Do You Allow VHuman In Your Games?

[JNAProductions]

I, for one, do so.

Do all you?

[bulbaquil]

Of course I do. It encourages people to play humans.

[Reosoul]

I did for one campaign. After a time, I felt it was a mistake.

I have since banned variant human and allowed anyone to take a free feat at level one.

I find this serves two purposes:


Players feel less pressured to pick the most powerful option as far as races are considered.
Players are immediately able to pick up options to flavor their character or get a feat tax out of the way(Warcaster).

[Calimehter]

We don't. It does tend to discourage humans though.

I think if/when it is my turn to GM I'm going to use an odd#-heavy array for character gen and see if that helps.

[Arial Black]

I find it difficult to come up with a situation in which
I'd choose the non-variant human over the variant.

In fact, I believe that the 'variant' would've been the only version if they hadn't chickened out of making feats part of the 'basic' rules instead of being 'optional', but because feats are technically optional then so must variant humans with their bonus feat.

[tsotate]

They could have just made humans part of the same optional rules as Feats and Multiclassing. Does anyone actually play without Feats anyway?

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I, for one, do so.

Do all you?

If I didn't, there would be no reason to play a human, like ever. Variant Human at least gives you a competitive reason to play a human. Just the regular Human race option is pretty crappy.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I did for one campaign. After a time, I felt it was a mistake.

I have since banned variant human and allowed anyone to take a free feat at level one.

I find this serves two purposes:


Players feel less pressured to pick the most powerful option as far as races are considered.
Players are immediately able to pick up options to flavor their character or get a feat tax out of the way(Warcaster).


If everyone gets a free feat at first level, I'm wondering why/if anyone would play a human at all. All the other races have so much more going for them.

[Easy_Lee]

I tried to come up with a build for which a non-variant human would work. The only thing which came to mind was a monk who rolled all odd numbers for his stats.

I use v-humans. But I also use a revised feat system in which everyone gets more feats and the feats are half as powerful. If you don't use variant humans, I suggest buffing the base human. Perhaps +2 to two attributes instead of +1 to all would be reasonable.

[ES Curse]

Standard Humans should have received +2 to two stats and the skill/language proficiencies that the V-Human got. Part of the problem is, Human were created to be good at a little bit of everything, but your average character picks 1-3 things they want to excel in, and Standard Humans don't have the means to get there.

Maybe if you're playing a MAD class like STR Paladin that doesn't use either of the god stats (DEX and WIS), Standard Human becomes a bit better, but there isn't much of that in 5e. Classes by stat usage:
-Barbarian: Maybe if you're going STR and want to make use of Unarmored Defense
-Bard: STR Valor Bards could be interesting
-Cleric: Well, +1 to STR and WIS might be good for War/Tempest clerics, as no PHB race has that (V-Human aside)
-Druid: A class that literally pumps WIS and nothing else. While Wild Shaped, 3 of your stats don't even matter!
-Fighter: Maybe if you're going with a STR Eldritch Knight with good INT, but otherwise beaten by other races
-Monk: Nothing but DEX and WIS, maybe affords you a better CON.
-Paladin: +1 to STR and CHA for offense, and +1 to DEX, WIS, and CON for defense! Good for STR Paladins.
-Ranger: Since you can't use heavy armor, +1 to STR, DEX, CON, and WIS helps a lot
-Rouge: Maybe for the Arcane Trickster, but Halflings and Elves get +2 DEX and more racial buffs.
-Sorcerer: Maybe good for a STR gish, but why are you using Sorcerer?
-Warlock: Ah, there's my STR gish! +1 to STR and CHA without sacrificing a +1 to your DEX/CON/WIS!
-Wizard: I mean, as a class built around the worst stat in the game, getting +1 to all your important defensive stats and INT gives you more leeway to boost INT, but Gnomes and High Elves are probably better.

[Tallis]

I prefer variant humans. I don't like the idea that humans ae smarter, faster, stronger, wiser etc. than demi-humans with the eception of one aea where they're equal and one better. I also like to encourage players to play humans because I really like to keep other races more mystical not just humans with pointy ears or short humans or whatever.

[Longcat]

I used to, but now I don't. It's an objectively overpowered option that lets you have your cake and eat it too, with the only opportunity cost being lack of Darkvision. If GWM/SS/CE/PAM are on the table

I do buff the regular human though. In my games, they get 2 free skill proficiencies, and the Half-Elf loses one free skill proficiency.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Yes, but the feat must be one that grants a bonus to an ability score. I also altered a few feats that were subpar so that they now grant an ability score boost in addition to their other benefits.

[Belac93]

I do. In games where it isn't allowed, I never play humans, which is a shame, since I love being them! But as the non-variant version, they never appeal to me.

[Sigreid]

I allow it. I consider the feat roughly on par with the stuff the other races are given. I mean, multiple weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, dark vision, LUCK, resistances, etc. Fact is all of the other races effectively have at least one feat built in, you just don't get to pick it.

[Sigreid]

I prefer variant humans. I don't like the idea that humans ae smarter, faster, stronger, wiser etc. than demi-humans with the eception of one aea where they're equal and one better. I also like to encourage players to play humans because I really like to keep other races more mystical not just humans with pointy ears or short humans or whatever.

From the old Star Frontiers game on humans:

Of all the star-faring races, humans are the most varied. As a race they are not as warlike as the yazirians, as businesslike as the vrusk or as thoughtful as the dralasites. Yet, individual humans can be found who surpass even the most violent yazirians, the most dedicated vrusk and the most philosophical dralasites. Humans tend to value individuality and personal freedom more than anything else, but they do not hesitate to work together to reach a common goal or to protect themselves from attack.

[Goober4473]

I don't allow variant humans, but I also buffed regular humans by granting them a "half feat", which are the ones that give +1 to an ability score, but without the +1 (plus a few others that were too weak).

[Nod_Hero]

I allow them in my campaign world but I've considered a reverse of that decision.
Luckily my players are more role-players than roll-players so not too much cheese in the game.

[Quintessence]

If everyone gets a free feat at first level, I'm wondering why/if anyone would play a human at all. All the other races have so much more going for them.

Half-elf special and a free feat? Mountain Dwarf special and a free feat?

Yep, I am in heaven.

[Klorox]

They could have just made humans part of the same optional rules as Feats and Multiclassing. Does anyone actually play without Feats anyway?

I play in one game without feats. It's weird.

It's a damn good thing the campaign is (by far) the most immersive RP group in a part of.

[the secret fire]

I think feats are meant to be special in 5e, and getting the first class feat at 4th level in many ways marks the transition from apprentice to veteran for the character in question. So no, I don't allow vhumans.

But I allow normal humans to distribute their racial bonuses as they see fit. Humans in my world get a total of +6 to distribute among their stats however they choose (maximum adjusted starting value remains at 17) rather than straight +1s down the board. I find that this makes them competitive with the other races without being the one, true choice for optimizers.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I play in one game without feats. It's weird.


I like a lot of feats but I think I would be happy playing in a game without any. Feats increase the tendency to min-max by a lot.

[Kryx]

I don't. As stated above they are objectively the best option for pretty much every build.

[Quintessence]

I think feats are meant to be special in 5e, and getting the first class feat at 4th level in many ways marks the transition from apprentice to veteran for the character in question. So no, I don't allow vhumans.

But I allow normal humans to distribute their racial bonuses as they see fit. Humans in my world get a total of +6 to distribute among their stats however they choose (maximum adjusted starting value remains at 17) rather than straight +1s down the board. I find that this makes them competitive with the other races without being the one, true choice for optimizers.

Humans in your world are broken as hell, that beats the piss out of a feat at level 1...

[Alcibiades]

But I allow normal humans to distribute their racial bonuses as they see fit. Humans in my world get a total of +6 to distribute among their stats however they choose (maximum adjusted starting value remains at 17) rather than straight +1s down the board. I find that this makes them competitive with the other races without being the one, true choice for optimizers.

This seems excessive. Am I missing something or is +2 to three skills (or +3 to two) far better than the other races?

[the secret fire]

Humans in your world are broken as hell, that beats the piss out of a feat at level 1...

It's actually a feat and a skill if we're talking about vumans. It really depends on the feat, and on the character that is taking it. There are definitely feats out there strong enough that you'd still rather have a standard vuman rather than distributing stats as I do. The ability to raise two stats to 17 at the beginning is also of quite limited value as Resilient can only be taken once, though it would encourage players to take feats like Observant, which I don't have a problem with.

Hell, take a simple feat like Lucky, which RAW (and according to MM's twitter) even works on rolls at disadvantage (meaning you get to choose between all three dice, turning disadvantage into super-advantage). Take that feat for free at 1st level and tell me how much it does for you over the course of twenty levels. Stat bonuses are nice, but there are plenty of feats which are very powerful mechanically.

Humans are strong for the MAD classes in my world, which I think is appropriate considering that in older editions they were the only race that even could be paladins or monks. For the SAD classes, they're not so amazing. I should also mention that not having darkvision in my world is a meaningful disadvantage. I don't just fudge vision rules like many DMs seem to.

Humans in my world are on par with the stronger subraces (Mountain Dwarf, Ghostwise Halfling, Wood Elf, Svirfneblin, etc.), but they are not as imbalanced as they were when they got a free feat at 1st level, in my estimation.

[90sMusic]

I absolutely allow it, because regular flavor human is the weakest and most inferior of all the races.

This varies from world to world, but humans are supposed to generally be the most common race in most worlds, and I ran with at least one human in every adventuring party in 3.5 because the extra feat and other perks was really nice to add to raw power of your character while other races offered less versatile, but still good, perks. Humans were a popular choice.

In 5e, humans are hot garbage and there is literally no benefit or advantage to playing one aside from RP reasons. And RP is nice and everything, but that is usually not enough to want to be human since all of us are humans in our every day lives and the other races tend to have more interesting stories that can be attached or thought up.

They get +1 to all stats and know two languages. That is IT. The only things they get. Period.

Then look at half elf... +2 charisma, +1 to two stats of your choice. Already an improvement over human because of dump stats.

Darkvision.
Advantage on saves against charmed and cant be put to sleep.
TWO extra skill proficiencies.
Know three languages.

How is this even a thing? It is so tragically unbalanced and honestly just silly that humans are so pathetic in 5e, I don't understand it at all. Variant human is the only way to actually make them appealing and considering the only benefit they get is a free feat and one proficiency of their choice at the cost of having the lowest ability score increase in the game, I think it kind of works out.

I mean, you need variant human to even have humans in your game. No one likes being the only person in the entire world without dark vision and who has literally no perks, abilities, or nothing else coming from their race.

The only reason to ever be human is purely, 100% from a roleplaying perspective but most people just aren't interested in being humans for RP purposes since they are humans every day of their lives anyway. It's more fun to have little perks.

I'd be curious to see a poll for how many people only play human with variant human is allowed. Even then, it's still not a popular choice. Not sure why people hate it so much.

[Chronos Flame]

So I have been writing a custom setting for years, and of late I've been on and off converting races to better fit my setting and my setting to run well in 5e, however small those tweaks are sometimes. When I came to human I agonized over the annoyance that the default bonus is really lackluster and the variant is incredible. What I have (tentatively) decided on is making the variant the standard but the chosen feat MUST be resilient. Thoughts?

[Gastronomie]

I did for one campaign. After a time, I felt it was a mistake.

I have since banned variant human and allowed anyone to take a free feat at level one.

I find this serves two purposes:


Players feel less pressured to pick the most powerful option as far as races are considered.
Players are immediately able to pick up options to flavor their character or get a feat tax out of the way(Warcaster).
This is, without any doubt, the best way to go.

[hymer]

I don't like the idea that humans ae smarter, faster, stronger, wiser etc. than demi-humans with the eception of one aea where they're equal and one better.

Since these are PC creation rules, you don't have to interpret it that way. I prefer to think that PC adventurers have something going for them over other, more ordinary, humans, and so get the stat bonus. PCs are going to be better stat-wise than the average demi-human, regardless.


I also like to encourage players to play humans because I really like to keep other races more mystical not just humans with pointy ears or short humans or whatever.

I've had my fill of all-human parties from 3.5. I don't think players do a considerably better or worse job of portraying the campaign worlds' human cultures than the demi-human ones.

@ OP: I don't have variant humans in my current campaign, and I have stats made by picking an array, all of which have several uneven numbers.
And players go human. Off the top of my head there are two humans out of nine PCs created, a cleric and a paladin.
There's also an option for gaining feats at level 1 for any race, but not just any feat. Most PCs started with a feat, but I think three or four didn't.

[Lollerabe]

We allow them at our table, and every race starts with a semi feat aka half feat, plus a lot of the less attractive feats got turned into half feats.

Currently we are 6 players, two of them are vhumans and they both took it for flavor. While I can understand Kryx and others that share the opinion of vhumans being overpowered,I often feel that min/maxing happens way way more on forums than in practice. Actually that's me projecting - min/maxing isn't a thing at my table. Players at my table tend to make a concept and then try to pick the strongest options for that concept, rather than picking a strong option (race feats etc) and then make a concept

[IShouldntBehere]

I don't use the Feat system, so allowing them would be rather pointless. I do however allow players to cash in their +1s for bonus proficiencies of various sorts, the exchange rate and type of proficiency depending on the exact character concept.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't, but only because I grant a bonus feat at second or third level (whichever you don't get your subclass at). It means you get a meaningful choice at all three levels of the "apprentice period."

I also totally rewrote the normal human, though, because holy geez are they boring crap. (In my setting they're a very militarized race where everyone has to serve in the militia for a year, and they depend heavily on magic to survive. So they get some weapon and armor proficiencies, a cantrip from a short list, arcana and a skill/tool of their choice)

[Regitnui]

I have 5 players, two of whom are humans. One is a fighter and the other a barbarian. Both of them are nonvariant humans. One player has less access to the books, but the other looked at GWM and decided against vhuman. I allowed it, but they didn't take it. Judging by the posts thus far, that's counterintuitive. Judging by the sessions thus far, they match up fairly well with the half-elf, half-orc and changeling who complete the party.

I'll allow them feats when they hit their first ASI, and we'll see if there's any great increase in power.

[hymer]

I don't, but only because I grant a bonus feat at second or third level (whichever you don't get your subclass at).

What about those who choose their subclass at level 1?

[JellyPooga]

I'm kind of surprised by the hate for Standard Human; it may not be the most powerful option, but it does what Humans are supposed to do; be versatile. The +1 across the board can be very potent using point buy. With rolled stats the usefulness depends heavily on what you roll, but if you get more than 2 odd scores it's probably worth considering.

15,13,13,13,10,9 is a solid 27pt array when you add one to each. A +3, three +2's and no negatives is totally solid. Only the Half-Elf comes close to being able to match that aggregate bonus without gimping the character. You have some wiggle room to min-max if you want, but unless you really need two +3's, I don't see why you'd want to. It's an array that works for any Class.

V.Human is good, but by no means necessary to make Humans interesting or viable in play. If I were running a 5ed game I'd consider disallowing them, but could probably be persuaded to grant it on a case-by-case basis if I liked the concept. A Feat at level 1 is powerful and probably a little unbalancing at low levels of play.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think part of the dislike for normal humans is that they are boring. +1 to every ability score is something that varies between okay and good depending on your array (it sucks on an all evens array, but is a nice boost on an all odds one). The thing is, it doesn't add anything new to the character beyond just 'generally better', and it can be hard for most players to get excited about that.

In fact, I see a large tendency when I play D&D for players to pick nonhumans over humans. The group I'm currently playing in includes a Halfling Bard/Rogue, a Dwarf Barbarian, a Tiefling Sorceress, and my Dragonborn Fighter/Cleric, all chosen for various reasons (one for roleplay munchkinery, one for 'sure, why not', one because succubi are a recurring gag regarding the player, and me because I wanted to play something exotic and have an Islamic flavour*).

I don't see vHuman as broken, but I do see it as dangerous. There's the potential for abuse there, even if not realised, and in some cases it might make someone play a nonhuman, but not in my experience. I don't ban it, but that's because I've yet to run a serious 5e game.

* For the record, I'm playing a crossbow wielder because I wanted some who used to be a Janissary, but gun stats were too powerful for my taste.

[Sir cryosin]

How many of you have picked or have players pick a human. In my main group it me and two other DM'S that has other groups. Most if not all are players. Don't play humans. The other races offer more they offer +1 +2 in two stats a skill proficiency and some form of a Mico feat. Then you have Dwarfs, Drow, Tiefling that get a whole slew of things and spells. I don't feEl or seen in any game where the vhuman was op. In fact they have falling behind in a lot of situations. The problem here is ya'll are afraid of GWM, SS, PAM, ect... which I have played character build around those feats and I felt unsatisfied with those characters because all I could do was hit or shot things.

[D.U.P.A.]

Just ban certain feats at level 1. For example Sharpshooter, Greatweapon master, etc. I see no problem picking feats like Dungeon delver, Mounted combat, Linguist at level 1.

[Easy_Lee]

Just ban certain feats at level 1. For example Sharpshooter, Greatweapon master, etc. I see no problem picking feats like Dungeon delver, Mounted combat, Linguist at level 1.

That's an issue of some feats being over or underpowered, depending on your point of view. That's another thing I looked at, though it would be interesting to see data on the most and least chosen feats.

[JellyPooga]

I used to play almost exclusively as a non-human; the more exotic the better, was my motto. These days, however, I've been going vanilla human more and more and despite "vanilla" being an almost derogatory term for "boring" it's actually an exotic and somewhat expensive spice. In a faux-medieval fantasy setting, vanilla would be a luxury only nobles can afford! In short, I've been seeing the potential in playing Human, not just from a roleplaying perspective, but also mechanically.

+1 to all stats might not be exotic, but it is powerful. It's something that never ceases being useful, unlike the Dragonborns breath weapon and it is something that will always be useful, unlike the Dwarven resistance to poison, which may never be used.

V.Human might specialise better for a specific build, but for any Class that wants a lot of high stats or is a good generalist, S.Human comes up trumps; Bard, Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue all like having good all-round stats and even EK Fighters, Melee Clerics, Bladelocks and more martially inclined Wizards will enjoy having higher stats across the board.

The days of SAD are, thankfully, long gone I think and one of the joys of 5ed is the number of viable builds it allows you to play. S.Human is a step in the right direction, away from the high-op super-specialized character norm to a more evenly balanced style of play where even the more atypical concepts still work.

[Mr Adventurer]

We do for our current game. The GWM/PAM Fighter owns face at 5th level.

If I start my own game, I'll likely:
Not use variant humans, but Give humans two extra skill or tool proficiencies (and a bonus language if they don't already get that, I forget), and Not use the Feats variant rule, but Give everyone a free feat at 1st level and at 5th, 10th etc. or some progression like that.

[hymer]

How many of you have picked or have players pick a human.

In the campaign I'm currently DMing, two of nine PCs are standard humans (without checking my notes). In the campaign I've latest been player, two out of four PCs were standard humans.
At least one of my players very much enjoy the simplicity of humans, and avoids feats whenever possible, as he considers them a needless complication.

[Specter]

I do. If a given feat would bother me, I ban that feat instead of feats in general.

If you feel feats are too much, just give the regular human two skill proficiencies, and it should make up for it. Back in the day humans where the skillful guys, not half-elves.

[MrStabby]

I don't have a problem with V.human at higher levels - levels 6+ and it is not really an issue. Given how fast the early levels can go by it doesn't have too much of an effect on the game. If someone did want to play a V.human I might be tempted to run an accelerated XP schedule in case there were balance issues early on.

It may or may not have an impact that I am pretty unforgiving about darkvision/darkness. A human will need light to see most of the time and if the party is packing torches it can make stealth pretty impossible and will draw a LOT of attention to the party.

[Arial Black]

I find it very revealing that those in this thread who disallow variant humans find it necessary to change the rules for 'normal' humans!

Free feats for everyone, more skills for 'normal' humans, half-feats, adding the +6 stats to any stat....the list goes on!

Let's try again.

Who disallows variant human without changing how 'normal' humans work and without giving extra feats to everyone?

[jas61292]

The variant human is terribly designed. So is the base human for that matter. But at least the base doesn't stomp all over low level game balance.

Personally, I adjust the race for my game, giving +1 to four stats and some skill/tool proficiencies. The fact that humans are supposed to be skilled, and half elves even get skill proficiencies from their human side, but base humans don't get skills is just dumb.

Though if one of my players would rather have +1 to all 6 stats and not get skills, that's fine by me.

[hymer]

Who disallows variant human without changing how 'normal' humans work and without giving extra feats to everyone?

Kindasorta me. PCs may start with one feat from a select list. To do so, they must reduce the highest number in their stat array by two points. So the feats aren't given, and they aren't for everyone.
But I expect that's not what you were thinking of.

[Arial Black]

Kindasorta me. PCs may start with one feat from a select list. To do so, they must reduce the highest number in their stat array by two points. So the feats aren't given, and they aren't for everyone.
But I expect that's not what you were thinking of.

It's the exact opposite to what I was thinking of! :)

[Coffee_Dragon]

As a player and DM I would agree to disallow variant human if all non-humans were also disallowed.

Perhaps my general dislike of groups of non-human PCs is in part because in practice they tend to play out as humans with funny bits and abilities anyway. We don't know what it's like to be an elf, and the game certainly isn't going to tell us.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What about those who choose their subclass at level 1?
Whichever is the least interesting level, I guess. Cleric at 3, Sorcerer at 2. I kind of forgot about them; the game I'm running now started at 3 so it was kind of a moot point.

[Reosoul]

If everyone gets a free feat at first level, I'm wondering why/if anyone would play a human at all. All the other races have so much more going for them.

+1 to all stats isn't bad for people who want to try a build that's more MAD.

Besides that, you'll only play whatever race you want. The benefits at that point are pretty close to negligible, in my opinion.

[BRC]

I find it very revealing that those in this thread who disallow variant humans find it necessary to change the rules for 'normal' humans!

Free feats for everyone, more skills for 'normal' humans, half-feats, adding the +6 stats to any stat....the list goes on!

Let's try again.

Who disallows variant human without changing how 'normal' humans work and without giving extra feats to everyone?

Personally, my take on it would be that anybody can start the game with a Feat if it's a core part of their character concept. For example, if you're playing a barbarian who fights unarmed/with improvised weapons, you're build doesn't really work without the Tavern Brawler feat. So, rather than using an Axe for the first 3 levels, then switching to chairs when you can take the feat, I would say you can start with Tavern Brawler (Or at least the important parts, maybe not the stat bonuses).
Or if you're playing a Doctor I would let you start with the "Healer" feat. However, when you hit 4th level, you don't get your Feat/ASI for that level, or if you took a half-feat, you get the other half when you hit 4th level.

Yeah, it provides some extra power to the early levels, but I think that's an acceptable price to pay for enabling character concepts, rather than having a character who has always, supposedly, been an expert healer, but is just NOW suddenly able to treat people's wounds with a healing kit.


Edit: I should clarify, this is only for things that really wouldn't make sense for your character NOT to have.

If you're concept is "Fights with a big sword", you don't get Great Weapon Mastery at the start, because you can fight with a big sword just fine without GWM, GWM just makes you better at it.

[90sMusic]

I find it very revealing that those in this thread who disallow variant humans find it necessary to change the rules for 'normal' humans!

Free feats for everyone, more skills for 'normal' humans, half-feats, adding the +6 stats to any stat....the list goes on!

Let's try again.

Who disallows variant human without changing how 'normal' humans work and without giving extra feats to everyone?

Exactly this.

Standard human is complete and utter crap. Each other race has at least something. They can be good at a couple more things, specialize more in a particular area, and so on. There is always a valid reason to play any other race except human. Humans are just... Terrible. It's like playing a game on hardmode difficulty where instead of actually making the game harder, they just make your character weaker instead. I mean you can do it, you can get away with it, but there's honestly no reason to do that.

Combined with the fact humans are supposed to be the most common race in most worlds, it doesn't make sense than 99% of parties dont have a single human in them(unless it is variant or using homebrew rules).

In 3.5, it worked out perfectly because it gave you a reason to play a human and it made sense for a good chunk of adventurers to be humans because they are the most dominant race. In 5e it just makes no sense. I honestly dont see how regular human race in 5e can even be justified to have no bonuses or abilities of any kind, it literally makes no sense to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

They're the dead-simple "default" option for people who don't want to pay attention to rules?

[Knaight]

They're the dead-simple "default" option for people who don't want to pay attention to rules?

They're also useful if feats are banned (thus removing variant human) but you want to play a human.

[Zman]

Nope, I made regular Human better, removed Variant Human from the game, and granted all characters a feat at level 1.

[Easy_Lee]

They're also useful if feats are banned (thus removing variant human) but you want to play a human.

That's kind of like saying that goliath wizards are good if you want to play a goliath wizard.

[Knaight]

That's kind of like saying that goliath wizards are good if you want to play a goliath wizard.

No. It's like saying that the option is useful. The standard human is a poorly designed race, but it's still something that I would expect to see use. There's a valid reason to play them, even if the mechanics implicitly discourage it.

[Easy_Lee]

No. It's like saying that the option is useful. The standard human is a poorly designed race, but it's still something that I would expect to see use. There's a valid reason to play them, even if the mechanics implicitly discourage it.

Well, allow me to explain. I tried very hard to come up with a build for which a standard human was competitive. The only thing I found was Monk, and only if the Monk rolled four or more odd ability scores. Even then, human was only kind of useful, more of an anti-OCD choice than anything (I assume I'm not the only one who likes to have all even ability scores).

[JellyPooga]

Well, allow me to explain. I tried very hard to come up with a build for which a standard human was competitive. The only thing I found was Monk, and only if the Monk rolled four or more odd ability scores. Even then, human was only kind of useful, more of an anti-OCD choice than anything (I assume I'm not the only one who likes to have all even ability scores).

With rolled stats, it's difficult to predict just how useful S.Human is; if you roll all even scores it's almost entirely useless.

With standard array (15,14,13,12,10,8), S.Human is also a total waste as 4 scores start even and evey other race gets boons to two scores. Interestingly, Half-Elves do exceptionally well when Standard Array is enforced.

It's only really with point buy that S.Human shines, when you can engineer almost every stat to be odd and make the most out of all those +1's. Strictly speaking, S.Human is still behind the power curve by high-op standards, but any melee/caster build enjoys the all-round stats; if you're getting stuck in, you need at least three stats at 14 or higher and S.Human does that and some.

[Klorox]

Point buy gives a standard human a chance at three 16's, which is nice in a game where there aren't any feats.

[Zman]

I give reed extra points at Point Buy which makes 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13 possible and rounds them all up to 14s, which is just kind of cool, literally be above average at everything, but exceptional at nothing.

[Easy_Lee]

I give reed extra points at Point Buy which makes 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13 possible and rounds them all up to 14s, which is just kind of cool, literally be above average at everything, but exceptional at nothing.

See, I'd be cool with that on a Monk. He'd end up lacking a max score in either dexterity or wisdom, but would be good at everything and could make use of his scores through Divine Soul. But, as you say, it's not possible under the standard point buy.

In fact, so far as I can tell, it's impossible to get all odd scores with standard 5e point buy. You always end up with 1 extra point and have to turn something into a 10. Which, as you might imagine, just sets my OCD right off. And I'm not an OCD person, generally.

[Knaight]

Well, allow me to explain. I tried very hard to come up with a build for which a standard human was competitive. The only thing I found was Monk, and only if the Monk rolled four or more odd ability scores. Even then, human was only kind of useful, more of an anti-OCD choice than anything (I assume I'm not the only one who likes to have all even ability scores).

No disagreement here. Human is poorly balanced, partially because only the variant has a useful trait, partially because 5e is still so wedded to humans as the baseline that they refuse to make them better at something (or all the other races just bad at something).

[Arial Black]

I find it very revealing that those in this thread who disallow variant humans find it necessary to change the rules for 'normal' humans!

Free feats for everyone, more skills for 'normal' humans, half-feats, adding the +6 stats to any stat....the list goes on!

Let's try again.

Who disallows variant human without changing how 'normal' humans work and without giving extra feats to everyone?

So...no-one. No-one at all.

There is no-one who chooses to play a standard human in a game where variant humans are allowed, unless the rules for either standard humans or feats have been altered.

With point-buy, If you want a PC who starts with three 16s (not including charisma) then variant human is the race for you because you can choose a half-feat to get the third +1 as well as the effects of the feat (and extra skill).

This only leaves standard human as viable if you have a build that requires a fourth stat to start at 16.

[Klorox]

So...no-one. No-one at all.

There is no-one who chooses to play a standard human in a game where variant humans are allowed, unless the rules for either standard humans or feats have been altered.

With point-buy, If you want a PC who starts with three 16s (not including charisma) then variant human is the race for you because you can choose a half-feat to get the third +1 as well as the effects of the feat (and extra skill).

This only leaves standard human as viable if you have a build that requires a fourth stat to start at 16.

How do you get a 4th stat to start at 16?

[Arial Black]

How do you get a 4th stat to start at 16?

Exactly!

Standard human is of no use whatsoever if you have access to variant human and you play by the rules in the PHB.

[JellyPooga]

There is no-one who chooses to play a standard human in a game where variant humans are allowed, unless the rules for either standard humans or feats have been altered.

I do, for the record. I like S.Human the way it is and will play one in favour of V.Human to avoid hard-dumping a stat (which is what S.Human does better than anyone).

[djreynolds]

How valuable is dark vision? How often are these rules even enforced? How troublesome is having to use a torch or the light spell?

For me, go ahead and take a feat. You're sacrifice is the lack of darkvision. We allow it.

[Arial Black]

I do, for the record. I like S.Human the way it is and will play one in favour of V.Human to avoid hard-dumping a stat (which is what S.Human does better than anyone).

So your dump stats are 9 instead of 8?

Not seeing the attraction.

[the secret fire]

How valuable is dark vision? How often are these rules even enforced? How troublesome is having to use a torch or the light spell?

This is sort of the elephant in the room when discussing humans and halflings, isn't it?

If enforced by the book, the lighting rules should be a serious disadvantage for the races that lack darkvision. If you get it through magic, Darkvision costs you a 2nd level spell, at the same level as Alter Self and Spider Climb. The Darkvision spell is easier to use than the others (longer duration, no concentration), but the fact that it's in the same spell level with them suggests that the developers feel that, when you need it, it is of slightly lesser value than having a climb or swim speed. But, of course, you tend to need it a lot more often.

The vision rules are often one of the more poorly enforced aspects of the game, however, largely because it is fiddly and un-fun for the DM to have to constantly track who can see what and at what range rather than just present scenarios to the party and be done with it. This is sort of a "stealth advantage" that humans have at many tables, though it doesn't have to be this way.

[Regitnui]

This is sort of the elephant in the room when discussing humans and halflings, isn't it?

The vision rules are often one of the more poorly enforced aspects of the game, however, largely because it is fiddly and un-fun for the DM to have to constantly track who can see what and at what range rather than just present scenarios to the party and be done with it. This is sort of a "stealth advantage" that humans have at many tables, though it doesn't have to be this way.

I'd go so far as to say that's why the S human is intentionally weak; WotC erred on the side of caution when it came to darkvision.

[djreynolds]

I do agree that initially S Humans are weak, but with the ability cap in place, you'll soon catch up. And with point buy, its passable.

As for darkvision, I haven't as a player seen it enforced. But we are experienced players and often with regulate ourselves. We will light a torch or cast light, or send the elven ranger to scout ahead.

The ability cap fixes things for the S human, but can he survive till then?

[DiceDiceBaby]

Variant Human has been allowed in every campaign I've created so far, and every one I participated in so far.

No one in my various playgroups or among any of the people I have ever played D&D with has ever rolled one.

My little sister put it so nicely as she read the PHB for the first time: "Wow, Humans are really boring in this game, huh?"

But really, who would want to play a Human (even a Variant "Feat" Human) in a fantasy RPG?

The most popular pick I've seen so far is Half-Elf (which is just as hyped, but without Feats).

I think that powergamers tend to pick Half-Elves or Varant Humans because every guide I've ever found online raved about how good they are. Still, given the choice, it seems more people I know would want to play Half-Elves. Which leads to another problem...

Personally, I love Half-Elf as a race. By far my favorite race in the PHB, and even among the UA races (and not because it's OP; I like it for the angst and the RP). But the PHB mentions that Half-Elves are so rare that they can go their whole lives not meeting another one. Then in my second campaign, around seven Half-Elves all randomly met in a tower somewhere to create a base of operations. No Dwarves, no Humans, no Tiefling, no Dragonborn... just Half-Elves and one Wood Elf (this was me).

Because the Half-Elf is just that good people really prefer it, even over Variant Human. I think I'd actually be more comfortable if I had seven Variant Humans in a party rather than seven Half-Elves because it just makes the Half-Elf seem less special, while I find seven epic Humans with deeds attached to their names to be a more "realistic" (whatever "realism" means in a game with Dragons and magic and such, of course).

[thedanster7000]

I like that variant humans have an edge in a lot of builds, it means that the most common race is human. This would be the case in a lot of game worlds, as most adventurers would be human, but it also allows the other races' darkvision, other abilities, and different social standings to stand out and shine as most PCs are just mundane humans.

[Giant2005]

I allow them, but I have also buffed regular humans somewhat. I allow regular humans to increase 1 ability by a point at the cost of taking a point from another ability.

[JellyPooga]

So your dump stats are 9 instead of 8?

Not seeing the attraction.

Have you actually looked at any of the arrays I've posted in this thread? Have you considered the implication of the phrase "hard-dumping"? I'm guessing not. Let me enlighten you; (note: net bonus in parenthesis)

15,13,13,13,10,9 (+9)
15,15,13,10,9,9 (+8)
13,13,13,13,13,10 (+10)

Are the three 27pt arrays that suit S.Human best. Note the lack of any score below 10 once you add 1 to everything. That's the attraction. Can Half-Elf do it better? You decide;

14,13,13,12,12,10 (+9)
15,14,13,10,10,10 (+8)

Are the two closest facsimilies without dropping to a -1 on any stat and that's only if you want Charisma 16. If you don't want Charisma that high, S.Human is the better choice.

[MrStabby]

Standard human is rarely good but I used one in one of may favourite characters - Oathbreaker Necromancer, although I did design the character as an exercise in using the standard human. Two casting stats (needing covering for multiclassing), an attack stat (str), Con to sit in the front lines and a spot of Dex is always welcome.

Getting those 13s early that let you multiclass to build the character you want can be good. I am not saying it is very powerful usually, but it can have it's place.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

How valuable is dark vision? How often are these rules even enforced? How troublesome is having to use a torch or the light spell?


I've never been in a game where the DM didn't ask "so, how is everyone seeing in this cave?" It's a question every good DM should ask.

How valuable is darkvision? If you are going to be stealthy, it's pretty much mandatory. Otherwise you are going to be walking around blind. My human monk once tried to be a stealthy scout... it didn't go too well. "Well..... I'm stealthy.... but I can't see ****!"

[Pope Scarface]

I don't. Standard human is weaksauce, but v-human is OP. Getting a feat at level 1, that you pick so its going to be the best feat for whatever build you have, when every other is waiting until level 4 is kind of nuts. I might allow v-human for a game starting at higher level, but I enjoy the lower level game.

[MrFahrenheit]

I don't allow vhumans. That being said, I homebrewed a fix for standard humans "with this one weird trick"...

I allow anyone playing a human to swap out any +1 ability for a skill proficiency. You could still have six +1s if you want, or even six skill proficiencies before you select a class and background, with no + to abilities. And anything in between, to include the equivalent of a vhuman with the skilled feat.

[Anonymouswizard]

But really, who would want to play a Human (even a Variant "Feat" Human) in a fantasy RPG?

I have to say, that this really rings true, and what lead me to separating race and culture in the game I'm writing. All race does is adjust your Attributes slightly, so elves get +2 Agility in exchange for -1 Strength and Constitution, while dwarves get +2 Strength and Constitution but -1 Agility and Empathy (roughly your ability to read emotions, it's a in-setting deficiency). Culture gives all the other interesting things, and while they are organised by race, it's only noted that 'most' characters will have one matching their culture. It allows multiple races without forcing them.


Personally, I love Half-Elf as a race. By far my favorite race in the PHB, and even among the UA races (and not because it's OP; I like it for the angst and the RP). But the PHB mentions that Half-Elves are so rare that they can go their whole lives not meeting another one.

Eh, I also personally love Half-Elf, but more because they can theoretically fit in anywhere and get two bonus skill proficiencies. I tend to characterise half-elves as less agnsty that they don't fit in anywhere, but as the charismatic scoundrel who almost fits anywhere, can rely on themselves, and gets along with people they meet. Although I suspect most half-elves will likely meet another half-elf or two in their lives, if only for the reason that half elves will tend to be born relatively close to each other (either due to siblings or due to several human/elf couples in the same town/city), but meeting a half elf from another country is likely not going to happen.

[Logosloki]

I allow variant human in my games but since I usually start out the games with people at level four or five (or even higher in short and one-shots) there are less takers than I expected.

I think that variant human is considered strong because level one feat rather than it gets an extra feat (Although the extra skill is nice for a bonus). If the game starts off at a higher level or the game has more varied environments then the benefits of one-feat-man becomes a lot weaker.

Also, standard human is completely pants and while I enjoy people defending it like it is the 3.5 toughness feat it really needs to be said that the only reason it isn't a horrifyingly bad option is because the game is made with a less mad power curve.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, allow me to explain. I tried very hard to come up with a build for which a standard human was competitive. The only thing I found was Monk, and only if the Monk rolled four or more odd ability scores. Even then, human was only kind of useful, more of an anti-OCD choice than anything (I assume I'm not the only one who likes to have all even ability scores).
Maybe a Bard or someone who wanted to really go all-in on utility-through-skills?

[Anonymouswizard]

I allow variant human in my games but since I usually start out the games with people at level four or five (or even higher in short and one-shots) there are less takers than I expected.

I think that variant human is considered strong because level one feat rather than it gets an extra feat (Although the extra skill is nice for a bonus). If the game starts off at a higher level or the game has more varied environments then the benefits of one-feat-man becomes a lot weaker.

Also, standard human is completely pants and while I enjoy people defending it like it is the 3.5 toughness feat it really needs to be said that the only reason it isn't a horrifyingly bad option is because the game is made with a less mad power curve.

I still remember the 3.0 Toughness feat, which was +1hp/level (so sort of like Tough now). It was sort of like how variant human is now: potentially useful but at the end of the day there's other stuff that I might want.

Now, I really might use Standard Human when my current character dies (which I think they might, considering the GM seems to be focusing on enemies resistant to normal damage), but that'll be because I'll be making a rather stereotypical character and standard human fits it (human mercenary with no special training), although I do wish the game gave humans extra skills (the real reason I like vhuman, I could take or leave the feat).

Maybe, as an alternative VHuman:

+1 to any two ability scores (or +2 to one if people think it'll be more balanced).
Proficiency in any 3 skills.
Common and any 1 language.


What do people think of it? It's meant to be boring but useful, the sort of race that'll always be a decent option, but misses out on fun stuff.

[Klorox]

Variant Human has been allowed in every campaign I've created so far, and every one I participated in so far.

No one in my various playgroups or among any of the people I have ever played D&D with has ever rolled one.

My little sister put it so nicely as she read the PHB for the first time: "Wow, Humans are really boring in this game, huh?"

But really, who would want to play a Human (even a Variant "Feat" Human) in a fantasy RPG?

The most popular pick I've seen so far is Half-Elf (which is just as hyped, but without Feats).

I think that powergamers tend to pick Half-Elves or Varant Humans because every guide I've ever found online raved about how good they are. Still, given the choice, it seems more people I know would want to play Half-Elves. Which leads to another problem...

Personally, I love Half-Elf as a race. By far my favorite race in the PHB, and even among the UA races (and not because it's OP; I like it for the angst and the RP). But the PHB mentions that Half-Elves are so rare that they can go their whole lives not meeting another one. Then in my second campaign, around seven Half-Elves all randomly met in a tower somewhere to create a base of operations. No Dwarves, no Humans, no Tiefling, no Dragonborn... just Half-Elves and one Wood Elf (this was me).

Because the Half-Elf is just that good people really prefer it, even over Variant Human. I think I'd actually be more comfortable if I had seven Variant Humans in a party rather than seven Half-Elves because it just makes the Half-Elf seem less special, while I find seven epic Humans with deeds attached to their names to be a more "realistic" (whatever "realism" means in a game with Dragons and magic and such, of course).

I agree with your half elf assessment. IMHO, 3e came closest to representing the half elf; they really didn't have any bonuses that made them stand out. In 3e, you were mechanically better off playing a human than a half elf all of the time.

This enforced half elves as a rarity, just as the (overpowered) feat at level one enforces the humans as the dominant race.

[Tarvil]

I and all DMs I know allow Variant Humans. We play with standard array, so it's not that easy to have decent stats AND power feat. Also, lack of darkvision is serious problem for human players in adventures in which I participate. They usually end up being guided by party in total darkness.

For V. human hates: What do you think about feat, that gives you:
- +2CHA
- Darkvision
- Adv. on saves against Charm
- Sleep Immunity
- Skill prof.

[Arial Black]

Have you actually looked at any of the arrays I've posted in this thread? Have you considered the implication of the phrase "hard-dumping"? I'm guessing not. Let me enlighten you; (note: net bonus in parenthesis)

15,13,13,13,10,9 (+9)
15,15,13,10,9,9 (+8)
13,13,13,13,13,10 (+10)

Are the three 27pt arrays that suit S.Human best. Note the lack of any score below 10 once you add 1 to everything. That's the attraction.

Yeah, your phrase 'hard dumping' doesn't match those arrays.

The reason to dump stats (in point-buy) is to get better stats elsewhere. There is no point having your lowest stat (i.e. the one you don't care about at all) be 9 (10 after race mod) when you could make it an 8, spend the extra points on stats you do want, and not waste a +1 race mod on that unwanted stat.

15,13,13,13,10,9 gets you 16,14,14,14,11,10 with sHuman. I'd rather (if I for some reason wanted a 16 and three 14s) buy 15,14,13,13,9,8, choose vHuman and a half-feat and end up with 16,14,14,14,9,8, half a feat and an extra skill. The only advantage sHuman has is that the two stats you care least about have +0 mods instead of -1 mods. I'd much rather have the half-feat and extra skill!

15,15,13,10,9,9 gets 16,16,14,11,10,10 from sHuman. If I wanted two 16s and a 14 then I'd choose vHuman, buy 15,15,14,10,8,8 and a full feat to get 16,16,14,10,8,8, or 15,15,13,12,8,8 or 15,15,13,10,10,8 and a half-feat to get 16,16,14,12,8,8 or 16,16,14,10,10,8. Again, only the two stats you care least for are at -1 instead of +0; I'd much rather have the feat and extra skill.

Just because you can cleverly buy stats where 5 or 6 of them are odd numbers doesn't mean that the resulting array after race mods is meaningfully more useful than a feat and a skill.

[fishyfishyfishy]

But the PHB mentions that Half-Elves are so rare that they can go their whole lives not meeting another one. Then in my second campaign, around seven Half-Elves all randomly met in a tower somewhere to create a base of operations. No Dwarves, no Humans, no Tiefling, no Dragonborn... just Half-Elves and one Wood Elf (this was me).

I think that's pretty cool actually. Makes for a pretty unique adventuring party. Where else are they going to meet Half-Elves if not out adventuring? This is also setting dependant. Eberron has a whole Dragonmarked House of true breeding Half Elves.

Besides, Half Elves needed the break. Did you see the crap features they got in the 3.5 era?

[JellyPooga]

15,13,13,13,10,9 gets you 16,14,14,14,11,10 with sHuman. I'd rather (if I for some reason wanted a 16 and three 14s) buy 15,14,13,13,9,8, choose vHuman and a half-feat and end up with 16,14,14,14,9,8, half a feat and an extra skill. The only advantage sHuman has is that the two stats you care least about have +0 mods instead of -1 mods. I'd much rather have the half-feat and extra skill!

15,15,13,10,9,9 gets 16,16,14,11,10,10 from sHuman. If I wanted two 16s and a 14 then I'd choose vHuman, buy 15,15,14,10,8,8 and a full feat to get 16,16,14,10,8,8, or 15,15,13,12,8,8 or 15,15,13,10,10,8 and a half-feat to get 16,16,14,12,8,8 or 16,16,14,10,10,8. Again, only the two stats you care least for are at -1 instead of +0; I'd much rather have the feat and extra skill.

The arrays you "prefer" (After Racial modifiers):

16,14,14,14,9,8
16,16,14,10,8,8
16,16,14,12,8,8
16,16,14,10,10,8

All have something in common; one or more Ability Scores with a negative penalty. Your net Modifiers are +7, +6, +7 and +7 respectively; you've lost 3 or four points of modifier compared to my S.Human arrays. Many builds, particularly multiclass ones, have a certain amount of MAD and very few are completely SAD in 5ed. Combined with Saving Throws and Skills not scaling at all without proficiency, this makes avoiding those negative scores a very attractive notion.

Yes, a Feat and a Skill Proficiency make up for some of the lack, but if you get stuck with a -1 on Int or Cha, or even worse Con, Dex or Wis without proficiencies (however unlikely), you can be looking at some auto-fails at higher levels. Both the Balor and Pit Fiend have Save DC's of 20 or higher and Adult Dragons (let alone Ancient ones) have DC's in the 18+ range. Facing off against a Lich, you're looking at DC:20 spells with a variety of Saves targeted. Do you really want to be facing those Saves with a penalty, knowing that you literally cannot pass? The numbers tell us it's only a difference of 5% between a -1 and +0, but the psychological difference is much greater, IMO.

S.Human lets you avoid that and also makes you feel generally competent in actual play because you do nothing at a penalty and still keep up with the primary numbers of everyone else. That's the difference; S.Human lets you have your cake and eat it. You don't have to hard-dump any stats, you don't have to sacrifice your social skills or initiative in order to play with the big boys. By the numbers, it's not that hot. On paper, it's terrible. In actual play, however, it feels great.

[R.Shackleford]

I, for one, do so.

Do all you?

No.

But then again we are currently playing in a setting where basic human = Neanderthals, modified half elf = human, elves, gnomes, goblins, and hobgoblins are the main races.

(Neanderthals + Elves = Humans)

No racial ASI, you gain +2/+1 unless you are a Neanderthal which gives you +1 to each score and the choice to add +1 to one of them (making it +2). Everyone gains a half feat (no ASI) too.


I'm thinking about never running V Human in any of my home games again and just keep with this setting.

[JumboWheat01]

We do, though our DM puts his foot down on any starter feat he may consider a bit outrageous for a first level character.

[Pex]

I allow them in my campaign world but I've considered a reverse of that decision.
Luckily my players are more role-players than roll-players so not too much cheese in the game.

I do and play in two other games that allow them, one of which I'm playing a variant human. Luckily my DMs don't think characters doing nifty things and roleplaying are mutually exclusive so we get to have the fun of both.


Edit: That came out wrong. Oops! :smallsmile:

[R.Shackleford]

I do and play in two other games that allow them, one of which I'm playing a variant human. Luckily my DMs don't think characters doing nifty things and roleplaying are mutually exclusive so we get to have the fun of both.


There are others????

[Arial Black]

The arrays you "prefer" (After Racial modifiers):

16,14,14,14,9,8
16,16,14,12,8,8
16,16,14,10,10,8

All have something in common; one or more Ability Scores with a negative penalty. Your net Modifiers are +7, +6, +7 and +7 respectively; you've lost 3 or four points of modifier compared to my S.Human arrays. Many builds, particularly multiclass ones, have a certain amount of MAD and very few are completely SAD in 5ed. Combined with Saving Throws and Skills not scaling at all without proficiency, this makes avoiding those negative scores a very attractive notion.

I've lost +1 on two scores I deliberately avoid using, to get a feat + skill that I definitely will use! And the few times I am forced to use those stats then there is only a 1-in-20 chance that it will make a difference, and I am psychologically ready for that possibility. Meanwhile I am still using that feat or that skill time after time after time.

[JellyPooga]

I've lost +1 on two scores I deliberately avoid using, to get a feat + skill that I definitely will use! And the few times I am forced to use those stats then there is only a 1-in-20 chance that it will make a difference, and I am psychologically ready for that possibility. Meanwhile I am still using that feat or that skill time after time after time.

I don't disagree with you. As a rule, V.Human is superior; D&D has always rewarded the specialised character over the one with a broader skill-base. All I'm trying to defend is the notion that S.Human does have its merits. As I mentioned, at the higher end of play those dump stats can end your career without any chance of making the save, where at least the guy with +0 has that 1-in-20. That's not nothing.

What good is an ability that gets you to that level when the cost was being unable to progress from there? For me, those higher tiers of play are designed to suit the sort of character without any weaknesses, both from a mechanical and a thematic point of view. At that level, characters are battling the most powerful beings short of gods and the stereotypical "Hero" needs all the armour he can get, both physical and mental. That means compensating for any chink in that armour as best he can. Otherwise, that weakness will be exploited by his foes and he will ultimately fail. In the long run, the bargain of immediate power at the cost of ultimate failure is not one I'd make.

[Pex]

I don't disagree with you. As a rule, V.Human is superior; D&D has always rewarded the specialised character over the one with a broader skill-base. All I'm trying to defend is the notion that S.Human does have its merits. As I mentioned, at the higher end of play those dump stats can end your career without any chance of making the save, where at least the guy with +0 has that 1-in-20. That's not nothing.

What good is an ability that gets you to that level when the cost was being unable to progress from there? For me, those higher tiers of play are designed to suit the sort of character without any weaknesses, both from a mechanical and a thematic point of view. At that level, characters are battling the most powerful beings short of gods and the stereotypical "Hero" needs all the armour he can get, both physical and mental. That means compensating for any chink in that armour as best he can. Otherwise, that weakness will be exploited by his foes and he will ultimately fail. In the long run, the bargain of immediate power at the cost of ultimate failure is not one I'd make.

I fault the 5E design itself by making every stat a saving throw, Point Buy practically forcing dumping one or two stats, and you get worse at saving throws because DCs go up while most of your stats remain the same. Biased as I am, I really like the 3E model of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. It wasn't perfect as your low progression save was too low and couldn't catch up to how fast and high DCs could get for a decent chance. 4E improved on that by letting you use the higher of two scores to modify a save helping your low progression not being too low. 5E should have done the same thing and let Bounded Accuracy fix still too high DC problems.

[Regitnui]

I think that's pretty cool actually. Makes for a pretty unique adventuring party. Where else are they going to meet Half-Elves if not out adventuring? This is also setting dependant. Eberron has a whole Dragonmarked House of true breeding Half Elves.

Besides, Half Elves needed the break. Did you see the crap features they got in the 3.5 era?

Two, actually. The proud khoravar of House Lyrandar, and the more relaxed half-elves in House Medani. Suffice to say I don't enforce that particular piece of fluff.

[MeeposFire]

In my games all characters start with one free feat of choice so that is not an issue.

As for humans they get a free skill, language, and a+1 to all ability scores and an additional +1 to one ability score. Makes them have decent all around scores but still allows you to have the nice starting point on your primary stat if you so choose.

So I guess you can say that it is a hybrid but I gave everyone access to he best part of the V human by giving all the free feat.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

When I GM, I allow them, and I give an extra feat to everyone at 1st level. Vumans are still highly competitive for feat-starved characters, but the overpowered luster diminishes when comparing solid racial features to a character's second most important feat.

[JellyPooga]

I fault the 5E design itself

I don't see it as a fault, myself, but a feature. I hated the homogenisation of 4ed for making it irrelevant what your stats actually were, not to mention the similarity between character powers (but that's another argument).

5ed encourages putting a little more thought into how badly you want those higher scores, whether it's at the cost of having a weakness/dump-stat that could be exploited or forgoing a Feat. I think it's remarkably well designed, myself. You have the choice of playing safe or taking your chances and whether the gamble pays off is fun in and of itself.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think it's remarkably well designed, myself. You have the choice of playing safe or taking your chances and whether the gamble pays off is fun in and of itself.
Personally I hate that a game makes me choose between safe and interesting options. I've also found that the combination of point buy and the extreme importance of stats makes for more stereotyped characters then ever before- probably why I keep toying with removing them. (It's actually pretty straightforward)

[Sir_Leorik]

Yes, and there's only one Human in the party. (Used to be two, but the second PC made a heroic last stand. Who says Moon Druids are overpowered?)

[JellyPooga]

Personally I hate that a game makes me choose between safe and interesting options. I've also found that the combination of point buy and the extreme importance of stats makes for more stereotyped characters then ever before- probably why I keep toying with removing them. (It's actually pretty straightforward)

That's just it, though; 5ed has much less focus on Ability Scores than any edition since AD&D.

Take a level 1 character, point-bought. Out of his pool of 27pts, he can spend (roughly) a quarter of those buying a 14 in a stat. If he puts no other resources into that Ability Score, he's stuck with that +2 modifier for his entire career. It's static. If, however, he grabs Proficiency in a Skill, of which he will have a minimum of four, he gets the same +2 modifier except that modifier will scale as he increases in level, eventually outstripping the highest possible modifier you can get from an Ability Score (without magic or, to my knowledge, one Class Feature) without any further investment. Yes, that Skill proficiency is much more narrowly defined than the Ability Score, but when it comes to being good at a thing, proficiency trumps Ability Scores as far as investment costs go.

In short, I think 5ed encourages the "interesting option", as you put it and instead of just handing it over on a platter, like 3ed and 4ed did, it gives you a choice. The "safe option" is often the better one, mechanically, so instead of auto-picking the interesting one, you need to make a decision and that, in itself, is fun and challenging. Opinions differ, of course!

[R.Shackleford]

That's just it, though; 5ed has much less focus on Ability Scores than any edition since AD&D.

Take a level 1 character, point-bought. Out of his pool of 27pts, he can spend (roughly) a quarter of those buying a 14 in a stat. If he puts no other resources into that Ability Score, he's stuck with that +2 modifier for his entire career. It's static. If, however, he grabs Proficiency in a Skill, of which he will have a minimum of four, he gets the same +2 modifier except that modifier will scale as he increases in level, eventually outstripping the highest possible modifier you can get from an Ability Score (without magic or, to my knowledge, one Class Feature) without any further investment. Yes, that Skill proficiency is much more narrowly defined than the Ability Score, but when it comes to being good at a thing, proficiency trumps Ability Scores as far as investment costs go.

In short, I think 5ed encourages the "interesting option", as you put it and instead of just handing it over on a platter, like 3ed and 4ed did, it gives you a choice. The "safe option" is often the better one, mechanically, so instead of auto-picking the interesting one, you need to make a decision and that, in itself, is fun and challenging. Opinions differ, of course!

Nope.

Ability Scores matter more now than ever before.

Before you could find a bunch of +1's and not really need a high score in order to be useful.

But now that you have prof + Ability scores you really need to up those scores... unless you have a reliable and easy way to always have advantage/Expertise (see rogue).

4e didn't make your scores not matter, 4e gave you the option to choose which ability scores you wanted to represent your character.

Want to be a dashing swordsman? Well, you don't have to jump through a ton of hoops.

Plus what matters a lot now is ability score and proficiency to that save. You get worse as you get higher in level if you don't focus and have prof in that save... in 4e I could make a Wis or Cha character and not have to worry about my fluff choice hurting my mechanics.

As a Fighter I could choose to be a smart and charismatic type of character without the system yelling "BAD WRONG FUN".

[MeeposFire]

Yea coming from a lot of 4e and loved it I am going to emphatically disagree with the idea that ability scores do not matter in 4e. They matter a LOT. IN fact I am also going to disagree with the idea that odd ability scores were effective in 4e because they were not. Some classes can get away with it more. Fighter can do it better than most because their secondary ability scores are varied and useful but not absolutely necessary but for most classes this was not the case for example monks, sorcerers, etc. Most classes needed two ability scores to be high to very high and you might have a third that was decent (usually con). It is actually one of the few things I actively dislike about 4e that is really hard to get away from since the ability score treadmill is literally baked into the math of character expectations.

5e is better about ability scores than in 4e or 3e in that you can do more with less as bounded accuracy keeps things from getting too bad but obviously better ability scores really improve your chances. 3e and 4e really bake the numbers into the expectations (though in slightly different ways) and thus falling behind puts you in a major problem if you actually use those rolls. AD&D on the other hand requires specific ability scores far less than 5e. It would not be unusual for a character in AD&D to have no special combat bonuses from high ability scores but at the same time this did not compromise your ability to contribute (you would be less effective than a person with a high ability score but you would still be in the same realm). Even if you had a good ability score it still may not give you much back in the day which is why for AD&D I actually would tell you that as a fighter unless you get an 18/XX str score I would recommend putting your highest ability score in intelligence (perhaps dex or con). Extra prof were worth a lot back then certainly more than the +1 to hit and damage a 17 str gave you.

So for me the easiest edition to play classes with weird ability scores was AD&D. 5e allows for some variation such as a fighter using dex and int but still requires you to use a certain range of ability scores and you want to at least eventually invest in at least one of your stats. In 3e and 4e you are mostly stuck investing in your couple stats at the expense of the others and going too far afield required some major planning on your part (such as my high cha/int warlord in 4e that had low str but in order to do that I had to invest in picking up an int based melee basic attack and "lazy" warlord powers which is very niche).

[Ryuu Hayato]

I absolutely allow it, because regular flavor human is the weakest and most inferior of all the races.

This varies from world to world, but humans are supposed to generally be the most common race in most worlds, and I ran with at least one human in every adventuring party in 3.5 because the extra feat and other perks was really nice to add to raw power of your character while other races offered less versatile, but still good, perks. Humans were a popular choice.

In 5e, humans are hot garbage and there is literally no benefit or advantage to playing one aside from RP reasons. And RP is nice and everything, but that is usually not enough to want to be human since all of us are humans in our every day lives and the other races tend to have more interesting stories that can be attached or thought up.

They get +1 to all stats and know two languages. That is IT. The only things they get. Period.

Then look at half elf... +2 charisma, +1 to two stats of your choice. Already an improvement over human because of dump stats.

Darkvision.
Advantage on saves against charmed and cant be put to sleep.
TWO extra skill proficiencies.
Know three languages.

How is this even a thing? It is so tragically unbalanced and honestly just silly that humans are so pathetic in 5e, I don't understand it at all. Variant human is the only way to actually make them appealing and considering the only benefit they get is a free feat and one proficiency of their choice at the cost of having the lowest ability score increase in the game, I think it kind of works out.

I mean, you need variant human to even have humans in your game. No one likes being the only person in the entire world without dark vision and who has literally no perks, abilities, or nothing else coming from their race.

The only reason to ever be human is purely, 100% from a roleplaying perspective but most people just aren't interested in being humans for RP purposes since they are humans every day of their lives anyway. It's more fun to have little perks.

I'd be curious to see a poll for how many people only play human with variant human is allowed. Even then, it's still not a popular choice. Not sure why people hate it so much.

I make a standard human fighter (lvl 20), and his points is:

STR 20
DEX 16
CON 20
INT 11
WIS 14
CHA 14

As you can see, isn't that bad thing being standard human. No other race can do that. You're very versatile in everything, and don't have a bad stat. Be almost good in every save is a good race trait.

[Anonymouswizard]

I make a standard human fighter (lvl 20), and his points is:

STR 20
DEX 16
CON 20
INT 11
WIS 14
CHA 14

As you can see, isn't that bad thing being standard human. No other race can do that. You're very versatile in everything, and don't have a bad stat. Be almost good in every save is a good race trait.

Except by level 20 save DCs should be around (8+6+5=)19, and let's look at the maths here.

As a standard human our array would be 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9. to get two twenties we need 5 ability score increases, we spent one more on a 16, and then as fighter ASI is 4/6/8/12/14/16/19 (IIRC) we get one more by my account, so we can either have a 14 and a 12, or a 14 and a 10 (or a 12 and a 10). So I don't think we can get your array, but whatever, point buy minmaxing, I assume it's possible.

Now we've established you've used all your ASIs, let's look at your save bonuses:
Strength: +11, awesome, we save against stuff 65% of the time.
Dexterity: +3, man I should have picked up shield master instead, I save 25% of the time.
Constitution: +11, so cast your finger of mild annoyance spells, I save 65% of the time.
Intelligence: +0, I'd better hide from Illusions, only a 10% chance of a save.
Wisdom: +2, I shouldn't go near enchanters, I fail saves 80% of the time.
Charisma: +2, see Wisdom.

You're not 'almost good' in every save, you're not horrible in three of them.

[JellyPooga]

You're not 'almost good' in every save, you're not horrible in three of them.

When the alternative is "being horrible in those three Saves", the question of which is preferable is absolutely valid.

As I mentioned previously, the difference between -1 and +0 at the highest tiers of play can mean the difference between "having a chance" and "not having a chance". That's a fairly big difference, even if the chance is small.

[tsotate]

As I mentioned previously, the difference between -1 and +0 at the highest tiers of play can mean the difference between "having a chance" and "not having a chance". That's a fairly big difference, even if the chance is small.
But the vHuman who spent his extra feat on Resilient will have an actually useful chance at saving, instead of getting all excited about maybe being able to save on a natural 20.

[JellyPooga]

But the vHuman who spent his extra feat on Resilient will have an actually useful chance at saving, instead of getting all excited about maybe being able to save on a natural 20.

That V.Human probably used Resilient on one of his secondary stats, though, still likely has one or more 8's or 9's knocking around and you can't take Resilient twice.

The point still stands that a S.Human doesn't need to dump stats and that gives him an advantage, however slight, over those who feel like they must.

[Cybren]

I think standard human is fine but unexciting. My guess is, though, that players new to D&D love standard humans. I don't quite get why they don't get a skill proficiency, though.

I don't see variant human as problematic. Most races have something that makes you want to play them. Half-Elf is the obvious example, but even the half-orcs relentless endurance is valuable enough to be very attractive

[Anonymouswizard]

When the alternative is "being horrible in those three Saves", the question of which is preferable is absolutely valid.

As I mentioned previously, the difference between -1 and +0 at the highest tiers of play can mean the difference between "having a chance" and "not having a chance". That's a fairly big difference, even if the chance is small.

Eh, kind of missing the point (also, at 20th level +0 is actually kind of horrible for a save, I was talking about the two +2s and the +3).

Okay, so looking at this logically, the difference between normal and variant human here is 3-4 stat points. With this exact array we'll drop by +2 in one save, or -1 in two saves.

The question is, is:
20(+11 save)
16(+3)
20(+11)
10(+0)
14(+2)
14(+2)

better than taking Resilient (Dexterity) and having:
20(+11)
14(+8)
20(+11)
10(+0)
14(+2)
11(+1)

Standard human isn't horrible, it's just not amazing. When going human you have to chose between being the Jack of All Trades and the Master of One. I personally don't really mind, I'm honestly most likely to go Variant Human and then take Skilled as my feat, because I like having a lot of skills (the most skills you can have is 4+2+2+3=11 from being a half-elf rogue and taking skilled).

[JumboWheat01]

I personally don't really mind, I'm honestly most likely to go Variant Human and then take Skilled as my feat, because I like having a lot of skills (the most skills you can have is 4+2+2+3=11 from being a half-elf rogue and taking skilled).

You're a little off there. A half-elf Lore bard can have more.

3+3+2+2+3=13. 3 from Bard, 3 from College of Lore, 2 from half-elf, 2 from background and 3 from skilled. And like a rogue, 4 of those skills have expertise.

[Anonymouswizard]

You're a little off there. A half-elf Lore bard can have more.

3+3+2+2+3=13. 3 from Bard, 3 from College of Lore, 2 from half-elf, 2 from background and 3 from skilled. And like a rogue, 4 of those skills have expertise.

I just completely forgot about Lore Bard (strange, seeing as it's my favourite class from this edition). But yes, it seems like half elves are really being pushed as the skillmonkey race (not that I mind, I rather like half-elves).

[JumboWheat01]

I just completely forgot about Lore Bard (strange, seeing as it's my favourite class from this edition). But yes, it seems like half elves are really being pushed as the skillmonkey race (not that I mind, I rather like half-elves).

I think it's Wizard's attempt to make up for how... lack-luster they were in 3.x.

[RPG_NPC]

Do I allow Variant Human in my games? Yes. It's my job as DM to allow my players to build the PC they want. It's also my job to still find a way to endanger and challenge their character, despite whatever feats they have.

If fact, if someone new to 5e wanted to play a human, then I'd suggest they take the Variant Human option over the vanilla one; much more interesting to play.

[Xetheral]

When I GM, I allow them, and I give an extra feat to everyone at 1st level. Vumans are still highly competitive for feat-starved characters, but the overpowered luster diminishes when comparing solid racial features to a character's second most important feat.

This is exactly what I do too. Only one of the eight pcs in my current campaign went VHuman.


That's just it, though; 5ed has much less focus on Ability Scores than any edition since AD&D.

I completely disagree. In 3.5, by mid level, with skill ranks alone one can get a respectable skill modifier even in a skill based on a dump stat. In 5e, unless you get expertise, you won't get a respectable skill modifier until the very end of the game in a skill based on a dump stat, and even then your +5 will match only what a first level character with a 16 stat can accomplish.