards then you may be better off taking a variant human but if you are then it is more optimal to play one of these races. The reason for human popularity is simply that there are many builds that don't have a dedicated demi-human race.

[mephnick]

I am not sold that they are overpowered. I see why they are popular. I think that is a good place to be because humans should be popular.


humans aren't terribly overpowered, and frankly, should be the most common/popular race in the game.

........why?

[CNagy]

I wouldn't say the variant human is incorrectly tuned; I imagine it was intentionally tuned to allow a player to shift the power curve forward a bit. The appeal to players with an eye towards optimization is that trading a stat-point and some racial abilities for a feat can help you bring a build together several levels than you would otherwise. Variant human is the instant(-ish) gratification choice.

I would say in the long run they aren't necessarily the best race. The advantage you get from having a feat sooner wears off as soon as everyone is high enough level to have gotten the feats they need. At the level where other races are getting their final needed feat for a build, a variant human with the same build is catching up/getting slightly ahead with his stats. But he has to mitigate his lack of darkvision (if his build doesn't include a little Warlock) and there is no making up for the lack of other racial abilities.

[asorel]

........why?

In the Forgotten Realms and other fantasy settings/worlds, humans are usually described as being driven by an intense ambition to set an impact on the world. As a result, humans are depicted as much more likely to take up adventuring than other races. If the mechanical aspects of humans make them inferior to other races, party composition will much more often be contrary to this.

[Daishain]

........why?
A.) What Asorel said
B.) Even if the rate of people becoming adventurers was the same across the board, humans are the most populous race in most settings.

Now, that stated, I can easily imagine it being the case that more of the elves, dwarves, etc. that set out to become adventurers actually have the stuff it takes to get to the point they have the skills found at level 1. Ambition is not the same as talent.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'd suggest that another big reason people take human is that it's easier from a roleplay perspective. Unless people specifically want a particular racial flavor, they tend towards humans as the default. The idea of humans as the 'default' is supported by the design - +1 to all ability scores (base human) or a skill prof and a feat (Variant human) are both very flexible racial bonuses that help basically any character.

[ChubbyRain]

Vumans aren't popular because they are overpowered but because they can add something to any class that is worth it for the class.

Pick any class and tell me there isn't a feat that doesn't help them. The feats may not be the most powerful things, but it will still help the class out in some facet of the game. This could be damage (polearm master), defense (sentinel), or making a specific concept be playable at level 1. It isn't always about being optimized either.

Paladin's weakness is hordes, at-will elemental damage, and at-will riders. Magic Initiate (Sorcerer) gives you Acid Splash, Frostbite, and 1st level Earth Tremor. The paladin may not get to attack the ones knocked prone but his or her allies can come in and gain advantage on their attacks. Have disadvantage on your attack rolls? Well good thing Frostbite is a Con save.

This goes on for every class. Want an effective strength based rogue who will fight on the front lines? Moderately Armored gives you medium armor and shields. This opens up shield master at level 4 all without multiclassing (which delays class features). Your level 1 rogue has cleric HP and an AC of 18 (as soon as you find/buy medium armor). I find that the strength based rogue w/ shield makes the best mechanical knight/fighter the game has to offer (athletics expertise, nuff said).

Vuman opens up so many possibilities that you typically would either have to wait for or multiclass for... And humans now days hate to wait.

[Camman1984]

I think the only reason they are so popular is their flexibility, whatever class you pick the best race options are always x,y and variant human. If they are usuable by every class they will crop up loads just by simple probability. when looking at the barbarian, some might say half-orcs seem OP because their ability work so well with the class, but you dont see many half orcs about because their abilities suck for most other classes.

I for one prefer racial abilities to a starting feat, particularly as some of the abilities are ones that i would probably end up wanting to pick up as a feat later on anyway.

If you have a build that requires lots of stats and also lots of feats the variant human is excellent, but i will keep the elven racials over it for most characters i build, just look at the 4 hour long rests, how useful is that? 2 elves in the party and you have night watch covered :)

[Quintessence]

I honestly think that Half-elf might be the best race in the game, I gladly trade a feat for dark vision and fey ancestry... They are almost as flexible as V. Human also, V. Human doesn't really strike me as unbalanced due to all the other perks and such that races get compared to them. Sure a feat is strong but so is a +2...

[noce]

I honestly think that Half-elf might be the best race in the game, I gladly trade a feat for dark vision and fey ancestry...

I have to agree here, half elf is more powerful than other races.
Sure, if you're going to be a wizard, a gnome is a better pick, as well as a half orc if going barbarian.

But for cha-based classes?
Want to build a sorcerer, a warlock, a bard, a paladin? There's no match, go half elf!

This is sad, because gnome (even halfling) bard, dwarf paladin, tiefling warlock are very thematic builds, but you have to underpower yourself to make one.

In 3.5 no one wanted to play a half elf, but now any cha-based class would want to be a half elf, and I think it's bad.

[Kurald Galain]

Taking out what's available to both, we're left with Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, Elvish, and +2 CHA for the Half-Elf, and the Feat for the Variant Human.

Bear in mind that the human can pick the best feat available for his class, and most of what you list for the half-elf doesn't actually do anything for most classes, mechanically speaking.

[diplomancer]

Another way to think about it is to consider that a Vuman is actually +3, +1 on abilities. No other race gets +3.

[RulesJD]

Vumans are also particularily powerful for builds that need 1 feat to really shine, but not any more. I'm thinking particularly Evocation Wizards/Sorcs because they need Elemental Adapt (Fire) but also need to boost their primary stat asap. Because +2 Cha is the same at character creation as +1 Cha (if doing 27 point buy rules), Half-Elfs have no advantage. Having the one necessary feat already knocked out means you get to max your primary stat sooner.

At level 20 to things even out? Sure. But getting there, especially at low levels that most people play at? It's not even close, Vuman wins hands down.

Edit* It's also the only race that can start with +2 Wisdom.

[Kane0]

I'm afb currently, could someone please do a similar comparison of vuman vs some other races? Dragonborn immediately strikes me as one that lags behind the others when looked at this way.

[Giant2005]

Another way to think about it is to consider that a Vuman is actually +3, +1 on abilities. No other race gets +3.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Variant Humans can't stick both of their ability score increases on the same stat and at best a feat can give +1 to a stat. So the most they could start with is +2 to something and +1 to something else which is the same as most other races.


Vumans are also particularily powerful for builds that need 1 feat to really shine, but not any more. I'm thinking particularly Evocation Wizards/Sorcs because they need Elemental Adapt (Fire) but also need to boost their primary stat asap. Because +2 Cha is the same at character creation as +1 Cha (if doing 27 point buy rules), Half-Elfs have no advantage. Having the one necessary feat already knocked out means you get to max your primary stat sooner.

At level 20 to things even out? Sure. But getting there, especially at low levels that most people play at? It's not even close, Vuman wins hands down.

Edit* It's also the only race that can start with +2 Wisdom.

I disagree on the Sorcerer aspect. Half-Elves make for better Sorcerers, especially if the only feat you want is Elemental Adept. At level 4 the Half-Elf that spends his feat on Elemental Adept will be exactly the same as the human that spends his level 4 ASI on Charisma, except that the Half-Elf will also have Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, and Elvish. Sure the Human will have the feat earlier but it doesn't take long to get to level 4 and the number of enemies with fire resistance that you encounter on the way there is going to be so limited that it really isn't worth sacrificing your strength for it.
The only time Variant Human is better than Half-Elf for Charisma-based classes (Other than a build that is genuinely in a rush to get that first feat) is if the planned build relies on enough feats that the extra eventual power isn't worth delaying those feats by so long (Or the build never plans on taking any ASIs).

[Shining Wrath]

I disagree with the premise that feats are correctly priced at +2 ASI. Most of the hi-op builds seen on these boards feature more feats chosen than ability scores.

Comparing variant human to half elf which is widely regarded as the next stongest choice is also misleading. Compare a feat to the benefits of Rock Gnome.

I don't allow variant humans, but I strengthen standard humans with the choice of one skill, or two languages, or two tools.

[diplomancer]

[QUOTE=Giant2005;19162790]I'm not sure what you mean by that? Variant Humans can't stick both of their ability score increases on the same stat and at best a feat can give +1 to a stat. So the most they could start with is +2 to something and +1 to something else which is the same as most other races.[/źQUOTE]

A variant human, specially in point buy, will start with 16 in his main score and the best feat he can get (which, for most builds, is better than an ASI). When he gets to level 4, when the other races will start to get their first feat, he can bump up his main stat to 18. (This is still true, but delayed, if he's getting a second feat at 4). So, from 4th level on, it will be like he got +3, +1.

The only exception for this advantage will be a build who has a great need for a half feat that also bumps his prime stat. Then the other races can start at 17 and bump their stat to 18 at 4th level and still have the feat they want.

[Giant2005]

A variant human, specially in point buy, will start with 16 in his main score and the best feat he can get (which, for most builds, is better than an ASI). When he gets to level 4, when the other races will start to get their first feat, he can bump up his main stat to 18. (This is still true, but delayed, if he's getting a second feat at 4). So, from 4th level on, it will be like he got +3, +1.

The only exception for this advantage will be a build who has a great need for a half feat that also bumps his prime stat. Then the other races can start at 17 and bump their stat to 18 at 4th level and still have the feat they want.

Or the more notable exception: The guy that is playing the game with the default character creation method of rolling dice.


I disagree with the premise that feats are correctly priced at +2 ASI. Most of the hi-op builds seen on these boards feature more feats chosen than ability scores.
I don't agree with that. It is pretty difficult to come up with a viable build that spends more than 2 ASIs on feats without some legendary rolls. Even 2 feats is stretching it a bit.


Comparing variant human to half elf which is widely regarded as the next stongest choice is also misleading. Compare a feat to the benefits of Rock Gnome.

There is nothing wrong with Rock Gnomes! Their advantage on saves vs spells is worth a feat alone imo, or at the very least, half a feat. Considering they also get +1 more attribute point than Variant Humans, even if you only considered it worth half a feat it would be balanced (Or probably more in favour of the Gnome considering the other abilities they get are better than the other abilities humans get).

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Sure, if you're going to be a wizard, a gnome is a better pick, as well as a half orc if going barbarian.
Or Champion-- the ability to avoid death works well with Champion regeneration and extra damage on crits works well with more crits. The other good melee race is Mountain Dwarf for +2 to both Str and Con (and sometimes the proficiencies). I'd almost always rather play one of those than a human on Champion or Barbarian and often on many other melee classes.

It's why I can't see humans as having too much power. Too much flexibility might be the best way to describe it. People like customization and humans are by far the most customizable race, followed by half elfs.


But for cha-based classes?
Want to build a sorcerer, a warlock, a bard, a paladin? There's no match, go half elf!

Tieflings make fine Warlocks (and oddly, Bards). Fey Ancestry is good, but so is resistance to fire damage, one of the most common types of elemental damage. Bards Jack of All Trades makes the extra skill proficiencies less needed while Warlocks Devil's Sight synergizes nicely with tiefling racial spell abilities. The two floating +1s are the only real loss and they're not as important as having +2 Cha, which both races possess. As long as you're not making a blade pact or a valor bard, and thus suffering MAD, anyway. Although I admit, Tieflings would be better charisma casters if their +1 was Dex or Con instead of Int.

[WickerNipple]

A not entirely uncommon sentiment on this board and others appears to be that the Variant Human is over powered as a race.

I think if you remove the people who don't allow feats in the game you'll find the remaining people who find varient human to be OP will be in the distinct minority.

[asorel]

I think if you remove the people who don't allow feats in the game you'll find the remaining people who find varient human to be OP will be in the distinct minority.

I'm not suggesting such complaints make up the majority of the forum. Even saying that they make up the majority of complaints wouldn't be accurate, just that it's a gripe that is not altogether rare. Hence, my use of the phrase "not uncommon."

[Chronos]

You can't compare racial abilities in a vacuum: You have to look at them in the context of how they would be used. To illustrate, compare the first two races in the book, hill dwarves vs. mountain dwarves: In addition to the traits that all dwarves have in common, hill dwarves have +1 Wis (half an ASI) and +1 HP/level (half of the Toughness feat), for a total of 1 ASI-equivalent. Mountain dwarves, meanwhile, have +2 Str (one ASI) and light and medium armor (each worth one feat minus half an ASI), for a total of 2 ASI-equivalent. And yet, despite this, hill dwarf seems to be preferred over mountain dwarf. Why? Because there are very few situations where the mountain dwarf's advantages matter: A martial class probably doesn't care about the armor proficiencies, because he probably already has them, and a non-martial class, or a Dex-based one, probably doesn't care about the +2 Str (especially since dwarves don't need strength for armor). Meanwhile, everyone likes HP, and Wis is one of the three ability scores that's relevant for everyone (some more than others, but it's a common saving throw and Perception skills).

Now consider humans vs. half-elves in context. Humans get +1 to their primary ability score and +1 to their secondary ability score, whatever those are. Half-elves with a class that uses Cha get +1 and +2 to their primary and secondary ability scores (it doesn't actually matter much which one is which; +1 to primary and +2 to secondary is very similar to the reverse), and +1 to whatever their tertiary ability score is. Half-elves with a non-Cha-based class get +1 to their primary, +1 to their secondary, and +2 to their fifth or sixth most important score. So depending on class, the half-elf advantage is either +1 primary, +1 tertiary, or it's +2 to an insignificant one.

For the others abilities, Darkvision is probably the most important, but how important it is depends on the rest of your party. If everyone else has darkvision, then yeah, it sucks not to have it. But if anyone else lacks it, the party is going to need lanterns anyway. And even characters with darkvision can still see better with light than without it (except for drow, at least).

The two skills are useful, but consider that all classes get at least two skills, usually chosen from what's most useful for that class, and your background gives you two more pretty much of your choice. So the half-elf is probably up by the human only in that they have the sixth-most-useful skill, where the human doesn't.

Speaking Elvish is handy, but it's sort of the reverse of the Darkvision situation, with respect to the rest of the party: If even one PC speaks Elvish (quite likely, as it's one of the most common languages), then the value of having anyone else who knows it drops dramatically.

And the fey ancestry is also good, but very situational.

[odigity]

The other (core) races are more-or-less balanced against one another, with no painfully obvious power gap between them. Again, it is possible that this is not the case, but I have yet to see power complaints on any fora against any race except for Variant Human, and occasionally Aarakocra.

I agree that no one has been complaining about other races being over-powered. However, many have complained about a few races being under-powered, which is the same thing in the opposite direction.

For example, in both games I've played so far we houserules that Dragonborn also got Darkvision. Furthermore, if I were DMing, I would also improve their breath weapon dmg schedule. But I can see how this might be a little outside the scope of this discussion; I only bring it up for the sake of completeness.


Taking out what's available to both, we're left with Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, Elvish, and +2 CHA for the Half-Elf, and the Feat for the Variant Human.

I think you've just made a compelling arguement for Half-Elf being strong than Human (Variant) -- certainly in builds where you value Cha. But that's not a shock; my limited experience matches that, as Half-Elf seems to be as popular as Human (Variant) -- slightly more popular in the two games I've played in, actually.

[asorel]

I think you've just made a compelling arguement for Half-Elf being strong than Human (Variant) -- certainly in builds where you value Cha. But that's not a shock; my limited experience matches that, as Half-Elf seems to be as popular as Human (Variant) -- slightly more popular in the two games I've played in, actually.

That thought had occurred to me as well. However, as my primary objective was to address Variant Humans' power level, I chose not to focus on this matter.

[odigity]

Darkvision's range is the same as that of a torch

Not true; a torch gives bright light for 20' and dim light for another 40', for a total of 40'. Darkvision is 60', is always on, doesn't require someone to light (uses action) and then hold a torch (uses hand), nor does it give away your position to other creatures with eyes.

I've been in parties where everyone but one char had darkvision. It was a pain in the ass.

[asorel]

Not true; a torch gives bright light for 20' and dim light for another 40', for a total of 40'. Darkvision is 60', is always on, doesn't require someone to light (uses action) and then hold a torch (uses hand), nor does it give away your position to other creatures with eyes.

I've been in parties where everyone but one char had darkvision. It was a pain in the ass.

20' bright light, then dim light for another 40'. 20+40= 60', or the same range as darvision and the light cantrip. I don't deny the advantages of Darkvision being hands-free, as well as its failing to make yourself known to enemies, I was just pointing out that its advantages were somewhat reduced if the entire party did not have darkvision.

[Giant2005]

Unless I was doing something specifically for roleplaying reasons, the only races from the PHB that I would ever consider playing are: Halfling, Half-Elf, Gnome and Variant Human.

If I am going Dex-based, I am going to be a Halfling. Their stat distribution is perfect for it and they have amazing abilities (Most notably re-rolling 1s and poison resistance).
If I am going Cha-based, then the only real option are Half-Elves. They are simply far too powerful to ignore and honestly, I think they might be a little unbalanced (As others in this thread have also noticed).
If I am going Int-based then I am going to be a Gnome. I can't remember if they are the only +2 Int race or not but if they have company in that field at all, they outshine it with their racial abilities.
If I am going Wis-based, then I go Variant Human. They are the only +2 Wis class (With the Observant feat) and I really appreciate the extra skill as well as the benefits of that previously mentioned feat.
If I am going Str-based, then I go Variant Human, other races offer more strength and some cool abilities to go with it but nothing compares to getting your hands on Polearm Master for a Strength guy.

IMO, none of the other options offer enough to compete with the above.

[silveralen]

I wouldn't say variant human alone is OP, but I would agree there is a gap between races.

Variant human is the appeal of starting with either one of the combat feats at lvl 1 or con prof/warcaster as a casting class. That's fairly solid and will rarely be a poor choice (even sorcerer, who likey needs neither, can benefit greatly from the elemental casting feat).

Gnome cunning is advantage on all wis, int, and cha saves from spells. That's big if you run into enemy casters with any frequency. For forest gnomes, being able to talk with small animals at will and getting a free cantrip aren't bad either, and your stats are great for a dex based eldritch knight, arcane trickster, or wizard (tinker might be better for wizard and the limited expertise can be helpful).

Half elves have the best stat distribution possible for stanard array assuming cha is either primary or secondary and a lot of skills. For a class like paladin, sorcerer, or bard it can be every bit as good as variant human as you buy up your attributes early leaving feats for later. Perfectly viable.

Beyond those three I see a few potentially good options, but most of the time it's very situational. For example, if you roll up two 16s a mountain dwarf can be a good choice, also can be helpful for concepts that involve heavily armored casters. Half orcs work for crit based builds like assasins and champions. Halfling luck is borderline imo, almost strong enough to be taken in and of itself.

But there are some races I don't see much use for. When am I taking an elf or either variety, or a tiefling, or a dragonborn. It's hard for to think of a case where I'm making that choice for mechanical reasons over fluff reasons. Which isn't to say no one should play them, optimization isn't that big a deal and the gap isn't going to be that noticeable in the long run, but they do seem to lag noticeably.

[Chronos]

There's actually not that much difference between high elf and forest gnome: Both get +3 total to Int and Dex, and both get a good cantrip. But I think I'd agree that the advantage on all mental saves and talking to animals outweigh the other benefits high elves get.

Wood elves, meanwhile, make great rangers and monks. In fact, I'd say that they're the best race for those two classes, except for possibly aarakroka (if those are allowed).

And for a cleric, it's hard to compete with hill dwarf. Yeah, they can only get +1 to Wis, but if you're point-buying or using the standard array, you're not going to get more than a +3 modifier anyway.

[ad_hoc]

The power of the Mountain Dwarf is that they can have 18 STR and 18 CON at level 4.

No other race can have 2 18s that early.

[odigity]

20' bright light, then dim light for another 40'. 20+40= 60', or the same range as darvision and the light cantrip. I don't deny the advantages of Darkvision being hands-free, as well as its failing to make yourself known to enemies, I was just pointing out that its advantages were somewhat reduced if the entire party did not have darkvision.

PHB: "Torch. A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet."

[eleazzaar]

Variant human might not be better than other options in a vacuum (though i think that's debateable), but the variant human will always have exactly the ability you want for your build -- I.E your choice of feats and stat boosts. No other race has nearly this level of customizability.

Also let's not forget that "human" is usually a popular option in RPG games, and the non-variant human is a remarkably uninspiring choice.

[Quintessence]

Vumans are also particularily powerful for builds that need 1 feat to really shine, but not any more. I'm thinking particularly Evocation Wizards/Sorcs because they need Elemental Adapt (Fire) but also need to boost their primary stat asap. Because +2 Cha is the same at character creation as +1 Cha (if doing 27 point buy rules), Half-Elfs have no advantage. Having the one necessary feat already knocked out means you get to max your primary stat sooner.

At level 20 to things even out? Sure. But getting there, especially at low levels that most people play at? It's not even close, Vuman wins hands down.

Edit* It's also the only race that can start with +2 Wisdom.

It can't start with a +2 wisdom, because you can't put the 2 ability points in the same ability

[ad_hoc]

It can't start with a +2 wisdom, because you can't put the 2 ability points in the same ability

There are many feats that grant +1 Wisdom.

[RulesJD]

*snip*
I disagree on the Sorcerer aspect. Half-Elves make for better Sorcerers, especially if the only feat you want is Elemental Adept. At level 4 the Half-Elf that spends his feat on Elemental Adept will be exactly the same as the human that spends his level 4 ASI on Charisma, except that the Half-Elf will also have Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, and Elvish. Sure the Human will have the feat earlier but it doesn't take long to get to level 4 and the number of enemies with fire resistance that you encounter on the way there is going to be so limited that it really isn't worth sacrificing your strength for it.
The only time Variant Human is better than Half-Elf for Charisma-based classes (Other than a build that is genuinely in a rush to get that first feat) is if the planned build relies on enough feats that the extra eventual power isn't worth delaying those feats by so long (Or the build never plans on taking any ASIs).

Wrong. Using 27 point buy (otherwise this discussion is pointless), the best a Half-Elf can start with is 17 Charisma. That's still just a +3 modifier. A Vuman can start with 16 Cha + the feat. So if the Half-Elf wants +4 Cha mod, it HAS to spend it's level 4 ASI on stat boost or some mechanically useless feat like Actor. Meanwhile, the Vuman can boost Cha fully to get +4 modifier while also still having their primary damage burn through resistance, and adding additional damage on each hit (1s are 2s + Cha mod to fire damage stacking with Scorching Ray). As a Sorc you're going to take 2 levels of Warlock anyways so Devil's Sight and you get to laugh at your Half-Elf Darkvision.

Vuman is mechanically superior for the vast majority of the game that you'll actually experience (level 12 and under) for almost every type of optimized build. This is largely because it gives you a free ASI no matter what class you pick, so it will be particularly strong on builds that either lack ASIs or require a lot of them (Sent + Polearm Master + GWM).

[silveralen]

There's actually not that much difference between high elf and forest gnome: Both get +3 total to Int and Dex, and both get a good cantrip. But I think I'd agree that the advantage on all mental saves and talking to animals outweigh the other benefits high elves get.

Wood elves, meanwhile, make great rangers and monks. In fact, I'd say that they're the best race for those two classes, except for possibly aarakroka (if those are allowed).

And for a cleric, it's hard to compete with hill dwarf. Yeah, they can only get +1 to Wis, but if you're point-buying or using the standard array, you're not going to get more than a +3 modifier anyway.

Wood elves make good monks mainly due to no better options existing. Faster move speed on an already fast class. Hiding on a class that either doesn't really have any reason to or already has better ways to hide depending on variety. Prof with longbows is arguably one of the best bits there, which is slightly sad. It's just... not bad but very underwhelming.

However, no other dex/wis races exist besides the flying guys, and no feats really benefit monks greatly. I'd still argue aarakroka are strictly better, with variant humans at least as good (the mobile or observant feats both give them pros and cons compared to elves). So I suppose wood elves are situational, but high elves are basically don't take along.

The best cleric is without a shadow of a doubt human. Why? Resiellent (con) as your feat gives you the same ability score options, skill prof for dwarves hodgepodge of minor bonuses, and con prof instead of extra HP. That's such a hugely better trade off, it isn't even close. Even if the skill prof doesn't measure up, the save alone carries the race as cleric is a support caster who is usually expected to be on the frontlines, meaning he needs that prof soon.


The power of the Mountain Dwarf is that they can have 18 STR and 18 CON at level 4.

No other race can have 2 18s that early.

Unless standard array, in which case they can't do that. Or rolling, in which case anyone can do that and it really depends if you roll odd or even for your highest attributes.

[Giant2005]

Wrong. Using 27 point buy (otherwise this discussion is pointless), the best a Half-Elf can start with is 17 Charisma. That's still just a +3 modifier. A Vuman can start with 16 Cha + the feat. So if the Half-Elf wants +4 Cha mod, it HAS to spend it's level 4 ASI on stat boost or some mechanically useless feat like Actor. Meanwhile, the Vuman can boost Cha fully to get +4 modifier while also still having their primary damage burn through resistance, and adding additional damage on each hit (1s are 2s + Cha mod to fire damage stacking with Scorching Ray). As a Sorc you're going to take 2 levels of Warlock anyways so Devil's Sight and you get to laugh at your Half-Elf Darkvision.

Vuman is mechanically superior for the vast majority of the game that you'll actually experience (level 12 and under) for almost every type of optimized build. This is largely because it gives you a free ASI no matter what class you pick, so it will be particularly strong on builds that either lack ASIs or require a lot of them (Sent + Polearm Master + GWM).

Why is it that in any thread that uses variant rules (Feats) people always seem to assume that you are using ALL of the optional rules (Point buy). You can use one without the other.

[BootStrapTommy]

The nonvariant human gets a total +6 to abilities and a language. The variant human gets +2 total, a feat, a skill, and a language.

Since there is a feat that awards three skill proficiencies, the one skill is actually mathematically inferior, assuming the value of +2 total ability score equals that of a feat (which, according to the feats mechanic, it does).

Thus mathematically, the variant human is inferior to even the normal human. +6 > +4 2/3

The variant human's value lies in its versatility and early access to feats. But it is not overpowered, given what is given up to attain that versatility.

[eleazzaar]

The nonvariant human gets a total +6 to abilities and a language. The variant human gets +2 total, a feat, a skill, and a language.

Since there is a feat that awards three skill proficiencies, the one skill is actually mathematically inferior, assuming the value of +2 total ability score equals that of a feat (which, according to the feats mechanic, it does).

Thus mathematically, the variant human is inferior to even the normal human. +6 > +4 2/3

Except the values in your math don't reflect values in actual play.

I'd take a +2 and a +1 to attributes (only a theoreticaly value of +3) over +1 to everything for most builds. A +2 is more than twice as good as a +1, because with any build some attributes are more important than others.

A +1 to your main attribute is much more valuable than a +1 to your dump stat.

[RulesJD]

Why is it that in any thread that uses variant rules (Feats) people always seem to assume that you are using ALL of the optional rules (Point buy). You can use one without the other.

Because that's what Adventurer's League uses.

[Xetheral]

As a Sorc you're going to take 2 levels of Warlock anyways so Devil's Sight and you get to laugh at your Half-Elf Darkvision.


Plenty of sorcerers aren't going to multiclass warlock. Sure, it's a great combination, but no particular multiclass progression is ever going to account for more than a small fraction of builds.

[diplomancer]

It is not that the variant human is absolutely better. But he is better when using point buy. He will also probably be better if you roll dice and don't get at least one 16 (which happens almost 50% of the time).

That said:
1- adventure's league uses point buy
2- theoretical optimization discussion cannot use 4d6b3. It might use the standard array, but it would be a self-imposed limitation.

These 2 reasons mean that, in discussion Forums, Variant human will dominate almost every build. This may vary from actual play.

[Ghost Nappa]

........why?


In the Forgotten Realms and other fantasy settings/worlds, humans are usually described as being driven by an intense ambition to set an impact on the world. As a result, humans are depicted as much more likely to take up adventuring than other races. If the mechanical aspects of humans make them inferior to other races, party composition will much more often be contrary to this.

In addition to what asorel has said, Humans have a shorter lifespan relative to Elves and Dwarves meaning that NPCs are having children sooner (not relatively, absolutely) and are likely having more of them.

Think about it like this. Let's say that Human populations reproduce at least 2 children, on average every 25-30 years. This means that for every couple that has an additional child is effectively adding 1 person to the human population. This process repeats much more frequently than it does with elves or dwarves who take longer before looking to start families. "Humans are the most common race" isn't because the others are rarer or less worthy of the status, its because humans breed like rabbits in comparison and aren't getting themselves killed like Orcs are (for some reason).

[Shining Wrath]

Gygax wrote that a human centered world had to be the default, as no one was truly capable of imagining a complete world not dominated by mankind. This assumption has influenced every edition of D&D.

[coredump]

I think people are drawn to the VarHuman not because of the power, but the timing.

Many character concepts count on a feat or two to 'come alive', and VarHuman is the fastest way to get one.

Take my archer. I wanted a long range type longbow archer. To me I really wanted Sharpshooter to get the feel I was looking for. Being able to hit someone at 300' behind cover...*That* was the archtype I was looking for.

I think a Wood Elf would have been a better choice to be honest, but because of my build, that means no Sharpshooter until lvl 6 or 7. So I took VarHuman. I am not as powerful as I could have been, but it gave me the 'important' part from level 1.

[Rhaegar14]

I think people are drawn to the VarHuman not because of the power, but the timing.

Many character concepts count on a feat or two to 'come alive', and VarHuman is the fastest way to get one.

Take my archer. I wanted a long range type longbow archer. To me I really wanted Sharpshooter to get the feel I was looking for. Being able to hit someone at 300' behind cover...*That* was the archtype I was looking for.

I think a Wood Elf would have been a better choice to be honest, but because of my build, that means no Sharpshooter until lvl 6 or 7. So I took VarHuman. I am not as powerful as I could have been, but it gave me the 'important' part from level 1.

This. So much this. The problem with variant human is not that they're overpowered, it's that not getting a feat at first level SUCKS if one of them is a central part of your character concept. If I'm trying to play a tanky/defender Paladin it's really lame to wait until 4th level for Sentinel. Hell, a Str-based Bladelock needs something like three feats to even WORK without multiclassing (Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency so you don't get your face ripped off in melee, then Polearm Master so your Pact Weapon actually does more damage than your Eldritch Blast).

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I think people are drawn to the VarHuman not because of the power, but the timing. Many character concepts count on a feat or two to 'come alive', and VarHuman is the fastest way to get one.

Take my archer. I wanted a long range type longbow archer. To me I really wanted Sharpshooter to get the feel I was looking for. Being able to hit someone at 300' behind cover...*That* was the archtype I was looking for.
Yes, exactly. Long term, especially for fighters, it's generally better to pick a demi-human race that specializes in what you do, but for the first four levels, people are willing to take a hit in long term power to get the ability they want to build their character around.

[Naanomi]

Variant Human ends up in almost all my point-buy builds. Almost always there are only 1-2 stats I want at the 16+ level at character creation, and being able to choose them is a good base for any build. I am hard pressed to think of any character I wouldn't want at least one feat for, and again being able to choose it really ends up outweighing almost all other racial abilities.

Really I look at variant human first unless...
-the concept really needs some other race (ie: dwarven brewmaster really needs to be a dwarf independent of any mechanical considerations)
-I am seeking a mechanical benefit not replicatable by feats (I want max HP, I have to be a hill dwarf; I want fire resistance there are several option but human isn't one)
-Stats line up perfectly and I am getting other benefits as well at least equal to any feat I would choose (wood elf monk, hill dwarf heavy armor cleric, etc)

Does this mean it is 'OP'... I don't think so. I do think some race choices are underwhelming for my personal style of play but nothing unplayable, nothing I would feel would have actively hindered me for choosing it (like 3.X pre RoD kobold or half the list of the old Complete Book of Humanoids)

[VoxRationis]

In addition to what asorel has said, Humans have a shorter lifespan relative to Elves and Dwarves meaning that NPCs are having children sooner (not relatively, absolutely) and are likely having more of them.

Think about it like this. Let's say that Human populations reproduce at least 2 children, on average every 25-30 years. This means that for every couple that has an additional child is effectively adding 1 person to the human population. This process repeats much more frequently than it does with elves or dwarves who take longer before looking to start families. "Humans are the most common race" isn't because the others are rarer or less worthy of the status, its because humans breed like rabbits in comparison and aren't getting themselves killed like Orcs are (for some reason).

Although that has to be balanced with death rates. If dwarven or elven medicine/magic is advanced enough that they rarely fall victim to disease, their population is going to spike compared with a pseudo-Middle Ages humanity, which could barely go a couple of centuries without suffering some terrible plague. Of course, humans might well also have that kind of medicine/magic; the key thing is, it depends on societal factors which are going to be campaign-specific.

[asorel]

Although that has to be balanced with death rates. If dwarven or elven medicine/magic is advanced enough that they rarely fall victim to disease, their population is going to spike compared with a pseudo-Middle Ages humanity, which could barely go a couple of centuries without suffering some terrible plague. Of course, humans might well also have that kind of medicine/magic; the key thing is, it depends on societal factors which are going to be campaign-specific.

As far as I know, D&D Elves and Dwarves don't have any special resistance against natural diseases, nor do they have medicinal magic that is any more potent than humans'. The defining factor here is population density. Humans have big cities, usually with substantial trade routes. A plague would spread quite easily among a region populated by humans. Dwarvern settlements are usually as densely packed as human cities, if not more so, but I believe that they would trade much less often than humans, helping to limit any potential outbreak to a single mine. Elves are usually depicted as being both isolationist and with lower populations; the Wood Elves in their forests and High Elves either in forests or more traditional dwellings. Isolation and low population density make disease more manageable in cities.

[Naanomi]

As far as I know, D&D Elves and Dwarves don't have any special resistance against natural diseases
Dwarves have +2 Con which means, at the very least, 5% less likely to catch a disease and 5% more likely to recover from most diseases (based on Con saves); as well as an extra HP (or two for hill dwarves) to resist dying from both injury and fever/necrotic damage a disease may cause... And two Hp for your average 8HP commoner type is a substantial boost in general survivability

[Giant2005]

The average life expectancy statistic already takes premature death due to disease and illness into account. If the long-life races are just as prone to dying prematurely due to disease and sickness, then those that avoid such ailments must live for thousands of years longer than what is displayed in the book in order to balance out the average.

[VoxRationis]

Are they truly average life expectancies? AFB currently, but I remember the aging tables I've seen focused on absolute categories of biological senescence, not survivorship rates.

[asorel]

The average life expectancy statistic already takes premature death due to disease and illness into account. If the long-life races are just as prone to dying prematurely due to disease and sickness, then those that avoid such ailments must live for thousands of years longer than what is displayed in the book in order to balance out the average.

Are you certain of that? I haven't seen mention of what average was assumed for race fluff. If you assume (For the moment I'm calling it this, as I don't know of a source) that premature death due to disease is included in the average, why not infant death rates?

[Giant2005]

Are you certain of that? I haven't seen mention of what average was assumed for race fluff. If you assume (For the moment I'm calling it this, as I don't know of a source) that premature death due to disease is included in the average, why not infant death rates?

I don't really know to be honest.
The average life expectancy statistic in real life takes all of the above into account which is why during the bubonic plague, the average life expectancy plumeted to an all time low and that the average life expectancy seems to be rising constantly (The latter is a biproduct of the fact that infant mortality rates are taken into consideration - without them involved, the average life expectancy of mankind has been pretty static throughout our history).
We don't really know what the game statistic represents however. When I made the statement I assumed it was treated exactly the same as how we treat it in the real world but there isn't any evidence to support that.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Feats are for the most part balanced properly. Which is to say, taking a Feat is equivalent to the +2 ASI opportunity cost. I defend this assumption by the fact that, even if this were not the case, such imbalance is an issue with the Feat in question and not with the Variant Human.

Given this assumption, you've shown that Variant Humans are balanced (or perhaps underpowered) if feats are balanced against all ASIs. I don't see how that definition of balance is relevant to actual play or character creation. Given the game is how it is, and you want to build a particular type of character, what is the more powerful option, Variant Human or [best of other race options]?

If people are inclined to pick Variant Human more often because the best feats are more powerful than ASIs, then Variant Human is indeed more powerful than other options. An individual DM certainly could tone Variant Humans down by decreasing the power of the best feats (or by handing out an extra ASI/feat at level 1, turning the Variant Human's bonus feat into the second best feat he can take). Until that change occurs I contend that the Variant Human is in fact the clear best choice for archetypes that really want (a) particular feat(s) (str-based melee, melee casters, archers, evokers/sorcs) and competitive for almost any build.

[Easy_Lee]

Given this assumption, you've shown that Variant Humans are balanced (or perhaps underpowered) if feats are balanced against all ASIs. I don't see how that definition of balance is relevant to actual play or character creation. Given the game is how it is, and you want to build a particular type of character, what is the more powerful option, Variant Human or [best of other race options]?

If people are inclined to pick Variant Human more often because the best feats are more powerful than ASIs, then Variant Human is indeed more powerful than other options. An individual DM certainly could tone Variant Humans down by decreasing the power of the best feats (or by handing out an extra ASI/feat at level 1, turning the Variant Human's bonus feat into the second best feat he can take). Until that change occurs I contend that the Variant Human is in fact the clear best choice for archetypes that really want (a) particular feat(s) (str-based melee, melee casters, archers, evokers/sorcs) and competitive for almost any build.

A free feat is only better than an ASI when either A) you could not afford the feat otherwise given normal stats, B) you want to get the feat early, or C) the stat to be raised by the +2 is fixed and you don't need a +2 to that statistic.

So, let's say I wanted to play a gnome monk. Well, problem with that is that monks don't need INT. Gnomes are well-suited to play wizards. I might perhaps talk to my DM, saying, "hey, intelligence and wisdom are similar. Can I have +2 wisdom instead of intelligence on my forest gnome monk? He's more of an outdoorsy type." If he says yes, the gnome may be a better pick than a variant human due to the other gnome boosts. If not, I'd best play a variant human, a wood elf, or a halfling.

The problem isn't with variant humans, but that racial features and statistics are fixed for everyone else. A orc can't decide he wants to be just a little more dexterous, or a little wiser, than the typical orc bonuses allow. A variant human can, since he gets to distribute his bonuses and feat exactly as he chooses.

In exchange, other races have bonuses which add up to more than what a variant human gets. Variant humans get versatility, while other races get bonuses that can't be mimicked. You can't feign the gnomish spell resistance or the orcish savage attacks on a human. If you want to play a barbarian, or a strength-focused champion fighter, a half-orc is almost always going to be the better choice. But if you want to play something tricky, like a polearm mastery blade-pact warlock, variant human is the only race that's going to let you do it properly, without gimping your statistics or giving up on the feats you need for the build to succeed.

There's also the problem that situational bonuses, like dark vision or charm resistance, don't come up very often in min-maxing. It's hard to calculate the benefit of advantage on WIS, CHA, and INT saving throws caused by spells. However, it's very easy to show the benefit of extra die rolls on crits, which is why half-orcs are the other race everyone talks about.

So, while variant humans are mechanically inferior, they make certain builds possible and make others a bit easier numerically. Particularly for Gish types who need to max two stats and still keep their CON decent, variant humans make it possible while also granting an oft-needed feat. While the benefit of playing other races can be difficult to calculate, variant humans are clear-cut and versatile.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

1. You are overrating high levels.
Yes, by level 20 the V Human will suffer from diminishing marginal returns on his feats/ASIs. But at the early levels he will be a step ahead in getting nasty tricks and maxing out key stats. For example, the V Human barbarian tends to have superior offense to the Half Orc for half of the published game, and by the time the Half Orc catches up the racial differences won't matter too much.

2. You are overrating savage attacks.
A regular greataxe-wielding half orc will deal an extra 0.325 damage per swing, or 0.63375 with advantage, due to savage attacks. Not negligible, but generally worse than +1 damage alone, and definitely worse than getting early Great Weapon Master. Champion makes it better, but if you're going champion you were already maximizing everything crit-related; else go BM. Also, this is hardly unique, since barbarians literally get a better version of this feature. (Yes, I know it stacks; it's still not unique.)

3. You are overrating relentless endurance.
Preventing one hit from dropping you per long rest is nice, but it's initially a death wish to run around at 1 HP, and by the time that ceases to be a problem the one hit isn't that big of a bump to overall toughness. It does make Half Orcs slightly tougher than V Humans, at least at the early levels.

I would conclude that Half Orcs and Variant Humans are the two main barbarian choices, the superior one based on an offense/defense trade-off that is steeply in favor of Variant Humans at the early levels.

[silveralen]

So, let's say I wanted to play a gnome monk. Well, problem with that is that monks don't need INT. Gnomes are well-suited to play wizards. I might perhaps talk to my DM, saying, "hey, intelligence and wisdom are similar. Can I have +2 wisdom instead of intelligence on my forest gnome monk? He's more of an outdoorsy type." If he says yes, the gnome may be a better pick than a variant human due to the other gnome boosts. If not, I'd best play a variant human, a wood elf, or a halfling.

But again that's because gnome is one of the actual powerful races and because monks can't benefit from any feat particularly well. It's a corner case, you are taking one of the few races who can compete and comparing it to one of the few classes that doesn't benefit from feats much, if any.

Would you play a dex/wis high elf over that gnome? A dex/wis dragonborn? Nope.


In exchange, other races have bonuse[QUOTE=Easy_Lee;19169991]s which add up to more than what a variant human gets. Variant humans get versatility, while other races get bonuses that can't be mimicked. You can't feign the gnomish spell resistance or the orcish savage attacks on a human. If you want to play a barbarian, or a strength-focused champion fighter, a half-orc is almost always going to be the better choice. But if you want to play something tricky, like a polearm mastery blade-pact warlock, variant human is the only race that's going to let you do it properly, without gimping your statistics or giving up on the feats you need for the build to succeed.

Again this isn't really true.

For example, the benefit from savage attacks even on a barbarian who only reckless attacks is fairly marginal. Relentless endurance is very questionable as well, it's an extra turn (maybe) of activity that might activate once per day.

Further, such abilities are literally part of barbarian progression. Savage attacks is a thing every barbarian gets while they get an actual useful version of relentless endurance.

Half orc is not an optimal barbarian choice but it is a fluffy barbarian choice. Any melee class but fighter is better served with variant human for its first 12 levels, after which variant human still overall has an advantage since savage attacks and relentless endurance aren't worth an attribute point by that time (the half orc gives up a +2 to grab a feat, the variant human gave up +1 to an attribute and those two features which are more or less redundant now). Savage attacks plus the barbarian crit boosting is going to end up bein overkill a lot of times, and it's such a slight damage boost as is it's not really worth it. Relentless endurance is still unlikely to actually do anything noticeable, if you drop so often relentless rage can't keep you up something in your build or tactics needs to be addressed.

[Person_Man]

If your DM pays attention to the illumination rules, and you want to use Stealth, then Darkvision is one of the most important abilities in the game. With it, you can explore a dungeon or whatever normally. Without it, many Stealth attempts will automatically fail, because you'll need to use a light source, which is a glowing target to any creatures you're attempting to sneak up on.

If you don't have Darkvision, then you will always need to hang back from the scout(s) in your party (or you can just screw careful exploration and attempt to grind through all the enemies like a video game), and you will always need to have a light source available (which means convincing someone in your party to take the Light spell or some equivilent, unless you want to carry a torch and give up the use of one of your hands).

Yes you can get Darkvision from a 2nd level spell or an Invocation. But then you're giving up an important resource to do so. (Especially at low levels, when spell slots and Invocations are very limited).

[Easy_Lee]

But again that's because gnome is one of the actual powerful races and because monks can't benefit from any feat particularly well. It's a corner case, you are taking one of the few races who can compete and comparing it to one of the few classes that doesn't benefit from feats much, if any.

Would you play a dex/wis high elf over that gnome? A dex/wis dragonborn? Nope.


Monks benefit greatly from mobile, sentinel, mage slayer, alert, and observant just to name a few. Gnome is a powerful race, sure, but they all are when used properly. For example, an army of dragonborn would be unbeatable if they used their breath weapons effectively.



Again this isn't really true.

For example, the benefit from savage attacks even on a barbarian who only reckless attacks is fairly marginal. Relentless endurance is very questionable as well, it's an extra turn (maybe) of activity that might activate once per day.

Further, such abilities are literally part of barbarian progression. Savage attacks is a thing every barbarian gets while they get an actual useful version of relentless endurance.

Half orc is not an optimal barbarian choice but it is a fluffy barbarian choice.

The benefit of savage attacks is extra dice. If you have increased chance for or guaranteed crits (champion or assassin), that benefit isn't marginal. Yes, those are niche cases, but all races have a niche. All races are designed to work well with particular playstyles and classes.

Half orc is not an optimal barbarian choice? What are you talking about? They do more damage, have optimal stats, and survive death once per day. You can't replicate those things on any other race. You really think that the value of one feat is better than all of those things put together? Calling BS on that, especially since half orcs have dark vision, too.

[SharkForce]

the invocation also doubles as a very powerful combat buff if you have access to a darkness spell. there aren't an awful lot of superior invocations to choose from compared to it.

[Naanomi]

Monks benefit greatly from mobile, sentinel, mage slayer, alert, and observant just to name a few. Gnome is a powerful race, sure, but they all are when used properly. For example, an army of dragonborn would be unbeatable if they used their breath weapons effectively.
I agree that all races have a niche,though some are pretty small. Tieflings, of the core races, don't seem to jump out and fill any particular mechanical niche for example.

[SharkForce]

I agree that all races have a niche,though some are pretty small. Tieflings, of the core races, don't seem to jump out and fill any particular mechanical niche for example.

enchanter wizard? charms do pretty much nothing unless you've got the charisma and skills to make them do something.

[Naanomi]

enchanter wizard? charms do pretty much nothing unless you've got the charisma and skills to make them do something.
But do tiefling racials support that better than a feat? Say... Actor or one of the Concentration boosters?

Also in many settings being a tiefling instead of a human is a mark against you for a social character

[silveralen]

Monks benefit greatly from mobile, sentinel, mage slayer, alert, and observant just to name a few. Gnome is a powerful race, sure, but they all are when used properly. For example, an army of dragonborn would be unbeatable if they used their breath weapons effectively.

Mobile is largely redundant (can disengage as a bonus action and has fast move speed already). Sentinel.. is maybe good for setting up open palm's killing blow but that's it. Mage slayer is... no I actually don't know why you value this at all, it's occasionally an extra attack on a class with the lowest per attack damage. Alert and observant aren't bad but offer monk less than ability score increases. Monk is so MAD, he desperately wants wis and dex as high as possible as fast as possible. Observant monk variant human is probably the best monk in core though.

That's the most absurd reason to claim value ever, though the fact an all variant human army could take magic initiate and most soldiers would be too low for dragonborn's breath to scale means variant human still excells.


The benefit of savage attacks is extra dice. If you have increased chance for or guaranteed crits (champion or assassin), that benefit isn't marginal. Yes, those are niche cases, but all races have a niche. All races are designed to work well with particular playstyles and classes.

Half orc is not an optimal barbarian choice? What are you talking about? They do more damage, have optimal stats, and survive death once per day. You can't replicate those things on any other race. You really think that the value of one feat is better than all of those things put together? Calling BS on that, especially since half orcs have dark vision, too.

It's an extra 3.5-4.5 damage on a crit for the average assassin or fighter. Even with improved crit range that's less than a point of DPR. Maybe half a point. It's not like you will use greataxe afterall, that just gimps your damage.

They barely do more damage, it is nothing compared to say polearm master, and by high levels a critical is more likely to result in overkill than anything else with 3 extra critical dice already.

Their ability to stay on their feat (not alive, if you die you die and it does nothing) is worthless. You have one HP. You will go down the next time something looks at you mean. You may have a single turn extra to act. More likely you simply draw an extra attack from an enemy, or the enemy launches an AoE to clip you and damage your team. Barbarian proper has a version that actually allows multiple hits to be shrugged off, which is actually useful. At that point a human barbarian likely shrugs off 3-4 hits, an orc shrugs 4-5. That's not a big deal for something that shouldn't happen very often anyways.

Human has optimal stats. You see, you will take a feat at some point (sword and shield barb maybe not), human is only a 1 point deficit, meaning the human will have better stats than the half orc in the end. Early on feats matter more than a plus to a secondary stat and getting it early as a half Orc requires losing your main stat.

Half orc's are thoroughly mediocre compared to variant humans as barbarians. Even dwarfs make better barbarians since they have good enough attributes to actually balance out taking a feat later. Half orcs work as champions, the abilities actually work well together, but that's the only place they are an optimal choice.

[ChubbyRain]

@Silveralen

Mobile is certainly NOT redundant.

Instead of blowing ki and using a bonus action the monk can punch the target in the face, use ki, and punch the target in the face two more times and then walk move away. With mobiles +10 speed, the already fast monk is not being caught by anything short of magic or another monk.

Mobile is one of the most underappreciated feats in the game. You may as well put another bullet under it that reads.

*as a monk when you use your ki to make a disengage action, you may .make a flurry of blows attempt against the target you are trying g to disengage from (one flurry of blows attempt on your turn).

(Just make it a bit more clear of course).

If you are completely surrounded then yeah, use ki to disengage but if you have one or two creatures? Just smack them in their smug little faces and run away.

Edit

Vuman Monk 2 has a speed of 50', with the right set up (attack melee and range every other around), you could never be touched by creatures that lack a ranged attack. Oddly enough I've notice that games where I'm playing under a non-regular DM they don't use range options as much level 1-6... Hmm..

[Gnomes2169]

Mobile is largely redundant (can disengage as a bonus action and has fast move speed already). Sentinel.. is maybe good for setting up open palm's killing blow but that's it. Mage slayer is... no I actually don't know why you value this at all, it's occasionally an extra attack on a class with the lowest per attack damage. Alert and observant aren't bad but offer monk less than ability score increases. Monk is so MAD, he desperately wants wis and dex as high as possible as fast as possible. Observant monk variant human is probably the best monk in core though.

Um... Mobile is obe of the key ingredients to not being touched at early levels (as chubby rain said). And +10 movement speed, even on a monk, is still an rather useful when closing a gap on a ranged enemy (especially with bonus action dashing). However, let's talk about low levels for a second... Monks at low levels go down. They go down very quickly, and they go down very easily. Their d8 hit die is rather terrible for a strictly melee class, they can't get above a 16 AC at level 1 (if point buy or standard array are used), and their per-hit damage leaves something to be desired. So hit-and-run tactics are honestly the best for them, and guess which feat gives them the best running to go with their hitting?

Sentinel is probably better on a different class, agreed. A squishy monk does not want to be stuck in place for very long unless they are incredibly high level.

Mage slayer gives the monk, the only class in the game with proficiency on all saving throws, advantage on saving throws once they engage an enemy caster. On top of that, every single attack the monk makes against the caster will be forcing a concentration check. While a monk might not force the highest DC, they will be forcing a lot of them, and the enemy will be at disadvantage on all of them, so the target might as well say goodbye to their concentration spell.

As for alert... It really is one of the premiere feats pf the game. I've had players skip ASI's for it because of how useful it is. And why wouldn't they? It's a +5 bonus to your initiative in a system where a +5 is the best you can get otherwise, and enemies really don't tend to have dexterity scores above 18 (a +4 total). On a high-dex character this basically ensures that they go first, while a lower dex character evens out their odds. Going first is always important unless you are playing dedicated healbot, and no one likes dedicated healbot. The other parts are just frosting on the cake, being immune to surprise and always acting on the surprise round might as well make the feat "assassins gonna assassinate," and gives a monk, a class that relies on acting as often as possible, a good leg up in any encounter with a surprise round.

Observant really is that powerful on a monk, agreed. Though for a more stealth and mobility oriented monk, a wood elf might be more fitting (and if you start with an odd score in wisdom, you can pick up the feat at a later time for the same benefit).

Finally, I've actually found that delaying wisdom doesn't really hurt too much. Sure it's a useful stat, but it is not your attack stat, and picking up a feat instead of progressing it for one level doesn't really impact your performance all too much. A monk is not meant to really stand and fight an enemy, so AC isn't such a big deal, and with the way DC's and saves scale, a DC of 15 vs 16 at level 12 ((assuming a 16 or 18 in wisdom respectively)) really isn't all that bad. If you are stunning, then high con monsters are about as likely to succeed with either and low con monsters are still more apt to fail than they are to succeed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

*snip*I agree that certain games make darkvision more important than all other considerations. I'm not sure if this is a standard game or not, but it is something to take into consideration, especially in an edition where you have a lot of darkvision-granting options.

The benefit of savage attacks is extra dice. If you have increased chance for or guaranteed crits (champion or assassin), that benefit isn't marginal. Yes, those are niche cases, but all races have a niche. All races are designed to work well with particular playstyles and classes.Half orc has one good thing going for assassin (well, that and darkvision) but otherwise doesn't offer much synergy. The extra die doesn't even mean as much with finesse weapons, which you'll likely be using. I'll give you champion, but champion is already a niche option.

Half orc is not an optimal barbarian choice? What are you talking about? They do more damage,This is clearly not true. Savage attacks grants a small damage increase to all but two subclasses, and a feat at level 1 can grant a huge damage increase. See my post above.
have optimal stats,Again, see my post above; with PB or standard array or half the dice rolling results, basically you get a better tertiary stat at some point compared to Variant Human.
and survive death once per day.You mean survive being KO'd once per day at the cost of being more likely to get hit again and die.
You can't replicate those things on any other race.The extra damage die literally gets replicated in a better way with barbarian. Extra HP would replicate the relentless feature in a less risky way (hello Hill Dwarf). Any str-based or flexible race can essentially replicate the stat advantage. The only thing that a human can't replicate is the darkvision, as Person_Man noted above.
You really think that the value of one feat is better than all of those things put together? Calling BS on that, especially since half orcs have dark vision, too.Taking out darkvision, a good feat outweighs the value of the features. Including darkvision, it depends on campaign.

[Easy_Lee]

It depends on campaign.
And the character build. As in everything; the value of everything depends on the campaign and character build. Which is, in a way, the point of this whole thread.

[odigity]

Monks at low levels go down. They go down very quickly, and they go down very easily. Their d8 hit die is rather terrible for a strictly melee class, they can't get above a 16 AC at level 1 (if point buy or standard array are used), and their per-hit damage leaves something to be desired. So hit-and-run tactics are honestly the best for them, and guess which feat gives them the best running to go with their hitting?

I don't understand why you think this.

HP: The difference between d8 and d10 is 1pt/lvl on average. At level 1, that's literally a 1hp difference. At level 4, the highest of the "low" levels, that's a 4hp difference. It doesn't completely change the nature of your char. 4hp is not the difference between tank and glass cannon.

AC: 16 is quite good at early levels. Most people can't even afford plate till level 5 anyway, and most fighters/barbarians prefer 2H weapons to sword + shield. Again, a 16 doesn't disqualify Monk from being a capable and lasting combatant.

Dmg: You can get 2 attacks/rd at level 1, and 3 attacks/rd at level 2. (Everyone else is stuck with 1/rd unless they are dual wielding or Polearm Master.) Even with a base die of d4 for the second and third attack, you're still adding your Dex bonus (likely +3 or +4). Your damage output is competitive.

Also, you can already disengage as a bonus action starting at level 2. Not quite as good as Mobility, but it doesn't cost you one of five very precious Feats/ASIs.

And once you hit level 5, you are friggin awesome.


As for alert... It really is one of the premiere feats pf the game. I've had players skip ASI's for it because of how useful it is. And why wouldn't they? It's a +5 bonus to your initiative in a system where a +5 is the best you can get otherwise, and enemies really don't tend to have dexterity scores above 18 (a +4 total). On a high-dex character this basically ensures that they go first, while a lower dex character evens out their odds. Going first is always important unless you are playing dedicated healbot, and no one likes dedicated healbot.

I don't think Alert is worth a feat slot without optional rules. Having an increased chance of going first in an encounter is roughly equivalent to getting an extra 0.25-0.5 rounds / encounter for free, since I assume even without Alert you'd still be going first about half the time, and Alert doesn't guarantee you go first, it merely increases your chances. So, like every 2-3 encounters you get an extra action? Meh. I guess it's kind of like Action Surge in that way, but it's not nearly as exploitable...

...unless you use the optional rule to reroll everyone's initiative every round. I've tried this in two games now, and we really like it. (I recommend getting an app like Combat Manager to automate it: http://combatmanager.com/) If you are rolling initiative every round, then you're really getting your money's worth with that +5 being applied every round.


Finally, I've actually found that delaying wisdom doesn't really hurt too much. Sure it's a useful stat, but it is not your attack stat, and picking up a feat instead of progressing it for one level doesn't really impact your performance all too much. A monk is not meant to really stand and fight an enemy, so AC isn't such a big deal, and with the way DC's and saves scale, a DC of 15 vs 16 at level 12 ((assuming a 16 or 18 in wisdom respectively)) really isn't all that bad. If you are stunning, then high con monsters are about as likely to succeed with either and low con monsters are still more apt to fail than they are to succeed.

Disagree. Sure, it's painful to blow an ASI on Wis when there are so many cool feats you can be enjoying, but adding 1pt to AC + 1pt to Stunning Strike DC is just too important (your Wis ability checks and saves also go up, obviously). Stunning Strike is your single most powerful offensive ability. I just got to Warlock 2 / Monk 7 with Dex 20 and Wis still at 14, and I intend to spend my remaining 3 ASIs getting Wis to 20.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I don't understand why you think this.

HP: The difference between d8 and d10 is 1pt/lvl on average. At level 1, that's literally a 1hp difference.

Correction: You get your full hit die at lvl 1, so it's a 2hp difference. it's a 25% diffence at lvl 1. Past that, you're correct.

[odigity]

Correction: You get your full hit die at lvl 1, so it's a 2hp difference. it's a 25% diffence at lvl 1. Past that, you're correct.

Forgot about the lvl 1 max HP thing, but level 1 is a death trap no matter what. :)

[ad_hoc]

If you went first in every combat it would be a .5 turn advantage. A +5 to initiative then ends up much less than that.

You also get your con at 1st level and it is probably 14 so HP are 10 vs 12.

[Gnomes2169]

I don't understand why you think this.

HP: The difference between d8 and d10 is 1pt/lvl on average. At level 1, that's literally a 1hp difference. At level 4, the highest of the "low" levels, that's a 4hp difference. It doesn't completely change the nature of your char. 4hp is not the difference between tank and glass cannon.

And a wizard has a d6, which is only 2 points fewer on average, yet they are still considered to be made of squishy, tasty tissue paper. The difference between a more tank oriented class and a monk is that the tank class will have a higher hit die (a fighter's d10 or a barbarian's d12), a higher constitution score (as a variant human, you will typically add to your attack stat and con for a fighter/ barb, but your level 1 ASI's will be going to dex and wis if you want the highest AC you can get as a monk) and then they will have some way to preserve their hitpoint lead (a fighter's second wind or a barbarian's rage). As well, a variant human fighter (since we are talking variant humans here) can take the heavy armor master feat at level 1, while the barbarian is likely taking great weapon master, polearm master or something else to increase their already-high offensive capabilities.

If we are looking at HP over the course of a day, assuming 1 short rest at level 1, 2 at level 2 and then 3 at level 3&4, with only 1 hit die spent per short rest at level 1, 2 and 3, and all hit dice spent at level 4, we get the following average hp/ day. We will be calculating hp/ day for the following classes: Wizard (12 con), monk (14 con), fighter (16 con) and barbarian (16 con).

Level 1
Wizard: 7 base (con 12)+4.5 short rest=11.5 hp/ day
Monk: 10 base (con 14)+6.5 short rest (d8+2)=16.5 hp/ day.
Fighter: 13 base (con 16)+8.5 short rest (d10+3)+6.5 second wind (d10+1)+6.5 second second wind (due to short rest)=34.5 hp/ day
I'd like to pause for a second to just admire a fighter's sustainability even at level 1. With a single hit die and a single short rest to give him a second second-wind, he more than doubles his HP (close to 250%) while the monk barely adds a little more than half (typically 65%). Add on top of that some chainmale and heavy armor master (both available to the variant human at level 1), and the sustain fighter can grind through kobolds all day long. Moving on.
Barbarian: (15 base (con 16)+9.5 short rest (d12+3))x1.5 due to rage= 36.75 hp/ day (assuming 4 encounters), less if more due to rage no longer being usable (and thus giving diminishing returns), and more with fewer.
Now, rage is... Well, awesome, but besides that it provides a small slew of calculation problems. At level 1 you might expect to go through 2-3 encounters before leveling up just because of how quickly level 1 characters level, but anything beyond 2 encounters will make rage less powerful since you only have 2 uses. If you have 3 encounters, then you multiply HP due to rage by 1.67. 4 engounters brings you to x1.5, and 5 is x1.4... But all of this is assuming only physical attacks are coming your way. Until level 3 at the very least (yay totem barbarian!), a barbarian's rage only halves the damage from physical sources. While rare at low levels, this can still slightly skew the over-all hitpoint inflation of rage. For simplicity I made it 2 encounters per short rest at level 1, and only gave one short rest, and I think I'll keep it at 2 enconters before and after each short rest for the rest of the calculations, just to make things a bit easier on me.

As we can see, at the end of the day the fighter and barbar can take quite a lot more punishment than the monk with the single short rest that an entire party would benefit from (everyone can spend their 1 hit die after all), and any further short rests will make the fighter's lead grow by leeps and bounds as they get more and more uses of second wind. Let's see how this trend holds up... For base HP increases and simplicity sake, we will be using the average rounded up method in the PHB.

Level 2
Wizard: 12 base+9 short rests=21 hp/ day
Monk: 17 base+13 short rests (2d8+4)=30 hp/ day
Fighter: 22 base+17 short rests+22.5 (3 second wind, 3d10+6)=61.5 hp/ day
Barbarian: (25 base+19 short rests)x1.33 (2 rages/ 6 encounters)=58.52 hp/ day
Now that there are 2 short rests, we get 6 encounters/ day, yet still only have 2 uses of rage. Since you will only double your HP in 1/3 of battles, the x2 multiplier is dropped to 1.33, and at level 3 we will get the maximum number of short rests/ day in this experiment (3 short rests with 8 encounters/ day) and the barbarian gains a new use of rage, bringing you up to 3/8, or a 1.375 multiplier. As the barbarian gains more rages at later levels the multiplier will only continue to increase, until reaching a full x2 at level 20 as they can rage every single encounter. However, they won't gain a new increase for a while, and we are only going to level 4, so the multiplier does not increase beyond this in the scope of this experiment...

Level 3
Wizard: 17 base+13.5 short rests=30.5 hp/ day
Monk: 24 base+19.5 short rests=41.5 hp/ day
Fighter: 31 base+25.5 short rests+34 (4 second winds, 4d10+12)= 90.5 hp/ day
As this is the third and final short rest, the 4 uses of second wind the fighter gets each day will not be getting higher, but the amount each of them will heal increases with the fighter's level. This will be the reason it continues to increase.
Barbarian: (35 base+28.5 short rests)x1.375=73.5625 hp/ day

Level 4
Wizard: 22 base+18 short rests=40 hp/ day
Monk: 31 base+26 short rests=57 hp/ day
Fighter: 40 base+34 short rests+38 second wind (4d10+16)=112 hp/ day
Barbarian: (45 base+38 short rests)x1.375 rage=114.125 hp/ day

Now it isn't perfect, I already brought up the problems with calculating rage and the amount actually restored by a dice roll can fluctuate after all, but these low levels show the basic trends of each class as far as over-all hp is concerned, and the monk follows the HP pattern of a less durable back-line class such as the wizard. True the monk will eventually double the wizard's over-all HP, but the fighter and barbarian basically triple the wizard's HP over the course of a typical adventuring day from level 1, and just keep getting farther and farther ahead at a much greater rate.

For a different frontline class like the paladin, lay on hands provides a solid and consistent method of hp restoration, and spell slots for emergency healing if necessary. Rangers, a more mid-range warrior, has higher hp and emergency healing spell slots like the paladin, but no other way to recover hp beyond their larger hit dice kind of like a monk, but with more HP and more ways to recover said HP effectively unless the monk goes with the Open Hand and they get a 1/ day level x3 heal. The ranger and monk are in the middle of the pack durability-wise, and they fit a mid-line surgical striker role, the ranger with its ranged capabilities and the monk with its speed and mobility. They are meant to inflict as much damage as possible, not take it, but are built sturdy enough to handle a few attacks from ranged foes or enemies that manage to engage them in melee, they are not meant to be as front-line as more durable classes like the fighter, paladin or barbarian. While they have a similar base, they just don't have the ability to sustain it.


AC: 16 is quite good at early levels. Most people can't even afford plate till level 5 anyway, and most fighters/barbarians prefer 2H weapons to sword + shield. Again, a 16 doesn't disqualify Monk from being a capable and lasting combatant.

But it is their maximum starting AC, and they cannot get above it without heavy-handed DM fiat. For comparison, if we are building a raw hp-sponge fighter tank, we will have a base AC of 16 (chainmale, completely stat-independant), 18 with a shield and 19 with the proper fighting style, and reduce all incoming weapon damage by 3 on top of this. This tanking fighter can also take the dueling fighting style to keep up his DPR and still have 18 AC and DR 3. The most offensive tank fighter can go with the great weapon fighter or two weapon fighter (the most offensively powerful ones at level 1), still have 16 AC and also have DR 3. Taking an average kobold (we'll give them swarm tactics but also put them in harsh sunlight to remove the worry of advantage calculations), we'll see how many hits it will take (on average) to take down a monk with all of their possible front-line durability added in (hint, it's AC 16) vs a fighter with the varying degrees of tank ability vs a raging barbarian with 14 dex and 16 con (AC 15) and a raging barbarian with the same dex/ con and a shield (AC 17) vs a wizard with a dex of 16 (AC 13) who uses all of their slots on blasting. We'll use the HP calculations above to simulate how many attacks it will take for Tucker's kobolds to wear down an adventuring party over the course of a day, and we'll also ignore crits to keep things simple:

Kobold attack bonus: +4
Average damage/ hit: 4
Accuracy vs each AC:
-13: 60% (2.4 damage/ attack)
-15: 50% (2 damage/ attack)
-16: 45% (1.8 damage/ attack)
-17: 40% (1.6 damage/ attack)
-18: 35% (1.4 damage/ attack)
-19: 30% (1.2 damage/ attack)
Average damage/ hit vs heavy armor master: 1
Vs relevent AC's:
-16: 45% (.45 damage/ attack)
-18: 35% (.35 damage/ attack)
-19: 30% (.3 damage/ attack)

Wizard: 11.5 hp/ day, 2.4 damage/ attack. 11.5/2.4=4.791 attacks (rounded up to 5 attacks survived through the course of a day)

Monk: 16.5 hp/ day, 1.8 damage/ attack. 16.5/1.8=9.16666 attacks (rounded up to 10)

Fighter: This... Will be a long section. Please excuse the swarm of numbers.
-Fighter hp 34.5 and DR 3
At AC 16: 34.5/.45=76.666 attacks (rounded to 77)
At AC 18: 34.5/.35=98.5 attacks (rounded to 99)
At AC 19: 34.5/.30=115 attacks
-Fighter hp 34.5 without heavy armor master
At AC 16: 34.5/1.8=19.1666 attacks (rounded to 20)
At AC 18: 34.5/1.4=24.28 attacks (rounded to 25)
At AC 19: 34.5/1.2=28.75 attacks (rounded to 29)

Barbarian: 36.75 hp/ day (rage added in)
At AC 15: 36.75/2=18.38 attacks (rounded to 19)
At AC 17: 36.75/1.6=22.96 attacks (rounded to 23)

Heavy armor master is almost stupidly broken when fighting kobolds with even just a decent AC, especially when combined with the fighter's monstrous comparative HP. Kobolds can rain down on him until kingdom come for the entire day, but he is not likely to go down. Even without heavy armor master and even without better AC than the monk, however, the fighter still survives the front lines for twice as long as our kung-fu friend. Our particular wizard, meant for the back lines, is half as durable as the monk over the course of our kobold-filled adventuring day, which I find to be a rather interesting pattern, and which, to me, suggests that the monk is supposed to be in the middle rank, more of a surgical-striking skirmisher than our true front line armored (or pissed off) party tanks.

This in no way is meant to "prove" that a 16 AC is bad! This is instead meant to point out that it is all the monk gets, and that there are other options that are far, far superior to them as far as standing in the front lines goes. 10 attacks happen very quickly if a character stands in the front, and 16 AC can be overcome rather quickly without anything else backing it up. A barbarian has rage and more HP base, a fighter has the ability to get equal or better AC and has second wind with their higher HP base, and the monk... Has nothing. It's why merely 16 AC is not enough for me to classify them as a front line character, especially if you fight creatures with higher accuracy and damage than kobolds.

Tldr; the monk needs something other than their 16 AC to be a true front line soldier in the early-mid game, and they just don't have it.


Dmg: You can get 2 attacks/rd at level 1, and 3 attacks/rd at level 2. (Everyone else is stuck with 1/rd unless they are dual wielding or Polearm Master.) Even with a base die of d4 for the second and third attack, you're still adding your Dex bonus (likely +3 or +4). Your damage output is competitive.

Yes, it is! It's just not all too large per hit. With a quarter staff in two hands, your DPR for one or two rounds* at level 2 is 1d8+3, 1d4+3, 1d4+3, or 18.5 damage/ round with a +5 to hit. Pretty good. However, you also are running a risk of not killing your target with any hit in particular (a kobold has a 25% chance of surviving your unarmed strike until you spend an ASI on dexterity), which means that you might have to waste part of your very limited early game flurry to finish a target off. It's a problem more with having such a small damage die than it is with the monk itself, however. Do note though, on any round that the monk doesn't have flurry a TWF fighter will do equal damage while still having the same AC and better survivability, while a raging barbarian will hit as hard with a single hit as the monk does with a whole non-flurry round, and a barbarian or fighter variant human with the heavy weapons master feat can, after murdering their first kobold, blow the monk's dpr out of the water with their own bonus action attack (likely overkill, and with less spread, but still a boatload of damage.) Monks are good at picking targets, getting to them and dishing out a bit of damage with a good round or two of nova, and potentially inflicting a stun in there as well. It doesn't make them the king of round-to-round or nova DPR, but they have some of the most consistent and controlled damage dealing of all the classes in the game. At level 5, the monk reaches its peak damage (with only a slight bump at the level 8 ASI and then other small bumps later on from gaining an increased die size), while other martial classes slowly play catchup and most eventually surpass the monk (who is mostly attacking to inflict status effects like stun and prone on enemies by this point).

*See why this discrepency is here below.


Also, you can already disengage as a bonus action starting at level 2. Not quite as good as Mobility, but it doesn't cost you one of five very precious Feats/ASIs.

The difference between mobility and the monk bonus action on a variant human is that the bonus action costs 1 ki, while mobility is free and allows you to use your bonus action. Mobility also gives +10 move speed on top of that. As a level 1 racial bonus (or if your DM is feeling nice a free feat at level 1), Mobility is rather nice, and any monk should want to take it if they can (again, it's a cornerstone in the monk's "hit and run" design that I believe they are built for). Mobility is just especially good at lower levels, since you only have a very small pool of ki that you shouldn't really want to burn through quickly, and your unarmed attacks are still potentially lethal at this point.


And once you hit level 5, you are friggin awesome.

This is true of many martial classes, who actually get a bit more of a DPR bump (percentage wise) than the monk.


I don't think Alert is worth a feat slot without optional rules. Having an increased chance of going first in an encounter is roughly equivalent to getting an extra 0.25-0.5 rounds / encounter for free, since I assume even without Alert you'd still be going first about half the time, and Alert doesn't guarantee you go first, it merely increases your chances. So, like every 2-3 encounters you get an extra action? Meh. I guess it's kind of like Action Surge in that way, but it's not nearly as exploitable...

...unless you use the optional rule to reroll everyone's initiative every round. I've tried this in two games now, and we really like it. (I recommend getting an app like Combat Manager to automate it: http://combatmanager.com/) If you are rolling initiative every round, then you're really getting your money's worth with that +5 being applied every round.

Disagree. Sure, it's painful to blow an ASI on Wis when there are so many cool feats you can be enjoying, but adding 1pt to AC + 1pt to Stunning Strike DC is just too important (your Wis ability checks and saves also go up, obviously). Stunning Strike is your single most powerful offensive ability. I just got to Warlock 2 / Monk 7 with Dex 20 and Wis still at 14, and I intend to spend my remaining 3 ASIs getting Wis to 20.

Just going to get the rest of this together. The main attraction for an early alert on a monk is basic assurace that you will go first and have the best odds of getting a stunning blow off before your enemy can act even once, even if they manage to surprise your party. It sacrifices slightly on defenses and potentially sticking a stunning blow to focus on a different aspect of the monk, its burst and perma-lock-down potential.

Build wise for the alpha-strike mid-level monk, you would max out dexterity first, grab alert at level 12, and then, if your game goes to level 16 and 19 (neither published adventure does, so it has to be a custom campaign that has good traction or starts at a high level) then you max out your dexterity as normal. Since this is a highly offensive build that will require a bit of mobility, starting as a variant human with the feat mobility is recommended. At level 12 this is how this particular build would look beside a similar monk who goes with a more "standard" build with a wood elf, a variant human with observant and a variant human with mobility:

BuildACInitiativeWisdom saveSave DCPassive perceptionMovement speed
Wood elf19+5+4161855
Observant human19+5+4161950
Mobility human19+5+4161460
Alpha strike18+10+31513 (can't be surprised)60

Note, once again I am not claiming this to be a superior build, just a viable one with its own niche. It is a build that acts as often and as quickly as possible to get the best chance to stun and negate the actions of its enemies before said enemies get the chance to even think of acting. The slight delay of DC's doesn't really hold the monk back, and as the monk does not yet actually have proficiency in wisdom saving throws at the point where you delay wisdom (they don't get Diamond Soul until level 14), the monk is likely to fail against a saving throw from a caster either way. Besides, the strategy of this build is to prevent enemies from acting (starting in the mid game). Enemies should not be making melee attacks against you (thanks to mobility/ stunning blow), you can basically ignore melee attacks thanks to deflect missiles, and enemies that can force saving throws are your primary perma-lock-down targets, and if they get something off you were likely going to fail anyway.

Over all, yes. Adding to wisdom at level 12 is the standard way to progress, but it is not the only one, and delaying a non-attack stat for 4 levels to get a feat earlier isn't going to sink you to the realms of uselessness or non-optimisation, it's just going to change how you play the monk over all (more fluid and glass-canony vs more stationary and sturdy).

[Rowan Wolf]

For some reason the title has me thinking "Grey Skull".

As of right now none of my players have asked about using the variant human (most of the group are either new to D&D or to this edition) So I haven't really seen any 'at the table' to compare with 'on paper/in forum' experience. If feats continue to be created in various source books I could see that adding to the appeal of variant similarly (in feel at least) to how addition spell releases are good for preparation casters.

[Vogonjeltz]

Taking out what's available to both, we're left with Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, a Skill Proficiency, Elvish, and +2 CHA for the Half-Elf, and the Feat for the Variant Human. As I mentioned earlier, I'm assuming that the Feat is equivalent to an ASI in terms of power level. An ASI (2 points to put into Ability Scores however one pleases) is slightly stronger than +2 to CHA, as those points are limited in placement. Therefore, proper balance dictates the Half-Elf getting a few minor bonuses to counteract the Feat, which is exactly what we see. Ergo, the Variant Human can be said to be balanced.

This is also true of the other races. If we were to itemize the value of the racial features for each, they all provide more net value than the Human or Variant Human. And in a technical sense, the Variant Human actually provides less value than the Standard Human.


•Is something taken at an overwhelmingly high rate compared to other options?

1) We just need a non-anecdotal data set proving this.
2) This doesn't show the option is imbalanced, what it demonstrates is a preference for the choice. At worst it shows there is a perception (right or wrong) that the choice is considered best. It does not demonstrate that it is, as a matter of function, best.

The purpose of asorel's analysis is to demonstrate empirically that the variant human is actually providing fewer benefits, so it's demonstrably not the best choice.
This leads to the conclusion that if we can show through survey that variant human is more commonly chosen than any other option there are one of two outcomes in play. Either,

1) Players simply prefer to play as Humans, regardless of the functionality.
or
2) Players perceive Humans are a superior choice and pick it because of functionality.

There's of course always the third way:
3) Some combination of the first two.

[Giant2005]

The purpose of asorel's analysis is to demonstrate empirically that the variant human is actually providing fewer benefits, so it's demonstrably not the best choice.
This leads to the conclusion that if we can show through survey that variant human is more commonly chosen than any other option there are one of two outcomes in play. Either,

1) Players simply prefer to play as Humans, regardless of the functionality.
or
2) Players perceive Humans are a superior choice and pick it because of functionality.

There's of course always the third way:
3) Some combination of the first two.

Or
4) Starting with a feat is often mandatory for a character's backstory to make sense chronologically and variant human is the only way.

[Shining Wrath]

This is also true of the other races. If we were to itemize the value of the racial features for each, they all provide more net value than the Human or Variant Human. And in a technical sense, the Variant Human actually provides less value than the Standard Human.



1) We just need a non-anecdotal data set proving this.
2) This doesn't show the option is imbalanced, what it demonstrates is a preference for the choice. At worst it shows there is a perception (right or wrong) that the choice is considered best. It does not demonstrate that it is, as a matter of function, best.

The purpose of asorel's analysis is to demonstrate empirically that the variant human is actually providing fewer benefits, so it's demonstrably not the best choice.
This leads to the conclusion that if we can show through survey that variant human is more commonly chosen than any other option there are one of two outcomes in play. Either,

1) Players simply prefer to play as Humans, regardless of the functionality.
or
2) Players perceive Humans are a superior choice and pick it because of functionality.

There's of course always the third way:
3) Some combination of the first two.

Or ...

Getting a feat at first level lets you do a thing or things that are perceived as superior to what other races can do with their racial features. For example, Crossbow Expert can give you extra attacks, which is pretty sweet at level 1. Since many campaigns don't make it to level 20 or even level 15, a fast start can mean your character is noticeably superior for the duration of the campaign.

[Mr.Moron]

1) We just need a non-anecdotal data set proving this.
2) This doesn't show the option is imbalanced, what it demonstrates is a preference for the choice. At worst it shows there is a perception (right or wrong) that the choice is considered best. It does not demonstrate that it is, as a matter of function, best.
].

You'll notice in that post you're question I specifically said that my guidelines weren't intended as a measure of "Balanced" or "Imbalanced" and that I don't find framing things in those terms to be particularly meaningful for this kind of discussion. Even then player perception is by far the most important thing* to look at when considering the merits of design choices, particularly in a non-competitive context.

Certainly trying to quantity incomparable racial abilities into numbers doesn't strike me as the correct approach either.

EDIT:* Ok. So this is probably a touch of hyperbole, but it's pretty dang important.

[SharkForce]

minor correction: monks *do* have an extra defensive ability that is available to them at level 2. it isn't particularly sustainable at low levels, but they can dodge as a bonus action... in the round that you use it, that is arguably superior to having a shield.

[ChubbyRain]

minor correction: monks *do* have an extra defensive ability that is available to them at level 2. it isn't particularly sustainable at low levels, but they can dodge as a bonus action... in the round that you use it, that is arguably superior to having a shield.

Overall I do think Dodge is better than shield.

No one ever talks about Bonus Action: Dodge all that much haha.

[Vogonjeltz]

Or
4) Starting with a feat is often mandatory for a character's backstory to make sense chronologically and variant human is the only way.

That's lumped into #2, choosing because of the functionality.


You'll notice in that post you're question I specifically said that my guidelines weren't intended as a measure of "Balanced" or "Imbalanced" and that I don't find framing things in those terms to be particularly meaningful for this kind of discussion. Even then player perception is by far the most important thing* to look at when considering the merits of design choices, particularly in a non-competitive context.

Certainly trying to quantity incomparable racial abilities into numbers doesn't strike me as the correct approach either.

EDIT:* Ok. So this is probably a touch of hyperbole, but it's pretty dang important.

I disagree regarding the value of perception trumping quantifiable substance. If we bend a knee to perception the game will never be balanced, players will simply flock to whatever flavor of the month is most prevalent because someone enterprising discovered the ways to exploit possible actions "best" and then a new round of complaints will rise.

It's no that those things weren't entirely possible before, it's just nobody was bothering to figure them out because they wanted to flock to the easy fix that had already been noticed.