In defense of the Non-Variant Human

[Primus Beno]

Non-variant humans don't get much love these days. Build guide after build guide usually puts them at a lowly purple and their variant cousins get a lot of love from the extra feat. And I think they are quite right, that starting feat can be a powerful addition to a beginning character. However, I'd like to take a moment to pitch to you why I think a bog-standard human might be worth it.

D&D 3.5 gave us an ability to build a character unlike anything we had seen before. Forums filled up with build ideas, feat synergies and optimal levels for taking a prestige class. I always seem to have one major problem with this focus on building though. Most of my campaigns (and it turns out true for a lot of us) seemed to get to around 6th to 8th level before puttering out. I'd be halfway through my planned build and then real life would happen: someone has a baby, someone is moving, DM burn out, etc. It was frustrating that I could never get to see the completion of the build. So, I just quit trying to build and would run a straight class for most games. It was less frustrating that way and more fun for me.

Out comes 5th edition and everything is simplified, including the builds. But, they are still there for people who like to tinker around with the idea, just not as strong coded into the whole system. Without as many options and with most choices not being "bad" choices, not just not optimal, the pressure to build was off.

Where am I going with all of this? The standard human is terrible for trying to make a build on. It's not the most optimal and doesn't give you a solid path in which to plan a 5/10/20 level build. It's really generic and that's the beauty of it.

With a standard array human, I can choose any class and in a couple of levels, my roleplay can dictate to me which class I should take next with ease. The +1 to all my stats opens up far more possibilities on classes I can switch to than a Variant or a point buy, which can easily be locked into a pre-build mentality.

Example: Drego the Fighter (heavy armor focus)
Str: 15 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 13 Cha 12

With a variant human pumping say STR and CON, Drego can only organically level to a Barbarian, Cleric or a druid. (he would probably have different stats if I was pre-building him into something, like higher DEX, lower WIS and/or CHA, but even then, I'd lose any access Druid and Cleric to pick up Rogue)

A standard Drego has +1 to all his stats, bringing his WIS and CHA both above the 13 threshold. I can now pick and chose where I'd like to go out of Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer or Warlock. That's a huge range to chose from and it gives me a ton of options in the campaign to adjust my character to fit what is needed or either the story or the environment.

I like flexibility and having the options open to me to take a class that might closely fit what my character is learning and doing, rather than trying to fit a certain build into a campaign. While it won't have the raw optimal stats for doing a certain thing, the ability to pick and chose a class while the campaign is running is a powerful one, especially if your DM likes to throw curve-balls at the campaign.

Granted, this only is an advantage if you have no preconceived notions of what this character is going to be. It does you little good if you want to be a spear master inspired by Obyrn Martel. That character needs to be planned from the beginning. But, if you are unsure how long the game is going to last and you want to see where the game takes you, I suggest a standard human for some flexibility in deciding who you want to be...on the fly.

[ZorroGames]

Non-variant humans don't get much love these days. Build guide after build guide usually puts them at a lowly purple and their variant cousins get a lot of love from the extra feat. And I think they are quite right, that starting feat can be a powerful addition to a beginning character. However, I'd like to take a moment to pitch to you why I think a bog-standard human might be worth it.

D&D 3.5 gave us an ability to build a character unlike anything we had seen before. Forums filled up with build ideas, feat synergies and optimal levels for taking a prestige class. I always seem to have one major problem with this focus on building though. Most of my campaigns (and it turns out true for a lot of us) seemed to get to around 6th to 8th level before puttering out. I'd be halfway through my planned build and then real life would happen: someone has a baby, someone is moving, DM burn out, etc. It was frustrating that I could never get to see the completion of the build. So, I just quit trying to build and would run a straight class for most games. It was less frustrating that way and more fun for me.

Out comes 5th edition and everything is simplified, including the builds. But, they are still there for people who like to tinker around with the idea, just not as strong coded into the whole system. Without as many options and with most choices not being "bad" choices, not just not optimal, the pressure to build was off.

Where am I going with all of this? The standard human is terrible for trying to make a build on. It's not the most optimal and doesn't give you a solid path in which to plan a 5/10/20 level build. It's really generic and that's the beauty of it.

With a standard array human, I can choose any class and in a couple of levels, my roleplay can dictate to me which class I should take next with ease. The +1 to all my stats opens up far more possibilities on classes I can switch to than a Variant or a point buy, which can easily be locked into a pre-build mentality.

Example: Drego the Fighter (heavy armor focus)
Str: 15 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 13 Cha 12

With a variant human pumping say STR and CON, Drego can only organically level to a Barbarian, Cleric or a druid. (he would probably have different stats if I was pre-building him into something, like higher DEX, lower WIS and/or CHA, but even then, I'd lose any access Druid and Cleric to pick up Rogue)

A standard Drego has +1 to all his stats, bringing his WIS and CHA both above the 13 threshold. I can now pick and chose where I'd like to go out of Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer or Warlock. That's a huge range to chose from and it gives me a ton of options in the campaign to adjust my character to fit what is needed or either the story or the environment.

I like flexibility and having the options open to me to take a class that might closely fit what my character is learning and doing, rather than trying to fit a certain build into a campaign. While it won't have the raw optimal stats for doing a certain thing, the ability to pick and chose a class while the campaign is running is a powerful one, especially if your DM likes to throw curve-balls at the campaign.

Granted, this only is an advantage if you have no preconceived notions of what this character is going to be. It does you little good if you want to be a spear master inspired by Obyrn Martel. That character needs to be planned from the beginning. But, if you are unsure how long the game is going to last and you want to see where the game takes you, I suggest a standard human for some flexibility in deciding who you want to be...on the fly.

Agree with the flexibilty, especially if you are open to MC opportuities.

[JumboWheat01]

For me, classes in 5e aren't MAD enough, and I pretty much NEVER multiclass, so the +1 across the board from a standard human just never really works for my plans. It is great for the more multiclass-happy players, just not my cup of tee.

[Hooligan]

Sorry, mechanically it's a bag of trash. Just a big ol' bag of trash.

[Tanarii]

They're okay under the right circumstances. But those circumstances aren't the common way to make characters.

Specifically, they're okay if you choose race first then roll stats. Or if you roll first and get a whole lot of odd ability scores. Or if you use point buy and want to start with 3×16 ability scores. Although that can also usually be done with Variant human and a half feat. Of course, in a no feat game that's not possible.

They pretty much suck in a standard array game, especially in a game that also allows feats.

[Zene]

Using point buy:
-Variant humans can start with 16s in any three stats (depending on feat choice).
-Every race can easily attain 13s in multiple attributes to make almost any multiclass combo work (except orcs and kobolds, with int and str respectively).
-The only way it's tough is if you're trying to get 13+ in 4 stats or more. So like a wizard/paladin/ranger/rogue would have trouble. But that build should have trouble.

So yeah, if you're rolling, or using some stranger method of attribute assignment, maybe regular human is good then. I've yet to play in a campaign like that.

[dejarnjc]

I think they are good for the MAD classes like Paladin. With standard human and point buy, you can start w/ a 16 in STR, CON, and CHA which is pretty damn good IMO.


Having three odd stats sucks though...


My biggest gripe about 5e, the fact that odd stats so often give you nothing, continues to plague me.

[Finger6842]

Nice for Bards with Jack of all Trades, adding to a lot of skill checks.

[thereaper]

Standard human is for when you're trying to do a MAD multiclass but don't want charisma (as Half-Elf would be the choice for that).

[ghost_warlock]

I wouldn't care if it was mechanically stronger, it's boring.

I want to make choices when making a character. A feat is a choice, a +1 bonus to every stat is not.

[thereaper]

I wouldn't care if it was mechanically stronger, it's boring.

I want to make choices when making a character. A feat is a choice, a +1 bonus to every stat is not.

This is why Variant Human is so popular, despite not being especially strong.

[mephnick]

For most of my multiclass builds I tend to use Human. The 3 16's can help a lot and and I hate Half-elves for how strong they are. Like who saw the Half-elf and decided it was in line with the other races?

Of course we also stipulated that you can exchange some of your +1's for proficiency in a skill so that doesn't hurt. Even without that I'd probably use it sometimes.

[MrFahrenheit]

In my campaign, I fixed standard human with this one simple trick:

I allowed any of the ability +1s to be swapped for a proficiency in any skill of the player's choice.

Yes, if you go +1/+1/four skills, you're almost the same as a vhuman with the skilled feat, but not quite...because you didn't take the feat. A human rogue in my game could begin at level one with twelve skill proficiencies.

[ZorroGames]

People complain about the lack of traits like darkvision, lack of choices/specialization/"blandness" (the last part, unless they are talking mechanical advantage, bewilders me but that is another thread) yet WOTC likes to say Humans are the most common race. Maybe they mean or should have said most common non-adventurers?

It used to be waaaay back in earlier editions that Humans threatened elf/dwarf/tc., races by their sheer population growth rates (like the Europeans/Americans did with the indigenous American Indians I suspect.)

Maybe the death rates in prior editions supported Humans being deemed most common? I mean if you have small populations every adventurer lost is proportionally more destructive of the race's future population?

While it is "Orange Pekoe 'tea' " [snore] for some people to play Humans I find the concept refreshing (100% "Kona Coffee") to play point buy standard Humans (on my short list) and make it work. Right after my Mountain Dwarf Monk makes Fifth fun, but it is time to try other stuff for a while, and I want to try Hill Dwarf Cleric, Wood Elf Monk or Ranger, and Forest Gnome Wizard, along with Variant Human Fighter and Standard Human - Class(es) TBD.)

When I have done that I may finally try and "go 20" with a character - right now I am interested in achieving/finishing the second tier with the above for learning the basics of the game.

[Theodoxus]

Of course we also stipulated that you can exchange some of your +1's for proficiency in a skill so that doesn't hurt. Even without that I'd probably use it sometimes.


In my campaign, I fixed standard human with this one simple trick:

I allowed any of the ability +1s to be swapped for a proficiency in any skill of the player's choice.

Yes, if you go +1/+1/four skills, you're almost the same as a vhuman with the skilled feat, but not quite...because you didn't take the feat. A human rogue in my game could begin at level one with twelve skill proficiencies.

That's a nifty solution. I was just going to grant an extra skill proficiency, but I think that's a bit more elegant. Would you allow all 6 to be traded?

The only time I've seen standard human used is with a point buy build of 5 13s and a 10... 5 14s is pretty decent... if you go 10 Con, you can MC into anything. Though I actually like it on a stand back and support your party Lore Bard (especially Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard x - where you can go half-plate and shield for decent AC (going 10 Str in that case).

[ZorroGames]

In my campaign, I fixed standard human with this one simple trick:

I allowed any of the ability +1s to be swapped for a proficiency in any skill of the player's choice.

Yes, if you go +1/+1/four skills, you're almost the same as a vhuman with the skilled feat, but not quite...because you didn't take the feat. A human rogue in my game could begin at level one with twelve skill proficiencies.

I like this and it seems not terribly unbalancing. But I still consider myself "new" to 5e.

[MrFahrenheit]

That's a nifty solution. I was just going to grant an extra skill proficiency, but I think that's a bit more elegant. Would you allow all 6 to be traded

Yes. In my game, stats are rolled and the human eldritch knight (archer build) has a stat array of 8/17+1/16/16/11/9 & five racial skills. Once you factor in his background and class skills, he has three int proficiencies, three wis ones, and all three in dex.

There was an individual I chatted with at some length on the old (pre-Beyond) WOTC boards who broke down character creation mathematically, and determined that +1 to an ability held the same value as proficiency in a skill. That's when the idea struck me.

So whether you're 6x+1s/0 skills, or vice-versa, or anywhere in between, it still balances out, and fits neatly with the idea of humans being versatile.


I like this and it seems not terribly unbalancing. But I still consider myself "new" to 5e.

It's not unbalancing at all, and it keeps humans in a decent place for any character build consideration. If you're creating a naked barbarian off the point buy system, you don't care about int or cha, and you at most want to make wis an odd number only if you plan on taking wis resilience later on.

You could start the game at 15+1/15+1/15+1/8/8+1/8, and get two skill proficiencies...let's just say perception and insight, for sake of example. You choose the urchin background (why not? With high dex, stealth and sleight of hand are more than sensible), and take the athletics and survival proficiencies from barbarian. Those are six skills that you'll rock in (athletics + the dex ones), and make sense to have (the wis ones).

Using this same example, what benefit would RAW standard human confer? Certainly not those wis-based skills, and then two additional +1s you wouldn't use or even likely want to change the modifier on. That's why the standard human gets hate.

[JumboWheat01]

Like who saw the Half-elf and decided it was in line with the other races?

I think they're still trying to make up for 3.5 Half-elves, which were pretty much pointless.

Though I do agree. They should've just gotten +2 to Charisma and +1 to another stat of their choice, rather than +1 to two other stats of their choice.

[MrFahrenheit]

I think they're still trying to make up for 3.5 Half-elves, which were pretty much pointless.

Though I do agree. They should've just gotten +2 to Charisma and +1 to another stat of their choice, rather than +1 to two other stats of their choice.

I think half-elf breaks down the same mathematically as the mountain dwarf: +2/+1/+1 & 2 skills = +2/+2 & 2 armor proficiencies.

The problem with mountain dwarf is that its racial feature is redundant with its preferred classes, and not having shields is problematic when going for an armored caster (non-cleric or valor bard) build without MCing. But mathematically, it still breaks even with half elf.

It would've probably been better to give the mountain dwarf two of: shield proficiency, light armor proficiency, or a skill proficiency of their choice...that way they're at least not shieldless AND unable to take the moderately armored feat due to (near) redundancy.

[Rhedyn]

My skillmonkey fighter concept can't work without regular human. But that concept uses every stat.

[jas61292]

In general, forums like this tend to focus on min/max optimization. But that kind of optimization necessarily excludes being well rounded. There is nothing wrong with a well rounded character, and humans are one of the best for doing that. Less combat focued characters in general May like this as having a slightly lower chance to hit matters less than being better at any given ability check you might need.

[wilhelmdubdub]

Some interesting arrays for standard human skill monkey classes including: bards, rogues and knowledge clerics:
15, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8

13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10

If you think about it getting a (+2 and a +1 or +2 and +2) gives you two +1 bonuses to attack rolls, saves or ability checks.

Taking a standard human and adding +1 to the above point-buy arrays gives you five +1 bonuses to attack rolls, saves or ability checks.

You wait until level 12 instead of 8 to max out you main stat. Rogues won't miss the extra +1 to hit if they are dual wielding.

[MeeposFire]

Essentially I combined the two versions of human together with no feat.

SO you choose 1 skill, language, and get a +1 to all ability scores. Lastly you choose one ability score which gains a +2 instead. Means humans have the same max starting score as any other race and gives you some minor choices.

Also all characters get a feat at 1st level. Makes the players happy and keeps things even for them.

[Coidzor]

D&D 3.5 gave us an ability to build a character unlike anything we had seen before. Forums filled up with build ideas, feat synergies and optimal levels for taking a prestige class. I always seem to have one major problem with this focus on building though. Most of my campaigns (and it turns out true for a lot of us) seemed to get to around 6th to 8th level before puttering out. I'd be halfway through my planned build and then real life would happen: someone has a baby, someone is moving, DM burn out, etc. It was frustrating that I could never get to see the completion of the build. So, I just quit trying to build and would run a straight class for most games. It was less frustrating that way and more fun for me.

That's exactly why I like the Vhuman. It's able to start doing at least one of the neat tricks its supposed to be able to do right from the get-go at level 1, whereas most archetypes don't kick off until 3rd level.


My skillmonkey fighter concept can't work without regular human. But that concept uses every stat.

Which I could get behind if it weren't for the fact that you don't get the skill proficiencies that a Vhuman or Half-Elf does.

[SovelsAtaask]

I don't like the standard human because I think they're boring, but it's a bit weird narratively. The other races are at least partially described by what they're innately better at than the average human, but this falls apart using the standard human. For example, if all humans get a +1 to every ability score, that means that the average member all races except high elves, tieflings, and gnomes are less intelligent than the average human, with gnomes being the only ones being more intelligent. Races that are supposed to be exceptionally smart, or nimble, or hardy, or strong, or charismatic just aren't, if you're comparing them to humans.

Hopefully that made sense. It's late and I'm having trouble putting into words exactly what I mean, but I think I got the point across.

[AstralFire]

I don't like the standard human because I think they're boring, but it's a bit weird narratively. The other races are at least partially described by what they're innately better at than the average human, but this falls apart using the standard human. For example, if all humans get a +1 to every ability score, that means that the average member all races except high elves, tieflings, and gnomes are less intelligent than the average human, with gnomes being the only ones being more intelligent. Races that are supposed to be exceptionally smart, or nimble, or hardy, or strong, or charismatic just aren't, if you're comparing them to humans.

Hopefully that made sense. It's late and I'm having trouble putting into words exactly what I mean, but I think I got the point across.

The way I usually see it is that the standard human and variant human are both typical adventurers, not typical members of their race.

I usually ban the variant human but give the standard human the ability to take two backgrounds, people seem fairly happy with it. Feats are nice, so I give everyone a feat. Blank bonus feat is too good to be a race choice because everyone likes making more choices in builds.

[Rhedyn]

Which I could get behind if it weren't for the fact that you don't get the skill proficiencies that a Vhuman or Half-Elf does.

You need to be a champion to get half prof rounded up on all str, dex, and con checks. You spend your other 4 skill profs on mental based skills.

[Coidzor]

I don't like the standard human because I think they're boring, but it's a bit weird narratively. The other races are at least partially described by what they're innately better at than the average human, but this falls apart using the standard human. For example, if all humans get a +1 to every ability score, that means that the average member all races except high elves, tieflings, and gnomes are less intelligent than the average human, with gnomes being the only ones being more intelligent. Races that are supposed to be exceptionally smart, or nimble, or hardy, or strong, or charismatic just aren't, if you're comparing them to humans.

Hopefully that made sense. It's late and I'm having trouble putting into words exactly what I mean, but I think I got the point across.

IIRC the "average" member of a civilized race is now straight 10s across the board before racial adjustments, instead of 3 10s and 3 11s.

So a Standard Human Commoner has straight 11s in every ability score, which has no meaningful difference between one with straight 10s in every ability score, except they can jump a little bit better and carry slightly more.

They're as smart as any other race with no +2 bonus to Intelligence, since there's no actual difference between 10 and 11. They're as healthy as any other race with no +2 bonus to Constitution, since there's no actual difference between 10 and 11.

And so on and so forth.

[ZorroGames]

A character is as boring/bland as you make it be.

[2D8HP]

My first 5e PC was a standard human Fighter with an Urchin background.

He had every stat except INT above 13, and I thought worked well.

But yeah, I mostly play a Half-elf Fighter/Swashbuckler now.

Comme ci comme ça.

[Armored Walrus]

They're as smart as any other race with no +2 bonus to Intelligence, since there's no actual difference between 10 and 11.

With the sole exception (that I'm aware of) being facing an intellect devourer.

[ZorroGames]

With the sole exception (that I'm aware of) being facing an intellect devourer.

Intellect Devourer, "Oatmeal again?"

[Laurefindel]

I see "standard human" as the "champion archetype" of races; it's ok, just bland.

Most character guides aim to specialize, which variant human allows to do best than any other race about half the time. Regular human is nice when you prefer to have a well-rounded character, which is a fine way to go, but internet guides, by their nature, usually don't aim to create that type of characters.

That being said, I often see regular human suggested in proposed builds in many threads, especially when it involves some kind of multiclassing, and those usually aim to suggest an optimized way to realize the OP's concept.

I do like the "trade one +1 for one skill" houserule however.

[GlenSmash!]

Some interesting arrays for standard human skill monkey classes including: bards, rogues and knowledge clerics:
15, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8

13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10

If you think about it getting a (+2 and a +1 or +2 and +2) gives you two +1 bonuses to attack rolls, saves or ability checks.

Taking a standard human and adding +1 to the above point-buy arrays gives you five +1 bonuses to attack rolls, saves or ability checks.

You wait until level 12 instead of 8 to max out you main stat. Rogues won't miss the extra +1 to hit if they are dual wielding.

Yeah. With point buys making 14s and 15s cost more than 13s, it really favors a lot of mid numbers over a couple high numbers. So that 13,13,13,13,10 is really where the Standard Human can get the most out of point buy, especially if you are doing an odd multiclass like Barbarian/Ranger or Paladin/Monk. After all a 14 is only 5% behind a 16, and something like the Lucky feat can go a long way to make up for that 5%