Human Variant Variant: Pick TWO backgrounds!

[rudy]

I posted this as a suggestion in Zman's tweaks thread, but wanted to get more general feedback on the concept which I think is pretty cool.

I disallow Variant Human in my game (it's not relevant to this post, but I grant all players one feat at 1st level), and I've been trying to spruce up the base human into something unique and interesting. Here's what I have, and I'd be interested to hear whether anyone sees any problems with it, and whether it seems competitively balanced with other base races.

HUMAN
* FOUR ability scores of your choice increase by +1
* Age, Alignment, Speed, Size: Standard
* Language: You can speak, read and write Common and one regional human language appropriate to your origin. If no such language exists, then you can pick another language reasonably common in your region of origin (DM's discretion).

* Many Walks of Life Humans come from all different walks of life, often having seen different careers and paths. When choosing backgrounds, you may choose two. You gain all skill, tool, language and feature benefits from both. If both backgrounds grant the same proficiency, you can choose any proficiency of the same type (skill or tool) in place of one of them. If both backgrounds grant starting gold, you receive the starting gold from only one. Be sure you think about the history of how your two backgrounds intertwine!

So the last one is obviously the big thing. The language change was made because with two backgrounds there are plenty of places to pick up new languages anyway.

Any thoughts are appreciated!

[Easy_Lee]

From a lore standpoint, I dislike this just because there are many heroic, PC-level humans in FR lore who have only a single background. Instead, I might phrase it this way: when choosing a background, you may also gain the tool, skill, and language proficiencies from another background.

[Anonymouswizard]

From the languages section I assume you use a setting with several human languages and a 'trader's tongue' of common? Because in most games languages don't vary by reason.

+1 to 4 ability scores is weird. It doesn't unbalance the race, but most characters won't need that fourth +1. I see no reason to change it.

Onto the big ability. It's weird, and would work best in a game with a lot more backgrounds (possibly more specific ones than 5e currently has). It does what it sets out to do, but it's hard to balance seeing how much backgrounds differ in proficiencies (from two skills and nothing else, to two skills and a tool proficiency, to two skills and multiple languages). It's not as good as a feat, seeing as with a feat I could get an additional three skills, and many background features are redundant (from the 14 backgrounds in the PhB literally 4* have 'you don't need to pay for food and shelter' as their feature, and 2** have the implication of it as well).

Long story short, I like it, I'm just not sure if it's below the power curve.

* Accolyte, Entertainer, Guild Artisan, and Outlander.
** Noble and Folk Hero.

[rudy]

From a lore standpoint, I dislike this just because there are many heroic, PC-level humans in FR lore who have only a single background. Instead, I might phrase it this way: when choosing a background, you may also gain the tool, skill, and language proficiencies from another background.
That's probably better. Or, at least make it an option. "You can choose whether to intertwine the two backgrounds into your backstory, or simply take the benefits from both and work them into one of the two backgrounds."

Good suggestion; thanks.


From the languages section I assume you use a setting with several human languages and a 'trader's tongue' of common? Because in most games languages don't vary by reason.They do in mine, but if they don't, that's why I added the "if no such language exists" bit.



+1 to 4 ability scores is weird. It doesn't unbalance the race, but most characters won't need that fourth +1. I see no reason to change it.
So you don't think having +1 to all six, plus the second background is too much?


Onto the big ability. It's weird, and would work best in a game with a lot more backgrounds (possibly more specific ones than 5e currently has). It does what it sets out to do, but it's hard to balance seeing how much backgrounds differ in proficiencies (from two skills and nothing else, to two skills and a tool proficiency, to two skills and multiple languages). It's not as good as a feat, seeing as with a feat I could get an additional three skills, and many background features are redundant (from the 14 backgrounds in the PhB literally 4* have 'you don't need to pay for food and shelter' as their feature, and 2** have the implication of it as well).
It's definitely not supposed to be as good as a feat, since they are keeping their +1 to more than just two ability scores.

I'm not sure what backgrounds you are thinking of that grant two skills and nothing else. Every background that I'm aware of grants two skill proficiency, as well as proficiency in a combination of two from languages and tools.

As far as features being redundant, yes. With Easy_lee's suggestion above that is less of an issue, because if you don't want to combine two thematically, you can take one background and add the abilities from another that isn't redundant.

I do also give access to the backgrounds from the Sword Coast supplement, so that gives more combination possibilities.


Long story short, I like it, I'm just not sure if it's below the power curve.
Thanks for the feedback!

[R.Shackleford]

Fluff wise, I love it.

I'm the type of person who, if you asked me my background, would say many many many things. I was a farmer, accountant, athlete, and haggler.

Mechanic wise it is rather weak.

Skills are weak in 5e, after the 4 core skills (athletics, acrobatics, perception, and insight) there is a huge drop in usage, utility, and need as the skill system isn't very PC friendly.

The mother may I type system isn't my cup of tea. If a player wants to use an action or specific skill then that should be on the player's end.

One vhuman I've been thinking about is something like..

During a long rest you may switch your skill proficiencies by practicing new skills.

[Specter]

I would give them two backgrounds along with six ability scores raised by one. If you compare them to the Half-Elf, they also get two skills per race, 4 stat boosts and the neat elf stuff like resistance to charm and sleep. I think it's fair.

Or, you know, just give them Skill Versatility.

[rudy]

I would give them two backgrounds along with six ability scores raised by one.
Yeah, I think I will switch to that.


Or, you know, just give them Skill Versatility.
Powerful, but less interesting. I like the idea of having humans able to access something that no other race can. Two background features may not be powerful, but it at least gives them a bit of flavor that no other race can lay claim to.

[rudy]

Fluff wise, I love it.

I'm the type of person who, if you asked me my background, would say many many many things. I was a farmer, accountant, athlete, and haggler.

Mechanic wise it is rather weak.
If they keep the +1 to six ability scores, but add in the second background (so a flat upgrade to the base human), does that still seem weak?

[Easy_Lee]

If they keep the +1 to six ability scores, but add in the second background (so a flat upgrade to the base human), does that still seem weak?

The main thing is that skills are DM dependent. If you have a good DM and choose skills which your party lacks, then you'll have a great time. If you don't have a good DM, then the only skills which matter are perception and athletics (for opposed checks).

[rudy]

The main thing is that skills are DM dependent. If you have a good DM and choose skills which your party lacks, then you'll have a great time. If you don't have a good DM, then the only skills which matter are perception and athletics (for opposed checks).
Well, sure, but a lot of things are DM dependent. For example, depending on how casual the DM is with lighting, Darkvision may be more or less important.

I try to design things around the idea of a good DM. For a hack-and-slash slugfest game, this take on the Human adds nothing of value, I admit, but I'm so uninterested in the concept of such a game that this fact doesn't bother me.

[Anonymouswizard]

Fluff wise, I love it.

I'm the type of person who, if you asked me my background, would say many many many things. I was a farmer, accountant, athlete, and haggler.

Mechanic wise it is rather weak.

Skills are weak in 5e, after the 4 core skills (athletics, acrobatics, perception, and insight) there is a huge drop in usage, utility, and need as the skill system isn't very PC friendly.

The mother may I type system isn't my cup of tea. If a player wants to use an action or specific skill then that should be on the player's end.

One vhuman I've been thinking about is something like..

During a long rest you may switch your skill proficiencies by practicing new skills.

Completely this, my personal favourite Human Fix is to give them +1 to two ability scores, 4 free skills, and a free language (including common and home), although I fully expect two of those skills to go on perception and insight (seriously, those two skills are by far the most rolled in the games I play, to the point where I've played in games with two sense motive skills and it felt balanced to pick what information you're looking for). Investigation is the next most useful skill in my experience, but falls into the problems of 'only needed once per party' and 'can retry if failed' (an annoying idea I don't use in my games, you can take extra time but if you fail the roll you can't do that course of action).

Another interesting idea is giving humans an extra save proficiency. To me it makes sense that if humans are supposed to be the most common race they'd be unusually good at surviving Bad StuffTM. It also gives humans an actual boost in that they can start with two of the major save proficiencies, and get 3 with feats, without adding extra complexity to the race.

So I think my personal vhuman remake would be:
-+1 to any 2 ability scores.
-any three skill proficiencies of your choice.
-any save proficiency of your choice.
-Languages: cultural language, trader's tongue, and any 1 language. (or common plus one other, if using racial languages instead of cultural ones)

[R.Shackleford]

Well, sure, but a lot of things are DM dependent. For example, depending on how casual the DM is with lighting, Darkvision may be more or less important.

I try to design things around the idea of a good DM. For a hack-and-slash slugfest game, this take on the Human adds nothing of value, I admit, but I'm so uninterested in the concept of such a game that this fact doesn't bother me.

There are two types of DM dependancy.

The type where a DM needs to make anew on the spot ruling. This includes how spells and effects and rules work. This is how a player's actions work within the game. The player has full control over their charactet.

And then there is another type.

The type that a player's actions aren't controlled by the player but the DM.

A player may want to use Persuasion but the DM says that the skill needed is deception. So now, instead of trying to persuade and be friendly, the PCS is forced to lie and be antagonistic.

[Easy_Lee]

A player may want to use Persuasion but the DM says that the skill needed is deception. So now, instead of trying to persuade and be friendly, the PCS is forced to lie and be antagonistic.

Right. And this is one of the differences between a good DM and one who's just average. The average DM says here, use this skill and see what you roll. The good DM let's the character describe what he's trying to do, and then roll the appropriate skill.

A common failing of average DMs is to come up with a specific idea of how an encounter should be resolved, then resist player attempts to solve it a different way. That's why I say you need a good DM in order for all skills to matter.

[R.Shackleford]

Right. And this is one of the differences between a good DM and one who's just average. The average DM says here, use this skill and see what you roll. The good DM let's the character describe what he's trying to do, and then roll the appropriate skill.

A common failing of average DMs is to come up with a specific idea of how an encounter should be resolved, then resist player attempts to solve it a different way. That's why I say you need a good DM in order for all skills to matter.


Oh yeah, deffinately.

Sadly there are more bad and average DMS that good DMs. :(

[RickAllison]

Oh yeah, deffinately.

Sadly there are more bad and average DMS that good DMs. :(

Oh yeah. My DM is always rather vexed by my suggestions on how to deal with party attempts to jump off the rails. I've already thought of how to counteract problems that he hasn't seen in the first place. Once I explained how an omnicidal and persuasive PC could reasonably create a black hole or explode-y occurrence using his idea of a warlock corps of guardsmen. He did not appreciate the input...

[R.Shackleford]

Oh yeah. My DM is always rather vexed by my suggestions on how to deal with party attempts to jump off the rails. I've already thought of how to counteract problems that he hasn't seen in the first place. Once I explained how an omnicidal and persuasive PC could reasonably create a black hole or explode-y occurrence using his idea of a warlock corps of guardsmen. He did not appreciate the input...

Well, as a PC you should try to mostly stay within the limits of your DM.

This will sound arrogant but...

What stopped me from being a bad DM was treating the DM position as not writing a story but reading a book. What stopped me from being an average DM is not treating the DM position as reading a book but watching a movie (or reading a Marvel/DC comic).

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, this is coming out at Skilled Feat, with a ribbon and an extra tool/language to make up for limiting to 2 skills.
The +1 to 4 takes it over Variant Human.

Conceptually, it's neat. You are weaving in different parts of your life, and giving them greater weight. Urchin to City Guard, before starting your adventuring career as... whatever. Soldier and Outlander, Wilderness scout for the army (or highly proficient deserter). Charlatan and Noble - one of your identities has recognized standing... or Charlatan and Far Traveler for the Princess Caraboo treatment. Or is that your real identity, and you take a less assuming identity... or are you Batman?

[rudy]

Dungeon World RPG taught me an awful lot about being a good GM, lessons that carry over to 5e. One of the most important ones was that the action determines the roll, never vice versa. Others were:

1. Be a fan of the players. Challenge them to make their victories meaningful, not because you want to beat them.

2. Play to find out what happens. Seems like a silly thing to say, but it means let the course of the adventure be determined by the play, not the play be determined by the course of the adventure.

3. Address the characters, not the players.

4. Never speak the name of your move. In other words, don't say "the wizard casts fireball at you", say "the wizard gestures, and a ball of flaming energy shoots toward the party!"

5. Ask questions and use the answers. For example, suppose a player rolls successfully on an Intelligence check to figure out a weakness of a monster they are facing. Ask them "Where did you pick up that tidbit of information?" Allow them to fill in the backstory of the world, and their characters, as you go along.

ANYWAY, here is my revision based on all the helpful input. I'm pretty happy with this now, but further thoughts and input is of course welcomed.



Ability Score Increase. Your ability score each increase by 1.

Age, Alignment, Size, Speed. All Standard

Languages. You can speak, read and write Common, as well as one regional human language appropriate to your origin. If no such regional language exists, then you can pick another language reasonably common in your region of origin (DM's discretion).

Many Walks of Life. Humans come from all different walks of life, often having seen different careers and paths. When choosing backgrounds, select two different ones. You gain all skill, tool, language and feature benefits from both. If both backgrounds grant the same proficiency, you can choose any proficiency of the same type (skill or tool) in place of one of them. If both backgrounds grant starting gold, you receive the starting gold from only one. When thinking about your backstory and character history, you can either elect to intertwine both background choices, or focus on only one of them while incorporating the abilities granted by the other into the narrative tapestry of your life.

[rudy]

Conceptually, it's neat. You are weaving in different parts of your life, and giving them greater weight. Urchin to City Guard, before starting your adventuring career as... whatever. Soldier and Outlander, Wilderness scout for the army (or highly proficient deserter). Charlatan and Noble - one of your identities has recognized standing... or Charlatan and Far Traveler for the Princess Caraboo treatment. Or is that your real identity, and you take a less assuming identity... or are you Batman?
That's a very evocative way to describe it. Thanks for the treat!

EDIT: I don't think you can use the Skilled Feat as a measuring stick for a feat; it's one of the worst feats available, really, due to the already observed point that more skills has quickly diminishing returns.

[Anonymouswizard]

Right. And this is one of the differences between a good DM and one who's just average. The average DM says here, use this skill and see what you roll. The good DM let's the character describe what he's trying to do, and then roll the appropriate skill.

A common failing of average DMs is to come up with a specific idea of how an encounter should be resolved, then resist player attempts to solve it a different way. That's why I say you need a good DM in order for all skills to matter.

Eh, I've also seen good GMs who will let the player call the skill, but adjust my results. For example, if my Interrogation is at +4 but my intimidation is at +7, they might let me roll my intimidation but require an Insight check to see if the results are fine.

(I've previously played with GMs who have called for a skill, but will let us roll another one if we don't have the original. It all depends on if they want to 'tell' the story to the players, or to 'write' the story with the players.)

In general I prefer GMs who'll let me call the skill I want to use, as they'll likely be using roleplaying modifiers and will adjust them for the situation.

[Rysto]

Comparing this to the Half-Elf:

- +1 to any ability vs. +2 CHA
- +1 to any two abilities vs + 1 to any two abilities
- +1 to a dump stat vs. nothing
- Skills from an additional background vs. any 2 skills
- Common and a language from a restricted list vs. Common, Elvish and any language
- Background feature vs Darkvision and Fey Ancestry

Your human is slightly more versatile ability-wise, but the Half-Elf gives a +2 to CHA. +1 to a fourth stat is almost always going to be meaningless. The Half-Elf gives better flexibility for picking skills, but I guess I could pick up an additional tool proficiency via a background. I doubt that the second background feature would be more useful than Darkvision and Fey Ancestry.

Overall, I see very little reason to take a Human here. IMO, the problem with the variant Human is not the free feat. The problem is that some feats are too powerful. Fix those feats and the variant Human is just fine.

[rudy]

Comparing this to the Half-Elf:

- +1 to any ability vs. +2 CHA
- +1 to any two abilities vs + 1 to any two abilities
- +1 to a dump stat vs. nothing
- Skills from an additional background vs. any 2 skills
- Common and a language from a restricted list vs. Common, Elvish and any language
- Background feature vs Darkvision and Fey Ancestry

Your human is slightly more versatile ability-wise, but the Half-Elf gives a +2 to CHA. +1 to a fourth stat is almost always going to be meaningless. The Half-Elf gives better flexibility for picking skills, but I guess I could pick up an additional tool proficiency via a background. I doubt that the second background feature would be more useful than Darkvision and Fey Ancestry.

Overall, I see very little reason to take a Human here. IMO, the problem with the variant Human is not the free feat. The problem is that some feats are too powerful. Fix those feats and the variant Human is just fine.
I changed it back to +1 to all six stats, as a note. Still, for most builds those last two stats are not going to be important.

I don't think there is ultimately a meaningful difference in "power" for skills between this new Human and the Half-Elf. Either one is going to give six skills (or more, with skill classes), and with either you're going to be able to get the skills you want/need. Numerous backgrounds have overlap in skills, if nothing else, which become "free picks".

Stat wise, there is no question that Half-Elf is going to be better for a build that cares about Charisma. But stat wise, the human is going to be better for a class that is relatively MAD but that doesn't care as much about charisma.

The language thing is going to be balanced out by the fact that so many of the backgrounds have bonus languages, if the human player wants one.

In my particular case, I dropped the Variant Human because I'm giving everyone a feat at 1st level, and two feats at first level is potentially very abuseable. In general, though, I'm looking to make humans interesting, not make them powerful.

The hope is that you can make a viable build with the human for any given class that compares with the others, not that human will necessarily be one of the best choices for any given class. I think this new human would really only "shine" in cases where you have a large number (4 or more) of important stats. For example, 15 14 13 13 9 8 ==> 16 15 14 14 10 9.

In any case, it's definitely an improvement over the utterly uninspired and weak vanilla human.

[Joe the Rat]

That's a very evocative way to describe it. Thanks for the treat!

EDIT: I don't think you can use the Skilled Feat as a measuring stick for a feat; it's one of the worst feats available, really, due to the already observed point that more skills has quickly diminishing returns.You're welcome.

A bad feat is still a feat. I was looking at this in terms of what player options are, and if it can be done with VHuman, balance-wise it's not crazier that what's currently available.
Frankly, I'd blend Skilled and Weapon Master: Polymath. You may choose 3 Skill proficiencies. As an option, you may trade one Skill proficiency for two tool, language, or weapon proficiencies.

[rudy]

You're welcome.

A bad feat is still a feat. I was looking at this in terms of what player options are, and if it can be done with VHuman, balance-wise it's not crazier that what's currently available.
Frankly, I'd blend Skilled and Weapon Master: Polymath. You may choose 3 Skill proficiencies. As an option, you may trade one Skill proficiency for two tool, language, or weapon proficiencies.
That may be more straightforward, but I think my current plan will lead to more inspired and interesting backstories for my human character players. Your suggestion, respectfully, is just an invitation to powergame, with tons of people getting "optimal" weapon proficiencies. If I find that even with the change people are still not picking humans, I'll see from there. Thanks, though.

[Vorpalchicken]

Through observation and experimentation I have noted that if you remove the unaltered variant human from the game, the amount of players who choose human is really low. Like about one in twenty. Not kidding.

If you don't want your players to play humans, or don't care then go ahead and remove or weaken the variant human.

Maybe there is some campaign explanation as to why there just aren't many humans around. But if you want a human centered campaign, this is going to hurt. Despite your good intentions, don't expect anyone to play a human.

The power level of variant humans is only noticeable in the first few levels and those go by quickly so my advice is to just leave variant humans alone.

[rudy]

Through observation and experimentation I have noted that if you remove the unaltered variant human from the game, the amount of players who choose human is really low. Like about one in twenty. Not kidding.

If you don't want your players to play humans, or don't care then go ahead and remove or weaken the variant human.

Maybe there is some campaign explanation as to why there just aren't many humans around. But if you want a human centered campaign, this is going to hurt. Despite your good intentions, don't expect anyone to play a human.

The power level of variant humans is only noticeable in the first few levels and those go by quickly so my advice is to just leave variant humans alone.
You say this as if it were flatly impossible to come up with a desirable version of humans that doesn't grant them a bonus feat.

Leaving variant humans "alone", at least in my campaigns, will not happen, because everyone gets a bonus feat at level 1, and two bonus feats at level 1 is too much, period. There are too many absolutely brutal combinations, especially for martials.

So, while I appreciate your position, my goal is to add things to humans in a way that is

1. Interesting
2. Makes them a race that some people will choose for certain builds.

[Joe the Rat]

With "feats for everyone!" on the table, the mechanical/build need for VHuman is reduced, opening feat-intensive builds to all races. The tradeoff is finding other appealing human options - ideas like this.

I will say that I have 2:2 on Human / Vuman with my players. The two who went vanilla did so because 1) he felt the +1s across the board were awesome, and 2) didn't want to fuss with Feats right off the bat. The other six went every which way racewise. (They aren't all concurrent players).

[rudy]

he felt the +1s across the board were awesome
With respect to that player, I think anyone who understands the game balance well, and the idea of key stats versus dump ones, will realize that the flat +1s across by itself is sub-par compared to other race options.

I'm certainly not disparaging his choice as "bad", and I'm sure it doesn't mean you can't build a great, fun character with the base human.

[Joe the Rat]

It's more that not everyone makes the "most optimal" choices - and counter-evidence to the "nobody plays base human" idea. I'm not saying don't have options - options are good, and I'd love to see more human variants. I will probably offer diverse background Human as an option next time I set up a game.

Here's what we need to beat. Planeshift: Innistrad did Human subraces. It has the right flavor, but all they did was have "Base Human" and "Human with other subrace" and "Variant Human with a pre-selected feat decomposed into subrace traits."

[2D8HP]

"Fluff" wise I think it's very appropriate, as in this post on another thread:

At different points in his life Conan's "background" could be:
Outlander,
Criminal,
Soldier,
Pirate, and
Noble.
"Background" is a rules mechanic's contrivance.
While only one "crunch" "background" is allowed, it is for easy for me to imagine PC's and NPC's as having more than one "fluff" backstory "backgrounds".
To use a different fictional character,
Sam Vimes from Terry Pratchett's Disc World series—
Young Vimes - Urchin background.
Adult Vimes - City Watch SCAG background
Later Vimes - Noble background (though he chaff's at the label).

[Klorox]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't like how the shortest lived race gets more of a background bonus than the races that have been alive for 50+ years before adventuring.

Variant human is meant to be powerful to entice players to choose to be human, as human has always been described as the dominant race in D&D.

[rudy]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't like how the shortest lived race gets more of a background bonus than the races that have been alive for 50+ years before adventuring.
It's doesn't make a lot of "logical" sense, but neither did the extra skill points in 3.X for the exact reasons that you state. It's long been the fantasy conceit in D&D that humans are more adaptable. It's not saying that other races aren't able to do a bunch of stuff, but rather that humans have a unique knack to be able to "pick up" stuff, like skills, more easily.

If it helps, you can imagine that it's not that every human NPC has two backgrounds, but that the kinds of humans who have seen a lot in their short life are the ones that tend to become adventurers.


Variant human is meant to be powerful to entice players to choose to be human, as human has always been described as the dominant race in D&D.
I know that it's meant to do that, but Variant Human is both boring and destabilizing in many ways.

Besides, if you think about it, having +1 to all stats goes a long way to describing why humans are dominant. Why? Well, there's no such thing as "dump stats" in civilization. Since this means humans are "above average" across the board it's going to give them a good balance of smart people, wise people, tough people, etc. That, along with their (relatively) fast reproduction explains their success.

[2D8HP]

I've never had a DM accept the one vHuman I made, but I've played some standard Human PC's (all Fighters), and I liked the +1 to all stats well enough.
Lack of Darkvision has been more of an issue.

[vcremasco]

I know we are talking about 2 background for vHumans, but here is my touch in vHumans for my homebrew games:

[vcremasco]

Ow man... I need one more post to send a link...

[vcremasco]

Now I'm good to go!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k4ogrPgJxAF5dOrnRhSrYAAnXUgmHm_QdJ53SFoxLXw/edit?usp=sharing

(sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, so...)

[krunchyfrogg]

It's not bad, and while i think the vhuman feat @ level 1 is OP, I play with powergamers and most still choose to play demihumans.

I can only assume you're considering this to weaken the human option a bit, but i need to admit, i'm wondering why.

btw, for a stick figure, your avatar is hot! LOL