How to make humans better

[MThurston]

Racial Trait: Revenge

Once per short rest a human can pick 3 targets within 15 feet. Each target takes 2d6 damage, Dex save for half from daggers thrown into their back.

The damage is 3d6 at level 6, 4d6 at level 12 and 6d6 at level 18.

They also get resist jealousy.

[Let'sGetKraken]

This is exceedingly petty. Are you that upset because people disagree with you over the dragonborn's breath weapon being underpowered?

For someone who seems to look down on others as "kids", you aren't displaying much maturity yourself.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Racial Trait: Revenge

Once per short rest a human can pick 3 targets within 15 feet. Each target takes 2d6 damage, Dex save for half from daggers thrown into their back.

The damage is 3d6 at level 6, 4d6 at level 12 and 6d6 at level 18.

They also get resist jealousy.

WOW - sounds pretty overpowered!

[Lord Vukodlak]

Standard humans are rather boring and in a elite array campaign 15, 14,13, 12, 10, 8 are probably the worst race. Even worse then dragonborn. If you roll and get all even numbers they are in fact the worst race.
Which is why variant human as more or less overtaken them.


This is exceedingly petty. Are you that upset because people disagree with you over the dragonborn's breath weapon being underpowered?

For someone who seems to look down on others as "kids", you aren't displaying much maturity yourself.

I would say yes.

[NaughtyTiger]

I guess I am in the minority, but I have run 3 standard humans, and been happiest with them.

I don't like -1's on my attribute modifiers.
and I generally like MAD builds.
doing both means i give up some features for my 6 +1's

[Windwaert]

Plain Humans seem a tad boring to me and does not help that hey pale in comparison to their awesome variant form.

EDIT: in fact, the variant human is THE way to make humans better.

[GlenSmash!]

I guess I am in the minority, but I have run 3 standard humans, and been happiest with them.

I don't like -1's on my attribute modifiers.
and I generally like MAD builds.
doing both means i give up some features for my 6 +1's

I love to iron out some odd scores, but I hate losing the extra skill proficiency VHuman gets. I usually end up taking a half feat at level 1 so I end up increasing 3 Ability Scores anyway.

[Snails]

Standard humans are rather boring and in a elite array campaign 15, 14,13, 12, 10, 8 are probably the worst race. Even worse then dragonborn. If you roll and get all even numbers they are in fact the worst race.
Which is why variant human as more or less overtaken them.

Yup. Six and one half days a week focus wins over a similar amount of spread out power. It is more consistently effective. It is more consistently fun. Yet designers sometimes seem to fall into a mental trap that random grab bags match up to a sharp spear, and we get atrocities like the 1e/3e Monk class.

So, yes, certain randomized/rolled results or certain point buys work fine with Human, but that is not the common case.

VHumans can play nicely with a wider range of scores. Heck, I get a 16 and I can pop a +1 Str and get heavy armor mastery, and I am bashing away with an 18 Str at 1st level -- not very inspired, but fun enough for a newbie.

[MThurston]

Well how come all the other races get darkvison?

They get spells also. And skills. Some get damage powers that scale.

It's not fair and racist that humans only get +1 to stats.

Humans don't even get a bonus to survival, which they 100% should have.

[Aett_Thorn]

Well how come all the other races get darkvison?

They get spells also. And skills. Some get damage powers that scale.

It's not fair and racist that humans only get +1 to stats.

Humans don't even get a bonus to survival, which they 100% should have.

Please see the first response in this thread.

[MThurston]

Please see the first response in this thread.

No thanks.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Racial Trait: Revenge

Once per short rest a human can pick 3 targets within 15 feet. Each target takes 2d6 damage, Dex save for half from daggers thrown into their back.

The damage is 3d6 at level 6, 4d6 at level 12 and 6d6 at level 18.

They also get resist jealousy.

Looks like someone needs to resist jealousy. But there's no way we're letting you have any daggers, ever.

[KorvinStarmast]

Plain Humans seem a tad boring to me and does not help that hey pale in comparison to their awesome variant form.

EDIT: in fact, the variant human is THE way to make humans better. IMO, that should have been the standard human. But feats are optional, so ...

[JNAProductions]

Why is this here?

What is the point?

But just FYI, it’s generally thought that non-variant humans ALSO stink compared to other races.

[guachi]

On a serious note, I've added the following changes to racial ability bonuses.

All races that have a +2 to an ability score make take one of those plusses and add it to any other ability score, to a maximum of +2 (so no mountain dwarves taking a plus from Con and adding it to Str for +3 Str and +1 Con). Since I hate subraces for anything other than flavor, this means more ability scores with the possibility of a +2 and basically every score can have a +1 meaning all classes can start with a 16 in the primary ability using point buy.

Regular humans that have +1 to everything can take one of those plusses and add it to any other ability score for a +2. Thus resulting in one score with a +2, four with a +1, and one with a +0.

[Mr.Spastic]

I'll give a serious suggestion.

You can make humans better by disallowing variants. In my experience, people will always want to play humans, even if they only get the stats.

If you want to make them better I like the +2, +1, +1, +1, +1 idea.
In games I run where there are no variant humans, I give the base humans a skill or tool proficiency.

[MThurston]

To be honest humans should get +2 to a stat you pick and a +1 to another. 1 extra skill with double preferency and 1 extra language.

[CantigThimble]

To be honest humans should get +2 to a stat you pick and a +1 to another. 1 extra skill with double preferency and 1 extra language.

Sure. Or a feat, +1 to two stats and a skill proficiency. I don't think anyone is going to disagree that the default human is pretty bad.

[Particle_Man]

I'll give a serious suggestion.

You can make humans better by disallowing variants. In my experience, people will always want to play humans, even if they only get the statistics .

Just ban feats. They are officially optional, after all.

I did have fun with a standard human champion fighter, just because I wanted the simplest build. That campaign banned feats and multi-classing.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Standard humans are rather boring and in a elite array campaign 15, 14,13, 12, 10, 8 are probably the worst race. Even worse then dragonborn. If you roll and get all even numbers they are in fact the worst race.
Which is why variant human as more or less overtaken them.

I would say yes.
Since this thread is a reaction to the Dragonborn breath weapon fix thread, let’s compare standard human +1 to all stats to the Dragonborn breath weapon.

The breath weapon is a thematically interesting ability that many believe is mechanically irrelevant at anything above the lowest levels.

The Human +1 to all stats is dull. But it is mechanically relevant throughout the full career of any character.

With the standard array, the human +1 changes the array to:
16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9.

An effective +1 to two stats, and leaves the rest odd. Big whoop. The odd stats are irrelevant, right?

Not completely. First thing to keep in mind is that 13 is the magic number for multiclassing. So you have one more stat that qualifies.

The human bonus +1 across the board doesn’t get you to 20 any faster. But after hitting the 20 cap in your primary stat, your next highest stat is odd. So you can +1 into it, and then increase another odd stat. So you improve two modifiers with one ASI.

Or if you have a more MAD build going, you may want to improve two modifiers at once earlier on.

Rolled for stats and got all even scores? Same thing. Put a +1 into your two most important stats at level 4. You aren’t screwed, you are a late bloomer.

If feats are allowed, and you didn’t go Vhuman, then odd stats are great for the +1 with a bonus feats.

Not saying that the normal human ability is powerful or interesting. But every time you get an ASI or consider multiclassing, the effect of being a normal human has an impact on your choices. It’s dull as dirt and not overly powerful, but it is still relevant as you level.

Compare that to the Dragonborn Breath ability. My group has a DB BattleMaster. So far, he has used it once after months of play. (He joined our group late, we were already around maybe 5th level). He’d like to use it more, but round by round, he always has a better use of his resources. From the discussion on the Dragonborn thread, this just gets worse at higher levels.

So I can see how Dragonborn players can feel like their signature racial ability just becomes an irrelevant note on their character sheet.

This thread is just an attempt to discredit the idea that the Dragonborn breath ability needs a fix by acting as if he is giving humans the same ability with a re-skin. We are supposed to go, “This dagger thing is stupid and overpowered, so the Dragonborn breath weapon fix must also be stupid and overpowered.”

The problem is that we are being presented with a false equivalency.

First: Normal humans and Dragonborn are both considered lackluster racial choices, but not for the same reason. So trying to apply the same fix for both naturally won’t work.

Second: A breath weapon attack for a Dragonborn is thematically appropriate. Humans being able stab 3 enemies in the back as long as they are within 15 feet of the human lacks any thematic sense. Or any kind of sense. Where do the daggers come from, hammer space? And how do you get three opponents to present their backs to you in the middle of combat?

Third: The ability is more than a re-skin. Breath weapons have a 15 ft cone or a 30 ft line area of effect. That severely limits how many opponents you are likely to hit with your attack.

The backstab dagger thing is three targets within 15 ft. That makes the area of effect a 15 ft radius centered on the human. Much easier to get your targets in the area of effect.

In theory, the breath weapon could hit up to 6 targets. Sure. If the DM bunched his creaures into a convienent cone or line formation. But in practice, you end up with problems like having to get the most opponents vs keeping allies out of the area of effect.

Tl;dr

The OP is opposed to people trying to improve the Dragonborn Dragon Breath ability, as seen in the Dragonborn fix thread.

Since he was not getting the response he wanted in that thread, this thread was created and presents a ridiculous human fix to show how he was right all along.

However, since the two races have different core problems AND different thematic needs, the OP is punching at a straw man.

[NaughtyTiger]

snip
Agree completely
Boring human is boring, but efficient

Point-buy
13+1, 13+1, 13+1, 13+1, 13+1, !3+1, 12+1 -> 5 14's and a 13.
mostly +2s to everything

15+1, 15+1, 13+1, 12+1, 9+1, 9+1 -> 2 15's, 14, 13, 2 10's
no -1s

if you have an 8 in INT, you are unlikely to bump that up to 10 when you are level 12, because it ain't as sexy as a feat or +2.
But at high levels the bad guys hit your dump stats more often...

[JakOfAllTirades]

I've noticed that the Standard Human gets more use at tables where ability scores are rolled than those where point buy is used. Has anyone else seen that happening?

My best guess as to why is that point buy makes avoiding odd numbered ability scores easier, which makes the Standard Human racial mods less useful.

[R.Shackleford]

The best way I've seen to get people to play a normal human is to remove or lower multiclassing restrictions.

We have tested it by letting humans mulyiclass with a 10 in the needed ability score... A lot of players grabbed it and started playing weird combo characters. Monk/Barbarian was a popular choice as was Cleric/Sorcerer and so was Barbarian/Wizard.

[Willie the Duck]

I've noticed that the Standard Human gets more use at tables where ability scores are rolled than those where point buy is used. Has anyone else seen that happening?

My best guess as to why is that point buy makes avoiding odd numbered ability scores easier, which makes the Standard Human racial mods less useful.

Well, rolled stats (and I'm assuming choosing race afterwards) means you can only decide to pick non-variant human after you see that you have 4-6 odd rolls, such that you genuinely get a lot of benefit. I'd say point buy would be the mid-level point for how optimal this is, and standard array the lowest.

[MrFahrenheit]

I solved the standard human “problem” with one house rule: players of human characters may swap out any of their +1s for the same amount of skill proficiencies.

EDIT: I also don’t allow the variant in my game.

[Willie the Duck]

EDIT: I also don’t allow the variant in my game.

That's another issue. Is human worse than everything else, or just worse than variant human (and of course half-elves for certain classes)? I'd still say so, and I'd give them a few other small things (maybe a skill, a tool, and a language).

Overall, though, I think it would be really hard to balance a '+1 to each stat' type race unless we know how often a given DM makes your non-primary stats relevant. I like the concept of well-rounded being an advantage in and of itself, but I'm not sure many groups see that play out in-game.

[MrFahrenheit]

That's another issue. Is human worse than everything else, or just worse than variant human (and of course half-elves for certain classes)? I'd still say so, and I'd give them a few other small things (maybe a skill, a tool, and a language).

Overall, though, I think it would be really hard to balance a '+1 to each stat' type race unless we know how often a given DM makes your non-primary stats relevant. I like the concept of well-rounded being an advantage in and of itself, but I'm not sure many groups see that play out in-game.

Variant human is, for the most part (with the exception of taking skilled as the first level feat), objectively more overpowered than standard human. I find standard human balanced with other races, but lacking “human nature,” which is to say, the versatility mentioned in the justification for giving half-elves their two free skill proficiencies. With the ability to swap a +1 for a skill proficiency, that issue is resolved.

[Willie the Duck]

Variant human is, for the most part (with the exception of taking skilled as the first level feat), objectively more overpowered than standard human. I find standard human balanced with other races, but lacking “human nature,” which is to say, the versatility mentioned in the justification for giving half-elves their two free skill proficiencies. With the ability to swap a +1 for a skill proficiency, that issue is resolved.

That is an option. I don't know if I like the swap the +1s for skill proficiencies. I think having the potentially less-than-imminently-useful stat boost kind of part of the charm. I think I'd rather find another way to balancing the race.

[MrFahrenheit]

That is an option. I don't know if I like the swap the +1s for skill proficiencies. I think having the potentially less-than-imminently-useful stat boost kind of part of the charm. I think I'd rather find another way to balancing the race.

Long, long ago, on the original, pre-Beyond, WOTC message boards, there was a user who broke down race creation into points per feature. He determined that an ability +1 was worth the equivalent number of points as a skill proficiency. That’s when I came up with my house rule.

[Willie the Duck]

Long, long ago, on the original, pre-Beyond, WOTC message boards, there was a user who broke down race creation into points per feature. He determined that an ability +1 was worth the equivalent number of points as a skill proficiency. That’s when I came up with my house rule.

I'm not sure I agree with the base premise. I don't think racial abilities are that divisible/fungible. Mountain dwarf being an easy example: It gets more benefits because in almost all situations, some of them are redundant.

Regardless, my position is not based on end-result power: I agree that non-variant humans need a boost to hit the PHB midline. I just find the '+1 to everything, regardless of actual benefit' part rather flavorful and would rather find another avenue towards parity.

[Hypno]

I've noticed that the Standard Human gets more use at tables where ability scores are rolled than those where point buy is used. Has anyone else seen that happening?

Yes. My current back up rolled: 17, 17, 13, 13, 9, 8.

I really like races that give skills. Races that give unique abilities. Hell, like so many I really like vuman....but being able to turn that stat line into 18, 18, 14, 14, 10, 9 is too much to resist.

[Asensur]

One way for doing it is setting restrictions for class and multiclass by race.


VARIANT RULE: CULTURAL RESTRICTIONS

If you want to restrict partially the class for each race you can do it by comparing its racial abilities with the class saving throws and multiclass requirements (treat ANDs as ORs).

For example: Mountain Dwarves have +2 CON and +2 STR. Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Sorcerers have either a STR or CON saving throw or multiclass requirement. A Mountain Dwarf cannot be a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Warlock or Wizard, as none of them has STR and/or CON as a saving throw or multiclass requirement.

If you get to choose between racial abilities (as do Half-Elves), choose them before choosing between the available classes. If your race has a negative ability (as Volo's Orcs), you cannot choose a class that has that ability as a saving throw or multiclass requirement.

You can also restrict both multiclass choices and quantities expanding this rule. For each positive point in a racial ability, your character can choose one class that has that racial ability as a saving throw or multiclass requirement. The number of different classes must be equal or lower than the sum/substract of your positive/negative racial abilities (for example, humans can have 6 different classes, while elves can have 3 and variant humans can have 2), minimum 1.

Following the Mountain Dwarf example: Mountain Dwarves can have 4 classes simultaneously (+2STR+2CON), 2 of them having STR saving throw/multiclass requirement, and 2 of them having CON saving throw/multiclass requirement. A Mountain Dwarf can be Barbarian(CON)/ Fighter(CON)/ Monk(STR)/ Ranger(STR), however he cannot be Monk/Ranger/Paladin as neither of those can fill a CON "slot".

Please note that your character must still to fullfil multiclass requirements.


This way, non-variant humans are the only race that can access each class and have up to 6 classes simultaneously.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Yes. My current back up rolled: 17, 17, 13, 13, 9, 8.

I really like races that give skills. Races that give unique abilities. Hell, like so many I really like vuman....but being able to turn that stat line into 18, 18, 14, 14, 10, 9 is too much to resist.

Personally, I'd still resist that urge. Even a Vhuman can make three of those (surely the most important three) stats into equal numbers, if you take a resilient Con or some other half-feat. With a skill on top of that, it's still superior in my book to upping a couple of dump stats.

[MThurston]

The majority of my characters are human variant.

[BoringInfoGuy]

One way for doing it is setting restrictions for class and multiclass by race.


VARIANT RULE: CULTURAL RESTRICTIONS

If you want to restrict partially the class for each race you can do it by comparing its racial abilities with the class saving throws and multiclass requirements (treat ANDs as ORs).

For example: Mountain Dwarves have +2 CON and +2 STR. Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Sorcerers have either a STR or CON saving throw or multiclass requirement. A Mountain Dwarf cannot be a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Warlock or Wizard, as none of them has STR and/or CON as a saving throw or multiclass requirement.

If you get to choose between racial abilities (as do Half-Elves), choose them before choosing between the available classes. If your race has a negative ability (as Volo's Orcs), you cannot choose a class that has that ability as a saving throw or multiclass requirement.

You can also restrict both multiclass choices and quantities expanding this rule. For each positive point in a racial ability, your character can choose one class that has that racial ability as a saving throw or multiclass requirement. The number of different classes must be equal or lower than the sum/substract of your positive/negative racial abilities (for example, humans can have 6 different classes, while elves can have 3 and variant humans can have 2), minimum 1.

Following the Mountain Dwarf example: Mountain Dwarves can have 4 classes simultaneously (+2STR+2CON), 2 of them having STR saving throw/multiclass requirement, and 2 of them having CON saving throw/multiclass requirement. A Mountain Dwarf can be Barbarian(CON)/ Fighter(CON)/ Monk(STR)/ Ranger(STR), however he cannot be Monk/Ranger/Paladin as neither of those can fill a CON "slot".

Please note that your character must still to fullfil multiclass requirements.


This way, non-variant humans are the only race that can access each class and have up to 6 classes simultaneously.
Racial Class limitations was a D&D staple until it was finally dropped at the start of 3rd edition.

Remember how much people clamored to bring it back? Me neither. It was one of the mechanics people were generally glad to see go.

From my experience, 2nd edition racial class restrictions and level limits did not feel like a bonus when playing a human. It’s like going to a buffet and being told you can pick any dish you like. But then the guy next to you is told that because of his race, he can only eat foods from his culture. You don’t go “Wow, glad I’m the ‘right’ race so that I can have all the buffet options.” You ask “Why,” and get told that “It’s because the other guy is so much better than you, we need to limit their choices so you won’t feel bad about it.”

3rd edition switched the emphasis from how to limit the other races so that they don’t overshadow humans to figuring out what bonuses can be given to humans to make them compelling. The result was similar to the 5e VHuman.

Frankly, I think VHuman was plan A, and only got bumped to an option because feats are presented as an optional rule. (But one required to be allowed in official AL play.). I think they expected Vhumans to be the preferred choice at most tables.

[Malifice]

Standard humans are rather boring and in a elite array campaign 15, 14,13, 12, 10, 8 are probably the worst race.

Short sighted. A 16 is no different from a 17 (the best you can get with elite array and a different race) in your prime stat really, which is where that 15 is going. The +1 can then be assigned to either the 13 (bringing it to 14) or wheverer else you want.

6 x +1's are actually arguably much better than a +2 and a +1 (both to fixed scores).

A human fighter winds up with stats of: 20, 20, 18, 12, 10, 8

[MrFahrenheit]

lFrom my experience, 2nd edition racial class restrictions and level limits did not feel like a bonus when playing a human. It’s like going to a buffet and being told you can pick any dish you like. But then the guy next to you is told that because of his race, he can only eat foods from his culture. You don’t go “Wow, glad I’m the ‘right’ race so that I can have all the buffet options.” You ask “Why,” and get told that “It’s because the other guy is so much better than you, we need to limit their choices so you won’t feel bad about it.”

Not exactly. I can’t really imagine a kender wizard running around, especially not pre-Age of Mortals. And not because humans want to feel special.

[Contrast]

One way for doing it is setting restrictions for class and multiclass by race.

This isn't really a restriction though? Or rather it is but it doesn't actual impact on the power level of the race which is what we were trying to control.

I guess it restricts some multiclass options but my guess is the primary impact won't be a player saying 'damn I wanted to play a druid but now I can't - guess I better swap to human!' it'll be 'hmm I want to play a druid so I can't be a dragonborn like I was originally thinking...I'll play a wood elf I guess'.


Honestly I kinda wish they'd tipped human further the other way and made it slightly but noticeably more powerful than other races. It always feels a little silly when 90-95% of the NPCs we meet are human but the party is usually an eclectic mix with a single token human (yes yes, Lord of the Rings I know...). I feel the default assumption should be you'll be playing a human unless you're thinking about doing something specific/want to flex your roleplaying a bit. You could try and force that but its much better if players choose it.

This all depends on setting specifics of course.

[CantigThimble]

Honestly I kinda wish they'd tipped human further the other way and made it slightly but noticeably more powerful than other races. It always feels a little silly when 90-95% of the NPCs we meet are human but the party is usually an eclectic mix with a single token human (yes yes, Lord of the Rings I know...). I feel the default assumption should be you'll be playing a human unless you're thinking about doing something specific/want to flex your roleplaying a bit. You could try and force that but its much better if players choose it.

This is the eternal conflict. Many people want the highly unusual races and classes to be rare, but lots of players want to play them and no one wants to tell them no.

I actually really liked 2e for this reason. (though I never played 2e until after I had played 3e and 5e for years) The rare classes were genuinely quite unusual to see in parties due to the stat restrictions. It felt a lot more real because of that.

[Rhedyn]

*Pretending the OP was serious.

Proposal 1: +1 to all stats, One extra skill prof, Two extra languages or tool profs.

Proposal 2: Variant human; +1 to two stats, select one feat that also increases an attribute, One extra skill prof.

[JackPhoenix]

Not exactly. I can’t really imagine a kender wizard running around, especially not pre-Age of Mortals. And not because humans want to feel special.

Yeah... that's because it's kender, and kenders shouldn't be allowed to be anything but dragon food, archery practice targets or corpses.

[Mith]

This is the eternal conflict. Many people want the highly unusual races and classes to be rare, but lots of players want to play them and no one wants to tell them no.

I actually really liked 2e for this reason. (though I never played 2e until after I had played 3e and 5e for years) The rare classes were genuinely quite unusual to see in parties due to the stat restrictions. It felt a lot more real because of that.


On one hand, having started my RPG experience with Basic, I do appreciate this concept, and you sort of really notice it when you get to playing an old module, where the whole party are demi humans showing up in an isolationist nation, and you are sitting here thinking "how do I want to go about this?".


However, I am not sure if stat/class restrictions are a good thing to bring back to the game that has not had them for a long time. I could easily make it work to give the demi human races a smaller pool of classes to draw from, and perhaps there is ritualistic magic to get around some barriers at a community level. This is more me thinking about Clerics in particular, which were only human in older editions of D&D, although perhaps this could be modified by saying certain races only have access to specific domains.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Yeah... that's because it's kender, and kenders shouldn't be allowed to be anything but dragon food, archery practice targets or corpses.
While I don’t hate Kender, they are a special case. In universe, it makes perfect sense that the High Tower of Sorcery would not allow the fearless, eternally childlike kleptomaniac race created by the Greygem to learn how to tug at the threads of existence.

In universe, it makes less sense for there to never have been a dwarf who was stronger of mind than of arm, who took to learning the crafting of enchantment with the same dedication other dwarves put into the crafting of stone or metal or ale.

[jdolch]

We already made them better, it's called Variant Human.

[Laserlight]

"A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave."

[Rhedyn]

We already made them better, it's called Variant Human.
Vhumans have that slight problem of just being better than any other race option, and feats in general can break tables.

[jdolch]

Depending on the Character you're building other races are just as good. (Although not all races are equally good or equally versatile, that is correct)

[R.Shackleford]

Vhumans have that slight problem of just being better than any other race option, and feats in general can break tables.

The issue is that V.Human is always a good choice. The ability increase, always lines up and the feat you choose will alwaya be optimal for your character.

But, instead of making V.Human worse, other races should be made better.

Though I could see limiting which frats a V.Human can take... But that would probably lead V.Human to not be used as much.

[Willie the Duck]

But, instead of making V.Human worse, other races should be made better.


I don't know. In the mind-space of discussing house rules or a theoretical 6e/5e as we would have made it, etc., I can see both nerfing Vuman (and half-elf) a touch and boosting non-variant humans (and dragonborn, Volo's orcs, etc.).

[Composer99]

It's not fair and racist that humans only get +1 to stats.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UglyPlasticHart-size_restricted.gif

[AHF]

Racial Trait: Revenge

Once per short rest a human can pick 3 targets within 15 feet. Each target takes 2d6 damage, Dex save for half from daggers thrown into their back.

The damage is 3d6 at level 6, 4d6 at level 12 and 6d6 at level 18.

They also get resist jealousy.

Is there a race that allows posters to resist pettiness or is this a meta argument for a Troll race?





(If unclear, this is a bad faith thread by a poster who repeatedly pitched a fit over other posters have different opinions in the thread on dragonborn breath weapon feature and is doing a not at all subtle parody.)

[R.Shackleford]

I don't know. In the mind-space of discussing house rules or a theoretical 6e/5e as we would have made it, etc., I can see both nerfing Vuman (and half-elf) a touch and boosting non-variant humans (and dragonborn, Volo's orcs, etc.).

I think the easiest way to start balancing the races would be to strip away ability score bonuses from races. Let everyone have a +2/+1 bonus to out where they want. Humans can be special in that they can actually put a +3 in one score (have maximum cap for all ability scores POST bonus... Say 16?) if you feel humans should be different here (I don't).

From there...

Make an active feature for each race that are balanced against each other. This way you can actively dwarf, actively orc, or actively elf.

Give each race a couple skill related abilities. Sub-races change these, not add to them. Though let players change them as long as it fits their background or whatever.

Give ribbons. This way you can passively dwarf, passively orc, and passively elf.

====

This way you get more racial/class variety. You get more skill/race variety. You also get to actively and passively be *race*.

If you're giving humans a feat, make the other active abilities equal to that feat.

I've been reading and thinkimg about humans and I think a short rest mechnic surrounding around inspiration (that you don't have to rely on the DM for) would be a nice way to make humans equal to other races. Advantage is easy to get, sure, but it isn't always garunteed and sometimes comes with stipulations.

[MThurston]

I think the easiest way to start balancing the races would be to strip away ability score bonuses from races. Let everyone have a +2/+1 bonus to out where they want. Humans can be special in that they can actually put a +3 in one score (have maximum cap for all ability scores POST bonus... Say 16?) if you feel humans should be different here (I don't).

From there...

Make an active feature for each race that are balanced against each other. This way you can actively dwarf, actively orc, or actively elf.

Give each race a couple skill related abilities. Sub-races change these, not add to them. Though let players change them as long as it fits their background or whatever.

Give ribbons. This way you can passively dwarf, passively orc, and passively elf.

====

This way you get more racial/class variety. You get more skill/race variety. You also get to actively and passively be *race*.

If you're giving humans a feat, make the other active abilities equal to that feat.

I've been reading and thinkimg about humans and I think a short rest mechnic surrounding around inspiration (that you don't have to rely on the DM for) would be a nice way to make humans equal to other races. Advantage is easy to get, sure, but it isn't always garunteed and sometimes comes with stipulations.

Life isn't fair. Races should never be equal.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you're giving humans a feat, make the other active abilities equal to that feat.

this is very difficult to accomplish.
Not all feats are equal (Sharpshooter vs Grappler), would you try to align the "active abilities" to the lowest feat or the highest.
how do you objectively compare a suite of active abilities to the nominal feat: Gnomish Resistance vs Resilience Wisdom
Is Elvish trance a ribbon or active (cuz 2 extra hours on guard duty is useful). Or darkvision?

[Willie the Duck]

It's not fair and racist that humans only get +1 to stats.


Life isn't fair. Races should never be equal.

Not that we needed evidence that arguing in bad faith was happening...

[Composer99]

Not that we needed evidence that arguing in bad faith was happening...

Also, creepiness.

[R.Shackleford]

Life isn't fair. Races should never be equal.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

1: D&D isn't real life.

2: Are you saying that in real life you don't think races are equal and thus in game races shouldn't be equal?

3: D&D is a combat role playing game, it isn't real life. Having balance keeps people from falling into traps or just having lackluster features compared to others.

4: I feel I must reiterate... D&D isn't real life.

Anyways...

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I don't actually want humans to have the bonus feat anymore as the feats typically are expected as a level 4+ feature.

But each race in this fantasy game should be equal in terms of awesomesauce and fun. Easiest way to make some fun in D&D is to make it awesome, or at the very least, make it as awesome as all the other choices of the same type.

[AHF]

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

1: D&D isn't real life.

2: Are you saying that in real life you don't think races are equal and thus in game races shouldn't be equal?

3: D&D is a combat role playing game, it isn't real life. Having balance keeps people from falling into traps or just having lackluster features compared to others.

4: I feel I must reiterate... D&D isn't real life.

Anyways...

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I don't actually want humans to have the bonus feat anymore as the feats typically are expected as a level 4+ feature.

But each race in this fantasy game should be equal in terms of awesomesauce and fun. Easiest way to make some fun in D&D is to make it awesome, or at the very least, make it as awesome as all the other choices of the same type.

Here is the logic:

"I am pissed off people didn't just concede I was right after my first post on the thread about Dragonborn. I am now going to post a new thread about how non-variant Humans suck to make it clear how stupid that other thread was and how dumb those posters were for thinking about whether Dragonborn might be more fun with a houserule adjustment to their breath weapon."

[n00b]

Here is the logic:

"I am pissed off people didn't just concede I was right after my first post on the thread about Dragonborn. I am now going to post a new thread about how non-variant Humans suck to make it clear how stupid that other thread was and how dumb those posters were for thinking about whether Dragonborn might be more fun with a houserule adjustment to their breath weapon."

Look back through some of the posts on other topics. There's a trend there. Mainly a lack of understanding as to how the game works.

[MThurston]

Could care less if people agree or don't agree. Everyone can have an opinion.

Some opinions are pushed by the need to power game. Others to keep the game balanced. Some to have a twist of both.

The game is not balanced in any way.

Why is PAM so good but no equivalent for other weapons?

Why do spells do so much damage compared to a rogues non sneak attack damage?

The game is what it is. The human is boring when it comes to a race. +1 to all stats. The varient has some better flavor. Neither of them equal what elves get.

If human variant wasn't around then I believe Dragonborn fighters and barbarians would be more popular.

My only disagreement with Dragonborn is that they don't have Darkvison. I think they should have 60 feet and can see through magical darkness.

But I don't make the rules.

We all can complain about every race in the book but what does it do? Nothing.

I would hope that each character you make has a concept. That concept should be based on a story line for you. That story line should have some races that will fit it.

But yes, some classes are better suited towards some races. But in 5E even that can be overlooked by a subclass.

A Dragonborn Hexblade would not be bad with its +1 Cha. And to say they would suck is just power gaming.

Isn't it about the story and the struggle? Shouldn't racial abilities just be flavor over power?

[TristanLeo]

MThurston makes a good point.

Base human is about Human adaptability rather than specialisation. Jack of all trades, Master of None. You can dabble here and there to fill in the gaps and shore up others weaknesses but you are supposed to be outshone by those who have an aptitude for it. You might not seem valuable when you are outclassed by the specialists, but when they are not available, everyone will look to the generalist.

[Willie the Duck]

Could care less if people agree or don't agree. Everyone can have an opinion.
Some opinions are pushed by the need to power game. Others to keep the game balanced. Some to have a twist of both.
The game is not balanced in any way.
Why is PAM so good but no equivalent for other weapons?
Why do spells do so much damage compared to a rogues non sneak attack damage?
The game is what it is. The human is boring when it comes to a race. +1 to all stats. The varient has some better flavor. Neither of them equal what elves get.
If human variant wasn't around then I believe Dragonborn fighters and barbarians would be more popular.
My only disagreement with Dragonborn is that they don't have Darkvison. I think they should have 60 feet and can see through magical darkness.
But I don't make the rules.
We all can complain about every race in the book but what does it do? Nothing.
I would hope that each character you make has a concept. That concept should be based on a story line for you. That story line should have some races that will fit it.
But yes, some classes are better suited towards some races. But in 5E even that can be overlooked by a subclass.
A Dragonborn Hexblade would not be bad with its +1 Cha. And to say they would suck is just power gaming.
Isn't it about the story and the struggle? Shouldn't racial abilities just be flavor over power?

I think we're done treating this seriously. MThurston, when you realized that people weren't dumb enough to follow along with you disagreement-with-me-implies-you're-childish-or-a-powergamer song and dance, you could have ducked out or made a (even half-hearted) attempt to make peace (some kind of 'sorry for my previous word choices, but I still think Dragonborn are perfectly fine, and my point shouldn't be dismissed along with my poor behavior'), but instead you doubled down, and now you walk away still having not changed any minds, but also having lost a lot of the respect of your peers.

And, in the end? You clearly have nothing to say. This above post just highlights it. Each of this is a separate, disconnected justification actively showcasing the lack of a cohesive point behind this. In one line you're asking why we should bother to complain when that doesn't do anything, and a few lines down an appeal to making the game about story and flavor over rules. That's just a hodge podge list of cliched gaming critiques in a big pile. Everyone here can see this ducking and weaving and throwing whatever you can find against the wall in the hope that it will distract us from you lack of point. You clearly thought everyone else here was going to be too dumb to notice, and that was a horrible gamble.

[MThurston]

That's your opinion.

Races are fine as they are. Somethings were misses but it happens.

[Rhedyn]

That's your opinion.

Races are fine as they are. Somethings were misses but it happens.
You aren't doing this right. The correct response is, "The Races are perfectly balanced and if your experience differs, then your DM is bad and no rules can prevent bad DMing."

[MThurston]

You aren't doing this right. The correct response is, "The Races are perfectly balanced and if your experience differs, then your DM is bad and no rules can prevent bad DMing."

The races and classes are by far not balanced. Doesn't mean the rules are bad.

[Rhedyn]

The races and classes are by far not balanced. Doesn't mean the rules are bad.
Not negative enough. You give ground by saying "Well the races and classes are by far not balanced." and then follow with, "But if that is a problem in your games, then your DM is bad and you need to stop powergaming."

[MThurston]

Not negative enough. You give ground by saying "Well the races and classes are by far not balanced." and then follow with, "But if that is a problem in your games, then your DM is bad and you need to stop powergaming."

Wanting things more powerful than they are is power gaming. There are other ways to do it also. Combinations that make the game easy.

But we are not playing a board game. My knight moving the same as your knight is fine in chess.

But even in chess, pieces are not equal. The pawn by far is the weakest piece. It can only move forward. Every other piece can move back.

Does this mean that the pawn is worthless?

[JNAProductions]

In chess, you control all the pieces.

In D&D, each player has their own.

I don’t think it’s unwarranted to want my piece to be about as strong as your piece.

The chess comparison works better as “my character is good at social, but not combat.”

The “pawn” is combat, the “queen” is social.

But if I’m playing a pawn and you have a queen... I’m gonna want to be more powerful, because you’re contributing more.

[Rhedyn]

Wanting things more powerful than they are is power gaming. There are other ways to do it also. Combinations that make the game easy.

But we are not playing a board game. My knight moving the same as your knight is fine in chess.

But even in chess, pieces are not equal. The pawn by far is the weakest piece. It can only move forward. Every other piece can move back.

Does this mean that the pawn is worthless?
Oh yeah, I think you got it now. "Anyone who disagrees with me is treating D&D as a boardgame. But boardgame logic also justifies my point."

*Slow claps

[NaughtyTiger]

Does this mean that the pawn is worthless?

No, but the pawn is worth less. Significantly less, in official chess tournaments: Knights and Bishops are worth 3 points, Pawns are worth 1 point.


In chess, you control all the pieces. In D&D, each player has their own.
I don’t think it’s unwarranted to want my piece to be about as strong as your piece.
well said.

[MThurston]

No, but the pawn is worth less. Significantly less, in official chess tournaments: Knights and Bishops are worth 3 points, Pawns are worth 1 point.


well said.

But you are playing a first level character. You play a pawn. You shouldn't have more power than that.

Thank you for proving my point.

[JNAProductions]

No one reasonable is asking for a queen at level one.

But they do want to be equal to the others.

[NaughtyTiger]

But you are playing a first level character. You play a pawn. You shouldn't have more power than that.
Thank you for proving my point.

Yep, you are right, I concede. you have outwitted me by changing your stance every post.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Wanting things more powerful than they are is power gaming. There are other ways to do it also. Combinations that make the game easy.

Saying that wanting things more powerful than they are is powerfaming is like saying accelerating in a car is speeding.

Context matters.

If you are driving 45 in a 55 zone, then acceleration is simply working to bring you up to the speed you should have been driving already.

But we are not playing a board game. My knight moving the same as your knight is fine in chess.

But even in chess, pieces are not equal. The pawn by far is the weakest piece. It can only move forward. Every other piece can move back.

Does this mean that the pawn is worthless?
Switching to the chess analogy, what if there was a role playing game where the races where sentient chess pieces? And players could choose Pawn, Rook, Bishop, Knight, or Queen? (King being an NPC).

The pawn race is slow, with the most restrictions on its movement. It can double move on its first movement, but other races (excluding the King) can move further than the Pawn, without the direction restrictions. It has the En Passant special abiliy. Which only works on other Pawns and is such a rare occurrence that many people are unaware it exists.

Then there is the famous ability to become any other piece (excluding the NPC King). Which boils down to saying that, with a lot of work, the Pawn can have the same abilities that another race has enjoyed the entire time. If the biggest draw of a race is the ability to become another race, then why not start as something else? As is, there is nothing to make the Pawn a worthwhile racial choice.

In chess, the pawn is useful. But you are not taking on the role of a pawn when you play chess. A better viewpoint would be that you are the commander of the King’s army, directing his forces.

But you are playing a first level character. You play a pawn. You shouldn't have more power than that.

Thank you for proving my point.
Should and shouldn’t are words that I try to stop and think about before using. Am I saying something that actually should or shouldn’t be? We SHOULD remember that D&D is a recreational activity which does not have one “correct” way to play. So we SHOULDN’T assume that what works for one group is going to work for every group.

So, should all 1st level characters have no more power than a pawn?

No, not really. Power levels for a game are a group choice. You can go with the default array of stats or a PB equivalent. You can have players start with higher stats for a more epic feel. By default, D&D is heroic fantasy, so you’d probably need weaker starting stats if you wanted a “bunch of pawns” tone.

But that is a bit of a distraction. The real question is if Dragonborn* feel like Pawns next to Rooks, Kights, or Bishops? In chess, It is fine that pawns are weaker because you are controlling all the peices. Each turn, you pick one peice to move, the rest sit idle. Any one peice can sit in the same location for several turns. In contrast, each player in a D&D game wants to be able to do something every round of combat.

* Haven’t forgotten that this whole thread is just a reaction to the Dragonborn breath weapon thread, and not an actual attempt to improve the human race in 5e.

[Expected]

Well how come all the other races get darkvison?

They get spells also. And skills. Some get damage powers that scale.

It's not fair and racist that humans only get +1 to stats.

Humans don't even get a bonus to survival, which they 100% should have.

While I agree that Humans need something to incentivize players to choose them, I don't think giving them a sub-optimal method for dealing damage is the answer. Instead, maybe Humans should receive +1 or +2 Skill Proficiencies or the ability to re-allocate the +1 to every score to any score of their choosing (up to +2). Doing so might convince players to actually choose them (which never happens when using point-buy).

Also, if people disagree with you in regards to your opinion on whether or not the Dragonborn's breath weapon is underpowered, it is their right to do so. In my opinion, however, the breath weapon is borderline useless and I would not use it for anything other than RP (I am a min-maxer who values RP and I am proud of it).

[MThurston]

While I agree that Humans need something to incentivize players to choose them, I don't think giving them a sub-optimal method for dealing damage is the answer. Instead, maybe Humans should receive +1 or +2 Skill Proficiencies or the ability to re-allocate the +1 to every score to any score of their choosing (up to +2). Doing so might convince players to actually choose them (which never happens when using point-buy).

Also, if people disagree with you in regards to your opinion on whether or not the Dragonborn's breath weapon is underpowered, it is their right to do so. In my opinion, however, the breath weapon is borderline useless and I would not use it for anything other than RP (I am a min-maxer who values RP and I am proud of it).

I'd use it every time I had 3 targets in my zone.

[stoutstien]

I'd use it every time I had 3 targets in my zone.

Well it's only once per s/l rest so that may a little better exaggerated.
Didn't you say you play Vhuman exclusively? Could be argued as the most "power gamer" picks in the phb?