Standard Humans

[heavyfuel]

What's your opinion on the Standard Human?

I see some folk saying they're good but boring, but I don't even think they're good since over half the ability score bonuses are going to be wasted by most character concepts.

Would you play an SHuman in a game where everyone gets a feat at level 1 (but where VHumans are banned)?

If you think they are weak, how would you fix them? If you think their power level is good, why?

Thanks!

Edit: Would giving SHumans the Prodigy feat for free make them too strong? The feat would effectively be a racial feature, and they'd still get the level 1 feat every race is getting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I usually default towards human in fantasy games, and I don't know that I'd ever want to play a standard human in 5e. Ability score increases are *the* least interesting racial feature, and if that's all you get...?

My preference for fixing them is to lean heavily into subraces, either cultural or lifestyle-based. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?576083-Grod-s-Revised-Races-(mostly-humans)) You need to have something that's at least a little bit original.

[NaughtyTiger]

About half of my PCs are standard humans.
Mostly because I hate -1s on moral grounds. My great adventurer shouldn't be dumber than a commoner.
When you start with an 8, it hurts a lot to dump an ASI on it, so it stays an 8 forever.

[clash]

I have often tried to come up with when I would actually play a standard human and in every case half elf just does the build better and gets more interesting abilities and roleplay opportunities.

[heavyfuel]

Side question: Would giving SHumans the Prodigy feat for free make them too good? This would be in addition to the level 1 feat every race is getting.


I usually default towards human in fantasy games, and I don't know that I'd ever want to play a standard human in 5e. Ability score increases are *the* least interesting racial feature, and if that's all you get...?

My preference for fixing them is to lean heavily into subraces, either cultural or lifestyle-based. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?576083-Grod-s-Revised-Races-(mostly-humans)) You need to have something that's at least a little bit original.

I'm not sure how I feel about giving racial bonuses based on lifestyle. I do like the idea of giving some bonuses based on lyfestyle, but I think 5e does an actually good job at covering that with background proficiencies


About half of my PCs are standard humans.
Mostly because I hate -1s on moral grounds. My great adventurer shouldn't be dumber than a commoner.
When you start with an 8, it hurts a lot to dump an ASI on it, so it stays an 8 forever.

That's a fair point. Though with stardard array you still get a 9 somewhere. I don't personally mind being below average in a single ability when you're far above average in like 3 others.


I have often tried to come up with when I would actually play a standard human and in every case half elf just does the build better and gets more interesting abilities and roleplay opportunities.

Yeah, two +1s in any stat, darkvision, and skill proficiency is probably already better that SHumans because of darkvision. And then they get +2 Cha to boot.

[OldTrees1]

Standard Humans are designed for characters that use all or most of their abilities. They are roughly a +4 race (+8 point buy) if you are using point buy. However they spread it across all your abilities so you will want to make the most of having non zero or even +1 in your 5th and 6th abilities.

While I don't have character concepts that fit that, it would be reasonable for a race to have that as their racial ability modifiers. However, most races have more than just +3 or +4. They also have features. VHuman gets +1 skill! Half Elf gets +2 skills and Darkvision!

SHuman is designed for a niche, just find a character for that niche and add a racial feature.


Side question: Would giving SHumans the Prodigy feat for free make them too good? This would be in addition to the level 1 feat every race is getting.

Prodigy is worth a feat. Half Elves get +2 skills and Darkvision. If you feel those are comparable, they kinda feel comparable to me, then that sounds balanced. However I would start thinking of them as a +6 race with no features.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Assuming standard array, SH are bad. I agree.

So I've started changing them to +6 ASI in +1 or +2 to an ability score. Statwise they become +1 better (+2 AS) than other races, but remain inferior in abilities like darkvision, cantrips, breath weapons, resistances/immunities, etc.

The net result is, given standard array or point buy, they are 5% more likely to succeed at certain things than most races because they can't succeed at anything special. And that's what makes humans special, our adaptability.

[firelistener]

I think they're plenty good. Darkvision is way overrated, as pretty much every character can easily overcome mundane darkness with a simple cantrip or torch even at first level. From all the games I've run, plenty of the standard human characters were the most useful to the party and best in combat. They may not be the most efficient for optimized builds, but I don't think they would be the most popular choice for PCs if they were actually much worse.

[Dork_Forge]

I think they're lacking a little, maybe even just something as simple as a skill. +1 across the board is fantastic but when you compare it to other races amount of abilities (whilst still having a total +3 usually) it seems very underwhelming (especially since the Darkvision balance is completely messed up, if less races had it then standard Human wouldn't feel like such a build nerf).

[Darth Credence]

I think they are just fine, when they match the character build I am going for. By that, I don't mean that I can use them to maximize the abilities of the character, I mean that if the character is from one of the major human kingdoms/empires/what have you, and therefore is likely to be a standard version of a human. Variant humans are, in my world, a subgroup generally only found on the continent on the other side of the world. If we're playing on that side, then great, be a variant. If we are playing on the side we usually play on, humans are standard. I have not had any issues with this rule, as the players pretty clearly understood it going in, and at session 0 agreed that they wanted to play on the side of the world with standard humans.

We do either point buying, or 4d6 drop one for ability scores, rather than standard build, so that may make a difference to how happy everyone is about it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've played 4 long time characters in 5e, 3 of them human. I wouldn't play standard unless variant/dragon marked wasn't an option.

That said, there's nothing better if you want to even out several odd scores.

[Snownine]

One of two characters I played the longest and have the most attachment to is a standard human and it played out just fine. We rolled stats and they worked out in a way that the +1s really rounded things out nicely. That said, the only reason I picked standard human is because that was when 5e was new I did not have any of the books yet, I was using other people's and I did not even know there was a variant human. I can't imagine ever picking standard again, they are not gimped but they are definitely sub par and boring. In a game with little to no optimization, like that one was, you probably won't notice it too much though. I really don't understand why they don't even get a skill proficiency or two. I feel like the designers grossly overestimated the value of a +1 in a characters tertiary and dump stats.

[Amnestic]

I picked a shuman over a vhuman for my shadow monk - feats are nice but I thought shoring up a few ability scores on my point buy was more important, and monks are pretty MAD.

I think even with an additional skill as standard they'd be -usually- behind vhumans still for most builds, but the gap would be closer.

[rlc]

I've been wondering how they're going to treat the standard human in the new book that's supposed to let you pick your stat bumps.

That's about my only thought on them. I know a guy who picks almost exclusively standard humans, but meh.

[Willie the Duck]

That said, there's nothing better if you want to even out several odd scores.


Assuming standard array, SH are bad. I agree.

Pretty much. To the many people who play standard array, a situation where SHuman is a good choice might never come up. If you roll stats, and happen to have a build and a set of rolls which would be supported by getting to even out several of those rolled stats (Str-weapon Valor bard, perhaps), Shuman could be a could choice. What's vaguely frustrating is that many of those character concepts which would benefit from this would be skills generalists or the like, to which Vuman with a supporting feat or half-elf are sitting right there as well.


SHuman is designed for a niche, just find a character for that niche and add a racial feature.

That's really the frustrating part -- the general/generic/basic race choice doesn't actually work well for that role.

[Amnestic]

I've been wondering how they're going to treat the standard human in the new book that's supposed to let you pick your stat bumps.

That's about my only thought on them. I know a guy who picks almost exclusively standard humans, but meh.

Floating +2/+1 plus the effect of the Prodigy feat (without calling it the Prodigy feat, since that's variant) would probably do just fine.

[loki_ragnarock]

I'd say that the standard human is more for someone who doesn't want to be pigeonholed in a niche precisely because the bonuses are so spread out.

The guy who specializes hard into something? Not a standard human.

They guy who wants to make history checks and wisdom saves as a fighter? Standard human.

They're easy to multiclass with come point buy. Half-Elf does it better thanks to the multi-class options of choice being charisma based, but a standard human can more easily get to the non-charisma based multiclass options like Fighter/War Wizard while still sporting a 16 strength and constitution, 14 int, and 10s all around elsewhere. Enough for them to specialize into things without having to be deficient in another category; variant human could probably also pull this off too, but not without pulling a couple of negative modifiers into the mix.

They're an acquired taste, but I wouldn't call them niche... just a little odd to see in a system that typically rewards specialization. But some people don't want to maximize their strengths; they want to shore up their weaknesses. Standard human helps with that. And yeah, that +1 difference you can net isn't as much at level 20, but at level one it can be 50% of your bonus to something, and that ain't nothing. It's just how you look at it.

Personally, I prefer to specialize, too. The variant human is more exciting and customizable. But there's something to be said for characters who don't have anything extra to remember.

[LudicSavant]

I think they're plenty good. Darkvision is way overrated, as pretty much every character can easily overcome mundane darkness with a simple cantrip or torch even at first level.

It's not quite as simple as a torch 'overcoming' mundane darkness, since what the enemy can and cannot see is important. As is the ease with which, say, a goblin can slip out of your light range to hide.

[MrStabby]

Human does get squeezed by other options a lot.

We have 13 classes. 4 of these use charisma and therefore half elf will almost always be better for these.

Of the other classes you are probably looking at standard human if you have at least 3 stats of great interest. This tends to rule out most other main casters (whilst they probably want DeX or sometimes Str for AC a feat will often be more attractive) and fighter and rogue (yeah, some subclass exceptions on both) So artificers, rangers, barbarians, monks... or wierd multiclass options.

The natural constituency for the race is pretty small.

That said, if you wanted an artificer ranger fluffed as fashioning magic items from wondrous beasts hunted down or plants dug up, then I could see the role.

[KorvinStarmast]

Side question: Would giving SHumans the Prodigy feat for free make them too good? It would fit the narrative text in the PHB about the race better than not giving them extra proficiencies at all, that's for sure.

[AvatarVecna]

IME, I only really consider standard human when we're rolling stats, and I end up with an inordinate number of odd scores. Variant Human can turn 3 odds to evens with the right feat, but if you roll something like 17/15/15/13/11/7, you can't tell me you wouldn't at least consider standard human.

[N810]

If you are doing point buy you can get scores like:

15, 15, 13, 10, 9, 9
and
15, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9

before you add +1 to everything.

[CTurbo]

Floating +2/+1 plus the effect of the Prodigy feat (without calling it the Prodigy feat, since that's variant) would probably do just fine.

This is nearly exactly what I've done in my games except you can choose between +1 to all 6 stats or +2 to any 2 stats.

Before I added the Prodigy feat, the standard human got +2 to an one stat, and +1 to the other five plus two skills.


I do think the standard human as written is easily the worst race option. 99% of people don't care about having +1 to their dump stats. Plus there is literally no other racial feature at all. Not even one free skill. Nothing. To add insult to injury, variant humans not only get a free feat, but a free skill too. There was only one time in the history of 5e that I've even considered being standard human and it was when I rolled really high stats that all happened to be odd, and I still ended up choosing Half-Elf.

[Naanomi]

Given the right rolled stats, I would consider them for... a Monk is the thing that comes to mind... needs three Stats at at least moderate levels, but none are Charisma so Half-Elf doesn't override their spot. A pretty niche place, I'll admit. I always assume all humans are 'variant' in my setting, and the 'standard' only exists because Feats are technically optional

[heavyfuel]

I'm not going to reply to each individual poster, but I've read all of it; Thanks for the feedback so far.

However, I would like to address some common points

@a bunch of odd scores
How often does this happen? Like, really. I assume there's a 50/50 chance of a score being odd or even, so the odds of 5+ odd stats is only 10.9% (according to a coinflip calculator online). Is a race that is only a maybe kind of possibly decent option ~11% of the time IF you're rolling for stats instead of using any of the dozens of other ways people use to generate stats really the goal designers should be trying to fill?

And even then, as someone else said, SHumans aren't necessarily the best choice. If you get a bunch of odd stats and care about Cha, then Half Elf is still much better.

@monk and other MAD builds
I can see SHuman working here, but how many build have 4+ stats they care about? Even classes with 3 relevant scores are probably better off picking something else that actualyl gives them good features instead of a minor bonus to their thirs most important score. The niche seems really small.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not going to reply to each individual poster, but I've read all of it; Thanks for the feedback so far.

However, I would like to address some common points

@a bunch of odd scores
How often does this happen? Like, really. I assume there's a 50/50 chance of a score being odd or even, so the odds of 5+ odd stats is only 10.9% (according to a coinflip calculator online). Is a race that is only a maybe kind of possibly decent option ~11% of the time IF you're rolling for stats instead of using any of the dozens of other ways people use to generate stats really the goal designers should be trying to fill?

And even then, as someone else said, SHumans aren't necessarily the best choice. If you get a bunch of odd stats and care about Cha, then Half Elf is still much better.
For standard array and point buy? Not a whole lot. For rolling stats though, if you want to balance out 3 or more odd stats there are very few options.

Half Elves are a bit of the polar opposite as well, where SHumans may feel like they don't get enough, Half Elves are given the best options of both parenthoods, too much in my opinion.


@monk and other MAD builds
I can see SHuman working here, but how many build have 4+ stats they care about? Even classes with 3 relevant scores are probably better off picking something else that actualyl gives them good features instead of a minor bonus to their thirs most important score. The niche seems really small.
It is really small, which is why the fact that SHuman balances odd scores really well is about the only positive thing to say about it.

[False God]

5E is one of the few systems I regularly play humans, I did it a lot in 4th too. It's "almost never" in 3.X/Pathfinder, but that's often because there are much more interesting races to play.

And while this is certainly just me, I like being able to bump up so many odd scores to the next even number since I seem to roll odd scores a lot. I like to play characters that cover a lot of ground mechanically, so I'm often MAD. And S-Human really helps out there.

But my angle of approach for each character is different, sometimes I want to be a certain race to fit a certain concept the scores be darned. Sometimes my scores call for a certain race to make it work right. Sometimes I'll just wing it and that's where S-Humans often fit in. I find I wing it a lot more in 5E because the results are more constrained.

[Luccan]

I might if I wanted to specifically play a human in a no feats game. I could also see playing one if I rolled a decent set of odd numbered stats. I do have one character, a Champion Fighter with the Folk Hero background, who is also specifically a standard human. It's really more of a concept to play the most generic fantasy character ever and try to make him interesting, though.

[Pex]

It's a bad race until you have lots of odd ability scores in character generation which would practicality only happen if you roll for scores. When you use Point Buy you pick what you want. You could save points by purposely taking the odd scores, but you're not really getting anything. You can get the main scores you wanted anyway along with actual racial features. However, if you roll fortunate enough to get a few 15s and 13s Human becomes very attractive. Personal opinion Variant Human should have been the only Human.

[Hytheter]

Would you play an SHuman in a game where everyone gets a feat at level 1 (but where VHumans are banned)?

I am currently, but only because the race I actually wanted was off the table. :(

Standard human should at least get some skill proficiencies or something.

[Ertwin]

I think they're plenty good. Darkvision is way overrated, as pretty much every character can easily overcome mundane darkness with a simple cantrip or torch even at first level.

None of those options are effective if you're trying to sneak.

Darkvision lets you see in the dark without giving away your position.

[CTurbo]

Just want to point out that it's really easy to go Vhuman and still get three +1s to any three stats(or +2/+1 to any two) by choosing a half feat as the free feat.

Resilient being the best example. Even if that was the only possible feat you could choose at level 1, it would still best most other races and be infinitely better than the standard option.

[Tanarii]

Standard humans are pretty terrible in standard array.

They can be amazing or useless if you roll, depending on how many odd results you roll and if they're particularly high (or very low).

In point but, they're interesting but niche. They can start with 16/16/16 but so can a vuman with the right feat. But they can also go 14x5/11 or 15/14x4/9, which is interesting for some particularly mad character concepts.

[Amechra]

@a bunch of odd scores
How often does this happen? Like, really. I assume there's a 50/50 chance of a score being odd or even, so the odds of 5+ odd stats is only 10.9% (according to a coinflip calculator online). Is a race that is only a maybe kind of possibly decent option ~11% of the time IF you're rolling for stats instead of using any of the dozens of other ways people use to generate stats really the goal designers should be trying to fill?

A quick look at anydice seems to indicate that you actually have less than a 50% chance of rolling an odd score on 4d6b3. Sure, it's, like, a 0.5% reduction in your chances... but that kind of thing adds up.

[CTurbo]

Out of pure curiosity, I went to an online dice roller and on the 13th attempt, I rolled all odd scores. It took me 28 more tries to repeat. It's not exactly common, but it does happen, and I've seen it a few times.

[blackjack50]

A big thing to help with humans characteristics would be giving them more languages. Or make easier for them to pick up on language. Or maybe some extra proficiency bonus stuff?

[Luccan]

A big thing to help with humans characteristics would be giving them more languages. Or make easier for them to pick up on language. Or maybe some extra proficiency bonus stuff?

I don't know why standard human doesn't get a bonus skill. It would go at least some way to explaining why half-elves get two. But IME, languages are generally useless. It seems like everything 5e speaks Common, at least as a default, and I haven't seen many attempts to change that.

[SLOTHRPG95]

If rolling for stats, I'd look hard and close at standard human if I rolled at least four odd stats, and I can't see picking something else if I rolled five or more. With that said, I have a personal bias for more well-rounded characters, rather than e.g. going 8/15/15/15/8/8 on a point-buy Wizard or what have you.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

We are a group that does point buy, and I'm considering a character for our next campaign that is pretty mad and could be a candidate for a standard human: Storm Sorcerer/ Tempest Cleric. However, I'm leaning to Hill Dwarf because of the Heavy Armor benefit. That turns a stat (Str) I was going to need a 15 in to a dump stat. That's not going to be the only build where Hill Dwarf beats Standard Human.

[Amnestic]

I don't know why standard human doesn't get a bonus skill. It would go at least some way to explaining why half-elves get two. But IME, languages are generally useless. It seems like everything 5e speaks Common, at least as a default, and I haven't seen many attempts to change that.

I scrapped Common from my setting, instead going with five 'nation' languages along with Draconic, True Draconic* and Primordial and it's a decision I'm still not sure about.

Languages in 5e (or DnD in general) aren't exactly realistic to begin with - there's one elven language, one dwarven language, one orcish language, etc. even if the groups are a world apart. Humans don't have a language of their own, except sometimes they have a local language in addition to Common depending on your setting and human.

Having a party where there's not complete language parity and you might need to translate for each other would be awful, but that can ~usually~ be dealt with in Session 0 ("You all need to speak this country's language, because that's where the campaign is set" sorta deal) but at that point...why not just have Common to begin with?

Not sure there's a satisfying way to deal with the realism of 'no common' while not dragging the game down in some ways. But perhaps that drag is what your players want. If you're scrapping Common for realism though you might want to break Elven, Orcish, etc. into multiple separate languages too...and at that point it starts to get a bit crazy.

*True Draconic is kind of a special language in the setting, only usable by True Dragons or arcanists of level 15+, so not really 'standard'.

[Naanomi]

I suspect the Gods intervention, interactions with the dead/immortal beings, and planar/Spelljamming travel al help keep the languages more homogenous than we’d see in real life

[Edea]

What's your opinion on the Standard Human?

I see some folk saying they're good but boring, but I don't even think they're good since over half the ability score bonuses are going to be wasted by most character concepts.

Would you play an SHuman in a game where everyone gets a feat at level 1 (but where VHumans are banned)?

If you think they are weak, how would you fix them? If you think their power level is good, why?

Thanks!

Edit: Would giving SHumans the Prodigy feat for free make them too strong? The feat would effectively be a racial feature, and they'd still get the level 1 feat every race is getting.

1) They suck unless you're rolling stats (which removes the starting stat cap of 15) and playing a MAD character concept (relies on more than two stats to work).

2) I agree with you.

3) No. I don't like MAD concepts and I probably wouldn't join a game with rolled stats.

4) +2 to any two stats instead of +1 all, and add the half-elf's skill versatility. VHuman remains the same. +2/+1 float is not enough; you're better off finding a race that has the specific +2/+1 set you're interested in (there's a metric boatload of them) and just using that, as they'll also have multiple other racial features. This is particularly true for anyone using Charisma, which involves a frickin' third of the PHB classes.

[Luccan]

I scrapped Common from my setting, instead going with five 'nation' languages along with Draconic, True Draconic* and Primordial and it's a decision I'm still not sure about.

Languages in 5e (or DnD in general) aren't exactly realistic to begin with - there's one elven language, one dwarven language, one orcish language, etc. even if the groups are a world apart. Humans don't have a language of their own, except sometimes they have a local language in addition to Common depending on your setting and human.

Having a party where there's not complete language parity and you might need to translate for each other would be awful, but that can ~usually~ be dealt with in Session 0 ("You all need to speak this country's language, because that's where the campaign is set" sorta deal) but at that point...why not just have Common to begin with?

Not sure there's a satisfying way to deal with the realism of 'no common' while not dragging the game down in some ways. But perhaps that drag is what your players want. If you're scrapping Common for realism though you might want to break Elven, Orcish, etc. into multiple separate languages too...and at that point it starts to get a bit crazy.

*True Draconic is kind of a special language in the setting, only usable by True Dragons or arcanists of level 15+, so not really 'standard'.

I tend to run and play in regional games, not world-spanning stuff, so the existence of Elvish doesn't bother me. Sure a continent away the Elves speak something totally different, but unless the players go there it doesn't matter that they call the language they're familiar with Elves speaking Elvish. Similarly, I don't mind Common as a tongue within a relatively small area. What really gets to me is that all the monsters seem to speak Common. Those goblins and orcs that never interact with the other nations except to invade and raid them? Every last one of them speaks Common. That stupid giant? Speaks Common. That pixie who has never left the Feywild? Fluent in Common. That howling terror from beyond the stars whose very presence drives mortals mad? Speaks Common. It seems the only time languages matters is spying on a homogeneous group of enemies or reading something intended only for a creature of one particular race. Don't get me started on how pointless Druidic is.

[MoiMagnus]

If you're scrapping Common for realism though you might want to break Elven, Orcish, etc. into multiple separate languages too...and at that point it starts to get a bit crazy.

You can scrap the concept of race-related language and just take a more realistic approach of one language per "society". So a multi-cultural kingdom (from which your all your PCs are from) has one common language across races, nearby kingdoms have languages that are probably inter-comprehensible, and isolated societies (should they be mono-race or muti-race) have their own separate language.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Standard humans are pretty terrible in standard array.

They can be amazing or useless if you roll, depending on how many odd results you roll and if they're particularly high (or very low).

In point but, they're interesting but niche. They can start with 16/16/16 but so can a vuman with the right feat. But they can also go 14x5/11 or 15/14x4/9, which is interesting for some particularly mad character concepts.

I played a somewhat silly skill monkey who was MC Bard/Cleric/Ranger/Rogue/Warlock (not in that order). Essentially a disciple of knowledge in all forms. I went Half-Elf for the extra skills, but I always thought in retrospect I should've gone SHuman and taken 14x5/11. But barring such niche builds, I'm not sure who'd make much use out of 14x5/11.

[Tanarii]

I played a somewhat silly skill monkey who was MC Bard/Cleric/Ranger/Rogue/Warlock (not in that order). Essentially a disciple of knowledge in all forms. I went Half-Elf for the extra skills, but I always thought in retrospect I should've gone SHuman and taken 14x5/11. But barring such niche builds, I'm not sure who'd make much use out of 14x5/11.You don't even need to multiclass for it to be useful. Not required but still useful.

Strength Ranger wants 4x 14 to start, and can certainly take advantage of a 14 Int to help Investigation and/or Nature. Or 14 Cha to help a skill from the right background, e.g. charlatan or criminal.

Str Blade Warlock and Str Valor Bard also love 4x14 to start, and can either put the last 14 in Int or Wis depending if they care more about their Int skills*, or Wis saves.

You can dump Int and Cha for Ranger or Int and Wis for Bard/Warlock for these builds of course. But human can make them mighty
versatile.

*Interesting sidebar Warlock is the only class that gets all 5 Int skills on their class list.

[bid]

What's your opinion on the Standard Human?
16 14 14 14 12 9 for buman
16 14 14 12 12 8 for almost any other races

16 16 14 12 10 9 for buman
16 16 14 10 10 8 for almost any other races

A +1 on the 4th stat is fluff-level. Most racials are better.

Now, prodigy might make buman good for wrestling. Or maybe some other role. But for most concepts, there are prolly 3 races that can do better.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

16 14 14 14 12 9 for buman
16 14 14 12 12 8 for almost any other races

16 16 14 12 10 9 for buman
16 16 14 10 10 8 for almost any other races

A +1 on the 4th stat is fluff-level. Most racials are better.

Now, prodigy might make buman good for wrestling. Or maybe some other role. But for most concepts, there are prolly 3 races that can do better.
To play Devil's Advocate you can get 3 16s on a bhuman. Of course 1/2 Elf and Triton can do it too for the right abilities and vhuman can manage it with a 1/2 feat if allowed. Again, pretty rare and you leave 3 negative stats, though we've had characters that were pretty close to this.

[kazaryu]

I played a somewhat silly skill monkey who was MC Bard/Cleric/Ranger/Rogue/Warlock (not in that order). Essentially a disciple of knowledge in all forms. I went Half-Elf for the extra skills, but I always thought in retrospect I should've gone SHuman and taken 14x5/11. But barring such niche builds, I'm not sure who'd make much use out of 14x5/11.

similarly, im getting ready to go in a campaign building what i call a 'horizontal mage' basicalyl gonna end up multiclassing into warlock and all of the full casting classes except druid.

were the DM not a psycopath that decided on a 35 point buy *and* a max starting stat of 16 (instead of 15) the standard human would have actually been a contender for race choice.

to elaborate: i realize that even without standard human i could boost all the casting stats to good enough levels. but the character is meant to be much more jack of all tradesy than that. so my stat priority is actually Cha->dex->int/wis->str->con and standard human might have been what i went with. of course, half elf also had good potential.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm a bit surprised Hill Dwarves haven't got a bit more love in this thread as alternatives s.humans with regard to MAD character concepts. Seems to me like any multiclass Heavy Armor Cleric/ Other spellcaster could be viable by dumping Strength and having high Wis, Con, Other Spell Stat. Yes, you are losing any melee ability, but for a full spellcaster that's probably going to be not an issue by tier 2.

[Warlush]

I'm a bit surprised Hill Dwarves haven't got a bit more love in this thread as alternatives s.humans with regard to MAD character concepts. Seems to me like any multiclass Heavy Armor Cleric/ Other spellcaster could be viable by dumping Strength and having high Wis, Con, Other Spell Stat. Yes, you are losing any melee ability, but for a full spellcaster that's probably going to be not an issue by tier 2.

Yeah! You could have a 16WIS 15CHA/INT 16CON and 10DEX 8STR and still be fine in Heavy armor. Would make a great Tempest Cleric/Storm Sorcerer. Or Tempest/Evoker. Even a Death Cleric/Necromancer.

[Draz74]

Mechanical weakness aside, I loathe Standard Human because of the world-building implications. When humans are your base race, and they are in most settings, and they have a +1 to all ability scores, it's kind of like everything else has a -1 to most ability scores.

Look at Intelligence just as an example. If your world is full of Standard Humans, then Dwarves, Wood Elves, Halflings, and most other races are "dumb people" in this world. High Elves are merely average, and only the rare race like Gnomes is actually "smart."

[ProsecutorGodot]

Mechanical weakness aside, I loathe Standard Human because of the world-building implications. When humans are your base race, and they are in most settings, and they have a +1 to all ability scores, it's kind of like everything else has a -1 to most ability scores.

Look at Intelligence just as an example. If your world is full of Standard Humans, then Dwarves, Wood Elves, Halflings, and most other races are "dumb people" in this world. High Elves are merely average, and only the rare race like Gnomes is actually "smart."

Unless your population is unique, a +1 isn't actually enough to affect the modifier for Human Commoners, they're just as likely to make an intelligence check as a Dwarf or Elf.

I believe the only ability score that actually checks for your score rather than modifier is Strength, for jumping and carrying capacity. I guess there's also the intellect devourer thing but that seems so situational and the commoner was probably ending up dead regardless of race.

[bid]

Unless your population is unique, a +1 isn't actually enough to affect the modifier for Human Commoners, they're just as likely to make an intelligence check as a Dwarf or Elf.
That 1d20 cannot do 2% more doesn't mean that 2% more does nothing.

And a random +/-1 on any stat... makes most races dumber but most bumans smarter.

[LudicSavant]

Mechanical weakness aside, I loathe Standard Human because of the world-building implications. When humans are your base race, and they are in most settings, and they have a +1 to all ability scores, it's kind of like everything else has a -1 to most ability scores.

Look at Intelligence just as an example. If your world is full of Standard Humans, then Dwarves, Wood Elves, Halflings, and most other races are "dumb people" in this world. High Elves are merely average, and only the rare race like Gnomes is actually "smart."

It also is kinda written/presented as "we are diverse, they are samey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity)" in the fluff. At least in Forgotten Realms (Eberron seems to be way better about avoiding presenting their races that way).

[ProsecutorGodot]

That 1d20 cannot do 2% more doesn't mean that 2% more does nothing.

And a random +/-1 on any stat... makes most races dumber but most bumans smarter.

Mechanically, it does nothing, and we have no evidence that it makes any difference as far as intelligence is concerned. There aren't rules for literacy, extra language or skills based on intelligence in this edition.

Not sure I understand the point of this random +/- 1 example either, it can make Elves and Tieflings match a Gnome in intelligence or a Half-Orc match a Dwarf in constitution... What's the point? Adding or subtracting a bonus that changes their ability modifier makes things better or worse? True.

Their broad +1 to scores does (almost, again ignoring Strength) nothing on its own, however it does help exemplify that with a little push in a certain direction they can specialize in a variety of skills. Once we start adding that specialization, they're not exactly an average example anymore though.


It also is kinda written/presented as "we are diverse, they are samey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity)" in the fluff. At least in Forgotten Realms (Eberron seems to be way better about avoiding presenting their races that way).
I do agree though, SHuman does a poor job of representing that human versatility because it force you to add that versatility later, VHuman does a better job because most feats will push you in that direction during character creation rather than at level 4.

[Edea]

I'd happily use this version of the 'standard' human, and then remove the variant human altogether.

Ability Score Increase: One ability score of your choice increases by 2, and two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1.

Age: Humans reach adulthood in their late teens and live less than a century.

Alignment: Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Size: Humans vary widely in height and build, from barely 5 feet to well over 6 feet tall. Regardless of your position in that range, your size is Medium.

Speed: Your base walking speed is 30 feet.

Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.

Human Flexibility: You do not need to meet the normal ability requirements when multiclassing.

Languages: You can speak, read, and write Common and one extra language of your choice. Humans typically learn the languages of other peoples they deal with, including obscure dialects. They are fond of sprinkling their speech with words borrowed from other tongues: Orc curses, Elvish musical expressions, Dwarvish military phrases, and so on.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'd happily use this version of the 'standard' human, and then remove the variant human altogether.

Ability Score Increase: One ability score of your choice increases by 2, and two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1.

Age: Humans reach adulthood in their late teens and live less than a century.

Alignment: Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Size: Humans vary widely in height and build, from barely 5 feet to well over 6 feet tall. Regardless of your position in that range, your size is Medium.

Speed: Your base walking speed is 30 feet.

Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.

Human Flexibility: You do not need to meet the normal ability requirements when multiclassing.

Languages: You can speak, read, and write Common and one extra language of your choice. Humans typically learn the languages of other peoples they deal with, including obscure dialects. They are fond of sprinkling their speech with words borrowed from other tongues: Orc curses, Elvish musical expressions, Dwarvish military phrases, and so on.
Only complaint is that it can't be considered "standard" with a feature that relies on a variant rule. I like it though, might throw it at my DM for future use.

[cutlery]

Standard humans are both boring and mechanically not that great.

Variant humans are also boring, but mechanically too good.

Some feats at character creation (UA Fey Touched, say) are game changing.

I hope there is a way to get that same flexibility with, say, a half orc in TCoE. I'm sick of playing half-elves, but it's hard not to pick a half elf over a standard human.

[AvatarVecna]

Mechanically, it does nothing, and we have no evidence that it makes any difference as far as intelligence is concerned. There aren't rules for literacy, extra language or skills based on intelligence in this edition.

Not sure I understand the point of this random +/- 1 example either, it can make Elves and Tieflings match a Gnome in intelligence or a Half-Orc match a Dwarf in constitution... What's the point? Adding or subtracting a bonus that changes their ability modifier makes things better or worse? True.

Their broad +1 to scores does (almost, again ignoring Strength) nothing on its own, however it does help exemplify that with a little push in a certain direction they can specialize in a variety of skills. Once we start adding that specialization, they're not exactly an average example anymore though.

The point that poster is getting at is that every commoner is not 10/10/10/10/10/10 pre-race. Some will have 9s, some will have 11s. Yes, there will be rare ones with 3s or 18s, but those are distant edge-cases as far as "how the world is set up" goes. Yes, if an elf commoner rolls all 10s pre-race, and a human commoner rolls all 10s pre-race, they have equal modifiers across the board except for Dex where the Elf is superior - that single point different only vaguely matters for carrying capacity on Str, and even that's a pretty small edge case on its own. But 9s and 11s aren't that uncommon on 3d6. Generating attributes by random rolls and race, you get modifiers at these odds:




Racial Bonus -->
vvv Modifier vvv
+0
+1
+2


-4
0.463%
0.000%
0.000%


-3
4.166%
1.852%
0.463%


-2
11.574%
7.407%
4.166%


-1
21.296%
16.666%
11.574%


+0
25.000%
24.074%
21.296%


+1
21.296%
24.074%
25.000%


+2
11.574%
16.666%
21.296%


+3
4.166%
7.407%
11.574%


+4
0.463%
1.852%
4.166%


+5
0.000%
0.000%
0.463%





...which highlights the point being made. A PC of any race can be built to be smart, or strong, or tough, or whatever, but they aren't a representative of their race regardless. The race as a whole gets stuck with statistical trends. A race with +1 is slightly less likely to have a +0, and slightly more likely to have a +1 - it's a small difference in general trends, but it will echo across the popular to (generally) make the +1 race better at that thing. It becomes a much more striking difference at the high and low ends, though, where that single point of difference can make a particular level of capability/incapability four times as likely for one as for the other.

This is what they mean by "a race with Int +1 is smarter than Int +0, in general". If you took 10 million of each kind of elf and looked for only the real geniuses (+3 modifier or higher), you'd get a million high elves, a half million wood elves, and a half-million drow. Meanwhile, 10 million humans would return a million geniuses. Standard Humans setting the standard for the world means that any race with a +1 isn't good at that thing, they're average at it. High Elves aren't smart, they're average, and all other elf races are (in general, as a rule) behind the curve intellectually. Dwarves are tough, humans are average, and gnomes are frail. When "+1 to everything" is the "boring, nothing special" race, it changes the perception of those races that don't even have a +1 to that attribute.

[Edea]

...wait, multiclassing is also variant? Sorry for being off-topic, but...

I knew feats were, but damn. Guess I'd better think of something else for that alternate human. Really?? Multiclassing? So in the default game, if I picked say, monk at first level, but decided I'd rather start working on something else, I'm SOL...that sucks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP

If that is their point, I don't think it's communicated very well, and I don't really agree. Once you start putting the high variance aspects in (rolled stat generation, additional modifiers) it's not about Human's being smarter than Gnomes as a general rule, it's this human is smarter than the average Gnome.

The fact that the +1 could mean that they're smarter, from a "I invest less for my next modifier" perspective, is not proof that they are automatically smarter without having made any further investment.

Commoners are a decent baseline of what an average NPC humanoid will be (they encompass a majority of NPC's) and they start at 10's across the board and their racial mods/traits are put on top. In this case, a Standard Human is not noticeably more intelligent than a Half-Orc but is still noticeably less intelligent than a Gnome. If your average human never puts any effort or shows natural talent in regards to their intelligence, the 11 they have as a result might as well be a 10 because it's functionally identical.

A Standard Human can match almost any other race with investment, but they'll never be automatically better off than any one race.


...wait, multiclassing is also variant? Sorry for being off-topic, but...

I knew feats were, but damn. Guess I'd better think of something else for that alternate human. Really?? Multiclassing? So in the default game, if I picked say, monk at first level, but decided I'd rather start working on something else, I'm SOL...that sucks.
Unfortunately so, although my personal experience has been that all DM's I've played under have allowed it as a default.

[Luccan]

...wait, multiclassing is also variant? Sorry for being off-topic, but...

I knew feats were, but damn. Guess I'd better think of something else for that alternate human. Really?? Multiclassing? So in the default game, if I picked say, monk at first level, but decided I'd rather start working on something else, I'm SOL...that sucks.

Eh, free choice of language, two free skills, and a freely selected set of bonuses totaling +4 is actually really good.

And yeah, it's technically a variant. I've never seen it not be used in a game, but that's part of why certain multiclass combinations are so hilariously broken compared to others. They basically didn't try to balance out multiclassing potential beyond the rules they wrote for it initially (prereqs and making multi-class casting not completely suck). I don't think removing the prerequisites is a good idea, though. I'm pretty sure that would only make for worse combos. Personally, I would be curious to see how a game with 0 variant rules actually played.

[Edea]

...yeah, I guess the multiclass thing can just be dropped. Little bit boring without it but I'd still go for that version.

Would prefer a ribbon ability replacement of some sort associated with 'ingenuity' or 'versatility'; not even that relevant, but still kind of feels like your human 'has' something, sort of like Fey Ancestry or Stonecutting (and hell those actually do things).

[Fnissalot]

Standard humans are fine for mad builds with point but and rare occurrences on rolled stats. Otherwise, they are very lackluster. I feel the standard humans try to embody versatility as "the individual can do everything ok" while the variant human embody it as "the individual fills it's own niche so the group can do everything". I prefer the second. Prodigy helps a bit but is to me still not as good as the half elf package.

My current homebrew human is as follows, but until earlier this year, they got +1 in proficiency bonus instead of the ASIs, which appeared balanced in play as far as it was tested at my table but very few players chose to play humans as they wanted to boost their stats at level 1 so I don't have that much data to go on.

Ability Score Increase
Three different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.

Short-lived Passion.
You gain proficiency in one skill or tool of your choice. You cannot gain expertise in that skill or tool. When you gain a level, you may spend one week of studying a new subject or practicing with a new tool. If you do, you lose any previous proficiency gained by this feature and choose another skill or tool in which you do not have proficiency. You gain proficiency in that skill or tool.

Hard Working
When you finish a long rest, you reduce your level of exhaustion by 1 more than normal.

Spirited Resolve.
When you succeed on a death saving throw, you may spend a hit dice, roll it and add it to the result. If the result is equal to or above 20, you regain hit points equal to the result on the hit die.

[bid]

Not sure I understand the point of this random +/- 1 example either, it can make Elves and Tieflings match a Gnome in intelligence or a Half-Orc match a Dwarf in constitution... What's the point? Adding or subtracting a bonus that changes their ability modifier makes things better or worse? True.
Do you think all humanoids stats are 10 10 10 10 10 10, modified by racial?
I disagree and posit that the average stat spread is 11 10 10 10 10 9, or some other non-flat combination.

This would mean that 1 in 6 High Elf has a +1 modifier in Int, and 1 in 6 High Elf has no modifier in Dex. This also means that all Bumans has a +1 modifier in a random stat and none have a -1 modifier at all.

The only way to get your "no effect" is to assume everybody has a flat 10-everywhere distribution, which would be a very interesting statistical result.

EDIT:
Yep, what Vecna said. I'd add that ignoring the variance is as doomed as whiteroom analysis.

[AvatarVecna]

If that is their point, I don't think it's communicated very well, and I don't really agree. Once you start putting the high variance aspects in (rolled stat generation, additional modifiers) it's not about Human's being smarter than Gnomes as a general rule, it's this human is smarter than the average Gnome.

The fact that the +1 could mean that they're smarter, from a "I invest less for my next modifier" perspective, is not proof that they are automatically smarter without having made any further investment.

Commoners are a decent baseline of what an average NPC humanoid will be (they encompass a majority of NPC's) and they start at 10's across the board and their racial mods/traits are put on top. In this case, a Standard Human is not noticeably more intelligent than a Half-Orc but is still noticeably less intelligent than a Gnome. If your average human never puts any effort or shows natural talent in regards to their intelligence, the 11 they have as a result might as well be a 10 because it's functionally identical.

A Standard Human can match almost any other race with investment, but they'll never be automatically better off than any one race.


Unfortunately so, although my personal experience has been that all DM's I've played under have allowed it as a default.

Nobody said Humans being smarter than Gnomes, they said smarter than elves. Which was kinda the exact point I reiterated in my post. High Elf fluff in PH is that theyre smarter than normal...which is true if "+0" is normal, but if "+1" is normal, than high elves are average.

I also think it's wild that you're so dedicated to gamifying NPCs that you assume all commoners are guaranteed to have only straight 10s across the board before accounting for race, as if the example statblock is the end-all be-all of commoner capabilities.

I don't see why "Int +1 race isnt actually smarter than Int +0 race" is the hill you want to die defending.

[Luccan]

...yeah, I guess the multiclass thing can just be dropped. Little bit boring without it but I'd still go for that version.

Would prefer a ribbon ability replacement of some sort associated with 'ingenuity' or 'versatility'; not even that relevant, but still kind of feels like your human 'has' something, sort of like Fey Ancestry or Stonecutting (and hell those actually do things).

I think the non-level based learning times for tools and languages is standard rules, not variant. Could decrease the time on those. A good number of races live longer than humans but apparently don't learn to be fighters or wizards at a similar rate (their starting ages are historically higher) so you could even argue it's supported by lore

[MoiMagnus]

...wait, multiclassing is also variant? Sorry for being off-topic, but...

From what I read on this forum (which is not representative of the player base at all) "feat but no-multiclassing" games are significantly more common than "no feat" games. Multiclassing definitely got some hate, mostly from DMs who don't want their players to see class levels as glorified feats you can pick and chose from disregarding the attached lore, but as logical character evolution.

[To be fair, there is some weird stuff happening when you multiclass. Taking one level of Fighter does not give Heavy Armour proficiency, but somehow one level of war Cleric does? And some classes are definitely much more front-loaded than others.]

[ProsecutorGodot]

EDIT:
Yep, what Vecna said. I'd add that ignoring the variance is as doomed as whiteroom analysis.

Variance means you're an exceptional example, not a typical example. I'm not saying to ignore it, but I am saying that using those exceptional examples as an argument that it would portray average examples of other races as "less intelligent" is, in my opinion, pretty silly.


I don't see why "Int +1 race isnt actually smarter than Int +0 race" is the hill you want to die defending.
I don't see why "Int +1 races might as well make Int +0 races dumb as rocks" is the other hill we're arguing over. A +1 Int does nothing at all to improve the average Humans intelligence in any meaningful way. Whether you want to blame modifiers, the score system or the poorly defined intelligence skill as a whole, there isn't any mechanical improvement from an odd score compared to the next even score above it. If we can't show any mechanical improvements do we really have to argue over whether there is actually any noticeable difference otherwise? It's going to be a negligible completely pointless difference if there even is any.

As for High Elves, their other racial traits do a far better job at communicating their "keen mind" than a +1 int does.

[Tanarii]

Otherwise, they are very lackluster. I feel the standard humans try to embody versatility as "the individual can do everything ok" while the variant human embody it as "the individual fills it's own niche so the group can do everything". I prefer the second.
So do most optimizers. So does a group structure of "one group of players, one group of PCs, pursuing adventure arc(s) from level 1 to N".

Even the group structure of "pick up group of players, 6+ characters" usually benefits more from specialists, since a party can usually get by if they fill 3 critical combat roles (tank, ranged DPS, heals) and 1 critical non-combat (usually hidden thing detector or face, depending on adventure). With that many players, you're very likely to get those roles covered with random pick ups.

The roles I've always seen as most handy to have as secondary are sneaker and knower. Ability score of 12 +prof makes a good in a pinch guy.

This assumes your DM doesn't just roll once for the highest modifier guy. I've seen that a few times, and it's painful to watch how dispiriting it is to the players that they never get to use their skills. :smallyuk:

If they do that, roll up a party of 5 PCs each maxed in one ability score, each with all related skills in that score. :smallamused:


A +1 Int does nothing at all to improve the average Humans intelligence in any meaningful way.
You do know not all NPCs are commoner stat blocks right?

[ProsecutorGodot]

You do know not all NPCs are commoner stat blocks right?

I've been quite clear that they're a majority, not once have I said that they're the only ones.

[Tanarii]

I've been quite clear that they're a majority, not once have I said that they're the only ones.
Ah. It looked like your point was that 'average' members of any race are commoners. I don't think that's necessarily true, especially for non-human races. I don't even think majority is necessarily true for non-human races.

[heavyfuel]

I'd happily use this version of the 'standard' human, and then remove the variant human altogether.

Is "this version" really "your version"? Or did you find it somewhere?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ah. It looked like your point was that 'average' members of any race are commoners. I don't think that's necessarily true, especially for non-human races. I don't even think majority is necessarily true for non-human races.

The point of comparison seemed focused on "typical civilized humanoids" using Half-Orcs, Elves, Gnomes and Humans as the comparison. I felt like attributing an average for what you would see in a city or village would be a good point to show that a Human's +1 won't show anything more than a Half-Orc if you compare them both to the Gnome. With regards to these races specifically, a large amount of them are probably commoners. I could have probably communicated that better.

I'm not arguing that there aren't atypical examples, Volo's Monstrous Races (in fact, most outside the PHB) for example likely aren't a majority of commoners, and I'm sure that we can agree that adding an actual negative to Intelligence is a step beyond there being an apparently perceived one.

[bid]

Variance means you're an exceptional example, not a typical example. I'm not saying to ignore it, but I am saying that using those exceptional examples as an argument that it would portray average examples of other races as "less intelligent" is, in my opinion, pretty silly.
This is the same as arguing everyone has IQ 100, where "By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115." And redefining "exceptional" as more than a third of the population.

Whiteroom analysis. No true Scotsman.

[Edea]

Is "this version" really "your version"? Or did you find it somewhere?

Just made it up on the spot (in fact if I'd known about the multiclassing being optional bit I likely wouldn't have posted it), but it's not an original idea at all. Humans being the 'everyperson' designee for D&D kind-of prevents most specialized racial mechanics from applying, so there's a very strict list of potential 'things' you can give them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is the same as arguing everyone has IQ 100, where "By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115." And redefining "exceptional" as more than a third of the population.

Whiteroom analysis. No true Scotsman.

This whole thing is white room analysis, pick whatever average you want and add something to it that does nothing on its own, that's what the human's +1 does. Say that the average is 100 IQ (matching IQ to Intelligence as an ability score is nonsense) and add 1. Humans are 101, that apparently means all other races at 100 are always stupid by comparison. Is it all that noticeable? Am I supposed to make it noticeable because you think it should be?

My point, as plain as I can state it, is that having a +1 to Intelligence does not automatically make you smarter than someone without and it doesn't equate to those without it having a penalty like first described. Human's +1 to everything does not mean races without a +1 to a stat are less than humans.

Honestly, all this debate tells me is that Racial Ability Scores are apparently a lot worse off than I had any reason before to assume and should have just gone away a long time ago. Here I am thinking they're purely there for mechanical and system reasons but there's just so much going on beneath the surface. Surely no one would complain if you instead just let them pick their own numbers.

[Draz74]

My point, as plain as I can state it, is that having a +1 to Intelligence does not automatically make you smarter than someone without

Depends what you mean by automatically, but on average it certainly does.


Human's +1 to everything does not mean races without a +1 to a stat are less than humans.

Are... Are you really arguing that x+1 !> x?

Mathematically put or not, you're wrong. Humans' +1 absolutely does make the +0 races lesser by comparison.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Are... Are you really arguing that x+1 !> x?

Mathematically put or not, you're wrong. Humans' +1 absolutely does make the +0 races lesser by comparison.

There is no mechanic (again, other than Devour Intellect) that actually cares whether you have an Even or Even+1 score. Every intelligence check or intelligence based skill or mechanic otherwise doesn't care if you have a 10 or an 11.

Sure, I can pretend that there's a huge substantial difference between a 10 and an 11 between two races just to prove a point... but why?

[heavyfuel]

There is no mechanic (again, other than Devour Intellect) that actually cares whether you have an Odd or Odd+1 score. Every intelligence check or intelligence based skill or mechanic otherwise doesn't care if you have a 10 or an 11.

Sure, I can pretend that there's a huge substantial difference between a 10 and an 11 between two races just to prove a point... but why?

It really shouldn't be that hard to understand unless insist that absolutely everyone has exactly 10 to every stat before modifiers.

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion that's been derailing my thread, but I just have to say you're missing the point hard. Hopefully you're not trolling and I'm not just giving you more food.

The point is: Not everyone has exactly 10 in every stat before modifiers. I'd argue that almost no NPC has exactly 10 in every stat unless the guy's name is Joe Bauers.

Yes, if you average the intelligence score of every single commoner, Humans will average at 11, which doesn't have a mechanical effect.

However, because a lot NPCs will have 9 or 11 before racial mods, the percetage of humans with +1 Int mod will be greater than the percentage of dwarves with +1 Int mod. And the percentage of humans with +0 Int mod will also be greater than the percentage of dwarves with +0 Int mod.

If a dwarf has an 11 before mods, he's stuck with a +0. A human that has an 11 before mods will now +1.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If a dwarf has an 11 before mods, he's stuck with a +0. A human that has an 11 before mods will now +1.

Then why is 11 the standard and not 12. Why should we assume a default that proves your case but not mine?

I'm not assuming that everyone has a 10, but arguing that a humans +1 will always prove them to be more intelligent (or in the original framing, prove other races to be stupider) than races without is doing just the same amount of assuming if I were.

I cannot help but see this as trying to find a negative in something that is simply a (in retrospect) poor way of mechanically conveying human versatility.

EDIT: I do apologize for the derailing, but like I said I can't help but feel this is looking for a problem that doesn't exist. An active penalty to intelligence like the Volo's Orc has is one thing, but a perceived one because you choose to view humans as a baseline and assuming everything lacking the same +1 is automatically worse in an aspect is not a fair take in my opinion.

[Naanomi]

The average human can 30 more lbs than the average gnome (and the average half orc can lift 30 more than that). The average human is <the equivalent, even if there isn't mechanical representation some of the time> smarter than the average halfling (and the average gnome is <the equivalent> smarter than that)

There are half-orcs that are weaker than most humans. There are humans as strong as any half-orc could ever be. But that doesn't change the *averages*

[heavyfuel]

Then why is 11 the standard

It's not. No one ever said it was.


arguing that a humans +1 will always prove them to be more intelligent

Can't speak for other posters, but I'm not arguing that.

If a human and a dwarf have 10 Int before racial mods, than the human getting 11 to Int does not make the human meaningfully more intelligent.

However, since you have a 50/50 chance of having an odd result when randomly generating NPC stats (by rolling 3d6), then that means that 50% of humans will be more intelligent than their dwarven counterparts.

If 50% of dwarves are less intelligent than humans, I think it's fair to say that dwarves - in general - are less intelligent than humans.

Just like Dwarves are - in general - more hardy than humans, even though their average Constitution score is just 1 point higher.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's not. No one ever said it was.
This part of the discussion is actually on topic, you have to assume odd scores for SHuman's bonuses to actually mean anything. If you're arguing that their +1 is noticeable, in all cases but Strength it needs to be on top of an Odd base.


Can't speak for other posters, but I'm not arguing that.
To me this is how the original post (and a handful following it) have been framed, and I think it's a needlessly negative take.


If a human and a dwarf have 10 Int before racial mods, than the human getting 11 to Int does not make the human meaningfully more intelligent.
We agree on this much.


However, since you have a 50/50 chance of having an odd result when randomly generating NPC stats (by rolling 3d6), then that means that 50% of humans will be more intelligent than their dwarven counterparts.

If 50% of dwarves are less intelligent than humans, I think it's fair to say that dwarves - in general - are less intelligent than humans.

Just like Dwarves are - in general - more hardy than humans, even though their average Constitution score is just 1 point higher.
This is a better way of framing things actually, I can see a bit of the reasoning behind it. I still disagree though, and I recall someone having gone through the numbers for 4d6k3, which is the standard generation method for ability scores (not sure if it's different for NPC generation) you actually have a marginally smaller chance of rolling an odd score, meaning you're more likely to see that +1 not make a meaningful difference for what that's worth.

I don't see a problem with there sometimes being a smarter Human. There will sometimes be a smarter Dwarf, with a very small margin of error, and regardless once you reach the top ends of that they can't exceed each others capabilities regardless.

I guess the only true exception is that at the absolute minimum, if you're an unfortunate soul who rolled a 3 int, you are actually "more intelligent" as a Human, since there was never any chance of you having a 3 intelligence. It's a small victory.

[Naanomi]

I guess the only true exception is that at the absolute minimum, if you're an unfortunate soul who rolled a 3 int, you are actually "more intelligent" as a Human, since there was never any chance of you having a 3 intelligence. It's a small victory.
Well and on the assumption that normal people never get class levels... and thus never get ASIs... For the overwhelming majority of the population it matters at the top end. Sure, Og the Halfling Barbarian (legendary hero of the Dragon Wars) is stronger than any Orc in the Warlord’s army; but of the footsoldiers in the armies of the kingdom there are stronger Goliaths than there are even the strongest of humans, which in turn there are stronger humans than the mightiest gnomes

(Of course, *truly* Legendary Barbarians ruin the curve further at level 20, potentially even the Kobold ones)

[bid]

This is a better way of framing things actually, I can see a bit of the reasoning behind it. I still disagree though, and I recall someone having gone through the numbers for 4d6k3, which is the standard generation method for ability scores (not sure if it's different for NPC generation) you actually have a marginally smaller chance of rolling an odd score, meaning you're more likely to see that +1 not make a meaningful difference for what that's worth.
anydice says 49.77% odd values. https://anydice.com/program/1a7d
So it's really close to half the bumans that are better.

If we assume the stats are a simulation of a normal distribution, both 3d6 and 4d6k1 have ~2.9 deviation making a +1 is about 1/3 sigma. This roughly means 60% of any +0 race are below the average buman, for all stats. And 60% of +2 races are above the average buman. It's a small hill.

[Fnissalot]

So do most optimizers. So does a group structure of "one group of players, one group of PCs, pursuing adventure arc(s) from level 1 to N".

Even the group structure of "pick up group of players, 6+ characters" usually benefits more from specialists, since a party can usually get by if they fill 3 critical combat roles (tank, ranged DPS, heals) and 1 critical non-combat (usually hidden thing detector or face, depending on adventure). With that many players, you're very likely to get those roles covered with random pick ups.

The roles I've always seen as most handy to have as secondary are sneaker and knower. Ability score of 12 +prof makes a good in a pinch guy.

This assumes your DM doesn't just roll once for the highest modifier guy. I've seen that a few times, and it's painful to watch how dispiriting it is to the players that they never get to use their skills. :smallyuk:

If they do that, roll up a party of 5 PCs each maxed in one ability score, each with all related skills in that score. :smallamused:


While that is probably true, I mostly like the flavor of it. I like the idea that dnd humans have the freedom of mind to be more diverse. That's why I gave my homebrew +1 in proficiency bonus instead of an asi originally. While most other races gives a strong feeling of nature over nurture with their ASIs, humans are just good at what they learn to do. While an elven Archer is good at shooting due to their higher dexterity, a human is good at it due to endless hours of practice.

The homebrew I uses in tries to push them to feel like they never give up in a kind of stubborn relentless and that they are diverse and can change over time. They have a stronger will to live and since their lives are short, they fall for every fad on the way. Bob might one week be learning how to create glass and the next, training to be good with animals while Sue just likes to make birdhouses with her carpentry skills.

[TaiLiu]

Honestly, all this debate tells me is that Racial Ability Scores are apparently a lot worse off than I had any reason before to assume and should have just gone away a long time ago. Here I am thinking they're purely there for mechanical and system reasons but there's just so much going on beneath the surface. Surely no one would complain if you instead just let them pick their own numbers.
Yeah, I think part of the problem—as you've noted—is that the existence of racial ability scores is connected to this question: what do racial ability scores represent? Since they're so rigid for so many races, that brings with it connotations of innateness, which then brings with them connotations of genetics. High elves necessarily have +2 and +1 to their Dexterity and Intelligence, respectively. Standard humans necessarily have +1 to all their ability scores. And so on.

Also, since racial ability scores apply to NPCs, too, it's hard to fault analyses that use them to make broad world-sweeping statements. I usually disagree with arguments that utilize the rules as meta/physics, but I genuinely can't find fault when people use racial ability scores to make the generalizations that they do.