Humans and the ASI

[JellyPooga]

I have a question about (regular) Humans and why are they not more popular.

It seems to be fairly common wisdom (at least 'round these parts) that ASI's are valuable. So valuable, in fact, that delaying Feats in favour of one (or more) is at least a question to ponder on, if not an obvious choice.

If that's the case; why is the Regular Human seen as a weak choice? I mean, it gets the most increases to Ability Scores of any race and it gets them across the board. Sure, other Races get to be more specialised, but being generally better at everything isn't something that should be knocked, surely?

Have a think about these 27-pt buy Regular Human builds;

The Generalist: 13,13,13,13,13,10 -> 14,14,14,14,14,11
The SADact: 15,13,13,13,10,9 -> 16,14,14,14,11,10
"But I need two!": 15,15,13,10,9,9 -> 16,16,14,11,10,10

Nothing too unusual there; decent enough placement of your allocated points, no weaknesses (i.e. no penalties) and plenty of strengths wherever they're needed; after all +2 to an Ability Score is good enough at level 1, let alone +3 and it doesn't get better than +3 at level 1. Let's compare these to your average +2/+1 Race (Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, etc. You know, pretty much every Race barring a few exceptions) and how they might build their 27pts;

The Generalist: 14,13,13,12,12,10 -> 14,14,14,13,12,10
The SADact: 14,14,13,12,10,10 -> 16,14,14,12,10,10
"But I need two!": 15,14,14,10,10,8 -> 16,16,14,10,10,8

It doesn't take a genius to see the differences. Now yes, those +2/+1 Races have a whole slew of additional features to "compensate" the lack of ASIs and the argument that "dump stats" don't matter and can be ignored (which I'd rather not discuss) is out there nefariously killing characters across the world, but it doesn't change the fact that Regular Human is...well...just generally better at stuff. More noticeable during early levels of play, when Proficiency Bonus doesn't outstrip Ability Score Bonus, granted, but nevertheless better. If value is attached to things like the Guidance Cantrip (usually held as pretty stellar, maybe even a "must have"), then having a permanent effect of similar value for ALL checks for one or more of your Ability Scores should surely have similar, if not greater value?

So...Regular Human. Not raising the ceiling, but the floor of a given characters Ability Scores. Why not more popular?

Additional Credit: Is the existence and common permission to use Variant Human a significant factor in the downplay of Regular Humans' popularity?

[JNAProductions]

Because the game rewards specializing more than being a generalist, and humans only get general improvements.

And you can't just ignore dump stats, because that's a general optimization rule. If you don't need a stat, lower it to give points elsewhere.

Now, I won't say humans are a dumpster fire or anything-they're perfectly competent, and even optimal (for weird builds, like "I want one of every class"). But compared to other races, they aren't as good as specialization they offer, or features you CANNOT get elsewhere. (Or at least are pretty hard to get elsewhere.)

Also, even when you ARE playing human, the difference in stats will be gone by level 8, in all probability, whereas Half-Elves still have two skills, Darkvision, and Fey Ancestry on you. Hill Dwarves, while slower, are rocking a decent chunk of extra HP, Darkvision, and Poison resistance/advantage. Half-Orcs get to say "Nah, I didn't actually die" and have Intimidation and Darkvision.

[Tanarii]

Largely because far too many DMs use a guideline of "one check to rule them all" for ability checks. The best person in the party gets to make the check for everyone. As opposed to everyone regularly needing to make checks across all ability scores, or needing to participate in group checks.

Especially true for Int checks or Cha checks. One specialist can be the Sage or Face for the party, if a DM is a "one check to rule them all" type for those checks.

Contrast that to Stealth checks, which have pretty much the opposite problem, so to speak. Everyone knows that one weak link there means you can't have a Stealthy party at all. Or must split the party, to whatever degree the DM determines is enough distance for the scouts to count as a "separate party" under the PHB rules.

[Rerem115]

The trouble with the ASIs of baseline Humans is that you're hard pressed to find a class that really, really needs those ASIs more than they need something like Darkvision or a feat. Your Fighters/Barbarians don't care too much about changing that -1 INT to a 0, nor do your Wizards/Sorcerers care too much about changing that -1 STR to a 0; sure, it's nice to have, but instead of trying to shore up a weakness that may not even be terribly relevant, you can try to improve your strengths that you use on a regular basis.

[MaxWilson]

Contrast that to Stealth checks, which have pretty much the opposite problem, so to speak. Everyone knows that one weak link there means you can't have a Stealthy party at all. Or must split the party, to whatever degree the DM determines is enough distance for the scouts to count as a "separate party" under the PHB rules.

...unless there is a Druid or Shadow Monk in the party. Pass Without Trace >>> low Stealth bonus.

RE: standard humans, fundamentally the issue there is that boosting tertiary stats is just not that attractive. Your hypothetical Purple Dragon Knight with Str 16 and Con 14 and Heavy Armor Master (and every other stat at 10) is happier than the hypothetical same Purple Dragon Knight with Str 15 and Con 14 and every other stat at 11, which is what you'd get from switching to standard human. Sure, it's nice to be slightly more intelligent and more charismatic and stuff, but when you're playing a melee fighter really you mostly want to be strong and tough, and the regular human doesn't offer any advantages there to offset the loss of the feat (which includes Str +1 BTW). The same thing is true for almost every other class: very few combinations benefit enough from the tertiary stat boost to justify losing the feat.

You'd need to be dependent on FIVE stats before standard human would be better than variant human. Any build that depends on five stats is probably a bad build. Even three is pushing it.

[CTurbo]

The baseline human really is weak and underwhelming. I've never seen one used in actual play as written. I house rule my standard humans to get your choice of +2 and +2 to any two stats, or +2, +1, +1 to any three stats PLUS two skills of your choice. Other than this making humans more versatile, I still don't think they're as strong as Half-Elfs since they still lack darkvision and still don't get any core racial feature like most other races.

[Lord Vukodlak]

An ASI goes exactly where you want it to go. Humans stats are scattered across the board likely into things that don’t come up as much for that character.

Furthermore a lot of groups use the elite array not point buy.
Lastly standard human is just plain boring. If your goal is well rounded stats with no regard to how useful they’d be for the build pick half elf over regular human.



Especially true for Int checks or Cha checks. One specialist can be the Sage or Face for the party, if a DM is a "one check to rule them all" type for those checks.
A group Int check doesn’t make much sense. Trog’s stupidity can’t drag down the rest of the party. A group charisma check can work. Trog’s uncouth behavior at a Nobles dinner party could negatively effect the whole group. If everyone is disguised at cultists a couple bad deceptions could ruin it for the group.

[Isaire]

Lack of a skill or anything is pretty awful honestly. No flavour to the character at all..
Low intelligence can affect other party members, but depends how much you are in to role-playing ;) in character no one knows if you roll badly after all..

[Tanarii]

A group Int check doesn’t make much sense. Trog’s stupidity can’t drag down the rest of the party.
I take it you've never read a forum thread with people arguing about rules?

Edit: um, not meant to imply any people involved in such as stupid. Just that group Int checks make perfect sense, with the majority of people failing easily resulting in the group recalling the wrong information or arriving at the wrong answer.

[MrStabby]

In a world where the DM calls for equal skill checks on every stat, equal saves on every stat... each time you make an attack roll or force a save you use one stat. The things that depend on your best stat come up so much more often than the things that depend on an arbitrary other stat.

[Tanarii]

In a world where the DM calls for equal skill checks on every stat, equal saves on every stat... each time you make an attack roll or force a save you use one stat. The things that depend on your best stat come up so much more often than the things that depend on an arbitrary other stat.
Equality isn't the point.

Never mattering because someone else can always make the check for you is the point. Most often that results in Int and Cha stat dumping, and that's a direct result of the way many DMs choose to run those checks.

[bid]

So...Regular Human. Not raising the ceiling, but the floor of a given characters Ability Scores. Why not more popular?
Most classes want 16 16 14:
- 16,16,14,10,10,11
- 16,16,14,10,10,8
Nobody cares about the +1 on the dump stat.

Some classes can use 16 14 14:
- 16,14,14,14,11,10
- 16,14,14,13,11,10 (half elf with Cha16)
- 16,14,14,12,10,10
Nobody cares about the +1 on the 4th stat. Except for edge cases such as life bard MC, who can usually pick half-elf.

Half-elf is clearly better than buman at the skill game, with 2 extra proficiencies.
All non-human have something worth more than a +1 on a dump stat.


tl;dr - racial features offer more than the +1 on a dump stat.

[Bahamut7]

The real reason Varient Humans win out is the Free Feat at level 1. Some Feats are very potent in this edition. You can see the difference between a character who chose an ASI or a feat regardless of race. In the past humans had the advantage of the free feat to reduce feat taxes or to speed up feat trees. This version you get something that everyone else has the choice of 3 levels later assuming no multiclassing.

Now if the DM is not using Feats and/or you rolled all odd stats, the regular human helps even that out.

[JellyPooga]

Nobody cares about the +1 on the 4th stat.

Sure they do.

Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, front-line Clerics, Paladins...these are not fringe cases, but they all enjoy four good stats (even if they don't need them, per se) rather than slightly lacking in one. Just to mention a few, let alone the fringe-cases you mention.

[Pex]

They have the nice ability scores, but that's it. They don't have dark vision, advantage to a roll against some effect, immunity against some effect, reroll a die for some reason, and all sorts of little nifty things other races get. Other races get their stuff and have the ability scores to do whatever it is they want to do. True, you'll never see a dragonborn wizard or tiefling barbarian, but the fault in that if there is a fault is beyond the concept of normal humans.

Players of other races will have the ability scores they want and the nifty abilities, including variant human and its feat. Regular human gets nothing. Plus 1 to all scores is also not worth anything. For your class abilities you don't care about three of the scores, so those +1s are wasted. CO is important for everyone for the hit points for the third needed stat.

[Nifft]

If I rolled a lot of odd numbers, especially if my top 3 stats were all odd, then the non-variant Human seems like it might be a reasonable choice.

But rolling seems like an unpopular choice, so yeah. Not as much call for it under point-buy.

[MaxWilson]

Sure they do.

Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, front-line Clerics, Paladins...these are not fringe cases, but they all enjoy four good stats (even if they don't need them, per se) rather than slightly lacking in one. Just to mention a few, let alone the fringe-cases you mention.

The evidence suggests that they don't care about that tertiary stat boost more than they care about a feat. Isn't that why you started this thread, because you can see for yourself that nobody plays standard humans given the choice?

[Isaire]

Wait, what fourth stat does an arcane trickster need?

I'm going to throw out another argument here, from my most recent one-shot - I enjoyed being the variant human mad doc with a measely 5 charisma. I put my expertise in deception as he was somewhat dishonest so not awful at lying, but he was incredibly unpersuasive - which is good, or otherwise everyone in the town might have believed his various paranoias.

Something that came up from this is that some checks are a lot more fun to fail than others. Getting hit a lot in combat? Always sucks. Failing to persuade various npcs, or lie to them about things? Hilarity can ensue. I think that most of the dump stats actually come in this category, providing skill boosts which are not only unimportant if you fail them, but also sometimes more fun if you fail them.

[Tanarii]

One thing in regards to point buy:
Human: 16/16/16/9/9/9
Half-elf can do 3x16, provided one is Cha. No one else can.

(No statement on how valuable that is, just pointing out it is e case.)

[JellyPooga]

Wait, what fourth stat does an arcane trickster need?

Dex, Con, Int, Wis

Because a low Wis Rogue is a dead Rogue.

[mgshamster]

Dex, Con, Int, Wis

Because a low Wis Rogue is a dead Rogue.

I love low Wis rogues. It helps explain why they became rogues in the first place. Someone with more common sense would have chosen a different profession. :smallamused:

[Tanarii]

Dex, Con, Int, Wis

Because a low Wis Rogue is a dead Rogue.
lol, Wis is the other primary dump stat for Rogues IMX*. The other common one being Str.

Dex, Con, Int, Cha is a common/popular 14+ 'required' Rogue build though.

*This is according to my experiences with my players

[ImproperJustice]

I dunno.
We must run in different circles,
Since out GM routinely calls for group stealth, athletics, survival, and perception checks.

Standard human gets love in our group.
We certainly face enough varied threats that a dump stat is likely a death sentence at some point in your career, but we have been running a lot of adapted old school modules where environmental dangers are a lot more common.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, group stealth just plain makes no sense. If your DM regularly makes these checks, its not a common practice. The entry for group checks even states that these are rare. They are for unusual instances in d&d. Making a group check to steer a rowboat, for instance. Everyone's fate is directly intwined and one player's roll would influence another's. It takes an exceptional circumstance to create these situations.

Group checking common things, like stealth, doesn't meet these exceptional circumstances, and just homogenizes the teams skill set. Rather then the rogue having his moment to shine as the stealth character, the big fighter in plate is able to sneak just as well, pretty much stealing the rogue's spotlight. And no, it makes no sense what-so-ever. No amount of skill from an actually stealthy character will stop a loud clumsy character from being loud and clumsy.

[JoeJ]

Group checking common things, like stealth, doesn't meet these exceptional circumstances, and just homogenizes the teams skill set. Rather then the rogue having his moment to shine as the stealth character, the big fighter in plate is able to sneak just as well, pretty much stealing the rogue's spotlight. And no, it makes no sense what-so-ever. No amount of skill from an actually stealthy character will stop a loud clumsy character from being loud and clumsy.

Actually, a group stealth check does make sense if you're talking about a team and not just a bunch of people trying to sneak in the same direction. The most skilled character is showing the others where to step, how to time their movements, and how to pad their armor so it makes less noise. If they encounter an enemy, the stealth expert knows how to create a small distraction, for example by tossing a pebble, so that the others can sneak past. Or even go up and talk to the guard as a distraction, so they'd use Charisma (Deception) rather than Dexterity (Stealth) for their part of the team check. If you use your imagination, there are plenty of ways to help somebody be stealthier.

[Mikal]

Actually, a group stealth check does make sense if you're talking about a team and not just a bunch of people trying to sneak in the same direction. The most skilled character is showing the others where to step, how to time their movements, and how to pad their armor so it makes less noise. If they encounter an enemy, the stealth expert knows how to create a small distraction, for example by tossing a pebble, so that the others can sneak past. Or even go up and talk to the guard as a distraction, so they'd use Charisma (Deception) rather than Dexterity (Stealth) for their part of the team check. If you use your imagination, there are plenty of ways to help somebody be stealthier.

That all sounds like the help action which gives the person being helped advantage, not group checks

[KorvinStarmast]

The baseline human really is weak and underwhelming. I've never seen one used in actual play as written.
Our first group had three of six as standard human. (Including my life cleric)
My second cleric, tempest, was likewise.
We didn't seem to have any problems, except the campaign went dormant when RL struck the DM in the eyes.

[JoeJ]

That all sounds like the help action which gives the person being helped advantage, not group checks

You could run it either way, depending on how many characters are involved and what their skills are.

[Willie the Duck]

So...Regular Human. Not raising the ceiling, but the floor of a given characters Ability Scores. Why not more popular?

Because, quite frankly, it takes a special DM/DMing style to reward that choice. Honestly the 11/14/14/14/14/14 character would make a decent fighter/rogue or bard character in a skill and social-based campain… if half-elf wasn't so amazing at that role.

[Mikal]

You could run it either way, depending on how many characters are involved and what their skills are.

Yeah except your definition doesn’t really fit for group skill checks but does for the help action. So no not so much.

[Tanarii]

That all sounds like the help action which gives the person being helped advantage, not group checks
If the stealthy character is also trying to be stealthy, it can't be a help action. It's a group (of 2) pulling together to do the same thing. The help action is one specialist with another trying to help the specialist accomplish an action, not also do it themselves.

[bid]

Sure they do.

Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, front-line Clerics, Paladins...these are not fringe cases, but they all enjoy four good stats (even if they don't need them, per se) rather than slightly lacking in one. Just to mention a few, let alone the fringe-cases you mention.
All these can work with a 12 in their 4th stat. Or even a 10.
All these gain more from the right racial feature too.


You are asking why nobody pick buman. I offered a pretty clear answer. You might disagree with it, but if everyone is driving on the right side of the road, maybe you ain't in England anymore.

EDIT: Erm, yeah... I just realized you are in England. Carry on!

[JoeJ]

Yeah except your definition doesn’t really fit for group skill checks but does for the help action. So no not so much.

A group check is specifically for the situation when, "the characters who are skilled at a particular task cover those who aren't." That's exactly what I described.

[sophontteks]

A group check is specifically for the situation when, "the characters who are skilled at a particular task cover those who aren't." That's exactly what I described.
The biggest hint here is that group checks specifically state that they are rare. This is not the mechanic one should be bringing out any time multiple people are trying the same task because its not possible for skilled people to simple cover for those who aren't in most of these checks.

A skilled sneaker can't make armor cease clanking or cure two left feet with hand signals. And if one character fails, everyone fails.

You can go ahead and try it. Attach a bunch of cans to your friend. Show him where to step, while sneaking yourself. See if it makes those cans stop clanking.

[JoeJ]

The biggest hint here is that group checks specifically state that they are rare. This is not the mechanic one should be bringing out any time multiple people are trying the same task because its not possible for skilled people to simple cover for those who aren't in most of these checks.

A skilled sneaker can't make armor cease clanking or cure two left feet with hand signals. And if one character fails, everyone fails.

You can go ahead and try it. Attach a bunch of cans to your friend. Show him where to step, while sneaking yourself. See if it makes those cans stop clanking.

What it actually says is "not very often" which does not necessarily mean rare. It could also mean sort-of often, or occasionally. It doesn't specify precisely because that depends almost entirely on what's going on at one particular table.

And which armor in the PH consists of cans tied to the feet? I don't recall that one. (Also, Guy at the Gym Fallacy.)

[Tanarii]

Mostly it's an academic point, because Group stealth checks don't usually work because:
- the rules say Hide checks are individual
- the rules say surprise checks are individual
- group checks require a single fixed DC to compare to. They also don't provide a single value that is the 'find hidden creature' DC for later Search actions

But if for some reason the DM is resolving a question of resolution that isn't Hide or Surprise, using Stealth vs a single fixed DC and the group can all work together to all do it, then it can be done. For example, if the DM sets a DC 15 Group Stealth check to navigate through the dark city at night without drawing the attention of patrols, that's totally valid.

[JNAProductions]

Our first group had three of six as standard human. (Including my life cleric)
My second cleric, tempest, was likewise.
We didn't seem to have any problems, except the campaign went dormant when RL struck the DM in the eyes.

Well yeah. No one who's actually being reasonable says "HUMANS ARE TOTAL GARBAGE AND WILL END YOUR CHARACTER IN FIVE MINUTES!" They just say "Regular humans are, in pretty much every case, sub-optimal."

You can have a human character or even a whole human party without issue. It's just not going to be quite as good as a party of mixed races.

[bid]

Well yeah. No one who's actually being reasonable says "HUMANS ARE TOTAL GARBAGE AND WILL END YOUR CHARACTER IN FIVE MINUTES!" They just say "Regular humans are, in pretty much every case, sub-optimal."
Pretty much. Stats are irrelevant.
Sure, you'd rather have Str20 than Str16 as it hits harder and more often. A few more hp from Con helps too.

But outside of combat, proficiency bonus has a much larger impact than boosting a stat. And rolling 9+ to succeed a skill check aint really better than needing 10+.

I would even say that although needing 19+ looks twice as good as needing 20, at that point you're aiming for a heroic failure and not hoping for the impossible. The difference is still irrelevant.

[Tanarii]

Well yeah. No one who's actually being reasonable says "HUMANS ARE TOTAL GARBAGE AND WILL END YOUR CHARACTER IN FIVE MINUTES!" They just say "Regular humans are, in pretty much every case, sub-optimal."
Not every case. But a large number of cases. If you Standard Array, it closer to most cases.

About the only thing they've got going for them is in most campaigns, they're the dominant race. That means they often don't stand out, aren't unusual, aren't memorable, just because of their race. And that's not always something that will matter.

[Pex]

One thing in regards to point buy:
Human: 16/16/16/9/9/9
Half-elf can do 3x16, provided one is Cha. No one else can.

(No statement on how valuable that is, just pointing out it is e case.)

At the cost of three -1 modifiers which will hurt a lot. You can get by with one dump stat. Two is possible though hard. For three you'll be held back by something a lot. Optimizing, the only class that can do it somewhat comfortably is monk, dumping ST, IN, and CH. They need none of those scores for class abilities or survival and are the least common saving throws. When you're dumping two stats it's two of those. Heavy armor users can dump DX, but a -1 to initiative is not good, and you're taking lots of damage from Fireballs. Niche builds can get by, but another race including variant human can do it better.

I think ranger can dump ST, IN, and CH too. They're not my forte, but off-hand I don't recall them needing those stats.


Yeah, group stealth just plain makes no sense. If your DM regularly makes these checks, its not a common practice. The entry for group checks even states that these are rare. They are for unusual instances in d&d. Making a group check to steer a rowboat, for instance. Everyone's fate is directly intwined and one player's roll would influence another's. It takes an exceptional circumstance to create these situations.

Group checking common things, like stealth, doesn't meet these exceptional circumstances, and just homogenizes the teams skill set. Rather then the rogue having his moment to shine as the stealth character, the big fighter in plate is able to sneak just as well, pretty much stealing the rogue's spotlight. And no, it makes no sense what-so-ever. No amount of skill from an actually stealthy character will stop a loud clumsy character from being loud and clumsy.

So you make the heavy armor wearer veto all party stealth checks forever? Stealth characters are fine solo, but sometimes the entire party needs to sneak by. If they always fail then why bother?

[Tanarii]

Stealth characters are fine solo, but sometimes the entire party needs to sneak by. If they always fail then why bother?
Generally speaking, you don't. Especially if it's explicitly an attempt to Hide or gain surprise. You come up with alternate plans, because a single HA wearer in a party means that they have a big weakness in Stealth. Even if sometimes your DM calls for group stealth checks for things that aren't hiding or surprising.

Like I said in my first post, Stealth is almost the opposite of how most DMs run Int / Cha checks. And it has the reverse issue because of it.

[Pex]

In my paladin game we lump it. Since I'll never be stealthy I don't try to be. Those who can hide well do so. I don't care anyone knows I'm there. It means the bad guys are focused on me and not everyone else. I'm target on purpose. For that one particular adventure where I absolutely had to be stealthy we took extra precautions the DM allowed for negating the disadvantage. In other campaigns it's enough if half the party makes it the DM isn't ornery about it.

[sithlordnergal]

Mostly because there are better race options available. Don't get me wrong, not having any negatives is fine, but if I really wanted that I would use the Half Elf to get 10, 13, 13, 12, 12, 14 with just a 27 point buy, and put my +1 in Dex and Con. That way none of my stats have negatives, I have darkvision, the extra skills, immunity to sleep, am able to use Elven only things, and I am a pretty viable rogue, sorcerer, or bard. If I wanted I could make myself a paladin by swapping dex and strength.

The normal human has none of that, and honestly a dump stat isn't that big of a deal. Usually you can find a way to deal with it if you optimize well enough. As for the classes that need four stats...I really only know of the Arcane Trickster that needs four decent stats. But even then, you can dump Wisdom on a Rogue and toss an Expertise into Perception. That'll usually take care of things, even if you have a -1 wisdom bonus.

[MaxWilson]

So you make the heavy armor wearer veto all party stealth checks forever? Stealth characters are fine solo, but sometimes the entire party needs to sneak by. If they always fail then why bother?

Even with heavy armor, sneaking is quite possible, especially if you bothered to take Stealth proficiency, which anyone can. Monster perception scores tend to be rather low.

To say nothing of the large number of spells which can boost stealth in one way or another, from Enhance Ability (Dexterity) to Invisibility to Pass Without Trace.

And BTW you don't have to wear your armor all the time. If you have a good reason to take it off, do so.

[CTurbo]

At the very least, standard human should get 2 skills.

My house rule with the stat change has been decently popular, but still not as popular as variant human.

[sithlordnergal]

At the very least, standard human should get 2 skills.

My house rule with the stat change has been decently popular, but still not as popular as variant human.

I forgot that normal humans don't get extra skills, where as the Variant gets a skill and a feat. Jeeze, that just makes Half Elves even better then humans at being able to avoid bad dump stats.

[CTurbo]

I forgot that normal humans don't get extra skills, where as the Variant gets a skill and a feat. Jeeze, that just makes Half Elves even better then humans at being able to avoid bad dump stats.

Yeah that's why I allow standard humans +2 to any two stats or +2, +1, +1 to any 3 stats AND two skills of choice.

[Tanarii]

Yeah that's why I allow standard humans +2 to any two stats or +2, +1, +1 to any 3 stats AND two skills of choice.
If I was going to do a mod to them, it'd probably be +1 to any four stats, plus a skill. Maybe +1 to all and a skill with Standard Array.

Vumans and Half-elves are above the baseline IMO, so they're not the standard I'd want to measure against.

More importantly, the entire point of other races with +2 to something is their are better than humans at it. So I wouldn't want to encroach on it. Humans are supposed to be better than other races except in their +2 and +1 stats, but worse in the +2 stat.

An extra skill definitely makes for nice "extra versatile / adaptable" though.

I strongly suspect the Devs expected most experienced tables to use Feats, and for the Variant Humans to be the norm at those tables. But just wanted to keep Humans simple as possible for new players, who would probably gravitate to them. Personally I find new players overwhelmingly choose Humans for their first character, unless they're feeling their Legolas or Gimli oats. Partly because they are familiar, and party because they are simple.

[JellyPooga]

lol, Wis is the other primary dump stat for Rogues IMX*. The other common one being Str.

This...is peculiar to me. A Rogue with dumped Wis...doesn't have any savvy, can't make an easy mark, doesn't notice the details, doesn't spot the trap or the funny little wire that disarms it harmlessly...isn't, in short, much of a Rogue. If he's in any way playing a "typical" Rogue (i.e. of the thiefish, scouty, trapfindery sort), then low Wis is a literal death sentence as soon as he blunders into a trap or ambush. If he's more of a dashing swordsman style Rogue, then one Hold Person spell will put him in a grave. If he's a social kind of guy, I have one word for him; Insight.

No. A Rogue with low Wisdom is not a Rogue worth his salt. He's a buffoon, a blundering fool with ideas above his station and capabilities. There's entertainment to be had in playing such a character, sure, but there's also entertainment in playing a Fighter whose idea of "tactics" is whether to run or sprint into the fray, or a pacifist Cleric; it doesn't make them a good idea (from the point of view of the characters survivability).

Rogues aside; Yes, a character rarely needs a fourth high stat and "12, even 10, will do", but 14 is better; opening doors unavailable to more specialised builds. Darkvision is good, as are many Racial features, but compared to having +1 to your spell attacks and spell DCs, or that additional HP per level you might not have been able to invest in, or that bonus to all the things Dex affects (of which there are many)...? I'm not so certain that the racial stuff is actually worth it. After all, they do tend toward the situational.

Look at the Dwarf, for example; Poison is common, but it's not that common, Darkvision is almost entirely useless if the party is carrying light anyway, weapon proficiencies are hardly a game changer, same can be said of Stonecunning. It's a nice little package, no doubt, but if it's that "nice" package or having decently effective spells as an Eldritch Knight? I know I'd rather have decent Str, Dex, Con and Int, rather than relegating one of those to "I'd like it higher, but I guess I'll do without" territory. Maybe that's just me, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well yeah. No one who's actually being reasonable says "HUMANS ARE TOTAL GARBAGE AND WILL END YOUR CHARACTER IN FIVE MINUTES!" They just say "Regular humans are, in pretty much every case, sub-optimal."

You can have a human character or even a whole human party without issue. It's just not going to be quite as good as a party of mixed races. I am not sure that you read my post: we had a mixed group in each case.

[Pex]

When DMs care who's on watch when at night, Darkvision is very important.

Reiterating what I wrote. If someone wants to play a sorcerer or warlock, he won't be playing a dwarf, but why would he pick standard human when he can be a half-elf or tiefling to get the stats he needs anyway and all the goodies they get? Variant human gives him the feat he wants without costing an ASI. If one thinks it a shame no one plays a dwarf warlock, that's an issue of your personal taste, Point Buy, and racial features in general, not the worthiness of standard human.

[KorvinStarmast]

When DMs care who's on watch when at night, Darkvision is very important. So is having a familiar, and casting alarm as a ritual. :)
But I completely agree with your statement: that's why our party also set up various trips and alarms using our 50'feet of rope each night as an SOP. Our DM and all of our players in my first two 5e campaigns were all old school D&D players, and presumed that each night we risked a random encounter. So, we mixed and matched "who was on watch" and set up traps and snares. And the wizard set up Alarm as a ritual each night.

[Mellack]

This...is peculiar to me. A Rogue with dumped Wis...doesn't have any savvy, can't make an easy mark, doesn't notice the details, doesn't spot the trap or the funny little wire that disarms it harmlessly...isn't, in short, much of a Rogue. If he's in any way playing a "typical" Rogue (i.e. of the thiefish, scouty, trapfindery sort), then low Wis is a literal death sentence as soon as he blunders into a trap or ambush. If he's more of a dashing swordsman style Rogue, then one Hold Person spell will put him in a grave. If he's a social kind of guy, I have one word for him; Insight.

No. A Rogue with low Wisdom is not a Rogue worth his salt. He's a buffoon, a blundering fool with ideas above his station and capabilities. There's entertainment to be had in playing such a character, sure, but there's also entertainment in playing a Fighter whose idea of "tactics" is whether to run or sprint into the fray, or a pacifist Cleric; it doesn't make them a good idea (from the point of view of the characters survivability).

Rogues aside; Yes, a character rarely needs a fourth high stat and "12, even 10, will do", but 14 is better; opening doors unavailable to more specialised builds. Darkvision is good, as are many Racial features, but compared to having +1 to your spell attacks and spell DCs, or that additional HP per level you might not have been able to invest in, or that bonus to all the things Dex affects (of which there are many)...? I'm not so certain that the racial stuff is actually worth it. After all, they do tend toward the situational.

Look at the Dwarf, for example; Poison is common, but it's not that common, Darkvision is almost entirely useless if the party is carrying light anyway, weapon proficiencies are hardly a game changer, same can be said of Stonecunning. It's a nice little package, no doubt, but if it's that "nice" package or having decently effective spells as an Eldritch Knight? I know I'd rather have decent Str, Dex, Con and Int, rather than relegating one of those to "I'd like it higher, but I guess I'll do without" territory. Maybe that's just me, though.

Rogues get 4 expertise skills. That makes a greater difference than +1 or +2 in the base stat. That can easily make a rogue who can still spot things even with a lower wisdom.

[JellyPooga]

When DMs care who's on watch when at night, Darkvision is very important.

Reiterating what I wrote. If someone wants to play a sorcerer or warlock, he won't be playing a dwarf, but why would he pick standard human when he can be a half-elf or tiefling to get the stats he needs anyway and all the goodies they get? Variant human gives him the feat he wants without costing an ASI. If one thinks it a shame no one plays a dwarf warlock, that's an issue of your personal taste, Point Buy, and racial features in general, not the worthiness of standard human.

This is why I think there's something of a misconception about Regular Human; "they don't get any goodies". Except they do; they get to have generally higher stats. Maybe not the focal ones for their class or build, but generally as useful, as the largely situational racial features offered by other supposedly "more optimal" races.

Great, a Tiefling gets resistance to fire, but my Human is better at Wis Saves. Great, a Half-Orc gets to ignore hitting 0hp once a day, but my Human has higher Initiative and killed the dude that would have killed me. So on and so forth. That extra +1, as situational as it might be, is at least as useful as many racial features. The "Feat or ASI" debate is proof of that; Feats, in general, being of situational or niche use.

[Potato_Priest]

If I rolled a lot of odd numbers, especially if my top 3 stats were all odd, then the non-variant Human seems like it might be a reasonable choice.

But rolling seems like an unpopular choice, so yeah. Not as much call for it under point-buy.

If my top 3 stats were odd, I’d use variant human, bump two of them up, and use a half-feat that improved the other.

I do believe that half-feats further contribute to the disparity, since they’re a good way for a human to get a good lvl 1 ASI as well as some other cool features.

[CTurbo]

If my top 3 stats were odd, I’d use variant human, bump two of them up, and use a half-feat that improved the other.

I do believe that half-feats further contribute to the disparity, since they’re a good way for a human to get a good lvl 1 ASI as well as some other cool features.


^^THIS

I've done this so many times with Heavy Armor Mastery, Resilient, and Moderately Armored. Not one time have I ever even considered the possibility of playing a standard human, and can't think of a scenario that I would as written.

[Angelalex242]

Ya know, baseline humans have nothing, nothing except those 6 bonus points of stats.

So...what if base humans could add those 6 points of stats however they wanted to their stats?

So every level 1 base human wizard starts with 20 int, every cleric/druid 20 wis, every bard/sorc 20 cha, and so on.

What if the benefit to being a normal human is starting with a 20 in your primary stat?

Would that make up for the lack of dark vision and resistances and...opposed to the variant human...the free feat and extra skills?

[JNAProductions]

Ya know, baseline humans have nothing, nothing except those 6 bonus points of stats.

So...what if base humans could add those 6 points of stats however they wanted to their stats?

So every level 1 base human wizard starts with 20 int, every cleric/druid 20 wis, every bard/sorc 20 cha, and so on.

What if the benefit to being a normal human is starting with a 20 in your primary stat?

Would that make up for the lack of dark vision and resistances and...opposed to the variant human...the free feat and extra skills?

Yes, and that'd be OP as all heck.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues get 4 expertise skills. That makes a greater difference than +1 or +2 in the base stat. That can easily make a rogue who can still spot things even with a lower wisdom.

The point is that so many things are dependent on wis for a Rogue that dumping it is generally bad idea and that extra +1 you'd get as R.Human is worth all the gimmicky extras you'd have got from playing a different Race. Yes, a Swashbuckler or "Faceman" Rogue will want better Charisma, but there's even plenty to advocate a decent Wisdom even then; as I mentioned, Insight is a valuable social skill and Wis is almost an essential front-line defence.

As for Expertise, Wis 8 Rogue with expertise in Perception to compensate his low Wisdom is forgoing specialisation in something else, like Stealth or Thieves Tools. Making up for a weakness is a poor subsititute for focusing on a strength. R.Human allows you the luxury of specialisation in that instance.

[Willie the Duck]

What if the benefit to being a normal human is starting with a 20 in your primary stat?

Would that make up for the lack of dark vision and resistances and...opposed to the variant human...the free feat and extra skills?

Well, speaking as someone from a group that uses rolled stats, the half-elf that gets a 20 Charisma or orc with a 20 Strength doesn't completely send the game spinning off into insanity. However, being the only one who can do so (and f'rex being a fighter who by level 8 can pick up PAM, GWM, and sentinel on top of a 20 Strength)... that would suddenly shift the buman from underperforming to over-performing.

Would it make up for the darkvision and resistances and such? Boy, that depends on how awesome darkvision is in your campaigns (but that's true of vumans as well).

[Pex]

This is why I think there's something of a misconception about Regular Human; "they don't get any goodies". Except they do; they get to have generally higher stats. Maybe not the focal ones for their class or build, but generally as useful, as the largely situational racial features offered by other supposedly "more optimal" races.

Great, a Tiefling gets resistance to fire, but my Human is better at Wis Saves. Great, a Half-Orc gets to ignore hitting 0hp once a day, but my Human has higher Initiative and killed the dude that would have killed me. So on and so forth. That extra +1, as situational as it might be, is at least as useful as many racial features. The "Feat or ASI" debate is proof of that; Feats, in general, being of situational or niche use.

But are they really? The human will have a higher ability somewhere than another character, but that's a consequence of differing priorities. The human paid for 11 to get 12 while someone else paid for the 12. The human's free 8 is a 9 while someone else's 8 stays an 8 making no difference. Where there is a +1 difference will matter in game math, but the non-human isn't caring or else he would have put a higher score there. Having the fire resistance of a tiefling matters more than a human able to lift a +1 modifier bit more heavier things.

I can agree this is all of one's personal subjective preferences, but it answers your question. You may very well value that +1 modifier bit more carrying capacity, but others won't so they'll play the non-ST boosting race that otherwise makes their character perfect for them. They will value dark vision, resistance to something, immunity to something, reroll a die more than a +1.


Ya know, baseline humans have nothing, nothing except those 6 bonus points of stats.

So...what if base humans could add those 6 points of stats however they wanted to their stats?

So every level 1 base human wizard starts with 20 int, every cleric/druid 20 wis, every bard/sorc 20 cha, and so on.

What if the benefit to being a normal human is starting with a 20 in your primary stat?

Would that make up for the lack of dark vision and resistances and...opposed to the variant human...the free feat and extra skills?

Yes. It is a significant bump to what others have and allows wiggle room for choosing feats later or increasing a secondary stat.

Edit: Fixed editing error.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Investigation is Int-based, not Wis, and rogue can use expertise to negate the effect of low stats.

[JoeJ]

Investigation is Int-based, not Wis, and rogue can use expertise to negate the effect of low stats.

Investigation is INT, but perception is WIS.

[Tanarii]

This...is peculiar to me. A Rogue with dumped Wis...doesn't have any savvy, can't make an easy mark, doesn't notice the details, doesn't spot the trap or the funny little wire that disarms it harmlessly...isn't, in short, much of a Rogue.
Figuring out/deducing where a trap (or hidden thing) is can be done with investigation instead of Perception.

Figuring out /deducing how a trap works so you can disable it with thieves tools must be done with Investigation. Same if its a complex lock.

Rogues have a natural need for Int far more than Wis.

Wis & perception is very nice if youre a scout for creatures. IMX Rangers and front line clerics tend to get that job, since theyre more natural for usin Wis.

[Mikal]

The point is that so many things are dependent on wis for a Rogue that dumping it is generally bad idea and that extra +1 you'd get as R.Human is worth all the gimmicky extras you'd have got from playing a different Race. Yes, a Swashbuckler or "Faceman" Rogue will want better Charisma, but there's even plenty to advocate a decent Wisdom even then; as I mentioned, Insight is a valuable social skill and Wis is almost an essential front-line defence.

As for Expertise, Wis 8 Rogue with expertise in Perception to compensate his low Wisdom is forgoing specialisation in something else, like Stealth or Thieves Tools. Making up for a weakness is a poor subsititute for focusing on a strength. R.Human allows you the luxury of specialisation in that instance.

What? The only thing dependent on Wis for a rogue is Perception and maybe Insight, or Wisdom Saves. You can easily dump wisdom or keep it just at 10 without anything hurting from a build perspective.
And how is a Rogue putting expertise in perception forgoing specialization in something else? If perception is so key that you feel that it's a bad idea to dump any wisdom then you would already be putting expertise on it, so you're no less specialized in other items since you're expertising the same skills.

Your logic is very spurious regarding this.

[JellyPooga]

But are they really? The human will have a higher ability somewhere than another character, but that's a consequence of differing priorities. The human paid for 11 to get 12 while someone else paid for the 12.

The cost of someone else paying to get that 12 means they have a penalty, or at least a lower stat elsewhere. The R.Human gets it as a "goodie", comparable to other Races' features like Darkvision or Immunity to Sleep.


Figuring out/deducing where a trap (or hidden thing) is can be done with investigation instead of Perception.

Figuring out /deducing how a trap works so you can disable it with thieves tools must be done with Investigation. Same if its a complex lock.

Rogues have a natural need for Int far more than Wis.

Not if you play by the rules. Go read the DMG; every trap is spotted by Perception, not Investigation. Same goes for spotting an ambush or hidden creature or object (largely speaking). If your GM (or you, if you're the GM) is using Investigation in place of Perception, then you're playing the game wrong. I'm not normally one to say someone is playing make-believe wrong, but in this case it affects some basic assumptions. If, for example, you're allowing all weapons to use Str OR Dex for attack rolls and damage, that changes a lot of things regarding the value of those Ability Scores. By allowing Investigation in place of Wisdom, you're also changing assumptions and the value of those Scores. As standard, Wisdom is much more valuable than Int for a Rogue; not only does it affect a Save they're not proficient in, an important one at that, but it affects a slew of skills that Rogues usually want to be good at. Arcane Trickster is the exception to that rule, given that they want Int for spellcasting (and even then it's not essential, spells known depending).


What? The only thing dependent on Wis for a rogue is Perception and maybe Insight, or Wisdom Saves. You can easily dump wisdom or keep it just at 10 without anything hurting from a build perspective.
And how is a Rogue putting expertise in perception forgoing specialization in something else? If perception is so key that you feel that it's a bad idea to dump any wisdom then you would already be putting expertise on it, so you're no less specialized in other items since you're expertising the same skills.

Your logic is very spurious regarding this.

Perception, Insight and Wisdom Saves are exactly the point. If you consider those things spurious or unworthy of attention, then I don't know how to argue against that. They're very important (for a Rogue). So important that they're worth having a good Ability Score, Proficiency and Expertise, if at all possible. Spending Expertise to turn a penalty into a bonus is...a dubious practice. Assuming a flat dump on Wisdom, Expertise in Perception turns a -1 into +3 (at level 1). Sure at level 17, it's +11 (the equivalent of an Ability Score of 20 and standard proficiency), but that's a long way off when going from levels 1 to 20. In the mean-time, the party Cleric, has Wisdom 16, no proficiency and Perception +3. With Perception proficiency, he's better than you at +5. You can hardly call yourself an Expert now, can we? With Wisdom 14 and Expertise, that Perception jumps to +6 (at level 1); that's double the dumped-Wis Rogues. Without Expertise, just proficiency, you have better Perception at +4 AND you've spent that Expertise slot on something else...like Stealth, Thieves Tools or Acrobatics; things you're actually wanting to specialise in; if the argument is "Regular Human is worse because other Races let you specialise more", then it falls down in this particular instance because by propping up your weaknesses, you can safely focus your specialties on the things you want to specialise in.

[Potato_Priest]

snip

As far as perception goes, I think that dark vision is probably more useful than a potential +1 bonus to the wisdom modifier, (unless all encounters start at very close ranges, which will depend on the dm), since torches and the light cantrip produce an aura of dim light in a much larger radius than they do bright light, and that dim light imposed a whopping -5 on passive perception checks to humans and disadvantage on active ones, which will far outweigh a +1 modifier in a great many situations.

Further, darkvision is necessary for a creature to see at all in actual darkness, and again depending on the DM, this may be a quintessential ability for the rogue to be able to sneak in certain scenarios (some don’t look kindly on the stealthy guy carrying a lit lantern while skulking around).

While it is possible to alleviate the lack of darkvision with the second level spell, that same spell slot could just as easily be used for enhance ability: Owl’s wisdom, which would give the rogue with preexisting darkvision a whole +5 to passive perception and advantage on active checks.

Lastly, while wisdom is a universally good stat to have for saving throws, it’s not like rogues have any special need (beyond that of other classes) for it for this purpose.

Thus, while getting good wisdom might be a slight incentive for arcane tricksters to go for regular human over the variant (or over another non-darkvision race) I would certainly not prioritize a couple of extra +1s to tertiary stats at the expense of darkvision, an ability that is of great importance to the rogue’s toolkit.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Leaving aside the question of mechanical strength, unique racial features are just more FUN. Your vHuman will notice their feat. The tiefling will notice their racial spellcasting. The half orc will notice their survivability. The bHuman... Probably won't really notice bumping a 9 to a 10. It matters what, one time in 20?

[GlenSmash!]

I like to play characters with 4 14s. I used to play more standard Humans, but found that Vhuman with a half Feat just gets me more.

Standard human with 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11 when compared to 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8 with something like damage reduction in heavy armor, Grappling as a bonus action, +5 to passive Perception, or simply Proficiency in Wisdom saves (plus that skill proficiency) just doesn't seem better to me.

Even 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 9 doesn't seem more favorable then 16, 14, 14, 14, 9, 8 plus aforementioned goodies to me.

[Tanarii]

Not if you play by the rules. Go read the DMG; every trap is spotted by Perception, not Investigation. Same goes for spotting an ambush or hidden creature or object (largely speaking). If your GM (or you, if you're the GM) is using Investigation in place of Perception, then you're playing the game wrong.
I have read the rules, and you're wrong. The PHB is very clear you can use Investigation skill to deduce clues to find a hidden thing. Furthermore the Dungeon Delver feat gives you a bonus to find secret doors this way. Several of the example Traps in the DMG have Investigation checks.

Edit: spotting hidden creatures is universally described as perception. An Int / Investigation Rogue with low Wis and no perception is giving that up.

[Angelalex242]

Well, humans are supposed to be the dominant race in most campaigns.

If humans came out of the gate with stat 20 in their most important stat, it'd be a good reason WHY humans are the dominant race in most campaigns. It's a obvious mechanics based reason why the humans run most kingdoms.

[bid]

it'd be a good reason WHY humans are the dominant race in most campaigns. It's a obvious mechanics based reason why the humans run most kingdoms.
Or it could be 100% fluffy reasons, such as better government/society or stronger reproductive drive. Not everything needs a mechanic.

[ad_hoc]

Standard Humans would be better if point buy were 28pts. Having that odd stat is unfortunate as it is like they only have 5 +1s.

[JellyPooga]

I have read the rules, and you're wrong. The PHB is very clear you can use Investigation skill to deduce clues to find a hidden thing. Furthermore the Dungeon Delver feat gives you a bonus to find secret doors this way. Several of the example Traps in the DMG have Investigation checks.

Edit: spotting hidden creatures is universally described as perception. An Int / Investigation Rogue with low Wis and no perception is giving that up.

Oof! Yeah, sorry for laying it on a bit strong; I was having a bad day! You're right that some traps can be found with Investigation, as well as secret doors. That doesn't generally improve the survival chances of a scout with (comparatively) low Perception, unless the paety is travelling very slowly (Perception being somewhat reactionary compared to Investigations more active nature).

[Angelalex242]

Or it could be 100% fluffy reasons, such as better government/society or stronger reproductive drive. Not everything needs a mechanic.

But personally, I'm happier when there are such mechanics, and hey, it's my idea. Nobody's obligated to use it ;)

[Tanarii]

Well, humans are supposed to be the dominant race in most campaigns.

If humans came out of the gate with stat 20 in their most important stat, it'd be a good reason WHY humans are the dominant race in most campaigns. It's a obvious mechanics based reason why the humans run most kingdoms.


Or it could be 100% fluffy reasons, such as better government/society or stronger reproductive drive. Not everything needs a mechanic.Simply being the dominant race is often an overwhelming advantage in an urban or Intrigue campaign. Usually less so in a dungeon and wilderness adventures campiagn though.


Oof! Yeah, sorry for laying it on a bit strong; I was having a bad day! You're right that some traps can be found with Investigation, as well as secret doors. That doesn't generally improve the survival chances of a scout with (comparatively) low Perception, unless the paety is travelling very slowly (Perception being somewhat reactionary compared to Investigations more active nature).Honestly I think its less about Int vs Wis for Rogues, and more about getting proficiency and/or Expertise in Investigation and Perception. Scout ahead types benefit from both in a dungeon.

[JellyPooga]

Honestly I think its less about Int vs Wis for Rogues, and more about getting proficiency and/or Expertise in Investigation and Perception. Scout ahead types benefit from both in a dungeon.

Which was sort of my point to begin with; a Rogue benefits quite a lot from multiple stats as part and parcel of being a skill monkey. Having that extra +1 or +2 to Int, Wis or both that R.Human offers is not an insignificant bonus. Yes, they can mitigate a low score with Expertise, but having a focus in those areas is better than mitigation.

[GlenSmash!]

Which was sort of my point to begin with; a Rogue benefits quite a lot from multiple stats as part and parcel of being a skill monkey. Having that extra +1 or +2 to Int, Wis or both that R.Human offers is not an insignificant bonus. Yes, they can mitigate a low score with Expertise, but having a focus in those areas is better than mitigation.

Ranger is in this boat too.

If only because of Nature checks (if your DM calls for them) and investigation Checks.

[MaxWilson]

Which was sort of my point to begin with; a Rogue benefits quite a lot from multiple stats as part and parcel of being a skill monkey. Having that extra +1 or +2 to Int, Wis or both that R.Human offers is not an insignificant bonus. Yes, they can mitigate a low score with Expertise, but having a focus in those areas is better than mitigation.

At this point, have you switched from inquiry to evangelism? You started off asking why standard humans aren't more popular; people answered; are you now trying to persuade people to play standard humans more often?

[sophontteks]

+1 in a skill is not very significant.

Most races get free racial skills. V.humans and half-elves get to choose a free skill. Since taking human means having less skills, it makes sense to weigh profeciency vs. +1 from a higher base attribute, and it is very unfavorable for humans. ASI is only worth more then feats when they are applied to your main stat.

[GlenSmash!]

At this point, have you switched from inquiry to evangelism? You started off asking why standard humans aren't more popular; people answered; are you now trying to persuade people to play standard humans more often?

I'm often guilty of this.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.

[JellyPooga]

At this point, have you switched from inquiry to evangelism? You started off asking why standard humans aren't more popular; people answered; are you now trying to persuade people to play standard humans more often?

A little, I guess. The responses I've had in this thread feel like the automatic learned responses from old threads. I guess I was hoping for more insight, perhaps a reconsideration; looking at an old argument with fresh eyes, perhaps. Truth be told, I'm not even convincing myself, but it's a good way to confirm a point by taking the side you're not on!


+1 in a skill is not very significant.

Most races get free racial skills. V.humans and half-elves get to choose a free skill. Since taking human means having less skills, it makes sense to weigh profeciency vs. +1 from a higher base attribute, and it is very unfavorable for humans. ASI is only worth more then feats when they are applied to your main stat.

+1 in a Skill is clearly an unfavourable comparison to proficiency, but +1 to an ability score is more than just +1 to one skill; it's +1 to several skills (for the most part), +1 to the relevant Save and potentially +1 to several other things (spell save DC, HP, Initiative and so forth). A direct comparison of a skill proficiency to a higher Ability Score is inappropriate.

[sophontteks]

+1 in a Skill is clearly an unfavourable comparison to proficiency, but +1 to an ability score is more than just +1 to one skill; it's +1 to several skills (for the most part), +1 to the relevant Save and potentially +1 to several other things (spell save DC, HP, Initiative and so forth). A direct comparison of a skill proficiency to a higher Ability Score is inappropriate.
It's true but in these dump stats its really only 1 skill that you'd even care about. Like in the discussion about investigation and perception. There are other skills. +1 won't mean much, and you don't care about those skills anyway.

[JellyPooga]

It's true but in these dump stats its really only 1 skill that you'd even care about. Like in the discussion about investigation and perception. There are other skills. +1 won't mean much, and you don't care about those skills anyway.

Perhaps caring more about those fringe skills and other features is the point? If no-one in the party has proficiency in, say, History, then the R.Human with +2 Int (assuming no-one has better) might be a valuable asset when it does come up. That same Human may find himself in the spotlight in a variety of circumstances. After all, not every party covers all the bases.

[sophontteks]

Perhaps caring more about those fringe skills and other features is the point? If no-one in the party has proficiency in, say, History, then the R.Human with +2 Int (assuming no-one has better) might be a valuable asset when it does come up. That same Human may find himself in the spotlight in a variety of circumstances. After all, not every party covers all the bases.
Bard 2 gets JOAT which does this, and it scales. If they were concerned about this they should pick up bard.

[Pex]

Which was sort of my point to begin with; a Rogue benefits quite a lot from multiple stats as part and parcel of being a skill monkey. Having that extra +1 or +2 to Int, Wis or both that R.Human offers is not an insignificant bonus. Yes, they can mitigate a low score with Expertise, but having a focus in those areas is better than mitigation.

It's a matter of personal taste. It's not a question of standard human being bad. It's not. The issue is everyone else is better, except maybe dragonborn :smallyuk: . A player may very well be willing to pay for a 12 or 14 IN as a halfling when the human pays for 11 or 13. He's not going to care he has an 8 in ST where the human would have 10 because ST is irrelevant for him. Of course there is some consequence to that. The ST modifier is going to matter eventually, but the player doesn't care. Dark vision and reroll 1s are a lot more valuable to him. The standard human will have a numerical advantage somewhere, but that's not worth choosing it for those people.

[JellyPooga]

Bard 2 gets JOAT which does this, and it scales. If they were concerned about this they should pick up bard.

While Bard does get JoaT, a far superior modifier than the few additional +1's R.Human offers to Ability Scores, not everyone wants to play a Bard (crazy talk, I know :smalltongue:). Further, if someone were really looking to be a true Jack of all Trades, what better Race to complement Bard than R.Human? OK, it's probably Half-Elf, granted :smallwink:


It's a matter of personal taste.

Indeed. As you say, the draw of specialisation at the cost of having a weakness (however insignificant to you or your character) is a strong one, encouraged by the nature of party dynamics.

[ad_hoc]

I think standard humans would be interesting if they received +1 to their lowest score.

As has been mentioned, Bards make good standard humans. All of their ability checks are pretty decent. They have subclasses that use multiple abilities well too.

[Asmotherion]

Because Feats Rock, and some even give a bonus to an Ability Score. Optimisation mostly revolves around Specialisation.

It's not that it's bad, it's that the other option is just so much better, when trying to pull a specific concept and have a limited amount of Feats to do so.

[Snails]

The advantage of non-V Human is when you are point building a MADish concept. Then you can efficiently get multiple 14's while paying for the 13.

[Tanarii]

Because Feats Rock, and some even give a bonus to an Ability Score.
But feats are an optional rule. That means the baseline human cannot have feats, and variant humans must be a variant rule.

[Tetrasodium]

But feats are an optional rule. That means the baseline human cannot have feats, and variant humans must be a variant rule.

I've already decided that in my next game variant human will be banned in favor of encouraging dragonmarked subhumans in wgte :D.

It has nothing to do with the feat being too powerful & everything to do with the fact that the feat is too bloody tempting & allows a feat dependant concept to get off the ground 4 levels sooner than any other race

[Pex]

I've already decided that in my next game variant human will be banned in favor of encouraging dragonmarked subhumans in wgte :D.

It has nothing to do with the feat being too powerful & everything to do with the fact that the feat is too bloody tempting & allows a feat dependant concept to get off the ground 4 levels sooner than any other race

That's the whole point. That's the goody variant humans get. Other races get dark vision, immunity to something, advantage against something, reroll a die, cantrips, etc. Humans get this. Sounds like something I've said in other threads. No sinister intent applied, but it's a DM knee-jerk reaction against a player getting something for free. If you agree it's not too powerful then why should it bother you? Why can't a player have a Nice Thing?

[Potato_Priest]

That's the whole point. That's the goody variant humans get. Other races get dark vision, immunity to something, advantage against something, reroll a die, cantrips, etc. Humans get this. Sounds like something I've said in other threads. No sinister intent applied, but it's a DM knee-jerk reaction against a player getting something for free. If you agree it's not too powerful then why should it bother you? Why can't a player have a Nice Thing?

I think the poster you were quoting wants to encourage people to play something else by altering the system of incentives, rather than just prevent players from getting a nice thing. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if for some setting or worldbuilding reason they want to nudge the players towards other options (in this case something called “dragonmarked subhumans”). I allow variant humans for explicitly the same reason- I like worlds where humans are dominant or ubiquitous, and I want my players’ race makeup to represent that, so I use a variant rule that gives humans some nicer abilities to encourage people to play them.

[Tetrasodium]

That's the whole point. That's the goody variant humans get. Other races get dark vision, immunity to something, advantage against something, reroll a die, cantrips, etc. Humans get this. Sounds like something I've said in other threads. No sinister intent applied, but it's a DM knee-jerk reaction against a player getting something for free. If you agree it's not too powerful then why should it bother you? Why can't a player have a Nice Thing?

Yes it's the point sure, but it is too shiny on a level of pure statistics (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/)
The dragonmark options are very nice though & I encourage you to check them out in wayfinder's guide to eberron. Funny you should mention dark vision (mark of finding grants it & more), mark of the sentinel grants advantage, all of the dragonmarks give cantrips and extra dice on certain types of rolls. Humans can have the mark of finding, mark of making, mark of the sentinel, or mark of making. There is also the fact that being a dragonmarked heir in an eberron game has enormous benefits nearly anywhere.

[malachi]

Baseline humans can get stats like 11/14/14/14/14/14, while half-elves would get stats like 10/12/14/14/14/14 (if they care about CHA) or 14/14/14/12/12/12 or 14/14/14/13/13/10, but also get 2 more skill proficiencies (or one of weapon proficiencies, extra speed, easier hiding, a wizard cantrip, drow magic, or swim speed), an extra language, darkvision, advantage against charm and immunity to magical sleep.

So for half-elves vs baseline humans who want a spread of pretty even stats, its a question of:
- (if I care about CHA) is +1 to one stat modifier worth [half-elf suite]?
- (if I don't particularly care about CHA) is +1 to one stat modifiers worth [half-elf suite]?
---> NOTE: the typical bhuman has 3 stats the same, 2 stats with a relative +1, and 1 stat with a relative -1. Changing the array to 14/14/14/14/13/12 results in 5 stats the same and 1 stat with a relative +1.
- (if CHA is my dump stat) is +1 to two stat modifiers worth [half-elf suite]?

For the average other race (+2 to one stat, +1 to another), you can start with something like 14/14/14/14/12/8 or 14/14/14/12/12/11, but also get racial traits, which turns the question to:
- (14/14/14/14/14/11 vs 14/14/14/14/12/8) is +2 to my lowest stat mod / +1 to my two lowest stat mods (depending on how you think about it) worth all of this race's abilities?
- (14/14/14/14/14/11 vs 14/14/14/12/12/11) is +1 to two stats (taking them from middle to 'high') worth all of this race's abilities?
- (14/14/14/14/13/12 vs 14/14/14/14/12/8) is +2 to my lowest stat mod worth all of this race's abilities?
- (14/14/14/14/13/12 vs 14/14/14/12/12/11) is +1 to two of my lowest stats worth all of this race's abilities?

For the PHB races, we've got:
Dragonborn: Breath weapon and resistance
-- bhuman is better at all skill things, slightly worse at combat. Seems a win for bhuman

Dwarves: slower speed, darkvision, advantage and resistance to poison, weapon proficiencies, one tool proficiency, expertise on stonecunning, choice of [extra HP or light/medium armor proficiency + a +2/+2 racial bonus]
-- bhuman has less skill options (missing tool prof and expertise stonecunning), no darkvision, and is less survivable (poisons and either less health / worse armor), but faster. Seems a loss for bhumans, unless the slower speed matters that much, in which case clearly you should be playing a wood elf.
-- mountain dwarves can get 14/14/14/12/12/12 or 14/14/14/14/11/10 on top of their racials, which makes the comparison only +1 to one stat for bhumans vs everything a dwarf gets, assuming STR and CON are your 14s.

Elf: darkvision, perception, advantage to charmed, immune to magical sleep, trance, weapon profs, choice of [cantrip + language, bonus speed + easier hiding, extra-long darkvision + sunlight sensitivity + dancing lights + faerie fire + darkness]
-- bhuman has less skill options (missing skill and optional cantrip of minor illusion / prestidigitation / mold earth / etc), no darkvision, takes shorter watch during long rest, and has fewer combat options (missing either wizard cantrip, extra speed, or drow magic, while still being harder hit by charms). Seems a loss for bhumans.

Gnome: slower speed, darkvision, advantage on mental saves to magic, choice of [minor illusion + speak with small beasts or expertise on Int(Hist) for magic/alchemical/technoligical stuff + tinker]
-- bhuman has less skill options (cantrip and animal communication or conditional expertise and tinker), no darkvision, and is affected more by mind-affecting magic. Seems a loss for bhumans.

Half elf: darkvision, advantage to charmed, immune to sleep, extra language, choice of [two skill profs, weapon profs, extra speed, easier hiding, cantrip, drow magic]
-- bhumans have 2 fewer skills, 1 less tool, and 1 less language, while still being weaker to charms and not having darkvision. If you're trading the skills for something else, the bhuman is still down 1 tool and 1 language and one thing that you thought was more important than 2 skills, so clearly the racial package is completely better than +1 to one stat mod.

Half-orc: darkvision, intimidation, 1/day don't die, extra crit damage
-- bhuman gets 1 less skill, no darkvision, but is worse in combat. Seems a valid comparison, depending on what you want.

Halfling: slower speed, reroll crit fails, advantage to frightened, move through medium+ creatures, choice of [hide behind medium+ creatures or advantage/resistance to poison].
-- bhuman is more likely to crit fail and is faster, but is easier to scare. Bhumans seem better for jack-of-all trades.

Tiefling: darkvision, fire resistance, thaumaturgy, hellish rebuke, darkness
-- bhumans don't get darkvision or thaumaturgy or social stigma. If the social stigma matters, bhumans are better. If it doesn't, thaumaturgy probably helps more for skills than +1 to two stats.

Vhuman: half-feat gives the choice +2/+1 plus the effect of the half-feat, which gives us the same decision points as the other races. Options include advantage on situational checks + new abilities, combat stuff, languages, expertise + new abilities, etc. And if you opt to go for a full feat instead of a half feat, that means that the effect of that feat is more important than one point of stat mod for you (on some skill), so it is still worth the trade.
-- bhuman loses out here.

Of all the races in the PHB, Dragonborn, Half-orcs, Halflings and maybe Tieflings are the only races that seem to not have racial abilities that more than compensate for the -1 to two stat mods. Half-elves are completely better even when not wanting CHA. Variant Human is almost guaranteed to be better.

[Raynor007]

The baseline human really is weak and underwhelming. I've never seen one used in actual play as written. I house rule my standard humans to get your choice of +2 and +2 to any two stats, or +2, +1, +1 to any three stats PLUS two skills of your choice. Other than this making humans more versatile, I still don't think they're as strong as Half-Elfs since they still lack darkvision and still don't get any core racial feature like most other races.

Weak and underwhelming mechanically, sure, but I'd argue that they are the stronger for role-playing because of it. It's a consistent trope that humans don't really excel at anything except adaptability, and the RAW bears that out. They aren't given the natural gifts granted to other races, and to OP's original question, I think that might be why they are less popular choices for players. It doesn't bother me, honestly, because it makes them that much more interesting as characters IMO.

[opaopajr]

Also it gives humans an excuse to throw light sources everywhere and say, "I honestly didn't see you there!" as they trample over careless darkvision users while humans are mounted and racing by. Remember, even our car headlights (and in the past, carriage lanterns) doesn't protect deer and other small creatures -- with their better nightvision -- from being accidentally trampled when getting in the way. The light source is there to also protect YOU, Mr. Darkvision! :smalltongue:

(Edit: And in compensation for not using feats, from now on I'll give my basic humans a free elephant for night driving! :smallcool: *offers not available in every setting, not intended for genocidal purposes, elephants redeemable for 10 gold in Michigan, please use responsibly...)

[Pex]

Yes it's the point sure, but it is too shiny on a level of pure statistics (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/)
The dragonmark options are very nice though & I encourage you to check them out in wayfinder's guide to eberron. Funny you should mention dark vision (mark of finding grants it & more), mark of the sentinel grants advantage, all of the dragonmarks give cantrips and extra dice on certain types of rolls. Humans can have the mark of finding, mark of making, mark of the sentinel, or mark of making. There is also the fact that being a dragonmarked heir in an eberron game has enormous benefits nearly anywhere.

Ah, you're talking about a specific setting change, not in general. Missed that. I stand by my point, but I take back the inherent accusatory in it.

[Tetrasodium]

Ah, you're talking about a specific setting change, not in general. Missed that. I stand by my point, but I take back the inherent accusatory in it.

I'm not sure what your "point" is. All I can figure is " VHumans get a feat because other races get stuff so banning them and allowing the published dragonmark subrace options humans have would be wrong because humans need that feat" ?

[Snails]

I think "the point" is something like every race should be good at something. Humans are good at nothing. While VHumans are good at something.

I do think that Humans being relatively skill-less is harsh, and is incongruous with the "generalist" idea.

Designers often vastly overestimate the effectively of a grabbag of random stuff, over a lesser amount of stuff aligned along a useful theme. Example: 3e Monk. Example: 5e Ranger.

+1 to all stats often turns out to be a grabbag of random stuff. There are exceptional cases, depending on how you generate your stats or how MADish your PC concept it, but those situations are less than common.

[Tetrasodium]

I think "the point" is something like every race should be good at something. Humans are good at nothing. While VHumans are good at something.

I do think that Humans being relatively skill-less is harsh, and is incongruous with the "generalist" idea.

Designers often vastly overestimate the effectively of a grabbag of random stuff, over a lesser amount of stuff aligned along a useful theme. Example: 3e Monk. Example: 5e Ranger.

+1 to all stats often turns out to be a grabbag of random stuff. There are exceptional cases, depending on how you generate your stats or how MADish your PC concept it, but those situations are less than common.

That's nice... however, more importantly What part of the mark of making, mark of finding, mark of handling, & mark of passage human subtypes in wgte (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/247882/Wayfinders-Guide-to-Eberron-5e?src=FrontBanner) did you describe? it seems like all four are quite good at what they do and you seem to be describing something else entirely from the phb. So the problem with Pex's "point" seeming to be just talking to hear himself talk remains.

[Pex]

That's nice... however, more importantly What part of the mark of making, mark of finding, mark of handling, & mark of passage human subtypes in wgte (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/247882/Wayfinders-Guide-to-Eberron-5e?src=FrontBanner) did you describe? it seems like all four are quite good at what they do and you seem to be describing something else entirely from the phb. So the problem with Pex's "point" seeming to be just talking to hear himself talk remains.

I tried to be nice. I was in error of understanding your intent, acknowledged it, and made amends. You choose to be hostile.

Congratulations! You've become my first Put On Ignore List.

[Tanarii]

I think "the point" is something like every race should be good at something. Humans are good at nothing.
Humans are better than every PHB race at 4 out of 6 ability scores, and worse at only one ability score. Except for Mountain Dwarves, they're worse at 2 compared to them.

I'm not defending that's balanced in terms of racials. I actually feel they're a little bit weak. Just pointing out what they're better at.

Edit: this actually does matter if you're considering, say, a forest gnome paladin vs a human one. Whereas a Dragonborn is a better Paladin, but a 'worse' wizard, in terms of ability scores lining up. That's what it means to be adaptable in terms of classes (specifically). You're not the best at any but you're not the worst either.

---------------

In terms of balancing out humans with house rules, how do people feel about: a flat +1 to any ability checks you don't already have proficiency in? Just spitballing. That's really drive home the "versatile and adaptable" nature of humanity IMO. I'd be inclined to say doesn't stack with JoaT though.

[CTurbo]

The +1 to all stats isn't as much the problem as the fact that they get almost nothing else. I still say just giving them 2 skills would help a lot and still keep them far behind the Half-Elf. I would be tempted to gift them the Prodigy feat too.

[Tanarii]

The +1 to all stats isn't as much the problem as the fact that they get almost nothing else. I still say just giving them 2 skills would help a lot and still keep them far behind the Half-Elf. I would be tempted to gift them the Prodigy feat too.That only works in games that have Feats.

Personally I assume games with Feats generally (but not always) allow the Variant Human.

Edit: I suppose a one time exception of a specific Feat for a race in an otherwise Featless game works too.

[ad_hoc]

In terms of balancing out humans with house rules, how do people feel about: a flat +1 to any ability checks you don't already have proficiency in? Just spitballing. That's really drive home the "versatile and adaptable" nature of humanity IMO. I'd be inclined to say doesn't stack with JoaT though.

I like:

A further +1 to your lowest ability. 1 skill proficiency.

Or:

Expertise in 1 skill.

[Tetrasodium]

Humans are better than every PHB race at 4 out of 6 ability scores, and worse at only one ability score. Except for Mountain Dwarves, they're worse at 2 compared to them.

I'm not defending that's balanced in terms of racials. I actually feel they're a little bit weak. Just pointing out what they're better at.

Edit: this actually does matter if you're considering, say, a forest gnome paladin vs a human one. Whereas a Dragonborn is a better Paladin, but a 'worse' wizard, in terms of ability scores lining up. That's what it means to be adaptable in terms of classes (specifically). You're not the best at any but you're not the worst either.

---------------

In terms of balancing out humans with house rules, how do people feel about: a flat +1 to any ability checks you don't already have proficiency in? Just spitballing. That's really drive home the "versatile and adaptable" nature of humanity IMO. I'd be inclined to say doesn't stack with JoaT though.
I think you might be aiming low. Here are quick summaries of the dragonmarked humans from wgte


Mark of finding
+1 dex +1 wis +1 a stat of your choice (keep reading)
darekvision 60'
add a d4 when you make a perception or survival check
an ability that lets you tag a creature & gain expertise when tracking it
cast locate animal or plant as a ritual
you know common & goblin (languages in eberron are a bit different (http://keith-baker.com/tag/languages/) making that like common & undercommon but more)

Mark of handling
dex+2 wis+1 choose 1 stat to get +1
add a d4 when making animal handling & nature checks
use the help action to aid an animal/mount within 30 feet instead of 5 feet
cast animal friendship 1/rest
If you cast a spell that normally only affects beasts, it also affects monstrosities with 3 or less int

Mark of making
+1 int, +1 dex, +1 choose a stat.
add a d4 when using artisans tools
you know mending cantrip & are proficient with 1 artisan's tool
an ability that lets you make an item granting you access to a cantrip from the wizard spell list as long as you have the item. You can make a different one on a long rest
spend a minute to add a +1 to a weapon or armor for the next hour.

Mark of Sentinel
+1 str, +1 wis, +1 choose a stat.
when you roll initiative or perception add a d4
you know bladeward & can cast shield 1/rest
an ability that gives you advantage on detecting threats against an ally

Mark of passage
+2 dex +1 choose a stat
walking speed 40'
add a d4 to athletics & any ability check to maintain a land vehicle
ignore difficult terrain when you dash
1/rest teleport up to your speed as a bonus action & if you want bring along a willing creature within 5' of you

All of them come with the ability to use dragonmark focus devices for that mark. Making stuff, protecting stuff, working with animals, & transportation are covered by those. There is of course the non-variant human if someone wants to choose it "for role play reasons". At higher levels they could take a greater dragonmark feat for more spells (useless ones like find the path, locate creature, beast sense, dominate beast, fabricate, creation, blink, teleport circle, compelled duel, warding bond). Siberyis marks are another step beyond that but not yet available. There are also ways to bump that d4 to d6/d8/d10

Are they as good as the ability to slingshot a feat based concept to completion 4 levels earlier?... maybe not, but I don't think anyone is in disagreement that nothing is. They are all unique & solid interesting options to really distinguish yourself

[Pex]

Humans are better than every PHB race at 4 out of 6 ability scores, and worse at only one ability score. Except for Mountain Dwarves, they're worse at 2 compared to them.

I'm not defending that's balanced in terms of racials. I actually feel they're a little bit weak. Just pointing out what they're better at.

Mathematically true, but I still think irrelevant because the non-human player wouldn't be caring. +1 to a stat he doesn't care compared to dark vision, immunity, resistance, reroll a die, etc.


Edit: this actually does matter if you're considering, say, a forest gnome paladin vs a human one. Whereas a Dragonborn is a better Paladin, but a 'worse' wizard, in terms of ability scores lining up. That's what it means to be adaptable in terms of classes (specifically). You're not the best at any but you're not the worst either.

There will be that one player who will play a tiefling barbarian or dwarf warlock, but even accepting one doesn't put too much emphasis on optimizing such players are newbies who don't know any better, so to speak, or the player who just does whatever and wouldn't even care if the game was canceled. Call that personal experience. The player who Honest True wants to play one to make it work? Yes, I can admit a player like that can exist even claiming to be one here, but he's so rare he's an anecdote.

Even newbies would know dragonborn are fighters or paladins, hill dwarves are clerics, and halflings are rogues.

[Tanarii]

Even newbies would know dragonborn are fighters or paladins, hill dwarves are clerics, and halflings are rogues.Yes, that my point. That the races are naturally limited, and we know it.

For most people who aren't forum optimizers, the process is not "oh I'm going to be a Rogue, therefore Halfing or Elf because they are the best". The more normal line of thought is "I want to play a halfling, therefore I'm looking at a Rogue or maybe Ranger or Bard or Sorcerer". Players who want to start with "I want to be a human" don't naturally limit themselves in terms of classes.

Or backgrounds for that matter. I've noticed players that want to play a Half-Orc and Tiefling naturally gravitate to the Criminal or Urchin backgrounds. Dwarf and Gnome players often make Guild Artisans. Totally unsurprisingly.

[Lord Vukodlak]

But feats are an optional rule. That means the baseline human cannot have feats, and variant humans must be a variant rule.
What? using feats doesn't automatically mean variant human is the only option of human. Variant Human requires feats be an option, but feats don't require variant human be available, nor does variant human being available make standard human unavailable. Its just assumed that almost no one is going to pick regular human when the variant is an option.

[Tanarii]

What? using feats doesn't automatically mean variant human is the only option of human. Variant Human requires feats be an option, but feats don't require variant human be available, nor does variant human being available make standard human unavailable. Its just assumed that almost no one is going to pick regular human when the variant is an option.
You totally missed my point. Feats are not a required rule. In a game with no feats, variant humans are not going to be available.

That said, I generally do assume that games that allow feats will use the variant human instead of the baseline human. Why wouldn't they? A Feat plus a skill is generally better than +1 to your four lower skills, especially since you can take a half-feat. Feats are just that powerful.

[Ganymede]

Even ignoring any power differential between the regular human and the variant human, variant humans simply offer more ways to customize your PC. +1 to four additional stats doesn't really do a whole lot to express a character's concept, while even just the Prodigy feat can go a long way to fleshing out a concept.

[jas61292]

That said, I generally do assume that games that allow feats will use the variant human instead of the baseline human. Why wouldn't they?

Because Feats are super powerful abilities that should not be available to any character before level 4, and should have a cost of an ASI.

At least, that is my reasoning. My group always allows (most) feats, but never allows the variant human, precisely because they give something so powerful and so customizable that everyone else has to wait for and trade a powerful stat boost for. It doesn't help that a number of feats have inflated effects at the lowest levels, when no one should really be having them.

I do agree that normal humans are not well designed. I just think V Humans are worse, just in the opposite direction.

[malachi]

If bhumans got +2 to every stat, would that make them more interesting / viable, or would that be too much?
This would let a balanced array be 16/14/14/14/14/14.
Extreme skewing would be 17/17/17/10/10/10 (which would 3 18's and a half feat at level 8). Less extreme skewing would get 16/16/16/14/12/10.

If bhumans got +1 to every stat and +1 to all ability checks, would that make them more interesting / viable, or would that also be too much?

What about +2 to two stats, and +1 to the rest?
That gives 14/14/14/14/14/13 for a balanced character, 17/17/14/12/10/9 for a skewed character, or 16/16/14/14/12/9 or 16/14/14/14/12/12 for a partially skewed character.

[Tanarii]

Because Feats are super powerful abilities that should not be available to any character before level 4, and should have a cost of an ASI.The first part of that is my reasoning for not allowing the optional rule at all. But apparently most tables do not agree.