I didn't quite realize just how terrible standard human was

[Greywander]

I was comparing two different race guides, the one by James Musicus (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/edit), and another called Detect Balance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501272-Detect-Balance-an-Improved-Scale-for-Measuring-5e-Races), and one thing I noticed was how the standard human has a radically different rating in each guide. And... I kind of think I have to agree with Detect Balance on this one: standard humans are kind of terrible.

The standard human gets +1 to each of their ability scores. That's it. Now, the thing is, a typical build will only need either STR or DEX, CON, and one mental stat. So three stats (while the other three +1s are virtually wasted). And even those aren't all equal. A wizard, for example, would rather have INT than DEX or CON. And because of the way point buy works, +2 to your main stat is better than two +1s. A race that gave nothing but +2 to our main stat and +1 to a secondary stat wouldn't be as far behind a standard human as you might think. But almost every race gives +2 to one stat and +1 to another, on top of other racial traits, so no matter your build there will always be a better race than standard human. Half-elf for CHA builds is the most egregious; +2 to our main stat, with +1 to both of our secondary stats, on top of the other racial traits for half-elf.

Now, the standard human isn't a terrible idea. It won't be great, but it can be decent at anything. It can help with builds that are more MAD, or for those aiming for a more jack-of-all-trades, generalist type of character. It just seems to be missing something. For example, giving them two skills and a language would put them on a more equal footing with the half-elf. The halfling's Lucky trait would also be a good pick for a generalist. Part of the appeal of standard human, I think, is needing to make fewer choices (good for those playing for the first time!), so a passive trait like Lucky would actually work really well.

What I'd probably do is give them one skill, one tool or language, and the Lucky trait. Perfect for a generalist type of character! My only gripe with this is that it doesn't bring anything new or original to the table, and somewhat steps on the toes of halfings by taking one of their unique racial traits. Perhaps another option would be to give "half" of a second background, i.e. one skill, one tool/language, and the background feature. The thing about this is that it's a bit more complicated and requires making more choices.

I'm curious to hear what other people think on this subject. I'd bet most of you have never played a standard human, or considered standard human for a build, but if you have then I'd like to hear how that went!

[Eldariel]

Played one, it was a Rogue and getting bonuses to all skills was actually kinda neat. That said, Variant Human would've still been about 100 times better. I agree that standard Human should get some extra generalist proficiencies; free Prodigy minus the Expertise sounds good (Language, Tool, Skill as you suggested). Expertise would be kinda weird as a racial though it could be interesting.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I never play humans, they are too hard for me to roleplay...
never know what to say...

[Aett_Thorn]

You’re getting +6 to your abilities instead of +3 like most other races, which is still pretty good. Now, if you’re doing point buy or standard array, it’s not that great, but having bonuses to non-main stats can still be great from an RP perspective.

But if you’re rolling for scores, there’s a decent chance that you may end up with 4-5 odd stats, which is where standard human can really get a lot of bang for their buck. They’re not great, but hardly terrible.

[chainer1216]

Theyre pretty terrible when compared to the other races, just because it can work doesnt mean it keeps up.

Just because you CAN play a core only ranger doesnt mean the guy whos playing a bog standard druid isnt going to do everything you do but better and then a whole bunch of other stuff.

If you want to be a jack of all trades type, just play a Half Elf.

[JellyPooga]

You’re getting +6 to your abilities instead of +3 like most other races, which is still pretty good. Now, if you’re doing point buy or standard array, it’s not that great, but having bonuses to non-main stats can still be great from an RP perspective.

But if you’re rolling for scores, there’s a decent chance that you may end up with 4-5 odd stats, which is where standard human can really get a lot of bang for their buck. They’re not great, but hardly terrible.

For Standard Array, S.Human is pretty naff compared to basically any other race, but for Point Buy, they can shine somewhat with a 13,13,13,13,13,10 array for a character with basically 14's across the board, or 15,13,13,13,10,9 if you really must have that +3 modifier at lvl.1 (hint: you don't, but I accept that some people think they do). In terms of point-spend that +1 to everything works out as 10-11pts of additional spend, as compared to (at most) 6pts for the standard +2/+1 that most Races get. That's nothing to sniff at. Is it worth sacrificing basically any other feature for? Debatable, but likely not.

[Greywander]

Terrible may have been an overstatement. But what I meant was that in nearly every build, there will almost always be a more optimal race choice than standard human. The standard human is perfectly inoffensive and functional, it just gets overshadowed by the other race choices at all times.

And as I said, the idea of a generalist race isn't a bad one, but even there half-elf does it better (if you're remotely interested in CHA). I'm just saying the standard human needs a small boost to make it comparable to other races again. What I'd like to see is for half-elf to remain "better" for CHA builds, but standard human to be "better", or at least comparable to half-elf, for non-CHA builds.

Free Prodigy might actually be kind of interesting. Vhuman gets one more skill, but 4 less stat points (albeit, mostly to dump stats). The benefit of Vhuman, though, is being able to choose any feat, so Prodigy is likely not going to be your top choice.

[JellyPooga]

Terrible may have been an overstatement. But what I meant was that in nearly every build, there will almost always be a more optimal race choice than standard human. The standard human is perfectly inoffensive and functional, it just gets overshadowed by the other race choices at all times.

And as I said, the idea of a generalist race isn't a bad one, but even there half-elf does it better (if you're remotely interested in CHA). I'm just saying the standard human needs a small boost to make it comparable to other races again. What I'd like to see is for half-elf to remain "better" for CHA builds, but standard human to be "better", or at least comparable to half-elf, for non-CHA builds.

Free Prodigy might actually be kind of interesting. Vhuman gets one more skill, but 4 less stat points (albeit, mostly to dump stats). The benefit of Vhuman, though, is being able to choose any feat, so Prodigy is likely not going to be your top choice.

It's probably worth mentioning the value of a generalist character vs. a specialist one outside of a white room or ideal circumstances. A power house min-max character might be great when everything's peachy, but when faced with something that is capable of targeting their weakness(es), the generalist shines far truer due to having less weaknesses. In actual play, this can mean being more capable/survivable when solo or in smaller groups, where a single ally falling can spell doom for the others; a trait that's probably more valuable than being able to one-shot the BBEG. After all, you actually have to reach the BBEG before you ever get a chance to one-shot him and being able to deal 100pts of damage per round is pretty useless if you can't make that Saving Throw against having your brain turned to jam for the foreseeable future.

[NNescio]

It's probably worth mentioning the value of a generalist character vs. a specialist one outside of a white room or ideal circumstances. A power house min-max character might be great when everything's peachy, but when faced with something that is capable of targeting their weakness(es), the generalist shines far truer due to having less weaknesses. In actual play, this can mean being more capable/survivable when solo or in smaller groups, where a single ally falling can spell doom for the others; a trait that's probably more valuable than being able to one-shot the BBEG. After all, you actually have to reach the BBEG before you ever get a chance to one-shot him and being able to deal 100pts of damage per round is pretty useless if you can't make that Saving Throw against having your brain turned to jam for the foreseeable future.

D&D is a team game, so specialization is almost always a better choice over generalization. (And spellcasters get to specialize in magic, which eventually becomes flexible enough to become a generalist option.) This can be true even for small (1~3) party sizes, because they can just use hired or summoned minions to make up the difference.

In addition, consider that 5e has six different attributes and limited ways to get proficiency bonuses. Most classes only get proficiency in four skills and two saves. A character who spreads attribute points across all six categories will (usually) still be mediocre in everything it doesn't have proficiency for; it will still have an uncomfortable chance of failing a save that it is not proficient in. (e.g. The vanilla human Fighter will still balk at an Intellect Devourer, 14 INT or no.) While being less optimal in what it is supposed to be good at (so your party actually has less of an incentive to help you when there's a more minmaxed party member that they need to prioritize on). This gets more and more true as a character levels up, because you have limited ASIs to throw around, while DCs for everything scale but your nonproficient checks/saves don't.

The best way to increase survivability is, ironically, to specialize. Wizards can get Contingency to cover, well, contingencies, and use spells like Mind Blank to provide immunities. The Paladin (the class best suited to get your aforementioned ">100 damage per round") can get +CHA to every save, giving even more incentive to minmax a single attribute (and maybe ancillary stats like DEX and CON). This get even true for multiclass builds that try to get a lot of things to key off a single stat (usually CHA, because WotC for some reason decided to keep adding things that synergize with CHA for every splatbook that add. Heck even core has ridiculous CHA synergy). So... yes, even when building a generalist character (read: Bard, maybe Rogue), you're still better off specializing in a single stat (or two or maybe three) and just figure out a way of leveraging that stat to get bonuses to everything (directly via class features or indirectly via spells), instead of spreading your attribute points across the board. (This, incidentally, also makes Half Elf even more valuable compared to the mediocre non-variant Human.)

Also note that the vanilla human has no special senses or functional resistances (e.g. Lucky, Gnomish Cunning). This is a severe weakness that can be crippling when exploited (even accidentally by a DM who forgets one of the party doesn't have Darkvision). There are ways around this, but it usually involves being a spellcaster, who generally wants minmaxed stat arrays anyway. The variant human also shares this weakness, but at least it has a feat that can (potentially more than) make up for it.

[stoutstien]

I think the standard human is more useful if your table rolls for stats and you end up with a bunch of odd numbers.
The usefulness of a general build vs specialized is very DM dependent.

[Particle_Man]

I think the advantage of the standard human is similar to that of the Champion Fighter: It is simple. Some players want very simple characters and it doesn’t get much simpler than “add 1 to each stat and that’s done and you don’t have to think about racial abilities ever again”.

So while there are better racial options I am still glad it is there as *an* option to serve that sub-group of players.

[JellyPooga]

D&D is a team game, so specialization is almost always a better choice over generalization. (And spellcasters get to specialize in magic, which eventually becomes flexible enough to become a generalist option.) This can be true even for small (1~3) party sizes, because they can just use hired or summoned minions to make up the difference.

[snip!]

Whilst generally I agree, the smaller the party, the harder it is to make those specialisations broad enough to cover all the bases and hirelings/summons are not always a)available or b)effective. Yes, there are certain cases where specialisation increases your abilities in a more general sense (e.g. the Paladin, as you mentioned), but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Further, in particularly large parties, specialisations can already be covered by other characters and a more generalist style can become more useful; being a helpful tool for many masters is better than just being a second master of a single discipline, so to speak.

On the subject of S.Human being less optimal for a more specialised build; I would hesitatingly disagree somewhat. After all, it's still very possible for S.Human to buy a 16 in a stat, even two, which is no worse than any other Race can achieve at 1st level; if SAD is the way to go, Human is not a lot worse off in that regard, if at all. All that is lacking from the Human is the other features; many of which (not all), I'll add, are ribbon features, niche or require a high degree of specialisation to exploit (which in turn can lead to further weaknesses). The Human Fighter with 14 Int might not have much of a better chance of Saving vs. that Intellect Devourer than the Half-Orc with his Int 8, but it's a higher chance nonetheless and if they both have Str,Dex,Con all at 14+, then neither is exactly slacking in their primary role. Sure, 5% of the time that Half-Orc hits a lot harder, but 15% of the times facing off against Intellect Devours, he's also had his brain eaten when the other has not. I know which I'd prefer to have when it counts. Aaaand that's kind of why the generalist can be an attractive option; when it matters he's got a slightly better chance at success at the cost of (possibly) being slightly worse when things are probably in the bag anyway.

To put it another way, if you're a melee monster dealing two-dozen damage on a regular basis, that's a pretty thing, but fairly useless if most of your foes only have 12HP; so where's the harm in lowering that 24 damage to, say, 16 and adding another tool to your belt than just being a blunt-force instrument of pain?

[Willie the Duck]

I think the standard human is more useful if your table rolls for stats and you end up with a bunch of odd numbers.
The usefulness of a general build vs specialized is very DM dependent.

I think this is my biggest complaint -- not that standard human is useless, but that the situation where it is useful (when you end up with a bunch of odd stats and when a diverse stat loadout will be useful to your specific character) is a niche situation -- and standard human ought (IMO) to be the general good choice when no other specific choice is specifically the right one.

Another issue is that Vuman is so tempting in a feat-supporting game (and the designers should have been able to predict that), and half-elf works so well with the also-turned-out-really-well-in-this-edition Charisma-based classes. So Vuman becomes the 'default choice' for a lot of builds, and half-elf is for ~ 1/3 of classes.


I think the advantage of the standard human is similar to that of the Champion Fighter: It is simple. Some players want very simple characters and it doesn’t get much simpler than “add 1 to each stat and that’s done and you don’t have to think about racial abilities ever again”.

So while there are better racial options I am still glad it is there as *an* option to serve that sub-group of players.

Agreed. That's why the only thing I might consider adding to standard human to boost them would be a few additional proficiencies (skills, tool, language, etc.).

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my experience (with lots of new players especially), people over-estimate the effect of ability scores. They consider having a +0 (or heaven forfend) a -1 to be a bar to taking an action. I see it in their faces and their actions--a disappointed "oh. I have a 0 in that". For those people, having a global increase in stats increases the chance that they'll feel confident participating across the board.

Another concern I have about the optimization guidelines is that they mainly consider what happens after the fancy builds come online, which is end of T2 at the earliest. And that's about where most people stop. If you look in the early game (which is the most-played part), having a broad foundation is better than building toward a specialization that isn't online yet.

Of course, this all doesn't mean that regular human is totally ok. I agree that it's weaker than it should be. But I don't think the gap (in reality, not white-room theorizing) is as large as it's made out to be. I use it for my new players (over V human) because it's simple and it's close enough. My players aren't optimizers, and I'm not a "push the bleeding edge of difficulty" type of DM, so it all works out just fine. The problems really only arise when you dial the difficulty up to 11, so everything must be optimized to a fare-thee-well. But I don't think that was the intended "normal style" of play, so :shrug:. YMMV.

[NaughtyTiger]

The standard human gets +1 to each of their ability scores. That's it. Now, the thing is, a typical build will only need either STR or DEX, CON, and one mental stat.

Respectfully I disagree with this statement.

PCs with an 8-9 in any score are a liability.

Low str or low dex are easy targets for grapple/restrain attacks, and general hazard when climbing or avoiding traps
Low Wis or Cha means you are susceptible to magical effects (Barb with 20 Str and 8 Wis is no threat)
Low Int... stumped by minor illusion.

It is defensive power, not offensive.

[MrStabby]

The trouble with standard human is that it is good at things that generally are bad. Your weird multiclass that needs 4 good stats or needing 13s in off-stats.

If you want to play a ranger/wizard multiclass then standard human can fit the bill. It doesn't follow that from an optimisation perspective anyone would recommend a ranger/wizard.

[Tanarii]

I find they're something like 1/4- 1/3 of the race picks IMC, which is no-feat (so no variant human) and no multiclassing. That's roughly on par with the resurrection table, so I take it as being within the expected results of the Devs. Or possibly within cosmic population ratios. :smallamused:

That's with standard array, so it surprises me. If I was running rolled dice and choose your race after, I'd expect a reasonable amount of humans, because there's a reasonable chance of 3+ odd scores. I guess it just goes to show that most people, even ones that come to gaming stores, don't make decisions primarily based on racial attributes. Or the internet's perception of balance.

I think I'll see if I can figure out the % chance of 3+ odd ability scores, as well as your highest 3 ability scores being odd, based on 4d6b3. If the answer to that is 1/4-1/3, then I'm going to go with "working as intended", given the default rules are: roll 4d6b3 or standard array, no feats, and no multiclassing.

[Particle_Man]

Agreed. That's why the only thing I might consider adding to standard human to boost them would be a few additional proficiencies (skills, tool, language, etc.).

Another option is to make them +2 to every stat instead of +1. Or if that is too weak for one’s campaign then change it to +n to every stat where n is powerful enough.

[Willie the Duck]

Another option is to make them +2 to every stat instead of +1. Or if that is too weak for one’s campaign then change it to +n to every stat where n is powerful enough.

Okay, sure. I think we're agreeing that it should be straightforward.

[zinycor]

Respectfully I disagree with this statement.

PCs with an 8-9 in any score are a liability.

Low str or low dex are easy targets for grapple/restrain attacks, and general hazard when climbing or avoiding traps
Low Wis or Cha means you are susceptible to magical effects (Barb with 20 Str and 8 Wis is no threat)
Low Int... stumped by minor illusion.

It is defensive power, not offensive.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that PCs with an score between 8-9 would be a liability. Sure, they have weaknesses, but if well built and played they would still be a valuable party member, absolutely dependable and useful.

[CTurbo]

I always offer Prodigy for free with the standard human and yes that means +2,1,1,1,1,1 to stats to start and still haven't had anyone choose it. I think that says something.

[Tanarii]

I always offer Prodigy for free with the standard human and yes that means +2,1,1,1,1,1 to stats to start and still haven't had anyone choose it. I think that says something.What's your player-base size?
(Not to disparage, trying to get an idea for reference.)

[Aprender]

I think the advantage of the standard human is similar to that of the Champion Fighter: It is simple. Some players want very simple characters and it doesn’t get much simpler than “add 1 to each stat and that’s done and you don’t have to think about racial abilities ever again”.

So while there are better racial options I am still glad it is there as *an* option to serve that sub-group of players.

Agreed. I rolled up 6 low, odd numbered stats recently for a wizard in a new campaign. In the end, standard human seemed like the best race for the character. It's not my go to (neither is rolling stats) and I'm not a player that needs simplicity, but it will serve me well enough that I'm glad it's an option.


Unrelated question: didn't you have a fight with triangle man? How'd it go?

[NNescio]

Whilst generally I agree, the smaller the party, the harder it is to make those specialisations broad enough to cover all the bases and hirelings/summons are not always a)available or b)effective. Yes, there are certain cases where specialisation increases your abilities in a more general sense (e.g. the Paladin, as you mentioned), but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Further, in particularly large parties, specialisations can already be covered by other characters and a more generalist style can become more useful; being a helpful tool for many masters is better than just being a second master of a single discipline, so to speak.

You pick Bard or Druid then. Both of these are pretty SAD despite making for good generalists. Or Monk if you want to play melee support (strong in a large party with many people to take advantage of Stunned), which while MAD, still wants three good stats (unlike SAD classes that want one good and two ancillary) instead of being average across the board. Or pick a DPR class like a Paladin or a Warlock or a Fighter, because more damage always works, and with a large enough party you can assume the other critical roles are already covered.

(Or pick a Wizard or some other battlefield control caster, to double up on BFCs with an existing caster. Combining two or more concentration spells that aren't meant to be combined together is outright crippling or even deadly to enemies. There are lots of situations where having "more masters" just make things better. Especially "more casters".)

As for specialization increasing one's ability in a general sense being an exception instead of the general rule... well, I disagree, because most casters can get a lot of important things to key off their casting stat (using spells to shore up or obviate weak stats). Bladesingers and Hexblade can also get a bunch of physical/martial stuff to key off their stat. 'Exceptions' are all over the place.




On the subject of S.Human being less optimal for a more specialised build; I would hesitatingly disagree somewhat. After all, it's still very possible for S.Human to buy a 16 in a stat, even two, which is no worse than any other Race can achieve at 1st level; if SAD is the way to go, Human is not a lot worse off in that regard, if at all.

Vuman is better then, but I concede it is technically a variant rule, even if common on these forums and most parts of the Internet (to the point of being considered a default assumption).

(And races with a +2 can get a 17 to their stat at CL 1, which then can become an 18 by purchasing a half feat at CL 4. Of course, feats are again a variant rule, but like Vumans it's also a common assumption most people take for granted on this forum and across the Internet.)

Though without considering 'variants', there's always the Half Elf, which gets two +1 (on top of a +2 to CHA) for two potential 16s, Darkvision, and two extra skill proficiencies on top. It's better than the Stuman even if CHA is your dump stat.



All that is lacking from the Human is the other features; many of which (not all), I'll add, are ribbon features, niche or require a high degree of specialisation to exploit (which in turn can lead to further weaknesses).
Darkvision isn't a ribbon feature (unless the DM handwaves lighting conditions or allows easy purchasing of those googles). It comes standard on most non-human races (those that don't have it have some other overt mechanical benefit). Lack of Darkvision has a strong impact on one's (and one's party's) playstyle. Resistances aren't either. Both increase survivability.




The Human Fighter with 14 Int might not have much of a better chance of Saving vs. that Intellect Devourer than the Half-Orc with his Int 8, but it's a higher chance nonetheless and if they both have Str,Dex,Con all at 14+, then neither is exactly slacking in their primary role. Sure, 5% of the time that Half-Orc hits a lot harder, but 15% of the times facing off against Intellect Devours, he's also had his brain eaten when the other has not.
I think the math is really off, but I don't feel like crunching it out. In any case, assuming a 50/50 chance of hitting, a +1 improves the relative chances of hitting by 10%, not 5%. And that's not counting the additional damage. You can't just generalize a +1 to a +5% across the board for all encounters — it's more valuable against high AC enemies, and that's when things have a tendency to matter more.

Also the Half Orc has Darkvision and is far less likely to get jumped by Intellect Devourers. And has better chances of one-shotting the Intellect Devourer in case the fighter decides to play 5e rocket tag with the Devourer instead of cowering behind the party Wizard.



I know which I'd prefer to have when it counts. Aaaand that's kind of why the generalist can be an attractive option; when it matters he's got a slightly better chance at success at the cost of (possibly) being slightly worse when things are probably in the bag anyway.

Early level combat isn't exactly in the bag, even against mook-type enemies. Actually not later level combat either, especially if you have lower stats.

The situations where a 'generalist' (defined as someone who just spreads stats around as opposed to a genuine generalist like a Bard) would come up ahead are rare (and made even rarer if you have competent spellcasters in your party that let you play Combat as War).



To put it another way, if you're a melee monster dealing two-dozen damage on a regular basis, that's a pretty thing, but fairly useless if most of your foes only have 12HP; so where's the harm in lowering that 24 damage to, say, 16 and adding another tool to your belt than just being a blunt-force instrument of pain?

Well, that 24 damage can knock out an Intellect Devourer while the 12 HP can't, right? More practically orcs, sahuagin, gnolls, lizardfolk (maybe some other 22 HP creatures I missed), black bears, et cetera.

Though I don't think most builds can regularly output 24 damage at character level 1~2, except for Vuman Barbarians who can get an extra attack from a feat (or lucky GWM). Or gishes using SCAGtrips.

But assuming average optimization, the Half Orc Fighter can output 11 damage more reliably (and hit more often) to one-shot most mooks found in early encounters. Thereby saving party resources (and being more likely to avoid the dreaded enemy-slipped-to-backline-and-ganked-our-Wizard situation). WIS/INT/CHA saves are not that likely to come up yet (sure, there are low-level enemy spellcasters, but even then you're better off trying to burst them down instead of weathering their spells, in which case the Half Orc performs better than the Stuman) and while having "another tool to my belt" is nice, it's not worth the opportunity cost considering how unlikely it is to come up.

With all that said, I don't think that all that optimization is necessary on most tables. A Stuman (martial) character can work out fine, especially for a newbie player who isn't used to keeping track of various racial abilities and spells. Moreso if Vumans aren't on the table. Or feats. Stumans are workable assuming the DM follows DMG encounter guidelines (which WotC seem to have a habit of actively ignoring when designing their adventures, what's with all those 4 x Deadly encounters they throw around, but I digress).

(But Half Elves will still make you jelly and wonder what WotC were thinking when they balanced Stumans against the rest of the PHB races.)

I just disagree strongly with the notion that a generalist character (again, someone who spreads stats around as opposed to a genuine generalist like a Bard) is more capable/survivable than an optimized specialist (outside of a few niche situations that I don't think matter), just because they suck less when their weaknesses are specifically targeted against. Those situations are not likely not come up unless the PCs have failed, and you don't plan to fail; you plan to leverage your strengths. So, yeah... I'm not buying the "you suck less when you suck" argument. It sounds like the many justifications for the 3.5e Monk, really.

(Apologies for the crude rewording [and the harsh tone on some of the other points], but eloquence has failed me this moment.)

[CTurbo]

What's your player-base size?
(Not to disparage, trying to get an idea for reference.)


4-6 usually



I think lack of darkvision plays a roll maybe as Half-Elf still dominates

[LudicSavant]

Standard human is weak because every different type of stat bonus you get will have diminishing returns compared to the last, even for the most MAD builds. If it even has any returns at all (since the probability of having every stat be odd is very low).

With Point Buy in particular, the way the math works out is that you will get a +1 modifier to your 6th-priority stat compared to a +2/+1 race. In some circumstances you might get a +1 to your 5th-priority stat, too. And that's it.

[GlenSmash!]

For Standard Array, S.Human is pretty naff compared to basically any other race, but for Point Buy, they can shine somewhat with a 13,13,13,13,13,10 array for a character with basically 14's across the board, or 15,13,13,13,10,9 if you really must have that +3 modifier at lvl.1 (hint: you don't, but I accept that some people think they do). In terms of point-spend that +1 to everything works out as 10-11pts of additional spend, as compared to (at most) 6pts for the standard +2/+1 that most Races get. That's nothing to sniff at. Is it worth sacrificing basically any other feature for? Debatable, but likely not.

This is where it truly shines. I was starting up a longbow/longsword Ranger the other day, that I wanted to be good decently good at Nature, and survival checks.

14,14,14,14,14,11 covered all the bases. I don't think he'll be a damage power house or a super skill monkey, but I think he can contribute a lot.

The trouble is, with a half-feat (probably resilient con) I could just as easily get 14,14,14,12,12,12 with Variant Human (plus another skill Proficiency) and I suspect that will end up being just as good in play.

[JellyPooga]

You pick Bard or Druid then.

We're not really talking about specific Classes here, but if you really want to; a Bard with all 14's is better at his non-specialised things than one who is min-maxed for 15's and 8's. That's why we're not talking about specific Classes; they're beside the point.


As for specialization increasing one's ability in a general sense being an exception instead of the general rule... well, I disagree, because most casters can get a lot of important things to key off their casting stat (using spells to shore up or obviate weak stats). Bladesingers and Hexblade can also get a bunch of physical/martial stuff to key off their casting stat. 'Exceptions' are all over the place.

Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Warlock are all Classes that whilst some can, mostly don't have some kind of workaround like you're talking about, not to mention specific subclasses or builds of the other Classes. That's more than half the Class list. Yeah, what you're talking about is exceptions, not the rule.


Darkvision isn't a ribbon feature (unless the DM handwaves lighting conditions or allows easy purchasing of those googles). It comes standard on most non-human races (those that don't have it have some other overt mechanical benefit). Lack of Darkvision has a strong impact on one's (and one's party's) playstyle. Resistances aren't either. Both increase survivability.

Sorry, but yeah, Darkvision is a ribbon. Largely because a lot of GMs handwave lighting in the first place (in large part because lighting is so trivially handwaved by e.g. torches or a cantrip), but also because Darkvision is...well, kind of crap. It's limited to 60' (or 120' for very very few creatures) and isn't great for living by (on account of not revealing details like colour, not to mention the lack of heat granting properties that other light sources have, like fire), meaning that most intelligent creatures, whether they have Darkvision or not, aren't sitting around in the dark. This means that dungeons, castles, houses, glades and basically any environment you can imagine adventuring in, except perhaps the Shadowfell (and even then I'm not entirely convinced)...will be lit, rendering the boons of Darkvision pretty thin and flexible...you know...like a ribbon. As for Resistances (seeing as you want to pick up on them specifically)...they're the very definition of niche use; you could literally go for entire campaigns having never used your Resistance to Poison or Fire and they're among the more common damage types, let alone resistance to, say, Lightning or Cold damage.


I think the math is really off, but I don't feel like crunching it out. In any case, assuming a 50/50 chance of hitting, a +1 improves the relative chances of hitting by 10%, not 5%. And that's not counting the additional damage. You can't just generalize a +1 to a +5% across the board for all encounters — it's more valuable against high AC enemies, and that's when things have a tendency to matter more.

So if you'd been paying attention, you'd probably realise that I wasn't talking about the Half-Orc having +1 to hit over the Human (because they can both have the same primary ability scores, like I said), but rather the 1/20 chance (5%) of the Half-Orc getting a crit (unless he's a Champion Fighter, I guess) and doing more damage than the Human because of Savage Attacks; that thing the Human doesn't have compared to the Half-Orc.


Also the Half Orc has Darkvision and is far less likely to get jumped by Intellect Devourers.

Nope, because of reasons mentioned above regarding Light/Darkvision and also because the Human has a higher probability of also having a higher Wisdom and thus, better Perception. Can we get off the specific example of an Intellect Devourer already?


Early level combat isn't exactly in the bag, even against mook-type enemies. Actually not later level combat either, especially if you have lower stats.

Most combat is in-the-bag; it's pretty much the definition of any combat encounter below Deadly difficulty. The PC's are supposed to win those fights and it takes a whole heap of screwing up to lose. You know, like failing a really important Saving Throw. By one. Isn't it really irritating when that happens? That one dice roll that really turns the tide. Unlike, say, whiffing that one attack. Of the two you had that turn. Or the twenty you made that fight. I don't mind missing an attack or two, compared to failing that Wis Save against Hold Person or the Con Save against the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze; anything I can get to boost those critical rolls I'll take. Taking a small hit to something I do all the time and mostly succeed at and/or will succeed at more often than not on average? That's not so bad because I can take the average. I can't afford to risk failure on things I do less frequently.


Well, that 24 damage can knock out an Intellect Devourer while the 12 HP can't, right? More practically orcs, sahuagin, gnolls, lizardfolk (maybe some other 22 HP creatures I missed), black bears, et cetera.

Though I don't think most builds can regularly output 24 damage at character level 1~2, except for Vuman Barbarians who can get an extra attack from a feat (or lucky GWM). Or gishes using SCAGtrips.

Wow. Can we stop picking up on really specific things. I threw the number 24 out there hypothetically. I'm not talking about Intellect Devourers, Orcs, Gnolls or any kind of specific build. It was a spit-ball number pulled from the nether regions of nowhere. It. was. an. example. I'll say it again; can we stop arguing over minutiae, or we're going to be here until the end of time. The specific number is irrelevant; the point is that if (i.e. IF, hypothetically, in a non-specific, unrelated, white room, example devoid of class, race or any other context) your character is dealing 24 damage against a majority of foes that only have 12HP, then reducing that damage output is small price to pay if (i.e. IF, hypothetically, etc. etc.) by doing so you can increase another factor to your benefit.


But assuming average optimization, the Half Orc Fighter can output 11 damage more reliably (and hit more often)

Let me stop you there. He doesn't. What he does have over the Human is Darkvision, Intimidation proficiency, "doesn't die" once a day and "hit real hard" sometimes (5% of the time, in fact, assuming he's not a Champion).


So, yeah... I'm not buying the "you suck less when you suck" argument.

Except it's not about "sucking less when you suck", so much as it is "sucking less at the things I'd otherwise suck at". The primary abilities of S.Human aren't at any disadvantage compared to any other Race.

[NNescio]

This is where it truly shines. I was starting up a longbow/longsword Ranger the other day, that I wanted to be good decently good at Nature, and survival checks.

14,14,14,14,14,11 covered all the bases. I don't think he'll be a damage power house or a super skill monkey, but I think he can contribute a lot.

The trouble is, with a half-feat (probably resilient con) I could just as easily get 14,14,14,12,12,12 with Variant Human (plus another skill Proficiency) and I suspect that will end up being just as good in play.

Or Half Elf.

[Damon_Tor]

Standard human is great for a really MAD concept. Like if you really want to multiclass between two classes which each require two different stats at 13. Four 13s (without neglecting con!) is a tall order, but a variant human is one of the best ways to make it happen.

[Dork_Forge]

They should come with more languages/skills that are free choices if they were really going to shine as a generalist class. Though I also thing Humans also suffer from the Darkvisoion imbalance, in 5e it's basically if you don't have Darkvision you're at a disadvantage (because sooo many races have it) rather than it just being a boon. No special racial abilities AND I don't get Darkvision like most other people?

[Pex]

For all the talk on magic weapons where a weapon +1 is boring so too is standard human boring.

[Particle_Man]

Unrelated question: didn't you have a fight with triangle man? How'd it go?

He leveled up on me. Then went on to fight Person Man but didn't level up because Person Man had too low a CR. Universe Man has too high a CR for anyone to challenge, so Triangle Man has plateau'd.

[Reevh]

I recently started a campaign that uses the Talent system rather than feats:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VvHtaIhUOam4VkNB_lSmn-olS_oQmIYU/view

This means that you can't take variant human and pick up a +1 to an ability score along with a feat like Heavy Armor Master or Elven Accuracy. Given that the Variant Human only gave 1 talent point (where a standard feat is the equivalent of 2 talent points), standard human became a lot more attractive in our point buy, and is ultimately what I went with.

[NNescio]

We're not really talking about specific Classes here, but if you really want to; a Bard with all 14's is better at his non-specialised things than one who is min-maxed for 15's and 8's. That's why we're not talking about specific Classes; they're beside the point.


Half Elf Bard, 16-16-16-10-8-8. Or 16-16-14-12-10-8, for those who feel uncomfortable dumping INT for roleplaying reasons (and/or grapple builds which swap STR for DEX). It's not like your weak stats are going to come up that often, because you're already overloaded with options. And you get two skill proficiencies ABOVE the Stuman, so really, put it in a dump stat and you'll still going to come ahead above the all 14 Stuman.

Moon Druid is like I-don't-care-about-stats except for Wis (okay Dex and Con too, but it matters less than other casters, and is the go-to-choice anyhow for people who manage to roll all bad <10 stats). It gets to do lots of stuff via animal forms. Can go Half Elf (don't care about CHA) if it wants two skill proficiencies to stack with animal forms. It's far from optimal compared to Wood Elf or other more Wis friendly races, but hey still better than poor old Stuman.


Aside:


a Bard with all 14's is better at his non-specialised things than one who is min-maxed for 15's and 8's.
Here's the thing; people don't usually go for 15-15-15-8-8-8 pre racial modifiers. It doesn't work well for most races. You are likely to see a 14 to take advantage of a racial +2 (unless they are planning to take a half feat at Level 4). Then maybe a 15 or a 13 to fit a racial +1 for the secondary stat, and a flat 14 for the tertiary.

And anyhow, for the 5th wheel PC, more specialists is usually better anyway (double Wizards, double/triple DPR classes, etc.). But Bards and Druids also make for good generalists, and they don't need flat 14 (plus one 11) across the board because they are already overloaded with options and can already contribute pretty effectively in myriad of party roles even if they have a 16 in their primary.



Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Warlock are all Classes that whilst some can, mostly don't have some kind of workaround like you're talking about, not to mention specific subclasses or builds of the other Classes. That's more than half the Class list. Yeah, what you're talking about is exceptions, not the rule.

5/12 ain't exceptions; it's a decent chunk of the classes. 1/3 ain't exceptions (that prove the rule) either, for that matter. And Warlock gets Hexlock anyway.




Sorry, but yeah, Darkvision is a ribbon. Largely because a lot of GMs handwave lighting in the first place (in large part because lighting is so trivially handwaved by e.g. torches or a cantrip), but also because Darkvision is...well, kind of crap. It's limited to 60' (or 120' for very very few creatures) and isn't great for living by (on account of not revealing details like colour, not to mention the lack of heat granting properties that other light sources have, like fire), meaning that most intelligent creatures, whether they have Darkvision or not, aren't sitting around in the dark. This means that dungeons, castles, houses, glades and basically any environment you can imagine adventuring in, except perhaps the Shadowfell (and even then I'm not entirely convinced)...will be lit, rendering the boons of Darkvision pretty thin and flexible...you know...like a ribbon.

Lighting doesn't cover every square feet of the areas (corridors and less commonly used halls aren't going to be lit 100%, moreso for Darkvision creatures). Then there's night time. And parties using stealth will stick to darker areas (and maybe even getting rid of stationary light sources) — lighting up in the darkness is pretty much screaming "SHOOT ME". It's pretty apparent even for places that are supposed to be well-lit, if the DM takes lighting into consideration at all times (especially when one uses OpenRPG or a VTT that dynamically recalculate vision, but experienced DMs can even do it on a physical tabletop).

I understand that some tables handwave things away, but it's not universal across all tables (on mine I have Humans frequently asking for the darkvision goggles, and party casters preparing Darkvision to help the Humans [and Dragonborns]). Hence it's far from being a ribbon ability.



As for Resistances (seeing as you want to pick up on them specifically)...they're the very definition of niche use; you could literally go for entire campaigns having never used your Resistance to Poison or Fire and they're among the more common damage types, let alone resistance to, say, Lightning or Cold damage.

Still more likely to come up then bad stats becoming relevant (like what, +10% chance to not fail when you're probably going to fail anyway? And is either something critical that you take all precautions [character build, tactics, item, etc.] to not have to roll in the first place, or inconsequential so you go "meh" anyway?).

Plus I was also including things like (Halfing's) Lucky and Gnome Cunning (hence "functional resistances", and why I pointed those examples in parentheses), which come up all the friggin' time.




So if you'd been paying attention, you'd probably realise that I wasn't talking about the Half-Orc having +1 to hit over the Human (because they can both have the same primary ability scores, like I said), but rather the 1/20 chance (5%) of the Half-Orc getting a crit (unless he's a Champion Fighter, I guess) and doing more damage than the Human because of Savage Attacks; that thing the Human doesn't have compared to the Half-Orc.

I thought we're assuming a 14-across-the-board Stuman (with one 11). Like, INT 14 was supposed to be the big deal. Though admittedly you can get 16-14-14-14-11-10, I guess.




Nope, because of reasons mentioned above regarding Light/Darkvision and also because the Human has a higher probability of also having a higher Wisdom and thus, better Perception.


With disadvantage in dim light (sources of light still have an additional dim light range), inability to see without light, yeah sure.

The party walks around every place with lanterns and torches blazing, not bothering with stealth whatsoever. I suppose we can go with that. Party Rogue shooting you dirty looks? Who cares!

And now we have, like what, a 12 or 14 in Wis on top of all the other stats? Ain't possible. Stop playing Schrödinger stats.

(Plus minmax builds can fit a 12 in Wis anyway, assuming a +2/+1 race and not reaching for a 17 in a primary to fit a half feat.)



Can we get off the specific example of an Intellect Devourer already?

Sure. I only brought that up because it's one of the few situations where a Fighter might want 14 INT.




Most combat is in-the-bag; it's pretty much the definition of any combat encounter below Deadly difficulty. The PC's are supposed to win those fights and it takes a whole heap of screwing up to lose.

Still drain resources; hitdice, spells, items, etc. Finishing the fights more effectively lets you save on resources that you can use on the big fight.

Though I suppose it matters much less if one runs 1~4 encounters instead of the suggested 6~8 (which is admittedly exhausting without digital aids [or rapid precalculated math], but the DM an always bump up the encounter difficulty to compensate.



You know, like failing a really important Saving Throw. By one. Isn't it really irritating when that happens? That one dice roll that really turns the tide. Unlike, say, whiffing that one attack. Of the two you had that turn. Or the twenty you made that fight. I don't mind missing an attack or two, compared to failing that Wis Save against Hold Person or the Con Save against the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze; anything I can get to boost those critical rolls I'll take. Taking a small hit to something I do all the time and mostly succeed at and/or will succeed at more often than not on average? That's not so bad because I can take the average. I can't afford to risk failure on things I do less frequently.

Doesn't happen that often. Wizard running out of spell slots (for Dispel Magic/Counterspell, plus game-changer BFCs ones) for that critical encounter because you didn't finish the earlier one that is supposed to be "in the bag" quick enough and she has to blow another spell? Or Cleric because he has to blow a slot on healing? Yeah, happens more often.


or the Con Save against the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze; anything I can get to boost those critical rolls I'll take.
CON Save? Nobody dumps CON. It's usually at least a tertiary stat. Aside from weird multiclass builds.

WIS? Well, most people (well, optimizers) don't dump it either, because passive perception. it's going to be around 10, or maybe 12 (for those who aren't comfortable with two 8s).

INT and CHA? Dump stats. They few times they come up can be crippling, but they almost never come up. Not usually worth the opportunity cost — you just hope your casters have some sort of countermeasure ready if it does.

(INT investigation checks against illusions? That's what your Wizard is for out-of-combat. Or CHA arcanist if you don't have a Wizard, or Rogue, for less optimized parties. And while in-combat it might make sense for the INT 8 barbarian/fighter to be befuddled by an illusion, experience dealing with illusions and a few lessons from the party arcanist will usually fix the issue for future encounters.

Plus in-combat even high INT PCs don't usually waste their action Investigating a suspected illusion. They just shoot through it. Or work around the illusion.)

STR for most casters, because while getting grappled/restrained/proned sucks, they usually have a spell or class feature to get around that (teleports, usually. But shapechanging also works).




Wow. Can we stop picking up on really specific things. I threw the number 24 out there hypothetically. I'm not talking about Intellect Devourers, Orcs, Gnolls or any kind of specific build. It was a spit-ball number pulled from the nether regions of nowhere. It. was. an. example. I'll say it again; can we stop arguing over minutiae, or we're going to be here until the end of time. The specific number is irrelevant; the point is that if (i.e. IF, hypothetically, in a non-specific, unrelated, white room, example devoid of class, race or any other context) your character is dealing 24 damage against a majority of foes that only have 12HP, then reducing that damage output is small price to pay if (i.e. IF, hypothetically, etc. etc.) by doing so you can increase another factor to your benefit.

But that hypothetical is irrelevant. Because it's mathematically unsound and unlikely to come up in a table (barring houserules/homebrews).




Let me stop you there. He doesn't. What he does have over the Human is Darkvision, Intimidation proficiency, "doesn't die" once a day and "hit real hard" sometimes (5% of the time, in fact, assuming he's not a Champion).

Let me stop you there, stop playing Schrödinger stats.



Except it's not about "sucking less when you suck", so much as it is "sucking less at the things I'd otherwise suck at".

Still like the 3.5e monk.



The primary abilities of S.Human aren't at any disadvantage compared to any other Race.
For most stuff, even at low optimization levels? Pick Half Elf, ignore the +2 CHA if you don't need the stat (yes, really), and enjoy your extra skill proficiencies which are going to be far more relevant than the extra Stuman stats (which, when compared to a +2/+1 race, only amounts to an extra +1 modifier in your 6th priority stat and maybe a +1 on your 5th, as mentioned by Ludic). And Darkvision without fiddling around with lights (and extended sight range without Disadvantage if you do). All of which makes for far more fun play.

Stuman is weak. When a Half Elf can show you up at your game even when ignoring its (arguably) strongest feature, you know there is a balance problem.

[ad_hoc]

For those arguing popularity it is worth pointing out that the data I have seen shows that standard human is the most popular race.

[Zuras]

Respectfully I disagree with this statement.

PCs with an 8-9 in any score are a liability.

Low str or low dex are easy targets for grapple/restrain attacks, and general hazard when climbing or avoiding traps
Low Wis or Cha means you are susceptible to magical effects (Barb with 20 Str and 8 Wis is no threat)
Low Int... stumped by minor illusion.

It is defensive power, not offensive.


In 5e this isn’t really the case. If you are using standard array/point buy you still won’t be able to pump all of your saves reliably above the danger zone of failing a DC 13 save 50% of the time. You can address a weak save with Resilient, but the stat bonuses from a +1 to every stat aren’t going to move the needle.

[JellyPooga]

Stuman is weak.

Sigh. I keep knocking my head against this wall, trying to make some kind of argument that S.Human isn't as bad as people make out, but I will fully admit that it's a weak one at best (hence my employment of filthy debate tricks that anyone with half a brain will see through, as you did). Even the stat array thing doesn't work out all that well; if you go beyond Mr.14's and "keep pace" with a 16 or two, then the S.Human just bleeds from that 5-6pt lead really very quickly. Let's look at some arrays:

(A) 13,13,13,13,13,10
(B) 15,13,13,13,10,9
(C) 15,15,13,10,9,9

(A) is great for any S.Human; those +1's into +2's really look tasty across the board.
(B) is pretty good for a SAD Class and is still rocking mostly +2's and no -ves.
(C) ...well (C) looks more like a stat array better suited to a +2/+1 Race; knock the 15 down to a 14 and throw the two spare points into the 9's for an array that the S.Human is really only benefiting from +1 to that 13...which is hardly worth what the S.Human loses in features compared to others. What's even worse is you can do something similar with (B) without losing too much as well, which means that outside of rolling, (A) is literally the only array worth going S.Human for.

I'll stand by All-14's...I think s/he's a solid grounding for any character build without losing out too much trying to force those 16's at lvl.1 and gains a decent enough bonus from those +2's to secondary/tertiary stats to make it worth it, but beyond that, I will concede the argument. I guess I was just hoping for any new evidence or niche that might come to light with some fresh eyes on the subject.

[NNescio]

Sigh. I keep knocking my head against this wall, trying to make some kind of argument that S.Human isn't as bad as people make out, but I will fully admit that it's a weak one at best (hence my employment of filthy debate tricks that anyone with half a brain will see through, as you did). Even the stat array thing doesn't work out all that well; if you go beyond Mr.14's and "keep pace" with a 16 or two, then the S.Human just bleeds from that 5-6pt lead really very quickly. Let's look at some arrays:

(A) 13,13,13,13,13,10
(B) 15,13,13,13,10,9
(C) 15,15,13,10,9,9

(A) is great for any S.Human; those +1's into +2's really look tasty across the board.
(B) is pretty good for a SAD Class and is still rocking mostly +2's and no -ves.
(C) ...well (C) looks more like a stat array better suited to a +2/+1 Race; knock the 15 down to a 14 and throw the two spare points into the 9's for an array that the S.Human is really only benefiting from +1 to that 13...which is hardly worth what the S.Human loses in features compared to others. What's even worse is you can do something similar with (B) without losing too much as well, which means that outside of rolling, (A) is literally the only array worth going S.Human for.

I'll stand by All-14's...I think s/he's a solid grounding for any character build without losing out too much trying to force those 16's at lvl.1 and gains a decent enough bonus from those +2's to secondary/tertiary stats to make it worth it, but beyond that, I will concede the argument. I guess I was just hoping for any new evidence or niche that might come to light with some fresh eyes on the subject.

I guess if one wants to go for complicated multiclass builds (plus "yoink a limited class feature" feats like Ritual Caster) that require a lot of 13s in different stats, then the multiple +1s (going to 14's or otherwise) might be very worthwhile? Maybe there is a multiclass build out there that has enough synergy to justify the MADness, at least for whatever role (niche as it may be) the build is optimizing for. Even not right now, well, maybe one day there is a splatbook or UA combo that can make it work... somehow.

Edit:

I also concede that the +2's can be decent at Level 1 for low optimization 'jack-of-all-trades' character concepts. Sure, the Half Elf takes most of its thunder out, but newbie players might not know which skills to go for, so +2 to most things provide a decent safety net for them to try out a variety of things.

But I'd still balk a bit at recommending it to newbies because it doesn't scale that well at higher levels. Maybe if feats aren't at play so there's no pressure to trade ASIs for feats, but even then there's the looming spectre of the half elf with scaling proficiencies.

(As for general use, eh, don't feel like arguing any further. I concede that there is decent utility at least for level 1. There might be better optimization options especially for Vumans with early feats, but it wouldn't matter as much for low optimization tables.)

Edit2:

(And I admit that Stumans are also more attractive if the character concept requires [or meshes better with] well-rounded stats, like what Coffee_Dragon mentions.)

[Coffee_Dragon]

They should come with more languages/skills that are free choices if they were really going to shine as a generalist class.

One thing that's easy to miss is that in any setting where Common is not "the human language" (e.g. FR), humans get "the human language" (e.g. typically Chondathan in FR) for free in addition to Common. The PHB doesn't spell this out, but the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does. Note that this also means non-humans have to spend a background language just to be able to talk and understand the everyday human language spoken on the streets of Waterdeep or Baldur's Gate or wherever instead of having to always communicate in pidgin like the foolish freaks they are. Nobody should play a non-human.

I actually considered using standard human instead of variant for a monk based on a fictional character with fairly well-rounded stats. It would have met all the minimum requirements I set, except I would have had to lower one of the primary, secondary or tertiary stats. So on one side of the scales there's -1 to hit and damage for every attack (ouch), -1 to Stunning Strike save DC (ouch), or CON below 14 (twinge). And on the other side there's being slightly less true to an arbitrary mechanical interpretation, based on scattered parts of a jumbled franchise, of a character that nobody else around the table knows or cares about. Standard human didn't win that battle.

[LudicSavant]

For those arguing popularity it is worth pointing out that the data I have seen shows that standard human is the most popular race.

The data I've seen suggests that humans are the most popular race in multiplayer RPGs in general regardless of their mechanics.

[ad_hoc]

The data I've seen suggests that humans are the most popular race in multiplayer RPGs in general regardless of their mechanics.

I didn't say that wasn't true.

I do think it is noteworthy that standard human is more popular than variant human.

[Greywander]

In my experience (with lots of new players especially), people over-estimate the effect of ability scores.
What you're saying here is that the standard human's only racial trait is over-estimated. I'd agree, to a degree, that ability scores are often over-estimated in their importance, as I think you can have a perfectly functional character whose highest stat is a 16. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be better with an 18 or 20. And because of the way the math works out, each +1 to a roll becomes worth more the more of them you have. If I need to roll an 11 pass (50% chance), then a +1 increases my odds of success by 10% (from 50% to 45% is a 10% decreased chance of failure). If I need a 19 (10% chance to fail), then a +1 increases my odds by 50% (5% chance to fail). This is another reason why specializing is more optimal than generalizing.


I think the advantage of the standard human is similar to that of the Champion Fighter: It is simple. Some players want very simple characters and it doesn’t get much simpler than “add 1 to each stat and that’s done and you don’t have to think about racial abilities ever again”.

So while there are better racial options I am still glad it is there as *an* option to serve that sub-group of players.
This is a good point, and something I noted in the OP. It's why I'm leery of adding a trait that requires more choices from the player, although an extra skill or so might be fine. But it should be something players don't have to think about too much, or actively use.

What about something like giving standard humans an extra attunement slot? It creates a sort of inversion of the variant human. The Vhuman is good at the early levels, as they're the only ones who can have a feat. At later levels, the Vhuman drops off, and if you put an ASI into CHA it becomes strictly worse than half-elf. Magic items, on the other hand, don't usually come into play until around the mid levels. You're unlikely to fill up all your attunement slots until later on, but at that point standard human, with an extra attunement slot, would somewhat overtake the other races. It's something unique that no other race has, and it doesn't require the player to make any decisions until they're already experienced playing their character.

[Nagog]

Regular Humans are better for tables that roll stats, as you're much more likely to have odd numbered stats there to bump your bonus, or if you're planning a VERY MAD build.

[Tanarii]

IMO one thing to take into account is in-world racial bias..

If Humans aren't the majority race in your world, or if non-human races face slim to no bias, then standard humans probably could stand to get a bit of a buff.

Also, does anyone that plays with feats actually NOT use variant human by default? It seems like they go hand in hand. Of course, in that case you almost need in-world bias against humans to balance it out. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, does anyone that plays with feats actually NOT use variant human by default? It seems like they go hand in hand. Of course, in that case you almost need in-world bias against humans to balance it out. :smallamused:

I do with the kids. Because the last thing I want to introduce when I'm building characters in parallel with 4-6 brand new teenagers on a tight schedule (need to make all decisions within an hour starting from scratch) is yet another multi-factor decision point...

[IStillDream]

As others have said, there are certainly edge cases where it’s at least a solid choice.

The other day I was using the Matt Colville character generation method (4d6 drop low in order, then pick race and class) and got the following:

15 STR
11 DEX
13 CON
7 INT
14 WIS
17CHA

My brain immediately jumped to a “Captain Hammer”-inspired Swords Bard, and for that character and this many odd rolls, I do think I’m better off going standard than variant—bumping up both the stats I’ll be attacking/casting with, and the ones (Dex and Con) that will be keeping me alive, and taking that INT from a -2 to a -1, I think all of that probably beats the impact of a feat.

Now, arguably the optimal choice for these stats is *half elf*, but that didn’t fit my concept for the character as well, and I don’t think I’ll have any regrets going in this direction.

I don’t disagree at all though that it should come with something else—bonus skills or tools is a great way to go. After all, real world humans are set apart by tool use.

[Particle_Man]

I didn't say that wasn't true.

I do think it is noteworthy that standard human is more popular than variant human.

Do the stats take into account that some
DMs don’t allow variant humans as an option for players?

[Fable Wright]

Let's see how the races are balanced, with 1 feat-equivalent being equal to 2 stat points:

Standard Human: Equal to 3 feats, for six stat points.
Mountain Dwarf: Equal to 4 feats, for +2 Con, Weapon Master feat, Medium Armor Proficiency feat (both of which encompass the +2 Str), and about a feat for Darkvision, Poison Resist, and Stonecunning.
Wood Elf: Equal to three feats. +2 Dex, +1 Wis, about a feat's worth in Darkvision + Mask of the Wild + Weapons Training, and everything else is rolled up in about half a feat.
Half-Elf: Equal to about 3.5 feats, 4 stat points; plus a feat and a half's worth for Skill Versatility, Darkvision, and Fey Ancestry.
Fire Genasi: Equal to three feats. +3 stat adjustments, and about 1.5 feats in Fire Resistance, Darkvision, and Weak Magic Initiate.
Variant Human: Equal to 2.5 feats. +2 stats, 1 feat, plus a half feat for language and skill.

On paper, Shuman looks as strong as the other races... except that it's a lot weaker than it appears, much like the Mountain Dwarf. The +2 Strength boost or the weapons & armor are probably going to be wasted, making it about 3 feat equivalent. Shuman is going to get probably around 1.5 feat's worth of benefits out of the race, which is not great.

Variant Human, of course, is incredibly popular among these despite having less stuff. It's because you're guaranteed to use all of that 2.5 feat benefit, while you're probably not going to be using Weapons Training and Mask of the Wild and Fleet of Foot all in the same build, bringing Wood Elf down to about the same power level as Vhuman, but less customizable.

In short, yeah, Shuman is pretty bad, especially with Eberron material on the table making the three relevant +1s plus bonus stuff an option. Bumping it up to three +2s would in theory bring it up to par with Vhuman , and enable some funky half-feat builds, but who knows how well that'd actually play?

[Greywander]

I do with the kids. Because the last thing I want to introduce when I'm building characters in parallel with 4-6 brand new teenagers on a tight schedule (need to make all decisions within an hour starting from scratch) is yet another multi-factor decision point...
This is a good point as well. I like to houserule that everyone gets a feat at 1st level (Vhumans get two), but that's because I'm familiar with the rules and it's hard to make 1st level characters stand out. Despite any apparent complexity in character creation, there aren't actually a lot of choices to be made, and two 1st level characters with the same class are going to look very similar. Having that extra choice can greatly broaden the number of distinguishable builds, and a lot of feats play very well toward character concepts or backstories that would make less sense to get later on rather than right at the start. Maybe your shtick is that you're playing a diplomat, so you take Linguist because you can speak a lot of languages. Something like that. But for new players, they have enough to deal with without introducing that extra level of complexity.

Going back to the standard human, I think the best option might be to offer a couple of subraces that each add on to the bonuses a normal human gets. Let's remember that humans are meant for generalist characters, so these should be viable for just about any build. We're also interested in options that require minimal choice-making and won't put more of a strain on new players.

Option 1 - Pure Generalist

Proficient. You are proficient with one skill and one tool of your choice. You also know one additional language.

Combat Training. You are proficient with simple weapons and light armor.

Automatic simple weapons and light armor makes it a bit easier for classes that don't get those, like wizard. In reality, it makes little difference, as any class without full simple weapon proficiency can use cantrips instead, and those without at least light armor have something else that is just as good (like Mage Armor).

This option is also very similar to the "free Prodigy" option, sans the expertise, but with weapon and armor proficiencies.

Option 2 - Mixed Breed

Toughness. Your hitpoint maximum increases by 1, and it increases by 1 every time you gain a level.

Keen Senses. You have proficiency with the Perception skill.

Lucky. When you roll a 1 on an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new result.

This option takes three individual traits from the other three common races, and mixes them together into one. One of the key points of this option is that there are zero other choices to be made, and each of the traits granted are passive. Perfect for someone who doesn't want to think a lot about building a character. Might be a bit too strong, though.

Option 3 - Magic Items

Human Spirit. You can attune to one additional magic item.

This is like an inversion of the Vhuman. The Vhuman is really good early on because they get a feat before everyone else, and get diminishing returns thereafter. Magic items, on the other hand, generally aren't acquired until a few levels in, and you probably won't fill all your attunement slots until a bit later. But getting that extra magic item can make for a much stronger character. It's probably similar to getting an extra feat, so seeing the benefit later is a suitable exchange for getting a buff to all ability scores now (rather than just two of them).

Again, this requires no further choices at character creation, and works passively. By the time you get more than four magic items, the player should be experienced enough that they can choose between them, and if anything this trait will slightly delay them needing to make those choices.

Option 4 - Backgrounds, Plural

Human Versatility. You may choose a second background. This background only grants you one of its skills, one of its tools or languages, and its background feature.

A unique and decidedly human trait. You get an extra skill and tool/language, but also an extra background feature. No other character gets to choose two backgrounds, so this could be interesting, albeit a bit of a ribbon. It does require more choices, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a good point as well. I like to houserule that everyone gets a feat at 1st level (Vhumans get two), but that's because I'm familiar with the rules and it's hard to make 1st level characters stand out. Despite any apparent complexity in character creation, there aren't actually a lot of choices to be made, and two 1st level characters with the same class are going to look very similar. Having that extra choice can greatly broaden the number of distinguishable builds, and a lot of feats play very well toward character concepts or backstories that would make less sense to get later on rather than right at the start. Maybe your shtick is that you're playing a diplomat, so you take Linguist because you can speak a lot of languages. Something like that. But for new players, they have enough to deal with without introducing that extra level of complexity.


While two 1st level characters of the same class will look similar mechanically (except Fighters and Clerics who can vary quite a bit), they can and will look very very different as characters. And to me, mechanics aren't that important for characterization. Who the character is will make much more of a difference for the campaign than what numbers are highest.

Take two characters. Same build (1st level S Human fighter, wearing heavy armor with the Defense style and SnB).
Solid Fred, a Folk Hero who is a generally good guy that loves animals, puts himself in harm's way to protect his friends, talks in a folksy accent, and generally helps people out.

Sir Jaime the Proud, a Noble who is fighting to get his family restored to power and cares very little for the people they encounter (except to the degree they serve that goal), who will use any means necessary, talks in a arrogant, educated way, and is generally a snot.

I'd say these are completely different characters, despite being exactly mechanically identical. Mechanics are only a small part of the character. Focusing on mechanics first, especially in a "if it's not optimal it's useless" mentality, leads to severely restricted builds, which is exactly what you see.

It doesn't matter what options you give--there will always be an optimal solution. And that, under that mentality, will become the only viable solution. It's why fighting games have to constantly shake up the meta, because there is one true "winning style" at any point in time and it's rapidly found and exploited. Instead, to actually have diversity you have to break that mindset.

I see a huge variety of class/race combos. Because my players aren't optimization focused. They still have fun, more fun than if they had to only pick the "optimal" ones. I get to have the little tiny, super shy girl playing the 6'5" dragonborn barbarian. I get the tiefling druids who are all about causing chaos and eating things/people in bear form. I get to have the fighter who maybe made 20 weapon attacks during the entire campaign because he was always looking for other tactics. I get to have parties like
* aasimar rogue
* dragonborn barbarian
* S human paladin
* soulforged (basically warforged) fighter
* wood elf ranger
* half elf bard...going valor or swords

Or my other party--
* goblin bard
* goliath paladin
* high elf rogue (Assassin/archery)
* water genasi tempest cleric

And get to fit them all into the world with a narrative that makes sense. A goliath with DEX/INT focus just doesn't make too much sense--they're 7' tall and built like rocks. They're naturally going to be stronger/sturdier than most. A high elf without +INT doesn't make sense--the whole culture is based around breeding/training better wizards. Etc.

[FabulousFizban]

standard human is good with a standard array if you have a weird build that multiclasses at least 3 times, because you get an extra 13 - the prerequisite score for leaving one class and entering another. otherwise, yeah, variant human is waaay better.

[loki_ragnarock]

Standard human is great for a really MAD concept. Like if you really want to multiclass between two classes which each require two different stats at 13. Four 13s (without neglecting con!) is a tall order, but a variant human is one of the best ways to make it happen.

They also make for decent fighters with diverse interests; when making a character who can function in multiple arenas, that diversity can be useful. People keep poo-pooing generalists, and, yes, D&D is a bit of a team sport. But if I'm playing a fighter who wants to participate in the social and exploration pillars without accidentally sandbagging the people who are best at it, then a standard human can be an option. Not the best option, but an option. Half-elf is still (probably) better by virtue of how well charisma synergizes with multi-class concepts, but I'm not sure that was a design intention at the outset. Given how half-elves present, I'd hazard a guess that in an earlier revision the secondary features of V. Human (+skill/language) were originally baked into the standard human and abandoned.

However, I think it was abandoned with good reason; having a vanilla option with nothing to keep track of is a good thing to include, even if it isn't optimal. A new player looking to keep from being overwhelmed who looks at "+1 to everything" and thinks "oh, that's easy" is going to avoid being driven off by the complex rules interactions of previous editions and get straight into the playing make believe that's the real heart of the game. It's not optimal, but it's friendly, which might be some small part of why the player base is so high these days.

S. Human is great game design.

Even if Half-Elf is better.

(And even if Dragon Born are worse.)

[LudicSavant]

People keep poo-pooing generalists Eh, I really don't think they do. Optimizers love versatility. And if standard human actually gave you much versatility, then optimizers would be all over it. But it doesn't, so they aren't.

Half-Elf is a perfect example of that, actually.

[ad_hoc]

I'd say these are completely different characters, despite being exactly mechanically identical. Mechanics are only a small part of the character. Focusing on mechanics first, especially in a "if it's not optimal it's useless" mentality, leads to severely restricted builds, which is exactly what you see.

This is where I see most people coming from on this board.

Choose mechanics and then find theme to justify those mechanics.

The other way is to choose theme and then find mechanics to create that theme.

This is where we get the '5e is restrictive' complaints. But also the propositions for 'retheming' different rules and so on.

I'm not saying it's wrong to take that approach, it's just going to create friction as 5e is designed theme/narrative first. The designers care about who a character is and then make the mechanics after rather than having mechanics goals and then fitting themes in. This is why we have 3 charisma, 2 wisdom, and 1 intelligence spellcaster rather than 2,2,2. We have lots of disparities like that because if there wasn't a narrative call to create something it wasn't created.

So we are left with some people who think there are holes or problems with the rules because mechanical archetypes aren't filled in.

It's just something that goes hand in hand with 5e.

(exceptions occur, such as the Hexblade, which I think is awful design in part because it isn't created narrative first.)

[Ironheart]

I would only change one thing to S.Human, to make it a bit more choice intensive but more beginner friendly.

Instead of +1 to all stats, standard humans should +1 to four stats, and gain an additional ASI at level 4. It’s the same point total, but it accomplishes the same focus on power as the V.Human- That is, getting two feats by Level 4.
Then all of a sudden the extra 2 points in stats becomes more of a trade-off for extra skill proficiencies and languages rather than grabbing a character defining feat.

This also gives standard humans the ability to get a stat to 20 by level 4- something that would be powerful for many classes.

It’s more beginner friendly because it comes at level 4- when the payer has gotten a chance to see what they like and choose their archetype, and give them a sizable boost to patch up mistakes in building their character and playing up to their strengths.

This has been a spontaneous hotfix by a lurker-

[Pex]

As others have said, there are certainly edge cases where it’s at least a solid choice.

The other day I was using the Matt Colville character generation method (4d6 drop low in order, then pick race and class) and got the following:

15 STR
11 DEX
13 CON
7 INT
14 WIS
17CHA

My brain immediately jumped to a “Captain Hammer”-inspired Swords Bard, and for that character and this many odd rolls, I do think I’m better off going standard than variant—bumping up both the stats I’ll be attacking/casting with, and the ones (Dex and Con) that will be keeping me alive, and taking that INT from a -2 to a -1, I think all of that probably beats the impact of a feat.

Now, arguably the optimal choice for these stats is *half elf*, but that didn’t fit my concept for the character as well, and I don’t think I’ll have any regrets going in this direction.

I don’t disagree at all though that it should come with something else—bonus skills or tools is a great way to go. After all, real world humans are set apart by tool use.

I can sympathize with having so many odd scores standard human is tempting. I did the same thing for a barbarian. I still think it's boring, but it is tempting which I had succumbed. I really wanted to play a barbarian, but I would never do it in Point Buy. The rolls gave me a comfortable array, but that's a different topic. Anyway, I can agree with others standard human is helpful in this niche of multiple odd rolled scores. That means it's not completely useless, but it doesn't make it a valuable choice in general.

[Danielqueue1]

Rolled for stats, rolled really quite well, decided to go for an unusual build. Had 5 odd stats. Looking at all of the options, S. Human was boring, but practical. I built a barbarian wizard and having +1to every ability check attack roll and saving throw may not be flashy, but there was no other race (UA and monstrous races were not allowed) that gave better benefits to the set up.

I know that my build is an edge case, but the stars alighned. A strange MAD build, decent enough stat rolls to make any stat revelant, and odd numbers everywhere made it so if I picked any other race I would be hamstringing my self especially if I picked half-elf and gave myself a +2 to the only stat that didn't matter much to the character.

Str attacks
Dex AC and saves (went with medium armor so getting a 14 at character creation was nice.)
Con Everybody wants some
Wis perception and saving throws even got reilient for the saves. (no faster way to stop a normal barbarian than wis saves)
Int wizard.
Cha never going to use it for class features, never going to increase it, but still have a bonus in it and can still intimidate, lie, and persuade meaningfully.

[ezekielraiden]

Yeah, I don't think it's really all that controversial that standard Human (and Dragonborn) both kinda suck relative to the other picks--but note the "relative." That is, a standard Human is completely playable, and as others have noted it has edge cases where it does good things (e.g. a Bard or Hexblade likes having good Cha and several other decent stats, so a PB array with lots of odd numbers is nice for it). It's just that the gap is really noticeable between them and other options--even just Half-Elf or High Elf.

It's honestly one of the more disappointing aspects of the game. Particularly given the popularity of both races; at this point, it seems like the majority of parties that get discussed online (both Critical Role-style podcast play, and more incidental things like the Animated Spellbook) have a Dragonborn in the party.

[Teaguethebean]

Respectfully I disagree with this statement.

PCs with an 8-9 in any score are a liability.

Low str or low dex are easy targets for grapple/restrain attacks, and general hazard when climbing or avoiding traps
Low Wis or Cha means you are susceptible to magical effects (Barb with 20 Str and 8 Wis is no threat)
Low Int... stumped by minor illusion.

It is defensive power, not offensive.

But having a -1 as apposed to a +0 is a 5% diffrence. That means almost nothing.
but a barbarian with a 9 in wisdom becasue they are a V.Human and took resilient wisdom has a far better chance of surviving a mental attack especially at higher levels than our bog standard human.

[Teaguethebean]

Human Versatility. You may choose a second background. This background only grants you one of its skills, one of its tools or languages, and its background feature.

A unique and decidedly human trait. You get an extra skill and tool/language, but also an extra background feature. No other character gets to choose two backgrounds, so this could be interesting, albeit a bit of a ribbon. It does require more choices, though.

I am stealing this, this is golden.

[Bjarkmundur]

My favourite human comes from 4e, so of course I use a 5e port. I do love the extra background though.

Human Credit: Kane0
There’s a saying amongst dwarves, “A human always finds a way, and always goes too far.''
Speed: 30 feet
Languages: Common, one other
Bonus Skill
Human Determination: Before you roll an attack, ability check or saving throw you can choose to gain advantage on the roll. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.
Bonus Feat: Humans are an ambitious race, and learn fast. At 4th level, you gain a bonus feat.

[MrStabby]

If I were to use a "fix" for standard human I would suggest something like +1 to three stats if your choice. Any ability checks you make with those stats you mad add half your proficiency bonus to, if you are not proficient.

A broad stat boost and a little Jack of all trades, more in line with the champion than the bard.

[MThurston]

Coming from the first post with the claim that humans are for beginners.

Humans basically get three feats out into stats to start the game.

They are really strong if you roll your stats and 4+ are odd numbers.

Humans are not a weak race, they just don't have any bells or whistles unless you go VHuman.

[ad_hoc]

Yeah, I don't think it's really all that controversial that standard Human (and Dragonborn) both kinda suck relative to the other picks--but note the "relative." That is, a standard Human is completely playable, and as others have noted it has edge cases where it does good things (e.g. a Bard or Hexblade likes having good Cha and several other decent stats, so a PB array with lots of odd numbers is nice for it). It's just that the gap is really noticeable between them and other options--even just Half-Elf or High Elf.

It's honestly one of the more disappointing aspects of the game. Particularly given the popularity of both races; at this point, it seems like the majority of parties that get discussed online (both Critical Role-style podcast play, and more incidental things like the Animated Spellbook) have a Dragonborn in the party.

Dragonborn aren't weak it's just, for people who care about this sort of thing, most of them don't want both Strength and Charisma.

[LudicSavant]

Dragonborn are weaker than basically everything else that competes for their +Str/Cha niche (Half-Elf, VHuman, Fallen Aasimar, Triton, Zariel Tiefling).

[ad_hoc]

Dragonborn are weaker than basically everything else that competes for their +Str/Cha niche (Half-Elf, VHuman, Fallen Aasimar, Triton, Zariel Tiefling).

They're close enough to be fine.

In any set one of them will be the weakest one.

[Envoy]

I always make my monks these. I don’t really know why but once I multiclassed from paladin to monk and oh boy human was so useful. I gotta assert that they do work well with the MAD concepts. In trying to make light of them, they have their place as a skillmonkey or bard. And they work well in very “civilized” campaigns because they are common enough not to turn heads, and can make you better liked. Just a good vanilla race in my opinion, with its niches.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In any set one of them will be the weakest one.

And as soon as you get rid of the weakest one...there will be another weakest one. Until only one remains for each niche. And this is true unless all are mechanically identical.

At some point you just have to say enough is enough and realize that you're well below the noise floor and all the comparisons are pointless. Or change the mindset and build characters first and then worry about optimization.

[Pex]

And as soon as you get rid of the weakest one...there will be another weakest one. Until only one remains for each niche. And this is true unless all are mechanically identical.

At some point you just have to say enough is enough and realize that you're well below the noise floor and all the comparisons are pointless. Or change the mindset and build characters first and then worry about optimization.

Valid, but a counterpoint is having the forethought of taking away the weakest that isn't good and stop when the new weakest is good enough.

This statement is of no reflection on my opinion on dragonborn that started this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Valid, but a counterpoint is having the forethought of taking away the weakest that isn't good and stop when the new weakest is good enough.

This statement is of no reflection on my opinion on dragonborn that started this.

Thats exactly what I said, just in different words. For me, all the races are "good enough" for nearly any purpose. The differences are noise, not signal.

[Phoenix042]

At our table, standard humans receive a bonus skill and a bonus tool proficiency.

Variant human is also banned.


I've used standard human on one character, and honestly only really because I was porting the character over from 3.5 and I felt it would be disingenuous to suddenly pick up some random racial features.

I almost chose half-elf anyway, but in the end I was able to put together a build path that efficiently made use of all of the +1 bonuses.

I have the following scores:

16 / 14 / 14 / 12 / 14 / 14

I used resilient (wisdom), Brawny (from the skills UA) and judicious assignment of points to spread out and get solid scores in a ton of areas. It's a support-fighter build, using battlemaster maneuvers that most people don't like (commander's strike, maneuvering attack, rally) to lead my two striker allies into battle. It helps that the other party members are a vengeance paladin and an assassin rogue, so my commander's strikes are usually either sneak attacks, sneak attacks that crit, or smites.

The character is tough in many ways besides just AC and HP, because between resilient wisdom and shield master, she's got some feature helping all three good saves (kind of) and fighter gives her the best second-tier save (strength).

I've made dozens of other characters though, and rarely have I ever given a second look at standard human even with the bonus skill and tool.

Too many interesting racial features out there. I mean just give Aasimar or Tiefling or any type of Elf a glance and it's hard to justify a tiny bump to your three least important stats over feature sets as complete and defining as those.

[ad_hoc]

Thats exactly what I said, just in different words. For me, all the races are "good enough" for nearly any purpose. The differences are noise, not signal.

I'm with you with all the PHB ones and most others with the exception of Kenku. I don't think they are good enough at what they are supposed to be good at.


I almost chose half-elf anyway, but in the end I was able to put together a build path that efficiently made use of all of the +1 bonuses.


You're trying pretty hard to contradict your signature here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm with you with all the PHB ones and most others with the exception of Kenku. I don't think they are good enough at what they are supposed to be good at.


I've not really looked at kenku. I'm not particularly fond of most of Volo's PC races. Aasimar are a staple of my school groups, because glowy angel (each of my two this year have a fallen aasimar in them), but the others don't come up much or aren't available yet in the setting. If kenku came up, I'd make the curse different, because that's annoying.

[ad_hoc]

I've not really looked at kenku. I'm not particularly fond of most of Volo's PC races. Aasimar are a staple of my school groups, because glowy angel (each of my two this year have a fallen aasimar in them), but the others don't come up much or aren't available yet in the setting. If kenku came up, I'd make the curse different, because that's annoying.

Well, the curse is fine as long as a player isn't annoying about it. The assumption can be made that they have heard enough to have regular conversations.

The major problem is that they're supposed to have a mimic ability but their mimicry is just an opposed check. A human with the Actor feat is better at mimicry than the race who has it as their whole thing.

[Eldariel]

And as soon as you get rid of the weakest one...there will be another weakest one. Until only one remains for each niche. And this is true unless all are mechanically identical.

At some point you just have to say enough is enough and realize that you're well below the noise floor and all the comparisons are pointless. Or change the mindset and build characters first and then worry about optimization.

This would be true in a scalary system, but D&D is multidimensional enough that it's possible to create sufficiently different options with similar power level that they are approximately even, just suited for different purposes/builds. Any kind of attempt to reduce it to a scalar is inevitably rough and reductionist, leaving room for numerically weaker options to shine in appropriate situations.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I always offer Prodigy for free with the standard human and yes that means +2,1,1,1,1,1 to stats to start and still haven't had anyone choose it. I think that says something.

Prodigy isn't one of the so-called 'half feats'. You don't get an extra +1 to an attribute from it. That means it's still +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1.

[MThurston]

Dragonborn are weaker than basically everything else that competes for their +Str/Cha niche (Half-Elf, VHuman, Fallen Aasimar, Triton, Zariel Tiefling).

This again.

I give Dragon born dark vision in my games.

It's the only thing missing for them. Any other arguement is simply power gaming.

[Pex]

This again.

I give Dragon born dark vision in my games.

It's the only thing missing for them.

Should have stopped there.


Any other arguement is simply power gaming.

You say that like power gaming is a bad thing.

[MThurston]

Should have stopped there.



You say that like power gaming is a bad thing.

It's called Role-playing for a reason.

[JNAProductions]

It's called Role-playing for a reason.

Mechanics can be used to reinforce RP, you know.

If I have a character who's supposed to be a master swordsman, I'm going to play them as a Fighter, most likely, or maybe a Rogue or Barbarian or Paladin or something. If I instead put all my levels into Wizard... Well, suddenly the "Master Swordsman" claim doesn't feel very well-supported, now does it?

Moreover, adventurers go out and do really damn dangerous stuff. I'd expect them to be highly competent. Taking someone incompetent is a liability-that's okay when you're, say, copying literature, but not so much when you're in life-or-death struggles.

To address the sort-of original point, Dragonborn are really weak. As are non-Variant Humans. They could both use significant buffs.

[BoxANT]

running a standard human in my current campaign.

theyre best if you use point but, and golden if you plan on doing lot of multiclassing (going for 10 different classes in 10 levels).

14, 14, 12, 13, 14, 14

Although, we do homebrew it that standard human gets an extra skill (or language & tool)

[ad_hoc]

To address the sort-of original point, Dragonborn are really weak. As are non-Variant Humans. They could both use significant buffs.

You make the claim but I really don't see it.

They're powerful enough as to not really make a difference between other races. If Dragonborn is the thing you want then your character is not going to be noticeably worse than everyone else.

You get a +2/+1, a good attack 3/day, and resistance which is quite strong.

That's a pretty standard race right there.

Standard Humans are also fine.

In both (all) cases the flavour/character defining lore of the race will have a much bigger impact on play than slight variances in 'power'.

[bid]

You get a +2/+1, a good attack 3/day, and resistance which is quite strong.
Only good for paladin.

I'm curious how many class guides rate dragonborn blue, that should be a good metric for its value.

EDIT: looks like any Str or Cha, although sorc/lock are limited to one spec.

[Tanarii]

I'm curious how many class guides rate dragonborn blue, that should be a good metric for its value.
This assumes class guides generally use something useful as a basis for their ratings.

[ad_hoc]

Only good for paladin.

I'm curious how many class guides rate dragonborn blue, that should be a good metric for its value.

EDIT: looks like any Str or Cha, although sorc/lock are limited to one spec.

You're allowed to play other classes.

As has been said, Dragonborn's stat bumps will make them more niche. That's actually true of all of the uncommon races except for Half-Elf. They're designed to be taken less often. Volo's races are designed this way too. Many have abilities that don't work well with their stat bumps. They're designed to be weird as they are weird.

There are a lot of possible characters out there who can use both strength and charisma bumps. Don't limit yourself like that.

And 'guides' are written by people on the internet just like everything else. They're just the opinions of people. They're not statements of fact.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You make the claim but I really don't see it.

They're powerful enough as to not really make a difference between other races. If Dragonborn is the thing you want then your character is not going to be noticeably worse than everyone else.

You get a +2/+1, a good attack 3/day, and resistance which is quite strong.

I agree that you won't be noticeably worse than anyone else, +2/+1 is good. The issue, and why I think they stand out as a weaker race option, is that what makes them unique is weak. Breath Weapon is just that bad.

The best example of how far below par they are is to compare them to Half-Orc. Con over Cha means that Half-Orcs can slot themselves into any Strength class and have an edge (Con is an all class stat) where Dragonborn is weighted towards Paladin specifically. Half-Orc also has Darkvision, a skill proficiency and 2 powerful racial features that distinguish them as unique. The comparison gets even worse for Dragonborn when you compare them to Dwarves.

They have so few racial features all because of their Breath Weapon, which is at best a novelty and at worst a complete waste of your action.

[Greywander]

As kind of an aside, I think it might be better if all racial ASIs were replaced with more interesting features. For example, instead of a CON bump, all dwarves get toughness. Instead of a DEX bump, all elves get a 35 move speed. Maybe halflings could get a 1/short rest Uncanny Dodge. An INT bump could be replaced with extra languages or a cantrip. Stuff like that. It still suggests certain builds (e.g. extra HP suggests a frontline martial), but it isn't so blatant, and such features would still be useful for other types of builds. What is a wizard supposed to do with a STR bump? But a wizard sure would appreciate extra HP. Both melee and ranged would appreciate a speed bump, although for different reasons. Being able to reduce damage taken slightly will see more consistent use on a martial, but it's something anyone would be happy to have.

Huh, thinking about this makes me want to do an overhaul of all the races, removing their ASIs and replacing them with other minor features that fit a similar theme but without shoehorning them into a specific build.

[ad_hoc]

They have so few racial features all because of their Breath Weapon, which is at best a novelty and at worst a complete waste of your action.

Read it again.

It is quite good and much better than a cantrip.

It is about right to me for a 3/day racial.

Compare it to a High Elf. Breath Weapon is stronger than their cantrip in general. Darkvision is slightly above a ribbon, I don't understand why people here value it so highly. So then we have Resistance against proficiency in Perception and a few ribbons.

Tiefling is quite close in design to Dragonborn so we can compare them too. Their ASI is more niche than Dragonborn's so there is that if people care. They both get a resistance though Dragonborn has more choice it's a wash in the end. Finally, you get 2 2nd level spells/day vs the Dragonborn's 3 breath weapons. The Tiefling here is a bit better but it's close as the Dragonborn gets more uses. Again, Darkvision really isn't a big deal.

In any case - Dragonborn, High Elf, or Tiefling, the most important consideration is what that means to the character narratively. Their power discrepancies are small enough in the overall scheme of things to not be noticed during actual play.

[Greywander]

It is about right to me for a 3/day racial.
I might have missed it while skimming, but RAW the dragonborn's breath weapon is 1/short rest, not 3/long rest, so I'm assuming you're referring to someone's houserule. Although, I've seen similar suggestions for converting warlocks to be a long rest class (3x the spell slots, but they come back on a long rest).

One tweak to dragonborn that might help would be to add a variant of their breath weapon that is single target instead of AoE, but is infinite use. Just a quick puff of breath that can reach out to, say, 30 feet, and is comparable to a cantrip in damage. This way you can, legally, use your fire breath to light the campfire without counting as a use of your breath weapon. (Just to be clear, I'm saying DB would get both the AoE breath and the single target breath.)

[NNescio]

I might have missed it while skimming, but RAW the dragonborn's breath weapon is 1/short rest, not 3/long rest, so I'm assuming you're referring to someone's houserule. Although, I've seen similar suggestions for converting warlocks to be a long rest class (3x the spell slots, but they come back on a long rest).

Assume two short rests per day, I think.

[Fable Wright]

Read it again.

It is quite good and much better than a cantrip.[citation needed]

At level 6, you can essentially cast Burning Hands as a first level spell 1/short rest.

Does your table often see Wizards at 6th level burning their action to cast Burning Hands as an action? Is that an effective use of their action at that level? Even when the alternative is casting Fire Bolt for 2d10 damage, do you see them casting Burning Hands?

No?

Is the power to do what your Wizard outgrew three levels ago somehow better because you can do it once per short rest?

Oh, is it the power to cast Burning Hands as a 2nd level spell at 11th level that somehow makes it good?

For all my sarcasm, you've got a point. At levels 1-3, Dragonborn breath weapons are extremely solid. But they fall off precipitously. To keep pace, their damage die needs to scale like the Rogue's sneak attack... and even then it's usually an iffy decision whether they burn their action on it or not.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Read it again.

It is quite good and much better than a cantrip.

It is about right to me for a 3/day racial.

Compare it to a High Elf. Breath Weapon is stronger than their cantrip in general. Darkvision is slightly above a ribbon, I don't understand why people here value it so highly. So then we have Resistance against proficiency in Perception and a few ribbons.

Tiefling is quite close in design to Dragonborn so we can compare them too. Their ASI is more niche than Dragonborn's so there is that if people care. They both get a resistance though Dragonborn has more choice it's a wash in the end. Finally, you get 2 2nd level spells/day vs the Dragonborn's 3 breath weapons. The Tiefling here is a bit better but it's close as the Dragonborn gets more uses. Again, Darkvision really isn't a big deal.

In any case - Dragonborn, High Elf, or Tiefling, the most important consideration is what that means to the character narratively. Their power discrepancies are small enough in the overall scheme of things to not be noticed during actual play.

I don't think it is better than a cantrip, for a few reasons:
-The DC scales off Con, which is no classes primary stat. I expect a 12-14 regularly and a 16-18 here optimistically. The DC will be fine early but I expect enemies to save often in later tiers of play assuming you're even still using it.
-It scales badly, 1d6 extra at 6/11/14.
-Once per rest, which is not always going to be 3/day.

Reminder, Cantrips are infinite use. By that very nature most damage cantrips compare favorably to many low level spells or racial feature equivalents. A High Elf also chooses any Wizard cantrip, which can range from damage to a utility spell like Message or Mold Earth, versatility is a strength that Dragonborn lacks.

Labelling it as 3/day use seems disingenuous. Why not just label it how it actually is, once per short or long rest. No one says that Action Surge is a 3/day feature to make it appear more favorable. Many campaigns (especially published ones) have a bad habit of avoiding short resting in favor of travel or long rests. When that situation comes up it really shows how unimpressive the breath weapon is.

I will concede that having access to a form of AoE that doesn't drain spell slots from the start of a campaign can be relatively powerful, but post lvl 5 your other actions are generally far superior.

[JNAProductions]

You make the claim but I really don't see it.

They're powerful enough as to not really make a difference between other races. If Dragonborn is the thing you want then your character is not going to be noticeably worse than everyone else.

You get a +2/+1, a good attack 3/day, and resistance which is quite strong.

That's a pretty standard race right there.

Standard Humans are also fine.

In both (all) cases the flavour/character defining lore of the race will have a much bigger impact on play than slight variances in 'power'.

Oh, I definitely agree they're fully playable. Race is a minor part fo your build in 5E, so you can play against type or bad races without an issue and still contribute fine.

But that doesn't mean they don't deserve buffs.

[ezekielraiden]

Oh, I definitely agree they're fully playable. Race is a minor part fo your build in 5E, so you can play against type or bad races without an issue and still contribute fine.

But that doesn't mean they don't deserve buffs.

Not replying to you, but riffing off your phrasing to reply to others: It's not like I didn't say literally every race is "playable." Nor that I said even one word about there never being a "worst" option.

It's just really painfully obvious that you're in a distinctly lower bracket, when your race does exactly three things (default +2/+1 stat bonuses, a resistance, and a breath weapon that rapidly diminishes in value), no more and no less. While a mountain dwarf, high elf, or even half-elf gets a laundry list of features. Even with the tables, the dragonborn mechanics fit almost completely within *just* the elf base race text--and every elf gets a subrace on top. Dragonborn have no ribbons, no skills. No neat but niche features like fey ancestry, trance, or stonecunning. Dragonborn basically don't get a subrace, despite their stats being much more like races that do get subraces. I mean, for goodness' sake, they could at least have thrown the bone of free History proficiency (reflecting the +2 History bonus 4e Dragonborn got) and/or some kind of ribbon or niche feature.*

*While it's hard to come up with something off-the-cuff, here's an idea. "Temperature tolerance: the power of your draconic blood inures you to mundane heat and cold. Only extreme heat or cold--above 120 F/50 C or below 0 F/-20 C--negatively affects your performance, even without heavy clothing." So if something might cause exhaustion for working in 105 F/40 C weather, you keep on truckin' just fine. Niche, unlikely to show up in too many games, but neat, flavorful, and having narrative implications. (Dragonborn may settle lands other folk would never consider, because the average temperatures of Alaska or northern Canada, or the Arabian Peninsula, are not a major concern for them.

[bid]

And 'guides' are written by people on the internet just like everything else. They're just the opinions of people. They're not statements of fact.
{Scrubbed}

We could also look at characters played and see if dragonborn are under-represented.

[ezekielraiden]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

We could also look at characters played and see if dragonborn are under-represented. That would be a statement of fact.

To the best of my knowledge, they are not. But to reiterate, dragonborn are playable. Effectively everything in 5e is "playable." Something being "playable" is the absolute, rock-bottom, bare minimum to strive for. Demonstrating that something is playable is like demonstrating that a novel is readable, or a car is driveable, or a soda is drinkable. You haven't demonstrated that it's reasonable, appropriate, or comparable to alternatives, just that it's not unable to do what it's supposed to do.

To justify the state of something by saying it is "playable" is textbook damning with faint praise. Pretty harshly, in fact. If the nicest thing you can say about someone's written work is, "Well, it's capable of being read," you really shouldn't be surprised that that response would upset them.

[LudicSavant]

At level 6, you can essentially cast Burning Hands as a first level spell 1/short rest.

Does your table often see Wizards at 6th level burning their action to cast Burning Hands as an action? Is that an effective use of their action at that level? Even when the alternative is casting Fire Bolt for 2d10 damage, do you see them casting Burning Hands?

No?

Is the power to do what your Wizard outgrew three levels ago somehow better because you can do it once per short rest?

Oh, is it the power to cast Burning Hands as a 2nd level spell at 11th level that somehow makes it good?

For all my sarcasm, you've got a point. At levels 1-3, Dragonborn breath weapons are extremely solid. But they fall off precipitously. To keep pace, their damage die needs to scale like the Rogue's sneak attack... and even then it's usually an iffy decision whether they burn their action on it or not.

I'll add that it's not just the damage dice, but the save DC too. The fact that it's Con-based means that it will start slightly behind the typical DC curve (since it's not a Con bonus race), and will fall further behind as you level up (since Con is basically always going to be a tertiary stat for Dragonborn).

Also, a random fun fact: Every +Str/Cha race in the official rulebooks gets at least one elemental resistance, with the exception of "+any stat" races like Half-Elf and VHuman.

[ad_hoc]

I might have missed it while skimming, but RAW the dragonborn's breath weapon is 1/short rest, not 3/long rest, so I'm assuming you're referring to someone's houserule. Although, I've seen similar suggestions for converting warlocks to be a long rest class (3x the spell slots, but they come back on a long rest).


It's the average.

It is an easy way to compare short rest to long rest powers.

[JNAProductions]

It's the average.

It is an easy way to compare short rest to long rest powers.

It's misleading. A 3/Day ability can be spammed in an encounter, at the cost of not using it for any other encounters.

I do agree that, as per how 5E is built, a 1/Short Rest ability can be expected to be used three times per day, usually. But that's not the same as 3/day.

[ad_hoc]

At level 6, you can essentially cast Burning Hands as a first level spell 1/short rest.

Does your table often see Wizards at 6th level burning their action to cast Burning Hands as an action? Is that an effective use of their action at that level? Even when the alternative is casting Fire Bolt for 2d10 damage, do you see them casting Burning Hands?

If it didn't use up valuable spell slots then yes, I do.

3 1st level spells/day is a strong racial feature.

All of the non-SCAG cantrips are weak actions. 2d10 damage, 0 on a miss is a bad action at level 6. But most of the time a Wizard has nothing else so they do what they need to do. 3d6 save for half to multiple opponents is a good action.

If you can't see that Breath Weapon is quite a lot better than a cantrip then I don't know what else to say.


Reminder, Cantrips are infinite use. By that very nature most damage cantrips compare favorably to many low level spells or racial feature equivalents. A High Elf also chooses any Wizard cantrip, which can range from damage to a utility spell like Message or Mold Earth, versatility is a strength that Dragonborn lacks.

The benefit of an extra cantrip declines the more cantrips the character has. The High Elf cantrip is a decent ability on a character with no other cantrips.

Once they already have 3 others though it is pretty darn weak as a major racial feature.

I'd rather have a few strong limited actions available than a lot of weak at will ones.



Labelling it as 3/day use seems disingenuous. Why not just label it how it actually is, once per short or long rest. No one says that Action Surge is a 3/day feature to make it appear more favorable. Many campaigns (especially published ones) have a bad habit of avoiding short resting in favor of travel or long rests. When that situation comes up it really shows how unimpressive the breath weapon is.

I do.

Because people confuse the rests, and like you said some people play the game weirdly.

I play only published campaigns and they all adhere to 6-8 encounters and 1-3 short rests per long rest for the majority of their chapters. The last time someone made that argument they used White Plume Mountain as an example. In the introduction on the first page it describes the pacing of short and long rests. The poster then retracted their statement adding that they hadn't actually read it. This happens every time.

If you break short rest abilities like that in your game then the problem is not the short rest abilities.

All characters with them suffer immensely in a game like that. I assure you, most people's tables don't behave like that. I'm sorry that yours do, but you can easily fix that. Don't put the blame elsewhere.

You're also moving the goalposts around. There are 2 conversations here:

1. Is it worth the action?
2. Is it a good racial feature?

The response to #1 is not that you get too few of them per day which is happening here over and over.



I will concede that having access to a form of AoE that doesn't drain spell slots from the start of a campaign can be relatively powerful, but post lvl 5 your other actions are generally far superior.

You just said that cantrips are good and now you're saying that an ability which is much better than a cantrip for its action cost is bad after level 5.

You can't have it both ways. Don't get back to the point that cantrips are at will as you just said that they are terrible actions. So it doesn't matter that they're at will.

Let me reiterate:

If you're playing a game where there are only 1-2 encounters/long rest the problem isn't with 90% of the game, the problem is how you're playing the game.

[ad_hoc]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

We could also look at characters played and see if dragonborn are under-represented.

Standard Human is the most played race.

[ad_hoc]

...............

[Particle_Man]

Standard Human is the most played race.

So since the multi class benefit is fairly niche, perhaps the simplicity and identifiability with “us” would be the reasons for its popularity?

[ProsecutorGodot]

You just said that cantrips are good and now you're saying that an ability which is much better than a cantrip for its action cost is bad after level 5.

You can't have it both ways. Don't get back to the point that cantrips are at will as you just said that they are terrible actions. So it doesn't matter that they're at will.

Let me reiterate:

If you're playing a game where there are only 1-2 encounters/long rest the problem isn't with 90% of the game, the problem is how you're playing the game.

{Scrubbed} I did not, nor did I imply, that cantrips are bad uses of your action. I'm talking about Dragon's Breath being a bad use of your action. If you're a Dragonborn Paladin you should be using the attack action so that you can smite creatures, your job is to do a lot of damage to one guy. If you're a Dragonborn Caster (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, take your pick) and AoE spell like Burning Hands is going to be more efficient for most of the campaign, forget about ever using your breath weapon once you have Fireball and Lightning Bolt in your spell list.

The amount of rests is ultimately irrelevant as well. Even in games where you see more than 1 or 2 encounters per long rest, there is still no guarantee that you see 3 short rests in that day. Don't gauge the abilities strength making assumptions, have it stand on its own. On its own, Dragonborn Breath Weapon is a low damage, low DC short range aoe that takes a full action and can only be used once per rest.

In the tier of play where AoE isn't as accessible (which is only t1) it can be useful, after that it goes rapidly from useful to a complete waste. It's very comparable to Sleep in that regard, your obstacles scale past it's effectiveness very quickly.


All of the non-SCAG cantrips are weak actions. 2d10 damage, 0 on a miss is a bad action at level 6. But most of the time a Wizard has nothing else so they do what they need to do. 3d6 save for half to multiple opponents is a good action.

If you can't see that Breath Weapon is quite a lot better than a cantrip then I don't know what else to say.
I want to touch on this comment separately... Why do you think it's a fair comparison to assume the absolute most favorable outcome for Breath Weapon, but also assume that Fire Bolt (or any other attack roll cantrip) is going to miss? By the time you get to your next rest it's very likely that a cantrip is going to have done more damage anyway, seeing as it's infinite use.

I'm just going to assume you've forgotten about a few rather powerful cantrips, Fire Bolt, Eldritch Blast, Toll the Dead, Chill Touch. None of those are SCAG.


{Scrubbed} You know what I'd rather compare to Breath Weapon at lvl 6? Fireball, which a Wizard and Sorcerer can both cast a minimum of 3 times without resting.

[Pex]

{Scrubbed}

[ad_hoc]

{Scrubbed} I did not, nor did I imply, that cantrips are bad uses of your action. I'm talking about Dragon's Breath being a bad use of your action. If you're a Dragonborn Paladin you should be using the attack action so that you can smite creatures, your job is to do a lot of damage to one guy. If you're a Dragonborn Caster (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, take your pick) and AoE spell like Burning Hands is going to be more efficient for most of the campaign, forget about ever using your breath weapon once you have Fireball and Lightning Bolt in your spell list.

So if you're a caster you recommend never using cantrips?

How is that any different than saying cantrips are bad uses for your action?

Because dragon's breath does more damage and hits more targets than a cantrip. It's much much stronger. But if that is a complete waste of an action, why is a cantrip worth using?

That doesn't make any sense.

Here's the thing - Fireball and Lightning Bolt use up spell slots. If you only have 1 encounter/long rest then yes, you only ever need the highest level spell slots you have. But then we're not just throwing out Dragon's Breath here but 90% of your abilities become useless as they aren't needed. They're all inferior to whatever your highest level spells are.

Paladins also have a finite amount of smites too...that is if you have more than 1 encounter per long rest.

The game really does fall apart when you don't have enough encounters between rests. That's not a fault in the game, it's designed to work this way. If you play otherwise then you're inviting these issues.


I want to touch on this comment separately... Why do you think it's a fair comparison to assume the absolute most favorable outcome for Breath Weapon, but also assume that Fire Bolt (or any other attack roll cantrip) is going to miss? By the time you get to your next rest it's very likely that a cantrip is going to have done more damage anyway, seeing as it's infinite use.

I'm just going to assume you've forgotten about a few rather powerful cantrips, Fire Bolt, Eldritch Blast, Toll the Dead, Chill Touch. None of those are SCAG.

I didn't assume it is going to miss, it's just going to miss sometimes. Doing half damage on a miss/save is a good thing and increases the average damage. How is that in dispute?

Wait, we were talking about action cost. You don't have infinite actions. Actions are costly.

Those are powerful cantrips, but cantrips aren't powerful. Do you see the difference?

[Particle_Man]

Anyone else find it ironic that dragon’s breath is causing a flame war?:smallsmile:

[Phoenix042]

You're trying pretty hard to contradict your signature here.

How so?

Also, I strongly disagree that dragonborn and standard human are well-enough balanced to be left alone.

At the very least, dragonborn should also have darkvision. Our group actually assumed that was an editing error until several years went by and the errata never added it. It's just such an obviously necessary feature for them that we all are totally blown away that any designer or player could have played a dragonborn and thought "yeah, they're fine without darkvision."

I mean it's almost like they think strength bonuses should be more costly than other ability score bonuses in this edition like they used to think in 3.x when balancing races.

Compare, for example, to tiefling, who gets action-economy efficient powers, a cantrip, darkvision, and resistance to an element on top of the same quantity of stat bonus and language, etc.

Strictly fewer features (and less useful or powerful ones, at that).

Or to Aasimar, another race with potentially similar stats but who gets two long rest features, a cantrip, two resistances, a bonus language, and dark vision.

Or to Half-orc, who get one feature that's an always active buff that requires no action cost to activate, and another 1/day feature that also requires no actions to activate. They both happen to be fun, thematic features that blend seamlessly into fighting styles of many sorts and to which the half-orcs are already well suited, and they ALSO get darkvision.

Some people are just predisposed to assume that everything official is balanced no matter how obviously absurd that claim is. There are those who would say "good enough" if presented with a race that had literally NO distinguishing features besides their abilities, even so much as a bonus skill.

Oh wait...

[ProsecutorGodot]

So if you're a caster you recommend never using cantrips?

How is that any different than saying cantrips are bad uses for your action?
No, in fact I would recommend casting cantrips frequently. Over use of spell slots against enemies who don't need to be targeted with a fireball or breath weapon is one of the common traps that new spellcasters have fallen into at my tables.

With that said, part of the magic (pun intended) of being a spellcaster is having the best spell for the job. It just so happens that most spells (and smites) tend to outperform the breath weapon in both their damage and frequency of use. Sometimes all you need is a Fire Bolt, other times you need a Lightning Bolt.

The reason I consider it to even be sub par on many martial characters is because they do in fact gain unique tools in their kit, most of which rely on them having taken the attack action. A Rogue Dragonborn would lose their sneak attack in that turn, a fighter would lose their multi-attack, a ranger would lose their beast companion colossus slayer attack, a monk loses flurry of blows and stunning strike, paladin's lose their ability to smite.

Think of it as an opportunity cost, by choosing to use the breath weapon, what did you give up? Casting Fireball that turn? Smiting the big bad? Stunning the entire room of enemies with 4 stunning strike attacks?


Wait, we were talking about action cost. You don't have infinite actions. Actions are costly.
It's exactly because actions are costly that I believe the breath weapon is a poor use for it. Why use a sub par damaging aoe when you have better options? When you reach the level where those better options become available you naturally stop relying on the previously weaker ones, like the sleep spell which is quite infamous for falling out of use as soon as enemy HP pools become too large.

Cantrips are an exception, see below.


Those are powerful cantrips, but cantrips aren't powerful. Do you see the difference?
When it comes down to a real structured adventuring day with several rests and encounters, I'd bet my bottom dollar that your casters are going to have cast more cantrips at the end of the day than leveled spells. Cantrips are an essential tool for a caster to have because of their infinite uses, I'd consider that to be powerful.

[ad_hoc]

With that said, part of the magic (pun intended) of being a spellcaster is having the best spell for the job. It just so happens that most spells (and smites) tend to outperform the breath weapon in both their damage and frequency of use. Sometimes all you need is a Fire Bolt, other times you need a Lightning Bolt.

The breath weapon doesn't consume spell slots.

[CTurbo]

Prodigy isn't one of the so-called 'half feats'. You don't get an extra +1 to an attribute from it. That means it's still +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1.

I use the original UA material for that idea. https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/RJSJC2017_04UASkillFeats_24v10.pdf

[MThurston]

Mechanics can be used to reinforce RP, you know.

If I have a character who's supposed to be a master swordsman, I'm going to play them as a Fighter, most likely, or maybe a Rogue or Barbarian or Paladin or something. If I instead put all my levels into Wizard... Well, suddenly the "Master Swordsman" claim doesn't feel very well-supported, now does it?

Moreover, adventurers go out and do really damn dangerous stuff. I'd expect them to be highly competent. Taking someone incompetent is a liability-that's okay when you're, say, copying literature, but not so much when you're in life-or-death struggles.

To address the sort-of original point, Dragonborn are really weak. As are non-Variant Humans. They could both use significant buffs.

SMH. Let's be honest. It's a game and you have people who want to play a game and those that take every little advantage available. Games are much for fun with people just wanting to have fun.

Not people looking down on others because of a feat or class ability that doesn't optimize damage output.

Because let's be honest! Math shouldn't be your role-playing weapon of choice.

[MThurston]

This thread is for humans and not another pity party for Dragonborn.

[zinycor]

At my games we haven't ever seen a standard human, and we buffed dragonborn so they would get darkvision and breath weapon would use a bonus action.

[stoutstien]

I think that standard humans, and to a similar extent dragonborns, are always considered less powerful has less to do with their mechanical status and more do just how feel.
Sort of like The beastmaster ranger. The math is not far off it's just feels off which is actually worse from a lot of players perspectives.

[Lyracian]

Also, does anyone that plays with feats actually NOT use variant human by default? It seems like they go hand in hand. Of course, in that case you almost need in-world bias against humans to balance it out. :smallamused:
I am just starting in a Campaign that used Feats and Standard Human. The balance is that everyone gets a feat at 1st Level so Vumans are out to stop them getting two.

Personally I cannot see any point in playing Standard Human but I can see the ease for many players who just want to play Humans and are far less interested in optimised builds. My wife tents to play Humans in most D&D games.

[malachi]

I read most of the first page before realizing this had already gone to 4 pages, so.... here's some analysis of the original item of debate, who knows if that's still what's being discussed :p

-----

I’m going to do some analysis with 2 different criteria: (A) all stats get rolled about equally, and (B) your primary stat is rolled 30% of the time, secondary 25%, tertiary 20%, your 4th and 5th most important stats are each rolled 10% of the time, and your dump stat is rolled 5% of the time.


Let’s say you roll for stats and get an awesome roll: all 17’s. You may think “Hey, this is the perfect time to be a standard human! I get to start with 18 in everything!” The end result is that you get +1 to every roll, which comes out to +1 HP / level and one out of every 20 rolls you make will change from a failure to a success, and you possibly increase your AC by 1 (light or no armor).



Let’s compare that to picking Half-Elf for a character that would have dumped CHA if at all possible. You have 3 stats (Charisma, and the two stats you care about most) that are the same as the standard human, and you have 3 stats (the stats you’d rate at 3rd, 4th, and 5th) that are lower than the standard human’s by 1.

You potentially have the same HP (if you thought extra CON was important) and AC (if you chose DEX as a light/no armor user, or regardless of what stat you chose if you have medium / heavy proficiency) as the standard human.

Additionally, you have Darkvision, advantage against being charmed, can’t be magically put to sleep, have 2 extra skills and 1 extra language.

For (A), 1/40 (2.5%) rolls will have a worse result than the standard human (1/2 of your stats have exactly 1/20 values you can roll where the difference between the human’s 18 and the half-elf’s 17 will make a difference).

For (B), 1/50 (2%) of your rolls will have a worse result than the standard human (40% of your rolls are in your 3rd, 4th, and 5th least important stats).

If, instead of wanting to dump CHA, this half-elf had wanted to make CHA it’s 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important stat, 1/80 (1.25%) of its rolls would have a worse result than the standard human (25% of rolls are made in its 4th, 5th, and 6th least important stats).

I don’t know how to determine how many rolls are affected by having 6 skill proficiencies as a half elf instead of 4 as a standard human, but doing some algebra shows me that if 16.7% or more of the rolls are made for the selected skills, the half-elf will be generally more successful than the standard human in (A). Or 13.3% for (B), or 8.3% for (B) with high CHA.

Now, having said all that, it looks like the stats have a very minimal effect on the character’s success rate when comparing a standard human to a half-elf, regardless of whether the half-elf wanted CHA.


What if we chose a race that has horrible stat synergy for our desired goals? Like a Tiefling cleric.

For (A), 3.3% of your rolls (1/20 in 4 out of 6 stats is 4/120 rolls) will be worse as a Tiefling cleric than a standard human cleric.
For (B), that becomes 4.3% (85% of your rolls will be outside of your 5th and 6th most important stats, which is what I’m declaring INT and CHA are).

Now, does darkvision, fire resistance, an extra cantrip (always fun to have RP cantrips), 3d10 damage 1/day (assume they save for half every time, which makes it ~8 dmg a day) as a reaction, and Darkness 1/day outweigh the fact that something like 4.3% of your rolls will have a worse result as a Tiefling compared to a standard human? That’s in a case where the rolls are BEST for standard humans and the Tiefling’s racial stats are the WORST for your character, and this is before level 4 when you get to either 1) get +1 to you primary and secondary stat (compared to standard human only being able to get +1 to their primary), 2) get a half-feat for something nifty and +1 to your primary (compared to standard human only being able to get something nifty OR +1 to their primary), or 3) get a feat (which won’t change the percentages at all, since the human could just do that as well).



After typing up all of that, I think it is clear that standard humans are really weak even in the best situation for them.

[Teaguethebean]

Why is playing an optimized build a bad thing I don't get these roleplay elitists who feel amazing for playing a weak character. What if I have fun killing monsters with my PAM GWM barbarian that is just as much the game as roleplaying with a weaker character. So calling people worse roleplayers for scorning S. Human is pretty weak and honestly a V. Human gives you a large amount to work with for a fun character from having some inherent magical powers or just being really lucky or even being really perceptive. V. Human is far more flavorful.

[KorvinStarmast]

To the best of my knowledge, they are not. But to reiterate, dragonborn are playable. Effectively everything in 5e is "playable." I have played in two games with dragonborn Paladins. One levels 1-4, another that stopped at level 10.
I was glad to have them in our party.

[GlenSmash!]

Why is playing an optimized build a bad thing I don't get these roleplay elitists who feel amazing for playing a weak character. What if I have fun killing monsters with my PAM GWM barbarian that is just as much the game as roleplaying with a weaker character. So calling people worse roleplayers for scorning S. Human is pretty weak and honestly a V. Human gives you a large amount to work with for a fun character from having some inherent magical powers or just being really lucky or even being really perceptive. V. Human is far more flavorful.
I agree.

I mean I love playing a PAM+GWM Barbarian, but honestly are they even that Optimized? Fail the right Wisdom Save or Charisma Save and you are doing 0 damage. Making no use at all from those "OP" feats.

I think the difference between an Optimized V. Human Barbarian an unoptimized S. Human Barbarian is going to be so small compared to that same Optimized Barbarian and and say a High Elf Wizard that maxed INT starting around level 8 or so and certainly at level 17+.

[ezekielraiden]

I have played in two games with dragonborn Paladins. One levels 1-4, another that stopped at level 10.
I was glad to have them in our party.

Which totally ignores the actual argument I made. I said they were playable. You have seen them be playable. The problem* with your anecdote is that it answers the wrong question. Would you still have been glad if it were a dwarf paladin, or a human paladin? That's the thing I'm asserting is the problem. Heck, you probably would have been happy with a fighter or barbarian of any race too! That's why "playability" is such an awful standard--if something isn't "playable," it literally should never exist in the game in the first place. (See: 3.5e's Truenamer.) Something "playable" has met only the barest minimum qualifications for existence. Isn't that a flaw, when every other option goes substantially above and beyond merely "playable"?

So. Were you glad to have them in your party specifically because they were dragonborn and not any other race? Or were you glad to have them simply because they were a friendly additional party member?

*Well, one of two problems, the other is "the plural of anecdote is not data." But while that still matters, it's less relevant than the above.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So. Were you glad to have them in your party specifically because they were dragonborn and not any other race? Or were you glad to have them simply because they were a friendly additional party member?


I'm not he, but I would be equally happy with anyone, of any race or class unless they intentionally were either disruptive or anti-optimized. Not just "sub-optimal", but actually did something like dump their key stat, refuse to use their class kit, or otherwise make themselves an intentional burden on the party. Race doesn't matter enough to care about. Heck, class barely matters enough to care about, and then only to make sure that useful roles are filled (and even then...).

The power band is wide enough and flat enough that racial differences get washed out by everything else. To the point that 90% of the time they matter not at all to the outcome. So "playable" is enough. Because that's the only bar around. Judging beyond that tells more about what the judge feels important than about what's really important. It's all in the noise.

I've now played with ~40 different people over the last four years. I have seen zero influence from race, to the point that I actively encourage people to pick something that stands out to them rather than worrying about supposed "synergies" with their class. They're happier, because they get to play what they like. The rest of the people are happier because they are not so focused on nit-picking builds and performance and instead can focus on having fun and working together. I'm happier because I can lean more on the DMG guidance rather than having to custom optimize my encounters to deal with power-players, especially when not everyone is happy being a power-player. I can also build stuff to suit the world better, because I have a much wider band of available material (instead of having to have everything at 3x Deadly or above).

Focus on competitive "everyone must be at their peak or else", in my opinion, strongly detracts from the game. If you want a competitive war game, D&D is not your thing. And hasn't been since...a very long time.

[Greywander]

As kind of an aside, I think it might be better if all racial ASIs were replaced with more interesting features. For example, instead of a CON bump, all dwarves get toughness. Instead of a DEX bump, all elves get a 35 move speed. Maybe halflings could get a 1/short rest Uncanny Dodge. An INT bump could be replaced with extra languages or a cantrip. Stuff like that. It still suggests certain builds (e.g. extra HP suggests a frontline martial), but it isn't so blatant, and such features would still be useful for other types of builds. What is a wizard supposed to do with a STR bump? But a wizard sure would appreciate extra HP. Both melee and ranged would appreciate a speed bump, although for different reasons. Being able to reduce damage taken slightly will see more consistent use on a martial, but it's something anyone would be happy to have.

Huh, thinking about this makes me want to do an overhaul of all the races, removing their ASIs and replacing them with other minor features that fit a similar theme but without shoehorning them into a specific build.
I wanted to bring this back up since it was posted a few pages ago near the end of that page, so it's possible some people may have skipped over it. Replacing all racial ASIs would take a bit of work, and also likely involve moving around some racial traits (e.g. if all dwarves get Toughness, then what do hill dwarves get?). So I was wondering how things would change if we simply removed all racial ASIs, except from standard humans? Does this close the gap between standard humans and other races? Do dragonborn become a more appealing option for a wider variety of classes? Are there new race/class combos that would work better now that ASIs aren't a factor?

[JNAProductions]

I wanted to bring this back up since it was posted a few pages ago near the end of that page, so it's possible some people may have skipped over it. Replacing all racial ASIs would take a bit of work, and also likely involve moving around some racial traits (e.g. if all dwarves get Toughness, then what do hill dwarves get?). So I was wondering how things would change if we simply removed all racial ASIs, except from standard humans? Does this close the gap between standard humans and other races? Do dragonborn become a more appealing option for a wider variety of classes? Are there new race/class combos that would work better now that ASIs aren't a factor?

Humans become more appealing.

Dragonborn become less appealing-their ASIs are at least good Paladin material, but without that... They've got two features, pretty much. And neither is stellar.

[dgnslyr]

I agree.

I mean I love playing a PAM+GWM Barbarian, but honestly are they even that Optimized? Fail the right Wisdom Save or Charisma Save and you are doing 0 damage. Making no use at all from those "OP" feats.

I think the difference between an Optimized V. Human Barbarian an unoptimized S. Human Barbarian is going to be so small compared to that same Optimized Barbarian and and say a High Elf Wizard that maxed INT starting around level 8 or so and certainly at level 17+.

The dead-to-save problem is pretty much a universal issue for pretty much every martial character, and maybe every character, period. Almost everyone is bound to have at least one bad save, and there's enough save-or-suck effects out there to cripple any character with any weakness. Among melee martial characters, and especially non-magical melee martial characters, PAM+GWM Barb probably rates pretty highly; they're definitely among the most optimized in their niche, and getting completely shut down by magic is less of a special weakness of barbs than it is a systemic problem with martials in general. Mathematically, the marginal utility of an extra feat gradually shrinks as characters get more feats; if we rank feats by their value, then having the "best" feat over someone else is a big deal, but having the advantage of the third-best feat over someone who already has the best two isn't nearly as great. What's really valuable about Vuman, however, is the fact that most campaigns start at level 1-5 and don't last very long past level 10, so for most of your playtime you'll have 1-2 feats compared to your non-human teammates with 0-1, and one extra feat goes a really long way.

If the conversation hasn't completely passed the discussion of standard humans, though, I'll say that only standard humans, variant humans (with a half-feat), and half-elves can get a bonus to three different stats of interest, and if your table doesn't allow Vumans, then a standard human is the only way for a heavy-armor cleric to get a bonus to STR/CON/WIS, for example. If you're playing with pointbuy, there's not a lot of difference between a +1 and a +2, since a +1 is good enough to bump your 15 to a 16 for that +3 modifier, and you can run a 15/15/15/8/8/8 point buy and get a +3 to three different stats of interest.

[Greywander]

If the conversation hasn't completely passed the discussion of standard humans, though, I'll say that only standard humans, variant humans (with a half-feat), and half-elves can get a bonus to three different stats of interest, and if your table doesn't allow Vumans, then a standard human is the only way for a heavy-armor cleric to get a bonus to STR/CON/WIS, for example. If you're playing with pointbuy, there's not a lot of difference between a +1 and a +2, since a +1 is good enough to bump your 15 to a 16 for that +3 modifier, and you can run a 15/15/15/8/8/8 point buy and get a +3 to three different stats of interest.
Warforged get a CON bump, and the envoy gets +1 to two stats of their choice. Not sure if there are other races out there that also allow you to get +1 to three different stats. It's rare, for sure, but there are a few different options out there. That said, part of the reason standard human is considered to be weaker is that each +1 to a different ability score gets progressively less useful, as the first +1 will obviously go into your most important stat, the second into your second most important, etc. So +2/+1 is going to be stronger than +1/+1/+1, because an extra +1 to your primary stat is more useful than +1 to a tertiary stat. The +1/+1/+1 races would be easier to adapt to a wider number of classes, and races like the warforged envoy are pretty strong since it's a bump to CON and two stats of your choice, instead of three stats you can't choose (CON is almost always a tertiary stat, so this is basically as good as +1 to three stats of your choice). +2/+1 is slightly more min/maxed, but +1/+1/+1 is a bit more balanced.

They're both optimized in different ways, but as noted, +1 to your primary is stronger than +1 to your tertiary, so +2/+1 ends up being slightly more optimized than +1/+1/+1, though it will depend on your build.

Edit: It's true that +1/+1/+1 can get you three 16s at 1st level, which might be more useful than getting one stat to 17. Usually, these differences will even out after a few ASIs, however.

[LudicSavant]

only standard humans, variant humans (with a half-feat), and half-elves can get a bonus to three different stats of interest

Tritons get +1 Str/+1 Con/+1 Cha.

[bid]

So +2/+1 is going to be stronger than +1/+1/+1, because an extra +1 to your primary stat is more useful than +1 to a tertiary stat.
Very often, Con14 will be your tertiary stat. In that case it would be just as strong.
Not that there's many Dex/Con racials, even outside of the +1/+1/+1.

I think it's only fighter/rogue who are SAD enough, even caster want Dex14 / Con14 along with their primary stat.

[Greywander]

Very often, Con14 will be your tertiary stat. In that case it would be just as strong.
Not that there's many Dex/Con racials, even outside of the +1/+1/+1.

I think it's only fighter/rogue who are SAD enough, even caster want Dex14 / Con14 along with their primary stat.
I was going to offer a minor disagreement, until I thought about it and realized that you're kind of right, but also technically wrong. In a pure theorycrafting scenario, an extra +1 to your primary stat is better than +1 to your tertiary stat. In practice, though, getting that +2 only lets you push a stat up to 17, which doesn't really offer any tangible benefit over a 16. Both give you a +3 modifier, and in either case you're probably going to bump it to 18 at 4th level. That said, getting a 17 would let you pick up a half feat instead and still get it to 18.

While it can affect things at the lower levels, from a big picture perspective all racial ASIs carry the same value as long as (a) they go into a stat that was at least a 13 (where point buy becomes more expensive), and (b) you were going to spend an ASI on that stat anyway. If 14 CON is your goal, then getting a +1 to CON from your race works out just fine. After a few ASIs, it won't really matter anymore.

Now, that said, especially for a SAD build, getting a +2 to your main stat means you can take an extra point off and get two stat points to put somewhere else, and still start with a 16. So if you're a fighter and you get a racial +2 to STR or DEX, you can bump those up to just 16 instead of 17, and use the extra points to boost, say, your WIS. Stats below 13 are cheaper with point buy, so getting an extra "free" point on your main stat let's you put two points in your less important stats. In essence, what you're doing is taking a +2 STR and turning it into +1 STR and +2 WIS. Not a bad trade, even if WIS isn't a super important stat for you, as WIS saves are common and everyone loves Perception.

[Lyracian]

I was going to offer a minor disagreement, until I thought about it and realized that you're kind of right, but also technically wrong. In a pure theorycrafting scenario, an extra +1 to your primary stat is better than +1 to your tertiary stat. In practice, though, getting that +2 only lets you push a stat up to 17, which doesn't really offer any tangible benefit over a 16. Both give you a +3 modifier, and in either case you're probably going to bump it to 18 at 4th level. That said, getting a 17 would let you pick up a half feat instead and still get it to 18.
You are assuming everyone is using point buy though. With rolled stats that +2 can turn a 16 into an 18. It let my Bard start with a 19 CHA so I will only ever be spending one ASI on Stats the others will all be feats.



Now, that said, especially for a SAD build, getting a +2 to your main stat means you can take an extra point off and get two stat points to put somewhere else, and still start with a 16. So if you're a fighter and you get a racial +2 to STR or DEX, you can bump those up to just 16 instead of 17, and use the extra points to boost, say, your WIS. Stats below 13 are cheaper with point buy, so getting an extra "free" point on your main stat let's you put two points in your less important stats. In essence, what you're doing is taking a +2 STR and turning it into +1 STR and +2 WIS. Not a bad trade, even if WIS isn't a super important stat for you, as WIS saves are common and everyone loves Perception.
That is why I really like Half-Elves in point buy. Providing you were not going to dump CHA the two points you would spend to get it to 10 can be used to turn a 14 into a 15 emulating the +2 racial bonus an Elf or other race would have given you.

[Mad_Saulot]

How to Fix Humans: Add Racism

So humans are rubbish, no one ever chooses them (I have 2 in my game but they are newish and intentionally sub-optimal)

The advantage of playing a human is that humans are EVERYWHERE they effectively rule the known world, now if you make them all slightly racist being human becomes an advantage in the sense that they wont discriminate against you.

Scenerio one: a group of wealthy looking elven adventurering spell casters visit town to resupply, the locals add a surcharge of 20% to all prices and normally friendly persons become neutral towards them, normally neuutral persons become unfriendly, and normally unfriendly persons become hostile towards the elves. They arent allowed in certain areaslike temple of castle forge etc.

Scenerio 2: Human aventurers visit town, the locals welcome them as heroes for ridding the town of its local monsters and throw a minifestival for them, freegifts and new contacts come forwarsds to help the intrepid adventurers.

Now my idea might sound pretty mad but think about it, humans are statistically inferior to almost all other races in the world, humans in general are likely to resent other races and elevate those humans that break the mold and succeed in adventuring, think of it like supporting Japan or American soccer teams, sure they suck but by god I love an underdog.

So in closing: Racism FTW

[stoutstien]

How to Fix Humans: Add Racism

So humans are rubbish, no one ever chooses them (I have 2 in my game but they are newish and intentionally sub-optimal)

The advantage of playing a human is that humans are EVERYWHERE they effectively rule the known world, now if you make them all slightly racist being human becomes an advantage in the sense that they wont discriminate against you.

Scenerio one: a group of wealthy looking elven adventurering spell casters visit town to resupply, the locals add a surcharge of 20% to all prices and normally friendly persons become neutral towards them, normally neuutral persons become unfriendly, and normally unfriendly persons become hostile towards the elves. They arent allowed in certain areaslike temple of castle forge etc.

Scenerio 2: Human aventurers visit town, the locals welcome them as heroes for ridding the town of its local monsters and throw a minifestival for them, freegifts and new contacts come forwarsds to help the intrepid adventurers.

Now my idea might sound pretty mad but think about it, humans are statistically inferior to almost all other races in the world, humans in general are likely to resent other races and elevate those humans that break the mold and succeed in adventuring, think of it like supporting Japan or American soccer teams, sure they suck but by god I love an underdog.

So in closing: Racism FTW

Humans are actually the most common race used by DND 5e players. Sometime to be said about familiarity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's a thought--

if Half-elves are (as people claim), always[1] better than S. Humans...maybe half-elves are too strong rather than S. Humans being too weak?

If you buff the weak consistently, soon you have nothing but power creep. Because there will always be a weaker and a stronger. I'm of the opinion that it's all within the noise level and doesn't really matter, but obviously others disagree.

[1] in all builds except for a few weird edge cases that rarely come up, such as rolled stats that are all odd.

[Teaguethebean]

Here's a thought--

if Half-elves are (as people claim), always[1] better than S. Humans...maybe half-elves are too strong rather than S. Humans being too weak?


While I will agree half-elf is very strong I don't think it needs to be nerfed it is fairly equal to power when compared to half-orc, Hilldwarf and even forest gnomes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I will agree half-elf is very strong I don't think it needs to be nerfed it is fairly equal to power when compared to half-orc, Hilldwarf and even forest gnomes.

Those other races are much more narrowly specialized. Half-elves work for any build that doesn't actively want to dump CHA. The others have downsides, half-elf is basically human++. Or so the argument goes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which totally ignores the actual argument I made. I said they were playable. You have seen them be playable. The problem* with your anecdote is that it answers the wrong question. Would you still have been glad if it were a dwarf paladin, or a human paladin? At lower levels that breath weapon was a massive help to get us through lower levels (our DMs tended to harder encounters and didn't mind TPKs) in a way that dwarfs would not have. I have four encounters in mind during the first three levels where the breath weapon basically saved our butts. One was during a fight with a troll (level 3) and none of our casters had a fire weapon. Nobody had acid splash. The dragonborn's acid breath weapon worked as our finisher (and thankfully a couple of us hit it with enough damage to kill it that round). Or we'd have been troll food since we could not kill it otherwise. As it was the regen was going to make it a close thing anyway ... I love me a dwarf, but that one saved our butts.

The other case was a fire breathing dragonborn paladin versus a swarm of stirges that we'd stirred up. At low levels, stirges can be a royal pain if you don't have a spell caster with sleep ... and we didn't. No arcane casters in that party.

Focus on competitive "everyone must be at their peak or else", in my opinion, strongly detracts from the game. If you want a competitive war game, D&D is not your thing. And hasn't been since...a very long time. Thanks. One of the problems I notice with WoTC era D&D that I did not notice as much is the pre existing influence of CRPGs and competitive attitudes on which class/char is OP. What I saw more of in pre WoTC era D&D that caused internal party strife was the never ending quest for "that perfect magic weapon that makes this character da boss ..." but I'll stop there as edition warring is rarely a good idea.

[Tanarii]

So in closing: Racism FTWHahahaha
But yeah, if you want anything resembling a realistic campaign, racial bias definitely needs to be a (prevalent) thing.


if Half-elves are (as people claim), always[1] better than S. Humans...maybe half-elves are too strong rather than S. Humans being too weak?Definitely. Elves and Half-elves are classic for being the mary-sue races when it comes to racial mechanics in fantasy RPGs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Definitely. Elves and Half-elves are classic for being the mary-sue races when it comes to racial mechanics in fantasy RPGs.

Wasn't it 2e where there was a book that basically was "why elves are the best ever and better than anyone else"?

[KorvinStarmast]

Definitely. Elves and Half-elves are classic for being the mary-sue races when it comes to racial mechanics in fantasy RPGs. I guess they call them "elf games" for a reason. :smallyuk: For my money, Runequest (the original) did a decent job of scaling that back a bit. But it's been over 3 decades since I played that.

As to racism/humanocentric world: I currently run a campaign in a world that is humano centric, and I told my players that this would be the case and that some humans were open hearted, and some not so much, as regards any and all non human races. So my players chose:
A bugbear
A fire genasi
A dwarf
A tabaxi
A human

And we are having a blast. :smallbiggrin: They already ran into a few cases of "man, these humans aren't nice" as well as "man, these humans are nice" and the RP response by the players has been great.

[Fnissalot]

If you do point buy, I think I would prefer s. Humans over +2/+1 races, but the standard array is bad with them since you only have two odd stats and 4d6 drop the lowest have a slightly, almost neglectable, higher chance of evens.

Also, I tend to ban GWM, SS, PAM, and CBE as feats for v. Humans.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, I tend to ban GWM, SS, PAM, and CBE as feats for v. Humans. Is there a particular reason for this disdain for martial characters?

[Pex]

SMH. Let's be honest. It's a game and you have people who want to play a game and those that take every little advantage available. Games are much for fun with people just wanting to have fun.

Not people looking down on others because of a feat or class ability that doesn't optimize damage output.

Because let's be honest! Math shouldn't be your role-playing weapon of choice.

Wanting the optimized feat or cool combo of abilities is its own fun for playing the game, and having that fun does not stop you from roleplaying.

[CapnWildefyr]

Wasn't it 2e where there was a book that basically was "why elves are the best ever and better than anyone else"?

Yeah, my group got into more fights over bladesong... I think if you could play the terrasque it would have unbalanced things less. : )

I agree that s human is "weaker" by the stats, but also agree that this is a temporary condition and looking at stats only can ignore roleplaying. Humans can be any character concept. With other races, if your table roleplays, you are influenced/bound by your chosen racial constraints. In fact, thats part of why people choose the other races I think. At least, thats always part of my decision on PC race. The misunderstood tiefling/bugbear, the grouchy dwarf, drow, whatever. But any human can be fit any character concept that doesn't *require a race (like a flying ranger).

And thats why it's always a viable choice.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, my group got into more fights over bladesong... I think if you could play the terrasque it would have unbalanced things less. : )

I agree that s human is "weaker" by the stats, but also agree that this is a temporary condition and looking at stats only can ignore roleplaying. Humans can be any character concept. With other races, if your table roleplays, you are influenced/bound by your chosen racial constraints. In fact, thats part of why people choose the other races I think. At least, thats always part of my decision on PC race. The misunderstood tiefling/bugbear, the grouchy dwarf, drow, whatever. But any human can be fit any character concept that doesn't *require a race (like a flying ranger).

And thats why it's always a viable choice.

That assumes two things:

1) You ARE constrained by default fluff. Sometimes you are. Sometimes you aren't.

2) VHuman isn't on the table. Because it's like Human... But almost always better.

[Particle_Man]

How to Fix Humans: Add Racism

So humans are rubbish, no one ever chooses them (I have 2 in my game but they are newish and intentionally sub-optimal)

The advantage of playing a human is that humans are EVERYWHERE they effectively rule the known world, now if you make them all slightly racist being human becomes an advantage in the sense that they wont discriminate against you.

Scenerio one: a group of wealthy looking elven adventurering spell casters visit town to resupply, the locals add a surcharge of 20% to all prices and normally friendly persons become neutral towards them, normally neuutral persons become unfriendly, and normally unfriendly persons become hostile towards the elves. They arent allowed in certain areaslike temple of castle forge etc.

Scenerio 2: Human aventurers visit town, the locals welcome them as heroes for ridding the town of its local monsters and throw a minifestival for them, freegifts and new contacts come forwarsds to help the intrepid adventurers.

Now my idea might sound pretty mad but think about it, humans are statistically inferior to almost all other races in the world, humans in general are likely to resent other races and elevate those humans that break the mold and succeed in adventuring, think of it like supporting Japan or American soccer teams, sure they suck but by god I love an underdog.

So in closing: Racism FTW

But won’t that push optimizers towards variant humans not standard humans?

[stoutstien]

Is there a particular reason for this disdain for martial characters?

I think he mean he disallowed them taking it for the lv 1 feat which would mean they would have access at the same time as everyone else. I can see where he is coming from.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But won’t that push optimizers towards variant humans not standard humans?

The obvious solution is to not allow VHuman, since it is a variant (read: optional) rule to begin with. Feats and Multiclassing are so ingrained into what people expect of the game, it's easy to forget that they weren't designed to be an "always on" option.

[NaughtyTiger]

think of it like supporting Japan or American soccer teams, sure they suck but by god I love an underdog.

who won Women's world cup? *cough* *cough*

[Fnissalot]

Is there a particular reason for this disdain for martial characters?

Those are the feats that are gamebreaking due to their damage output in the early levels. They can pick them once you reached level 4.

[Willie the Duck]

Wasn't it 2e where there was a book that basically was "why elves are the best ever and better than anyone else"?

2e AD&D's The Complete Book of Elves was pretty thoroughly racial superiority script writ large for a fantasy race -- complete with explanation on how their other race servants are joyous in their servitude, etc. If all the race books were written as their own races' propaganda, it would be an interesting authorial decision. As a standalone (with the other books not following suit) it is just odd and cringe-inducing.

Still, other than a single kit -- 2e's bladesinger, which honestly isn't so much an overpowered option as a strictly better option than the normal fighter-mage (which in 2e isn't all that powerful, given that you can't cast in armor like 1e's F-Ms, and lose out on weapon specialization) -- most of the stuff there is brown-nosing towards elves in a fluff-based manner, not in terms of mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

2e AD&D's The Complete Book of Elves was pretty thoroughly racial superiority script writ large for a fantasy race -- complete with explanation on how their other race servants are joyous in their servitude, etc. If all the race books were written as their own races' propaganda, it would be an interesting authorial decision. As a standalone (with the other books not following suit) it is just odd and cringe-inducing.


That's the one I was thinking about.

Oddly enough, I don't get very many elves in my games. The high elves generally play up the "I'm better than you are" mode (because culturally that's a thing), and the wood elves tend to be more generic.

And I only very rarely get half-elves. My current 3 games have:
0 Dwarves (dwarves are rare for my games)
2 elves (1 high, 1 wood)
0 gnomes (not available to play)
0 halflings
0 half-orcs
1 human (standard)
2 dragonborn
2 aasimar (both fallen)
1 tiefling
1 goblin (not normally available, but...)
1 goliath (not normally available, but...)
2 soulforged (warforged rip-off)
1 half-elf (bard, of course)
1 genasi (water)

[CapnWildefyr]

That assumes two things:

1) You ARE constrained by default fluff. Sometimes you are. Sometimes you aren't.

2) VHuman isn't on the table. Because it's like Human... But almost always better.

We're getting away from the thread question. However, I think some players choose the constraints (racial tropes etc) specifically to fill in or to create character/story they like. (If you were referring to rules, of course a group can homebrew +/- stats and skills and abilities etc to their hearts content, too.) While I might tell a player 'no' to a goblin for my campaign, if it works in yours, fine. But most groups would not turn away a player with a simple human character idea. So s human has a place in the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Those are the feats that are gamebreaking
Nope.
Nothing in this edition is game breaking, and certainly not in Tier 1 play. The significant power boost that comes at levels 5 with third level spells and two attacks for all martials (but not rogues) is a power spike ... but it also isn't game breaking.

As I noted in another thread, my first campaign in 5e had no feats until level 4 because we were all new to the edition, DM included, and he wanted to keep it as clean/simple as possible. That worked too.

This is that thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597018-Have-you-played-in-a-featless-game/page2)

[Fnissalot]

Nope.
Nothing in this edition is game breaking, and certainly not in Tier 1 play. The significant power boost that comes at levels 5 with third level spells and two attacks for all martials (but not rogues) is a power spike ... but it also isn't game breaking.

As I noted in another thread, my first campaign in 5e had no feats until level 4 because we were all new to the edition, DM included, and he wanted to keep it as clean/simple as possible. That worked too.

This is that thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597018-Have-you-played-in-a-featless-game/page2)

Getting a damage increases of about 50% at lvl 1 due to your race gives you a feat when most other races doesn't get any extra damage worth mentioning seems broken to me. Level 5 is not broken since all classes spikes at that level. The four or so combat feats can only give a spike to one race at level 1. So you think it is fair that a variant human who picks a combat focused feat increases their damage at level 1 by a noticeable amount while the other races get little to nothing to compare this with is fair? Limiting v.humans from those feats at level one has at least at my table been a good way to keep the game feeling more balanced and made s.human a more accepted race since they are not outperformed by v.humans.

I have nothing against playing featless and am planning to play the next campaign I run without feats and multi-classing since we have new players. And I have been following the other thread with great interest due to that.

Edit: for example lvl 1 barbarian that rages 16 str vs ac 13
Greataxe, no feat: avg. 6.9 dmg per turn.
Greataxe, GWM: avg 9.675 dmg per turn.
Glaive, pwm: avg 10.8 dmg per turn.

[GlenSmash!]

I've have also never had a game broken my damage output form those feats at early levels.

Combats end maybe 1 round earlier, and at the deadliest levels in the game that's perfectly ok.

[stoutstien]

I've have also never had a game broken my damage output form those feats at early levels.

Combats end maybe 1 round earlier, and at the deadliest levels in the game that's perfectly ok.

I think it's more about the potential to overshadow fellow party members than breaking the game. Game balance is always better in a comparison to the rest of the party than anything else.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I've have also never had a game broken my damage output form those feats at early levels.

Combats end maybe 1 round earlier, and at the deadliest levels in the game that's perfectly ok.

Etch this on a nerf bat and go to town on people.

****

Damage is the least optimize thing a character can optimize for (especially after level 1 or 2)... Mostly because each class is pretty much already optimized for combat.

The floor being built a bit high was yet another thing 5e brought over from 4e.

Feats like Actor, Prodigy, Magic Initiate/Ritual Caster, and Dungeon Delver are much more useful to a party member than throwing out more damage... Especially since a DM can and will easily asjust for that additional damage output.

[GlenSmash!]

Etch this on a nerf bat and go to town on people.

****

Damage is the least optimize thing a character can optimize for (especially after level 1 or 2)... Mostly because each class is pretty much already optimized for combat.

The floor being built a bit high was yet another thing 5e brought over from 4e.

Feats like Actor, Prodigy, Magic Initiate/Ritual Caster, and Dungeon Delver are much more useful to a party member than throwing out more damage... Especially since a DM can and will easily asjust for that additional damage output.

It took me a while to learn but around my 5th or 6th Barbarian I figured out that even on the combat side taking Resilient Wisdom at level 1 was going to make a lot more difference than taking GWM.

Doing no damage because I am Stunned or otherwise incapacitated or frightened is far worse than losing out on potential GWM or PAM damage.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It took me a while to learn but around my 5th or 6th Barbarian I figured out that even on the combat side taking Resilient Wisdom at level 1 was going to make a lot more difference than taking GWM.

Doing no damage because I am Stunned or otherwise incapacitated or frightened is far worse than losing out on potential GWM or PAM damage.

The saving throw system in 5e is totally borked. Ugh.

I typically won't take resilient, if my character falls prey to a domination or crown of madness... That's on the DM and the system more than me. One of my old DMs learned that dominating a PC can have disastrous outcomes. My barbarian one shot the party wizard when the DM had a caster use suggestion on my Barbarian.

[GlenSmash!]

The saving throw system in 5e is totally borked. Ugh.

I typically won't take resilient, if my character falls prey to a domination or crown of madness... That's on the DM and the system more than me. One of my old DMs learned that dominating a PC can have disastrous outcomes. My barbarian one shot the party wizard when the DM had a caster use suggestion on my Barbarian.

I've never been dominated but Hold Person and similar effects have been an Achilles heel of my Barbarians before. And rightly so. If I choose "Moar Damage" over shoring up a weakness that's on me not the DM.

It's not like the DM throws these kinds of things at me all the time, they just happen every so often on an adventuring day. But when it does happen being able to shrug it off feels pretty good.

But back to your earlier point, in sheer usefulness even a Beastmaster Ranger that has made good spell choices can contribute in ways that really matter far more than the best Beatstick Barbarian I can possibly come up with.

[bid]

In practice, though, getting that +2 only lets you push a stat up to 17, which doesn't really offer any tangible benefit over a 16. Both give you a +3 modifier, and in either case you're probably going to bump it to 18 at 4th level. That said, getting a 17 would let you pick up a half feat instead and still get it to 18.
Odd stats are the tool of the Devil!

The biggest practical issue is that triton's stat only align for paladin (and fighter-dipped gish). There isn't many +1/+1/+1 choices.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Odd stats are the tool of the Devil!

The biggest practical issue is that triton's stat only align for paladin (and fighter-dipped gish). There isn't many +1/+1/+1 choices.

They're certainly skewed a bit towards Paladin, but a bonus to Con to go with that Str/Cha allows them to fill more roles. They would make for a pretty decent Ranger in a nautical themed campaign, especially with their ability to communicate ideas with aquatic creatures.

I'd go so far as to say that they're well suited for any martial other than Monk, and to a lesser extent, Barbarian. The only real point against Barbarian is that their innate spellcasting might not be utilized. Having a racial bonus to constitution tends to open you up to a lot of options, just look at Dwarves and then Hill Dwarves with their HP bonus.

I'd even be willing to make the bold claim that if Dragonborn simply had +1/+1/+1 in the same way that Tritons do they would instantly be more appealing and not pushed so hard into Paladin.

[KorvinStarmast]

... this with is fair?
Is this fair?
regular ...

Humans can't see in the dark.
Humans don't get resistance to poison
Humans don't get dragon breath
Don't get +1 HP per level (Hill dwarf)
Hhumans don't get free spells and cantrips (Tiefling, high elf, gnomes, drow)
Humans don't get extra skill proficiencies
Humans don't get extra languages.
Humans don't get telepathy (ghost wise halfling)
Humans don't get extra proficiencies (1/2 elf)
Humans don't get up after being dropped to 0 HP (Half Orc)

vHumans get something like all of the other races get. A neato abilty / feat and one additional proficiency/ skill.

They pay for that with half of an ASI.

Additional proficiency and a feat but they lose out on 4 +1's. (Well, end up with only have two +1's in stead of a +1 and a +2).

vHuman IMO ought to be the standard human, given how humans are described in the PHB.

I do agree with you that featless games work out OK, since we have played in them and we had fun.

[ProsecutorGodot]

vHuman IMO ought to be the standard human, given how humans are described in the PHB.

I like to think that they were the standard option. This is speculation on my part, but since standard human seems to out of place with the rest of the races it could be that feats were intended originally to be a standard rule.

When the change was made to make them a variant option, naturally humans had to be changed as well. Again, purely speculation on my part.

[KorvinStarmast]

When the change was made to make them a variant option, naturally humans had to be changed as well. Again, purely speculation on my part. Was not involved in the play test, so I have no idea.

[malachi]

I like to think that they were the standard option. This is speculation on my part, but since standard human seems to out of place with the rest of the races it could be that feats were intended originally to be a standard rule.

When the change was made to make them a variant option, naturally humans had to be changed as well. Again, purely speculation on my part.

But why didn't they get something like extra skill / tool proficiencies? Based on the analysis I did here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24126014&postcount=118), the stat bonuses that a standard human gets in the best situation (all stats are odd) will only result in something like a 3 percentage point (that's 50% to 53%, not 50% to 51.5%) improved success rate over a standard +2/+1 race (when assuming all stats are equally rolled), or something like a 4 percentage point increase if your racial stats don't align at all with what you expect to be primarily rolling.

Having that small a difference seems... silly, especially when it's compared with all of the things other races get that I could do something interesting with. Even something like a dwarf's tool proficiency can come up and make me say "Yeah, I can definitely brew that. I'm a dwarfy dwarf. The dwarfiest, in fact." Whereas nothing in the standard human says "Yeah, I'm definitely proud to be a human", other than maybe saying "Because several of my numbers are slightly bigger than yours!"

Based on the description, it really seems like standard humans should get something like Jack of All Trades. Then, you can say "well, no, I'm not trained in survival. But I still feel confident enough to give it a whirl, because I'm human. The humaniest human, in fact."

[Willie the Duck]

Based on the description, it really seems like standard humans should get something like Jack of All Trades. Then, you can say "well, no, I'm not trained in survival. But I still feel confident enough to give it a whirl, because I'm human. The humaniest human, in fact."

There are lots of things that could have been done with humans which would work even if the optional feat system were not used. They could have gotten the extra tools, extra languages, extra skills, a 'jack of all trades'-like ability (either the ability that bards/rogues end up getting, or a new mechanic approximating the same concept), natural diplomacy with other races, and so on. Honestly, much of what half-elves ended up getting (other than darkvision) could easily have ended up on the human racial plate (and the half-elf being a little more, y'know, elvish). I think once we go down the road of designing a new version of non-feat-bearing human, rather than salvaging the existing one with small tweaks, the number of potential new versions becomes nearly limitless.

[stoutstien]

Personally I'm working on a way to adapt the race/heritage system from Pathfinder 2e. It allows a lot more freedom of expression. I know it's going to end up a lot more complex but I fe it can add alot

[NNescio]

There are lots of things that could have been done with humans which would work even if the optional feat system were not used. They could have gotten the extra tools, extra languages, extra skills, a 'jack of all trades'-like ability (either the ability that bards/rogues end up getting, or a new mechanic approximating the same concept), natural diplomacy with other races, and so on. Honestly, much of what half-elves ended up getting (other than darkvision) could easily have ended up on the human racial plate (and the half-elf being a little more, y'know, elvish). I think once we go down the road of designing a new version of non-feat-bearing human, rather than salvaging the existing one with small tweaks, the number of potential new versions becomes nearly limitless.

Nerf Half-elves down to one extra skill prof. Give Stumans two. Done.

(Keep Vumans as is.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Nerf Half-elves down to one extra skill prof. Give Stumans two. Done.

(Keep Vumans as is.)Not a bad suggestion.

[stoutstien]

I wonder how the new dragonmarks coming out will effect the status quo for best race for X.
I know it limed by setting but the amount of new options is going to be nice to make things like half orc clerics.

[ezekielraiden]

I wonder how the new dragonmarks coming out will effect the status quo for best race for X.
I know it limed by setting but the amount of new options is going to be nice to make things like half orc clerics.

Mainly, I'm hoping we actually get a dragonmark compatible with dragonborn. 'Cause they exist in Argonessen, and why would, y'know, the draconic PC race have no dragonmarks??

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I've never been dominated but Hold Person and similar effects have been an Achilles heel of my Barbarians before. And rightly so. If I choose "Moar Damage" over shoring up a weakness that's on me not the DM.

It's not like the DM throws these kinds of things at me all the time, they just happen every so often on an adventuring day. But when it does happen being able to shrug it off feels pretty good.

But back to your earlier point, in sheer usefulness even a Beastmaster Ranger that has made good spell choices can contribute in ways that really matter far more than the best Beatstick Barbarian I can possibly come up with.

I feel that the game would be better if the DM could throw these effects at players without worrying that they will fail a majority of the time. It would be awesome if a DM could stun a character and not have to worry about the character being out for the entire fight. One round? Ok. 2 rounds... Bad luck... But the way things are now, a Barbarian or other meat stick can easily fail 6 saves in a row.

Spellcasting will always be top tier until they start realizing that this isn't a single player action rpg videogame.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I feel that the game would be better if the DM could throw these effects at players without worrying that they will fail a majority of the time. It would be awesome if a DM could stun a character and not have to worry about the character being out for the entire fight. One round? Ok. 2 rounds... Bad luck... But the way things are now, a Barbarian or other meat stick can easily fail 6 saves in a row.

Spellcasting will always be top tier until they start realizing that this isn't a single player action rpg videogame.

What kind of system could they make? Consecutive saves receive a stacking bonus to break? Put a flat amount of failed saves on before the spell breaks?

The idea is appealing, I ran a one shot once where the fighter had no choice to sit in the corner and cry when he forgot to bring a ranged weapon to the ancient dragon fight, he only had a 5% chance to break out of the fear.

[Spacehamster]

It’s the best race there is if you are going for something really MAD that requires 3 ability scores at 13 plus a decent STA.

[NNescio]

What kind of system could they make? Consecutive saves receive a stacking bonus to break? Put a flat amount of failed saves on before the spell breaks?

The idea is appealing, I ran a one shot once where the fighter had no choice to sit in the corner and cry when he forgot to bring a ranged weapon to the ancient dragon fight, he only had a 5% chance to break out of the fear.

Give high level Fighters and Barbarians Legendary Resistance 1/day?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Give high level Fighters and Barbarians Legendary Resistance 1/day?

Fighter's gain Indomitable charges at 9th, 13th and 17th level. Rerolling saves is already a powerful feature for PC's, I'd avoid giving them auto successes.

[Mordaedil]

I like to think that they were the standard option. This is speculation on my part, but since standard human seems to out of place with the rest of the races it could be that feats were intended originally to be a standard rule.

When the change was made to make them a variant option, naturally humans had to be changed as well. Again, purely speculation on my part.

The variant human was likely the default human up until they decided to make feats an optional rule for ease of play for newcomers.

With feats being defaulted to optional rule, having humans gain an advantage that no other class would gain, a new human was made the default instead, with a very boring baseline benefit.

I don't think anyone, even new players, will ever play a boring default that does not allow feats or make variant humans default however.

[Tanarii]

I don't think anyone, even new players, will ever play a boring default that does not allow feats or make variant humans default however.
Somewhere between a quarter and a third of my players prove your belief wrong.

[ad_hoc]

I feel that the game would be better if the DM could throw these effects at players without worrying that they will fail a majority of the time. It would be awesome if a DM could stun a character and not have to worry about the character being out for the entire fight. One round? Ok. 2 rounds... Bad luck... But the way things are now, a Barbarian or other meat stick can easily fail 6 saves in a row.

Spellcasting will always be top tier until they start realizing that this isn't a single player action rpg videogame.

Well, combat in 5e is assumed to take an average of 3 rounds.

It's also completely fine to be out of it for a fight.

There can be no triumph without danger.


The variant human was likely the default human up until they decided to make feats an optional rule for ease of play for newcomers.

With feats being defaulted to optional rule, having humans gain an advantage that no other class would gain, a new human was made the default instead, with a very boring baseline benefit.

I don't think anyone, even new players, will ever play a boring default that does not allow feats or make variant humans default however.

As has been said before, standard human is the most popular race in 5e.

If we look at the design of the rules it looks very likely that feats were designed to be optional at least early in the process. Just like multiclassing they are not integrated into the rest of the game. Rather, they feel tacked on.

[Greywander]

I've seen a few people suggest something like a Jack of all Trades ability. I started a doc for races without ASIs, and so far for "standard" humans I've given them two features:

Human Ambition. You can add +1 to any ability check you make in which you are not proficient.
Note: This stacks with Jack of all Trades.

Human Versatility. You may choose a second background and gain all the benefits.

They also get free Common and the language associated with their human ethnicity.

I've said this before, but there's not really a lot that we can add to humans, since humans are pretty much default. I was really tempted to go ahead and give them +1 to all ability scores (since doing so wouldn't actually violate the reason why I'm doing no-ASI races), but thought I might go ahead and try this out. It still seems a bit weak. Ironically, this version of humans rates as balanced on the Musicus scale and is a bit weak on the Detect Balance scale, while my version of variant human (feat + skill + tool + language) is more balanced by Detect Balance but grossly underpowered on the Musicus scale (caveat, Musicus doesn't give a rating for feats, so I defaulted to scoring it the same as a +2 ASI).

Anyway, how does this look for a start?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Fighter's gain Indomitable charges at 9th, 13th and 17th level. Rerolling saves is already a powerful feature for PC's, I'd avoid giving them auto successes.


Indomitable is a terrible feature.

It should have been Constitution modifier to saving throws straight up (like how Paladins get Cha).

Indomitable gives you a reroll on a failed save... Which means you still are going to suck on most saves. So you get to roll twice... And if you fail that's it.




Well, combat in 5e is assumed to take an average of 3 rounds.

It's also completely fine to be out of it for a fight.

There can be no triumph without danger.



As has been said before, standard human is the most popular race in 5e.

If we look at the design of the rules it looks very likely that feats were designed to be optional at least early in the process. Just like multiclassing they are not integrated into the rest of the game. Rather, they feel tacked on.

The most dangerous thing during a game is a bored player. Knock a player out of an entire fight due to one bad saving throw and you're asking for trouble.

Also, 5e's assumptions for battles (number of them and length) doesn't work all that well in practice.

[Tanarii]

Well, combat in 5e is assumed to take an average of 3 rounds.Individual monsters are rated as if they are going to survive 3 rounds. That implies half of them will be dead after three rounds*, but that's a very different thing from combat taking on average three rounds. Unless you're exclusively using solo fights, in which case you've got other problems.

*and I think in a Medium difficulty fight, but I'm not sure because brain is still half asleep, plus I'm not sure how they go from CR -> Difficulty allows us to make assumptions about how the rounds / (individual monster) CR maps to rounds for 1/2 the creatures to be dead.


[...] that feats were designed to be optional at least early in the process. Just like multiclassing they are not integrated into the rest of the game. Rather, they feel tacked on.
Indeed, it's pretty clear they weren't as thoroughly play tested, and the Devs were well aware the interactions and combinations could break the game. Similarly, Variant humans are way out of line with other races, much further 'above' any other choices than standard humans are 'below' the 'average. (Half-elves being the other drastic outlier.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Indomitable is a terrible feature.

It should have been Constitution modifier to saving throws straight up (like how Paladins get Cha).

Indomitable gives you a reroll on a failed save... Which means you still are going to suck on most saves. So you get to roll twice... And if you fail that's it.

It's an ability to reroll saves that stacks with advantage, I don't see how it can be all that bad when the alternative is that you don't get a reroll at all. Sure, it's not as nice as just auto succeeding but it's still not bad to have. I'd avoid comparing it to Aura of Protection as well. Aura of Protection is undeniably one of the most powerful class features in the game and you just have it at no cost. Even as an avid Paladin player myself, it's ridiculously strong and probably shouldn't be as good as it is.


The most dangerous thing during a game is a bored player. Knock a player out of an entire fight due to one bad saving throw and you're asking for trouble.
It's possible to keep a player engaged even when they have nothing to do for a few minutes. The hope is that they're invested in what the party is achieving overall rather than just what they can do in a single combat. No denying it sucks but it's not going to be the end of the world.

Did I mention that I'm an avid Paladin player who also made the mistake of having dumped Int in a campaign with Mind Flayers? I was stunned for 5 rounds (50% chance to save with my Aura, 5 bad saving throws), thank goodness my Aura of Protection was active the entire time for my allies at least. We scraped through the fight and I was reminded that even with my god given might and fortitude I was still a man.


SNIP

Anyway, how does this look for a start?
It could be a bit complicated to rationalize having some extensive backgrounds. A lot of them would take up a majority of the beginning of your life just to pick up and learn, imagine how difficult it would be for a Knight of the Order to also be a skilled Guild Artisan. There could also be conflicting backgrounds that a player might choose simply for the mechanical benefits, like Urchin (growing up on the streets poor and alone) for Thieves Tools proficiency as a Noble (understanding wealth, power and privilege with a family).

I like the idea though, it could be a fun way to try and make background combinations like the ones above actually work out.

I'd lean on the "everyone's second best friend" bit and give them something like "add half of your charisma modifier (rounded up) to Persuasion checks made to interact with other races". They're touted as being strong diplomats but they fail on that front to Half-Elves.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's an ability to reroll saves that stacks with advantage, I don't see how it can be all that bad when the alternative is that you don't get a reroll at all. Sure, it's not as nice as just auto succeeding but it's still not bad to have. I'd avoid comparing it to Aura of Protection as well. Aura of Protection is undeniably one of the most powerful class features in the game and you just have it at no cost. Even as an avid Paladin player myself, it's ridiculously strong and probably shouldn't be as good as it is.


It's possible to keep a player engaged even when they have nothing to do for a few minutes. The hope is that they're invested in what the party is achieving overall rather than just what they can do in a single combat. No denying it sucks but it's not going to be the end of the world.

Did I mention that I'm an avid Paladin player who also made the mistake of having dumped Int in a campaign with Mind Flayers? I was stunned for 5 rounds (50% chance to save with my Aura, 5 bad saving throws), thank goodness my Aura of Protection was active the entire time for my allies at least. We scraped through the fight and I was reminded that even with my god given might and fortitude I was still a man.


It could be a bit complicated to rationalize having some extensive backgrounds. A lot of them would take up a majority of the beginning of your life just to pick up and learn, imagine how difficult it would be for a Knight of the Order to also be a skilled Guild Artisan. There could also be conflicting backgrounds that a player might choose simply for the mechanical benefits, like Urchin (growing up on the streets poor and alone) for Thieves Tools proficiency as a Noble (understanding wealth, power and privilege with a family).

I like the idea though, it could be a fun way to try and make background combinations like the ones above actually work out.

I'd lean on the "everyone's second best friend" bit and give them something like "add half of your charisma modifier (rounded up) to Persuasion checks made to interact with other races". They're touted as being strong diplomats but they fail on that front to Half-Elves.


Rerolling doesn't matter when you aren't likely to pass either roll.

1d20 + 2 still sucks no matter how many times you reroll it.

Indomitable is good for saving throws that you already have a good chance at passing.

Indomitable might be the worse class feature in the game solely because it pulls the wool over people's eyes. At least other features aren't so deceptive.

Also, once per long rest? What sort of crap was they smoking? Twice at high levels... Ugh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rerolling doesn't matter when you aren't likely to pass either roll.

1d20 + 2 still sucks no matter how many times you reroll it.

Indomitable is good for saving throws that you already have a good chance at passing.

Indomitable might be the worse class feature in the game solely because it pulls the wool over people's eyes. At least other features aren't so deceptive.

Also, once per long rest? What sort of crap was they smoking? Twice at high levels... Ugh.

If you're going up against an ancient dragon...why don't you have heroism? Heck, even potions of it work just fine.

and 1d20 + 2 still has a chance against everything below CR 21. So if you're facing super-boss monsters (which you might once in a campaign), you need special preparations like a level 1 spell on multiple lists. That also gives refreshing THP. Otherwise, you've got a decent chance of success unless you dump that ability score into the negatives.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Indomitable might be the worse class feature in the game solely because it pulls the wool over people's eyes. At least other features aren't so deceptive.

How is it at all deceptive? It does exactly what it says, which isn't bad.

[Pex]

It could be a bit complicated to rationalize having some extensive backgrounds. A lot of them would take up a majority of the beginning of your life just to pick up and learn, imagine how difficult it would be for a Knight of the Order to also be a skilled Guild Artisan. There could also be conflicting backgrounds that a player might choose simply for the mechanical benefits, like Urchin (growing up on the streets poor and alone) for Thieves Tools proficiency as a Noble (understanding wealth, power and privilege with a family).

I like the idea though, it could be a fun way to try and make background combinations like the ones above actually work out.

I'd lean on the "everyone's second best friend" bit and give them something like "add half of your charisma modifier (rounded up) to Persuasion checks made to interact with other races". They're touted as being strong diplomats but they fail on that front to Half-Elves.

A reckless youth bored of the banality of proper etiquette, useless education of facts no one cares about, servants to do everything for you, the young noble child sneaks out of the house to explore the streets seeking out excitement of whatever trouble he or she can get into, to live by his or her wits instead of wealth. As a young adult the PC no longer needs to sneak out of the house and can be a professional adventurer, much to the chagrin of his or her parents.

[Fnissalot]

How about instead of their ability score increases, give standard humans +1 bonus to proficiency bonuses? It would make them versatile and would be slightly better than +1 in every attribute even if it makes it take a while longer to max out your stats? This would also affect expertise and jack of all trades.

Human Commitment
You have a +1 bonus to your proficiency bonus.

Edit: I know it is irregular. I am more interested in figuring out how balanced you think it is in the early vs late game?

[KorvinStarmast]

How about instead of their ability score increases, give standard humans +1 bonus to proficiency bonuses? It would make them versatile and would be slightly better than +1 in every attribute even if it makes it take a while longer to max out your stats? This would also affect expertise and jack of all trades.

Human Commitment
You have a +1 bonus to your proficiency bonus.

Edit: I know it is irregular. I am more interested in figuring out how balanced you think it is in the early vs late game? That's an intriguing line of inquiry. One of the things a math friend told me was that flat bonuses1 and bounded accuracy don't mesh all that well. I think it would maybe encourage more people to go regular human.

1 We were discussing my fighting style choice as a ranger, and after our discussion it was archery. +2 flat to hit bonus was just too good, based on his illustration to me

[stoutstien]

How about instead of their ability score increases, give standard humans +1 bonus to proficiency bonuses? It would make them versatile and would be slightly better than +1 in every attribute even if it makes it take a while longer to max out your stats? This would also affect expertise and jack of all trades.

Human Commitment
You have a +1 bonus to your proficiency bonus.

Edit: I know it is irregular. I am more interested in figuring out how balanced you think it is in the early vs late game?

Be safer just give the prodigy feat for free with 3 +1 stats

[Greywander]

It could be a bit complicated to rationalize having some extensive backgrounds.
Humans are pretty good at rationalizing things, so I don't think it would be as much of an issue as you might think. Custom backgrounds are a thing, too, so all you really need is a backstory that explains why you have these skills and this ribbon ability. Maybe you were a tour guide, rather than an urchin, and that's why you can get around the city so much quicker. Or maybe you were actually responsible for civil planning, so you have maps of all the different back alleys memorized because you were the one who actually decided where they should be built. There's a lot of ways you could spin it.


How about instead of their ability score increases, give standard humans +1 bonus to proficiency bonuses?

That's an intriguing line of inquiry. One of the things a math friend told me was that flat bonuses1 and bounded accuracy don't mesh all that well. I think it would maybe encourage more people to go regular human.

1 We were discussing my fighting style choice as a ranger, and after our discussion it was archery. +2 flat to hit bonus was just too good, based on his illustration to me
I actually considered this, but ultimately rejected it. Humans are supposed to be generalists, whereas this would make them better specialists. +1 to your proficiency bonus is actually really good, so much so that the Ioun Stone of Mastery is a Legendary magic item. KorvinStarmast is also correct that it's generally not a good idea to hand out bonuses that stack with all your other bonuses, as things can get ridiculous quite quickly. If combined with the Ioun Stone and expertise, you'd get a +16 from your proficiency bonus alone, which would increase to +21 if you had a 20 in that ability score.

It's an interesting idea, and it's generic enough that it could work for a human, but it's also a lot stronger than you probably realize. Almost everything you do will use your proficiency bonus, because if it doesn't, then you'll let someone else do it instead.

[Fnissalot]

Humans are pretty good at rationalizing things, so I don't think it would be as much of an issue as you might think. Custom backgrounds are a thing, too, so all you really need is a backstory that explains why you have these skills and this ribbon ability. Maybe you were a tour guide, rather than an urchin, and that's why you can get around the city so much quicker. Or maybe you were actually responsible for civil planning, so you have maps of all the different back alleys memorized because you were the one who actually decided where they should be built. There's a lot of ways you could spin it.



I actually considered this, but ultimately rejected it. Humans are supposed to be generalists, whereas this would make them better specialists. +1 to your proficiency bonus is actually really good, so much so that the Ioun Stone of Mastery is a Legendary magic item. KorvinStarmast is also correct that it's generally not a good idea to hand out bonuses that stack with all your other bonuses, as things can get ridiculous quite quickly. If combined with the Ioun Stone and expertise, you'd get a +16 from your proficiency bonus alone, which would increase to +21 if you had a 20 in that ability score.

It's an interesting idea, and it's generic enough that it could work for a human, but it's also a lot stronger than you probably realize. Almost everything you do will use your proficiency bonus, because if it doesn't, then you'll let someone else do it instead.

It is true that flat bonuses are risky.

Depends on how you interpret generalists and specialists. This way since they can choose what they get proficiency in, most humans will have different focuses. The standard human is more every one is the same grey slate. I would interpret humans as adaptable and coming in a great variety, not that every one is equal? If a race was specialists, I would assume that they were very good at a few specific predetermined things.

But my point with it was not to focus on the generalist angle. Instead, I think it is more interesting that humans are described as ambitious and striving to achievements regardless of their short lives.

(Depends on if you roll your attributes or not) Mechanically, on level 1 you should still have +5 on your main attacks to hit and on your best skills you have proficiency in. You cannot start with a 16 in a stat(unless you roll) while other races can. And you will not get the extra hp from if your race would have improved your con, you will have a harder time multi-classing, and you will deal less damage when you hit with mainly weapons. You will need 3 ASIs to max out your main stat, while others will only need 2. At that point most classes will be at level 12 so it will first be a good thing in tier 3?

Bards and rogues are the exception to this due to expertise and Jack of all trades, so they get benefits from it a lot earlier. And I am honestly not worrying about things getting broken in tier 4. I have never played in a game that took place in tier 4 and everyone can do crazy things at that tier anyway so if rogues and bards get a little better at stuff, it might not be an issue at that point? And I am even tempted to think that it would be too weak in the early tiers as your only racial feature.

[NNescio]

Something like this, maybe?

[The following features are gained on top of what St. Human has.]

Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.

Enthusiast: Choose one skill or tool in which you have proficiency. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the proficiency. The skill you choose must be one that isn’t already benefiting from a feature, such as Expertise, that doubles your proficiency bonus.

Alternatively in place of the above, you may choose to dabble in all fields. You gain a +1 bonus to any ability check you make that doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus.

Human Adaptability: Each time you gain a level, you may change the benefit granted by Enthusiast. You choose another skill or tool in which you have proficiency, or to dabble in all fields, gaining any benefits as appropriate. You lose all previous benefits granted by that feature.

--

So, basically, you get floating Expertise or Jack of All Trades lite, which can be changed every time on level up. So you can be a dabbling generalist... or a budding specialist in whichever new field that strikes your fancy.

(Should I make Enthusiast not stack with Jack of All Trades?)

[Coffee_Dragon]

Enthusiast: Choose one skill or tool in which you have proficiency. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the proficiency. The skill you choose must be one that isn’t already benefiting from a feature, such as Expertise, that doubles your proficiency bonus.

Human Adaptability: Each time you gain a level, you may change the benefit granted by Enthusiast.

Oh, just call it Geek.

"What kind of geek is your human this level?"
"I'm a lockpicking geek! You?"
"I'm a medicine geek now!"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

How is it at all deceptive? It does exactly what it says, which isn't bad.

It is bad.

It's only ever really useful if you fail a Strength or Constitution Save, something you aren't likely to fail.

Your chance at passing any other save is still horrible and indomitable doesn't make you better at it.

Yeah, it seems great, 1/long rest reroll a save... But you still most likely going to fail that Int, Wis, and Cha save (dex saves typically are just HP and a fighter cab fail them easily).

Indomitable is terrible for a mid level feature that doesn't actually do anything helpful once per long rest other than make you think you gained a class feature.

[bid]

It's only ever really useful if you fail a Strength or Constitution Save, something you aren't likely to fail.
"I shouldn't fail this" is exactly why it's good. It removes RNGesus from the equation.

You can act confident instead of planning for failure.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It is bad.

It's only ever really useful if you fail a Strength or Constitution Save, something you aren't likely to fail.

Your chance at passing any other save is still horrible and indomitable doesn't make you better at it.

Yeah, it seems great, 1/long rest reroll a save... But you still most likely going to fail that Int, Wis, and Cha save (dex saves typically are just HP and a fighter cab fail them easily).

Indomitable is terrible for a mid level feature that doesn't actually do anything helpful once per long rest other than make you think you gained a class feature.

I can see that we're approaching this from different mindsets. You seem to view it as something to be lost, if your second save fails then it's been wasted. I view it as an opportunity to succeed where you wouldn't otherwise have one. I don't see insurance against failure as a bad thing. Like Bid says above, it works best in the event that you fail a crucial save that you already have a good chance at making. The logic spins both ways, just because you're able to make this save often doesn't mean that you will always make it.

There are very very few times where you would be worse off for having used indomitable. The only example off the top of my head is Drow Poison which has a more severe effect if your save is 5 or more below the DC.

You can dislike the feature and think that it's unimpressive but as far as statistics are concerned it will improve your odds to succeed unless the odds were zero to begin with.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I can see that we're approaching this from different mindsets. You seem to view it as something to be lost, if your second save fails then it's been wasted. I view it as an opportunity to succeed where you wouldn't otherwise have one. I don't see insurance against failure as a bad thing. Like Bid says above, it works best in the event that you fail a crucial save that you already have a good chance at making. The logic spins both ways, just because you're able to make this save often doesn't mean that you will always make it.

There are very very few times where you would be worse off for having used indomitable. The only example off the top of my head is Drow Poison which has a more severe effect if your save is 5 or more below the DC.

You can dislike the feature and think that it's unimpressive but as far as statistics are concerned it will improve your odds to succeed unless the odds were zero to begin with.

I'm approaching this with the mind set "is it useful based on what it does, the level you gain it, and compared to other features like it". The answer is no on all accounts.

Rerolling diesnt improve your odds of passing a save because each roll is independent of itself. 1d20 + 2 (say a wis save) has the same chance of beating a DC 17 each time you roll. Even advantage only really gives you a +3 to a roll.

That still ain't worth it once per long rest (until high levels). And it may stack with advantage but not a lot of things give you advantage on a save that comes directly from the Fighter.

Look at a similar type feature with the Paladin. Look at the Rogue with Evasion. Indomitable is laughable and I've seen way too many people forget it's even a thing because of how utterly useless it is.

[bid]

Rerolling diesnt improve your odds of passing a save because each roll is independent of itself. 1d20 + 2 (say a wis save) has the same chance of beating a DC 17 each time you roll. Even advantage only really gives you a +3 to a roll.
Failing a DC 17 twice happens half the time, so pre-using indomitable is a +5 in that case.

If reliable talent allowed you to take 10 on saves, indomitable would be weak.

[Rebonack]

We just completely rebuilt humans so that their racial features are actually things humans are good at.

+1 to any two stats
One skill prof of choice
Long Haul: Humans have advantage on saves against Exhaustion.
Walk it Off: Humans add their Proficiency Modifier to their healing Hit Dice in addition to their Constitution Modifier.
True Grit: When a human succeeds on a Death Saving Throw they may spend a Hit Die as a Bonus Action.

I think they contrast nicely with Dwarves and Half Orcs. Dwarves can just take a whole bunch of hits. Half Orcs can stave off getting dropped to zero.

But humans? You can knock a human down, but unless you're making sure he STAYS down he's probably going to stagger back to his feet defiantly.

Of note, we also require Constitution saves any time a PC is knocked to zero (DC is ten or half the damage taken, whichever is higher). This helps to prevent yoyoing from being as attractive and allows that Exhaustion resistance to come into play more often than never.

[ProsecutorGodot]

We just completely rebuilt humans so that their racial features are actually things humans are good at.

+1 to any two stats
One skill prof of choice
Long Haul: Humans have advantage on saves against Exhaustion.
Walk it Off: Humans add their Proficiency Modifier to their healing Hit Dice in addition to their Constitution Modifier.
True Grit: When a human succeeds on a Death Saving Throw they may spend a Hit Die as a Bonus Action.

I think they contrast nicely with Dwarves and Half Orcs. Dwarves can just take a whole bunch of hits. Half Orcs can stave off getting dropped to zero.

But humans? You can knock a human down, but unless you're making sure he STAYS down he's probably going to stagger back to his feet defiantly.

Of note, we also require Constitution saves any time a PC is knocked to zero (DC is ten or half the damage taken, whichever is higher). This helps to prevent yoyoing from being as attractive and allows that Exhaustion resistance to come into play more often than never.

My Human Paladin would have been all over this, he's focused around hit die healing. Periapt of Wound Closure, Res: Con, Durable and this? You'd have to pile on to kill me.

Speaking on the True Grit aspect, we actually made a feat with similar functionality.

Last Stand
-If you begin your turn at or below half of your hit point maximum you can choose to take the dodge action as a bonus action.
-When damage reduces you to 0 hit points, you can make a Constitution saving throw. The DC equals 10 or the damage taken, whichever number is higher. On a success, you can spend a Hit Die to heal yourself. Roll the die, add your Constitution modifier, and regain a number of hit points equal to the total (minimum of 1).
It's not so loosely based on the Dwarven Fortitude feat. Worth noting that since I've taken the feat I haven't had the chance to use the second effect.

[Rebonack]

My Human Paladin would have been all over this, he's focused around hit die healing. Periapt of Wound Closure, Res: Con, Durable and this? You'd have to pile on to kill me.

Speaking on the True Grit aspect, we actually made a feat with similar functionality.

It's not so loosely based on the Dwarven Fortitude feat. Worth noting that since I've taken the feat I haven't had the chance to use the second effect.

Glad you thought it looks neat! We've had fun with it. True Grit has, as you might imagine, lead to some really dramatic, heroic comebacks. It is a pretty major high-point for players when their paladin staggers back to her feet and finishes off that dragon with a crit-smite.

That's my biggest problem with Human, whether we're talking standard or variant. Not that they're too strong or weak, but nothing about them actually feels human.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's my biggest problem with Human, whether we're talking standard or variant. Not that they're too strong or weak, but nothing about them actually feels human.
Kind of a hot take, but I find the idea that a human isn't very exciting to be pretty on brand for a world where dragons, elves and magic exist. That's not to say that I enjoy standard human, despite almost exclusively playing human characters I always push for VHuman if the option is open.

What I do feel needs work is the aspect of how such a mechanically poor race (Standard Human) is so prevalent in that same setting. The rules should help drive the narrative, Dwarves are rough and tumble so they get a con bonus and the hardiest of them get bonus health, elves are graceful and tend to have greater knowledge of the world around them which shows in their Dex and subraces (innate spellcasting, bonus weapon and skill proficiencies). Sure, +1 to everything and a language meets the bare minimum of making their skillset diverse and giving them the ability to make friends with other races, but it's just that, the bare minimum. Even the longest lived humans are living a fraction of the time that many other races are, they should have something that lets them do those great things that last for the ages like the book says they do.

Simple but powerful features to accentuate their determination to survive and thrive would go a long way, which is why I like your suggestions, although I would suggest one that isn't primarily combat focused. Perhaps allow Long Haul to give them a bonus to consecutive checks to accomplish the same task. It could work for tracking, crafting, diplomacy and depending on how broad you make it, saving throws.

[Contrast]

Rerolling diesnt improve your odds of passing a save because each roll is independent of itself. 1d20 + 2 (say a wis save) has the same chance of beating a DC 17 each time you roll. Even advantage only really gives you a +3 to a roll.

Base chance = 6/20 = 0.3 = 30%

Chance with Indomitable = (6/20)+((14/20)*(6/20)) = 0.51 = 51%

Not quite sure what school of mathematics you study under but at my table a 51% chance to pass is an improvement on a 30% chance to pass.

[Rebonack]

Kind of a hot take, but I find the idea that a human isn't very exciting to be pretty on brand for a world where dragons, elves and magic exist. That's not to say that I enjoy standard human, despite almost exclusively playing human characters I always push for VHuman if the option is open.

I understand your sentiment here, but I don't think it is well warranted. Humans are far from bland. They're tremendously varied (which the ability and skill choice does well to communicate) and they're incredibly tenacious. Long Haul's resistance to Exhaustion actually provides a HUGE benefit to humans as a civilization and could go a long way in describing how it is that they manage to be so successful. Being able to go for a few extra hours compared to a dwarf when it comes to working or marching under less than ideal environmental pressure means that humans can get more done, can march further, can get by with less, than other races. Combined with flexibility (skill and ability choice) humans can often do more things better and longer than other races.

Also, humans are portrayed as being a bit reckless. They are ambitious and take risks that other races that have a long view of things often don't. And that risk-taking attitude is likewise well communicated by how quickly they recover from injury compared to other races.

All in all, I think special humans are a great idea. Because we DO have things that make us unique. It's just many of the things that make humans unique compared to RL animals have been pilfered by the other fantasy demihumans. As a result, finding something that fits humans for D&D was kind of tricky, but I feel like really lasering in on 'humans never say die' is a mechanically and thematically fulfilling way to go.

[Mordaedil]

Somewhere between a quarter and a third of my players prove your belief wrong.

You play the game without feats entirely? Just ability score improvements?

Color me bored.

[Greywander]

What if...

What if humans (standard? variant?) could take any racial feats? Like, as a human, you have a bit of everything somewhere in your ancestry, and you never know when that might come out.

This doesn't really make you stronger, since you don't get anything, but it unlocks a lot of new options. Not sure how this would interact with racial feats that modify existing racial traits, like Bountiful Luck, though.

[diplomancer]

How about instead of their ability score increases, give standard humans +1 bonus to proficiency bonuses? It would make them versatile and would be slightly better than +1 in every attribute even if it makes it take a while longer to max out your stats? This would also affect expertise and jack of all trades.

Human Commitment
You have a +1 bonus to your proficiency bonus.

Edit: I know it is irregular. I am more interested in figuring out how balanced you think it is in the early vs late game?

+1 bonus to your proficiency looks to me massively overpowered; it is more or less functionally equivalent to +2 to all abilities that you care about the most. Affects all your attack rolls, spell save DCs, the skill checks you want to be good at, and 2 or 3 saving throws (all of them if you are a 14 level monk). AND (to me at least) it is boring and bland.

It gets worse in the late game, in that it becomes definitely more powerful than the Variant Human (once you get the feats you want the most).

[ezekielraiden]

What if...

What if humans (standard? variant?) could take any racial feats? Like, as a human, you have a bit of everything somewhere in your ancestry, and you never know when that might come out.

This doesn't really make you stronger, since you don't get anything, but it unlocks a lot of new options. Not sure how this would interact with racial feats that modify existing racial traits, like Bountiful Luck, though.

Pretty weak, really. Most racial feats aren't as good for most characters as just getting +2 to your most important stat. You'd also have, not only weirdness like the above, but serious issues with cross-racial balance stuff. As much as I lament the anemic dragonborn stats, there must be some balance considerations that went into certain features of the races--allowing characters to pick and choose whatever they like will probably lead to 1-2 feats being declared (whether right or not) "broken" in that context.

[qube]

+1 bonus to your proficiency looks to me massively overpowered; it is more or less functionally equivalent to +2 to all abilities that you care about the most. Affects all your attack rolls, spell save DCs, the skill checks you want to be good at, and 2 or 3 saving throws (all of them if you are a 14 level monk). AND (to me at least) it is boring and bland.

It gets worse in the late game, in that it becomes definitely more powerful than the Variant Human (once you get the feats you want the most).I disagree; on both accounts,

on it being massively overpowered at low level: +1 prof means
compared to +2 on their main stat
YES:+1 attack, +1 DC, +1 on their 'main' save (dex save for rogues, int save for wizards, ...)
NO: +1 on damage or and raw scores like AC (if their main stat gets added to AC) or init.
+1 on trained non-main skills, but no +1 the boost to non-trained main-stat skills

+1 on their second save
Those +1's? compared that to a race that gets advantage into something. Power wise, there are STILL better better combo's with actual specific racial feats over this.

And it getting worse in that late game ... I disagree to that as well, considering it's virtually impossible to boost your proficiency. Stats are easy: ASI's or items (even items that don't give a hoot about your initial score!) ... +1 proficiency? All I can think of is a legendairy ioun stone that does this.

[Justin Sane]

We just completely rebuilt humans so that their racial features are actually things humans are good at.

+1 to any two stats
One skill prof of choice
Long Haul: Humans have advantage on saves against Exhaustion.
Walk it Off: Humans add their Proficiency Modifier to their healing Hit Dice in addition to their Constitution Modifier.
True Grit: When a human succeeds on a Death Saving Throw they may spend a Hit Die as a Bonus Action.

I think they contrast nicely with Dwarves and Half Orcs. Dwarves can just take a whole bunch of hits. Half Orcs can stave off getting dropped to zero.

But humans? You can knock a human down, but unless you're making sure he STAYS down he's probably going to stagger back to his feet defiantly.

Of note, we also require Constitution saves any time a PC is knocked to zero (DC is ten or half the damage taken, whichever is higher). This helps to prevent yoyoing from being as attractive and allows that Exhaustion resistance to come into play more often than never.This is by far the best homebrew Human I've seen.

[diplomancer]

I disagree; on both accounts,

on it being massively overpowered at low level: +1 prof means
compared to +2 on their main stat
YES:+1 attack, +1 DC, +1 on their 'main' save (dex save for rogues, int save for wizards, ...)
NO: +1 on damage or and raw scores like AC (if their main stat gets added to AC) or init.
+1 on trained non-main skills, but no +1 the boost to non-trained main-stat skills

+1 on their second save
Those +1's? compared that to a race that gets advantage into something. Power wise, there are STILL better better combo's with actual specific racial feats over this.

And it getting worse in that late game ... I disagree to that as well, considering it's virtually impossible to boost your proficiency. Stats are easy: ASI's or items (even items that don't give a hoot about your initial score!) ... +1 proficiency? All I can think of is a legendairy ioun stone that does this.

I meant that the overpoweredness gets worse in the late game (I.e, it gets even more overpowered), sorry for the ambiguity.

[Tanarii]

You play the game without feats entirely? Just ability score improvements?

Color me bored.Yep. Its a campaign I run in three FLGS as an alternative for people bored with AL.

One reason it is fairly popular is precisely because it doesn't allow free multiclassing and feats, and the powergaming that so often promotes.

The other more common reason is that it is a persistent world, so one adventuring party can have an affect on the world tjat other groups see.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The other more common reason is that it is a persistent world, so one adventuring party can have an affect on the world tjat other groups see.

As a total side note, I've seen this myself. People love having lasting effects. They love interacting with NPCs that once were other players' characters (but have been retired).

[ZorroGames]

You play the game without feats entirely? Just ability score improvements?

Color me bored.

While I like Feats I find that ASIs fit my PC designs better unless I need a single odd stat boosted before Tier 2.

[qube]

I meant that the overpoweredness gets worse in the late game (I.e, it gets even more overpowered), sorry for the ambiguity.No prob, but it still leaves the main point: in that I don't see how it's overpowered to begin with.
That, and 1 language aside from common is all the human gets ... so it has to compensate for +2 on the main stat, +1 on the off stat, and one or more abilites.


attack / DC: both
damage: either stat or nothing. only exceptionally proficiency (hexblade's curse I think)
saves: +2 for prof vs an average of +1.5 from +3 stats. (exceptions exist for both: Monks prof 4 more, but paladin gets CHA to all, and allies).
init / hp / AC: specific stat. (exceptionally, you can get proficiency (jack of all trades for init) or two stats (monk, barbarian, bladesong wizard) )
Skills: depends on skill. (normally you have 4 skills on which you get proficiency, while you get an average of 4.5 bonus skillpoints from +3 in stat) (exception: jack of all trade)

(edit: yes the irony: monks who seemd good with +1 proficiency, for their saves, lose 1 to 1.5 points of AC for not going for any of the dex or wis races, and since they are multi-attackers, they fell -1 on damage per attack much more then others)

and that's just the +2/+1. We haven't touched the abilities yet.

"overpoweredness gets worse in the late game" ? What's half the damage of a red dragon's breathweapon (because tieflings get resistance; dwarves poison resistance, ... ). Aasimar... well THAT is a race that just kills it in getting stronger as the game progresses (1/day for 1 minute +20 damage on the first hit; and resistance necro) ...

I'm just not seeing it ... where does the overpowerness come in?

[chainer1216]

Mainly, I'm hoping we actually get a dragonmark compatible with dragonborn. 'Cause they exist in Argonessen, and why would, y'know, the draconic PC race have no dragonmarks??

The dragons of Eberron wiped out the last group that tried to mix dragons with the dragonmarked, its a big no-no in universe.

[Mordaedil]

While I like Feats I find that ASIs fit my PC designs better unless I need a single odd stat boosted before Tier 2.

I don't think there's any inherent problem with ASI's, heck I always plan to have a few for my PC's at some point, but having the game without the option of feats kinda sucks any kind of variation from the game I usually play.

One of the players in my current game took the standard human in a way that made sense to me, as his rolled ability scores were all odd (with one or two exceptions), he got a good reward for just getting +1 across the board.

I just think it's weird to play without the feats variant rules allowed. If it works for Tanarii and his group, power to him. I just like to have a bit more options designing my character. 5e already locks you pretty heavily (albeit I can understand doing it to discourage power gaming, a few of the feats are a tad too good for play, but hey that's what houserules are for)

Man, reading that post I made, again, made me come across as crass and rude. I'm extremely sorry, and thankful everyone responded to it maturely, more so than it deserved.

[Tanarii]

I just think it's weird to play without the feats variant rules allowed. If it works for Tanarii and his group, power to him. I just like to have a bit more options designing my character. 5e already locks you pretty heavily (albeit I can understand doing it to discourage power gaming, a few of the feats are a tad too good for play, but hey that's what houserules are for)

Man, reading that post I made, again, made me come across as crass and rude. I'm extremely sorry, and thankful everyone responded to it maturely, more so than it deserved.
No judgement on you or your personal desires. I was trying to make clear not everyone feels the same way. I have maybe 30 regular players, meaning at least once a month. Many of the also play in AL, where they can get all the Feats and Multiclassing they want.

[Fable Wright]

Mainly, I'm hoping we actually get a dragonmark compatible with dragonborn. 'Cause they exist in Argonessen, and why would, y'know, the draconic PC race have no dragonmarks??

NEVER happening lore-wise. There was once a mark that could manifest on a humanoid with dragon blood.

The bearer's name was Erandis Vol.

She and everyone she knew and loved were murdered to wipe that dragonmark off the face of the planet.

...aaaand beaten to the punch by chainer. I'll also add that dragonmarks are "marks which are of interest to the dragons" rather than "marks which are there because dragons."

[Mordaedil]

No judgement on you or your personal desires. I was trying to make clear not everyone feels the same way. I have maybe 30 regular players, meaning at least once a month. Many of the also play in AL, where they can get all the Feats and Multiclassing they want.
You know, that makes a lot of sense. When you have that many players, speeding things up is just a good idea.

[Sindeloke]

I'm just not seeing it ... where does the overpowerness come in?

Arguably, the fact that it's a unique, un-reproducable bonus is kind of sketchy at high levels. The +2/+1 puts a character ahead at the start of the game and is thus basically worth an extra feat, but all characters will eventually get to 20 if they want, and a +0 character could become a fighter or rogue and end up with an equal or greater number of feats by endgame. Some races get spells at-will, but all those spells could also be learned by spellcasters. Some races get resistances, but classes and spells can grant resistances as well. At endgame, all those bonuses have kind of faded off in the wash, superseded by stronger class features. But at endgame your +7 proficiency is still there and makes you flat-out stronger than anyone else. The only way to meet it is with a magical item that may not exist in any given game (magical items being both optional and wildly mis-implemented, without any kind of rules or guidance that would allow for players to reliably target a specific ioun stone even if the DM should have reason to decide one exists).

Mind you, I don't find that personally convincing. I think breaking the proficiency barrier is actually a really cool solution to the problem "how do I make this reasonably powerful but also very simple;" I use it to buff the fighter, for that reason, but the default human seems intended to fill the same mechanical niche. If that's what your table wants from humans, a flat +1 is a really good solution.

[diplomancer]

Arguably, the fact that it's a unique, un-reproducable bonus is kind of sketchy at high levels. The +2/+1 puts a character ahead at the start of the game and is thus basically worth an extra feat, but all characters will eventually get to 20 if they want, and a +0 character could become a fighter or rogue and end up with an equal or greater number of feats by endgame. Some races get spells at-will, but all those spells could also be learned by spellcasters. Some races get resistances, but classes and spells can grant resistances as well. At endgame, all those bonuses have kind of faded off in the wash, superseded by stronger class features. But at endgame your +7 proficiency is still there and makes you flat-out stronger than anyone else. The only way to meet it is with a magical item that may not exist in any given game (magical items being both optional and wildly mis-implemented, without any kind of rules or guidance that would allow for players to reliably target a specific ioun stone even if the DM should have reason to decide one exists).

Mind you, I don't find that personally convincing. I think breaking the proficiency barrier is actually a really cool solution to the problem "how do I make this reasonably powerful but also very simple;" I use it to buff the fighter, for that reason, but the default human seems intended to fill the same mechanical niche. If that's what your table wants from humans, a flat +1 is a really good solution.

This made me realize that, if you are a grognard, it can also give that AD&D feel of "humans are not as powerful to begin with but get more powerful than everyone else later"