Improving The Standard Human

[Psyren]

PHB 29: "Humans are the most adaptable and ambitious people among the common races." "Whatever drives them, humans are the innovators, the achievers, and the pioneers of the worlds."

With both Tasha's and MotM having made floating stats and customizable proficiencies the new norm for many D&D races, the standard PHB human appears to have been a bit left behind. Variant Human is still doing okay, as they are one of the very few ways to start the game with a feat or an 18 (assuming PB/array) and get a bonus proficiency besides - but even in games that use feats they are not always allowed.

How would you buff the standard human? What do you think WotC will give them in the updated PHB in 2024?


- Extra background
- Floating proficiency (changeable on LR)
- Bonus Tool + Skill proficiency (unchangeable)
- Expertise in one skill or tool they're proficient in
- Choice of free cantrip , free martial weapon proficiency, or two tool proficiencies

[ProsecutorGodot]

Even beyond any concrete changes I feel a skill proficiency and another language should be included regardless.

I think they could (and almost certainly should) be unrestricted choices but it might be interesting to tie the skill proficiency choice into their class, for example allowing them to choose an additional skill proficiency from whichever class they've taken at first level.

[Pex]

An idea expressed in a past similar thread was to give them +1 proficiency bonus. It would definitely have a strong impact on their play, but I'm on the fence as to whether it's too powerful.

[Psyren]

Even beyond any concrete changes I feel a skill proficiency and another language should be included regardless.

Agreed, nearly every other race gets at least this much now on top of their actual racials.


I think they could (and almost certainly should) be unrestricted choices but it might be interesting to tie the skill proficiency choice into their class, for example allowing them to choose an additional skill proficiency from whichever class they've taken at first level.

I like this idea - helps a human rogue to differentiate from a halfling one for instance.


An idea expressed in a past similar thread was to give them +1 proficiency bonus. It would definitely have a strong impact on their play, but I'm on the fence as to whether it's too powerful.

For specific things I'd be okay with this (like a mini-expertise or half-expertise), but not in general. There's a lot of statistics keyed off PB that would catapult them to the best possible pick for nearly every build, and several builds even double-dip on it (e.g. +PB to [roll], PB times/day.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

An idea expressed in a past similar thread was to give them +1 proficiency bonus. It would definitely have a strong impact on their play, but I'm on the fence as to whether it's too powerful.

Considering so many new class effects are now being tied to proficiency bonus I'd say it would be. It might have been even before since it directly impacted spell save DC.

Honestly though, I'm thinking I'll test it in the next campaign I run... who knows when that will be though, let alone if any of the players will even pick a human.

[Chronos]

Yeah, a blanket +1 to proficiency bonus is almost equivalent to +2 to every stat, except that it isn't subject to the max 20 issue. That's way too powerful.

[LibraryOgre]

So, this question comes up often in AD&D, and I usually have a couple of suggestions

1) +1 to Charisma (in 5e, we'd go with +2). Humans are presented as getting along with everyone. We can deal with elves and dwarves and trolls and we like to pet animals and they like us to pet them.

2) +1 to all saving throws. This one, I think would do really well in 5e. It doesn't give you an additional proficiency in saving throws, just a +1 to all of them.

3) To this, I'd throw in an extra 4 points of proficiencies (2 for skill or weapon, 1 for language or tool). I would not, necessarily, do an extra background, since that can get hard to justify for an entire species, but it could be intriguing.

Now, Castles and Crusades has a thing called "Primes". Primes are attributes in which you have great natural ability. One of them is chosen by you, one of them depends on your class... and humans get an extra prime. However, since that's also the core of the skill system, I'd leave that off.

[RogueJK]

Variant Human is still doing okay, as they are one of the very few ways to start the game with a feat or an 18 (assuming PB/array)

Note that Variant Humans can't start with an 18, when using Point Buy or the Standard Array. The highest you can have in any stat prior to racial mods is 15 with either of those stat methods.

So the most a Variant Human can start with is a 17, since they get +1/+1 and can take a half-feat at Level 1 to bump one of those +1s up to +2.


Custom Lineage is the only way to start with an 18, since they get +2 and can take a half-feat at Level 1 to boost that to +3.

[KorvinStarmast]

Add (pick two of the following):
1 additional language
1 additional tool proficiency
1 additional skill proficiency at start up

The rhetoric in the "humans are flexible and adaptable" from the PHB is not met by standard human.

Make standard human attractive, and live up to the race description.

1. There is no typical human.
2. Humans are the most adaptable and ambitious people among the common races.

[f5anor]

How would you buff the standard human? What do you think WotC will give them in the updated PHB in 2024?

Actually, as you also point out, VHuman is one of the most popular and in fact powerful options in the game. Optimizers almost exclusively use it, with the notable exception of Custom Lineage, which is basically VHuman++ anyway.

What I am trying to say is, I don’t think that humans need any buffing, all other races do however in order to remain competitive with VHumans. In case you are interested see the discussion in another thread about a proposal to give a free feat to all races, and in exchange reduce the bonus to abilities by 1 or 2 points.

Not to be a spoilsport though, here is my proposal on how to buff up basic humans.

I have always been fascinated by the potential of having 6x +1 to your abilities, in principle this could be a very powerful option if only the allocation would be more flexible. Simply allowing the player to allocate some of those points to increase up to +2 would make this option very strong very quickly.

[KingofSnakes]

Actually, as you also point out, VHuman is one of the most popular and in fact powerful options in the game. Optimizers almost exclusively use it, with the notable exception of Custom Lineage, which is basically VHuman++ anyway.

What I am trying to say is, I don’t think that humans need any buffing, all other races do however in order to remain competitive with VHumans. In case you are interested see the discussion in another thread about a proposal to give a free feat to all races, and in exchange reduce the bonus to abilities by 1 or 2 points.

Not to be a spoilsport though, here is my proposal on how to buff up basic humans.

I have always been fascinated by the potential of having 6x +1 to your abilities, in principle this could be a very powerful option if only the allocation would be more flexible. Simply allowing the player to allocate some of those points to increase up to +2 would make this option very strong very quickly.

I don't think anyone disputes that the Variant Human is fine. But the Standard Human... really isn't. In theory, it'd be good to fix the Standard Human to make Humans worthwhile in games which don't allow feats.

[LordShade]

So, this question comes up often in AD&D, and I usually have a couple of suggestions


In our 2e games, we ultimately gave humans a flat +5% to experience as well as 5 extra character points at creation (using Skills & Powers). We also banned dual-classing and allowed humans to multiclass per normal demihuman rules.

That seemed to be enough, and we generally had humans and half-elves as the most played races, even though much more powerful stuff like drow, minotaurs, tieflings and S&P customized elves/dwarves were available.

[JNAProductions]

Actually, as you also point out, VHuman is one of the most popular and in fact powerful options in the game. Optimizers almost exclusively use it, with the notable exception of Custom Lineage, which is basically VHuman++ anyway.

What I am trying to say is, I don’t think that humans need any buffing, all other races do however in order to remain competitive with VHumans. In case you are interested see the discussion in another thread about a proposal to give a free feat to all races, and in exchange reduce the bonus to abilities by 1 or 2 points.

Not to be a spoilsport though, here is my proposal on how to buff up basic humans.

I have always been fascinated by the potential of having 6x +1 to your abilities, in principle this could be a very powerful option if only the allocation would be more flexible. Simply allowing the player to allocate some of those points to increase up to +2 would make this option very strong very quickly.

Most popular, maybe. Definitely not in games I'm a part of.

Most powerful, nah. 'Specially not with Tasha's on the table.

[Kane0]

I do like the idea of selecting two backgrounds.

[Rynjin]

There is always the boring, but practical option of reverting them back to previous Edition humans and making them gain +2 to a stat and a Feat.

[Rukelnikov]

While I think most or all of the suggestions presented here fit the idea of what kind of things Humans should have, they are all implementations of versatility, not of adaptability (except for floating proficiency that changes on a short rest). Versatility is proactive, adaptability is reactive.

If we want to model adaptability, it can't be done with a one time choice, that's the opposite of adaptable.

Something that showcases adaptability could go in the lines of:

"Whenever you fail an attack roll or ability check with a weapon or skill in which you are not proficient, you may choose to gain proficiency in that weapon or skill for the next roll you do with it."

I don't really like that feature, but it does showcase adaptability, you encounter a setback and overcome it.

The floating proficiency is somewhat similar, you practice a bit and become good at something for a while, until that is no longer your priority and you start focusing on something else.

I don't think the idea of humans as an "adaptable race" menas something so instantaneous, I guess its more in the line of they can adapt to their enviroment, live in the desert, or the sea, or the mountains, fishing if there's water, collecting food if available, hunting if there's game nearby, etc. I don't think its talking about adaptability on an individual level, but as a people.

The problem is that such an implementation would likely be a ribbon, and while I that'd be fine by me, I don't think that's the aim of the thread. So I think we should try to find a way to make human more mutable, not just give it more static choices, while having it be useful but not op.

The best implementation of adaptability I've seen in DnD was 3e's Chameleon (Factotum would be runner up)

Based on that, it crossed my mind giving them the ability to change 1 level on a long rest, ultimate adaptability, but it would be the complete opposite of new player friendly, and it has serious potential to clog the game if two or three people are changing their floating level (besides the shennanigans of every human PC having a familiar and stuff)

So, maybe not go that far, but instead give them floating ability scores. Basically a floating ASI (not feat), 2 ability points you can change in a long rest. The problem is in a vacuum you have no incentive to ever change it, apply to you main stat and forget about it. In the Chameleon it worked because today I may need Int cause I'm gonna be a wizard lite, but tomorrow I may need dex cause I'm gonna be a Rogue lite. So, it should be coupled with something else that makes it so there's an incentive to change it around, at least every now and then.

I'll see if I can come up with something that works, but maybe this helps someone else's creativity spark.

EDIT: A couple more spitballs:

Change a feat on level up, like Tasha's does for many features, but doesn't work on featless games.

Every feature that your class allows you to change when you gain an ASI, you can change on level up, every feature your class allows you to change on level up you can change on a long rest, every feature your class allows you to change on a long rest you can change on a short rest. There may be a couple broken things there, but its an idea.

[Kane0]

So like, instead of an extra skill prof they can add half prof to an ability check they aren't proficient in prof times per long rest?

[Rukelnikov]

So like, instead of an extra skill prof they can add half prof to an ability check they aren't proficient in prof times per long rest?

I proposed that but for ability checks or attacks and with full prof in the other thread, I don't think that alone does it, but coupled with some extra stuff it can help.

[Anymage]

For a quick n' dirty solution I'd like to see +2 to all ability scores and a skill proficiency. (And a language, but that's not a bonus so much as it's standard; if everybody gets their racial language and common, humans just getting common would put them one behind.) Gives some love to MAD builds, and even SAD characters get to feel more flexible with an effective +1 to offstat saves or skill checks.

[Rynjin]

I don't think the idea of humans as an "adaptable race" menas something so instantaneous, I guess its more in the line of they can adapt to their enviroment, live in the desert, or the sea, or the mountains, fishing if there's water, collecting food if available, hunting if there's game nearby, etc. I don't think its talking about adaptability on an individual level, but as a people.

The problem is that such an implementation would likely be a ribbon, and while I that'd be fine by me, I don't think that's the aim of the thread. So I think we should try to find a way to make human more mutable, not just give it more static choices, while having it be useful but not op.

This was something Pathfinder did, and it led to a lot of discrepancy since you were trading your extra skill point per level for the privilege. For some it was worth it, for some not. So you ended up with the difference between an awesome one like:


Heart of the Fields: Humans born in rural areas are used to hard labor. They gain a racial bonus equal to half their character level to any one Craft or Profession skill, and once per day they may ignore an effect that would cause them to become fatigued or exhausted. This racial trait replaces skilled.

or this


Heart of the Wilderness: Humans raised in the wild learn the hard way that only the strong survive. They gain a racial bonus equal to half their character level on Survival checks. They also gain a +5 racial bonus on Constitution checks to stabilize when dying and add half their character level to their Constitution score when determining the negative hit point total necessary to kill them. This racial trait replaces skilled.

Set alongside reeeeeeeeeeeeal stinkers like this:


Heart of the Streets: Humans from bustling cities are skilled with crowds. They gain a +1 racial bonus on Reflex saves and a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class when adjacent to at least two other allies. Crowds do not count as difficult terrain for them. This racial trait replaces skilled.

[Psyren]

There is always the boring, but practical option of reverting them back to previous Edition humans and making them gain +2 to a stat and a Feat.

I agree this is the most practical but I'm leaning towards something that won't be hosed in no-feat games.


So like, instead of an extra skill prof they can add half prof to an ability check they aren't proficient in prof times per long rest?

And call it "Human Ingenuity" - I dig it :smallsmile: make it a reaction and also let them also use it on a saving throw they're not proficient in and I'm sold.


For a quick n' dirty solution I'd like to see +2 to all ability scores and a skill proficiency. (And a language, but that's not a bonus so much as it's standard; if everybody gets their racial language and common, humans just getting common would put them one behind.) Gives some love to MAD builds, and even SAD characters get to feel more flexible with an effective +1 to offstat saves or skill checks.

Hmm... +2 x6 is a bit much, but maybe +2/+2/+2? With no feat I mean. (+ the bonus proficiency)

[loki_ragnarock]

Small tweak:
Use a non-standard standard array that's all odd numbers.

Something like 15, 15, 13,13, 11, 9

Small tweak keeps normal humans simple while not punishing them for their simplicity while allowing them actually be the generally well-rounded characters we were sold on the bill of goods.

(Also a bonus language and a bonus skill proficiency.)



If you want to keep it less simple, give them the power of culture: in the 3e Forgotten Realms guide book, there were a number of 1st level only feats where the prerequisite was that the character come from a specific region discussed in the book. Taking that as inspiration, slap a couple of bonuses for characters coming from that specific culture when you are doing your world building, which standard humans get to pick from. As a racial ability rather than a feat, they'll naturally pick it up at level one and others won't be able to directly poach it, giving a rough equivalence to those feats of yore.

Like, I don't know, you have three human kingdoms; we'll call them Paragon, Lankyshin, Optopolis, and Gary.

"People from Paragon live under the guidance of a powerful theocracy. As such, the true power of prayer is common to behold, with even the least among their cities able to call upon the Gods for some small boon."
Culture: This character starts the game proficiency in Religion and with one cleric cantrip of their choice. They use Constitution as their spellcasting modifier for this cantrip.

"People from Lankyshin are descended from one of the few groups that weathered the Cataclysm in the bunkers of arcane doomsday preppers. As such, they've benefited from a magical education that few others in the modern world could dream of."
Culture: This character starts the game with proficiency in Arcana and one wizard cantrip of their choice. They use Constitution as their spellcasting modifier for this cantrip.

"Optopolis is a thriving megacity, the heart of trade for the continent. The people there are effectively the people from everywhere, polyglots abound, and industrious tradesmen have honed their skills behind the relative peace of its walls. Everyone has picked up a little of everything."
Culture: This character starts the game with two bonus languages, two bonus tool proficiencies, and one skill proficiency of their choice.

"Gary is a hopeless blight on the world, a place of despair and misery that drives most of its residents to madness and suicide. A real stink hole. It wasn't always thus, which only adds to the unfair indignity of having been born since its ruinous fall. Still, it's made you tough, and capable of shrugging off lesser evils than being born in Gary."
Culture: This character starts the game with a +1 bonus to all saving throws. Further, you have advantage on saving throws made against ongoing effects that you've already failed a saving throw against.



Something like that. The huge disadvantage would be that it's hyper campaign specific but explaining that "Culture" choices provided in the book are just examples and that DMs should go hog wild making their own that roughly map to the power level of their provided examples would only take an extra page of text or so.
And if someone wants an atypical human presentation? Variant Human, of course!

[Pex]

Yeah, a blanket +1 to proficiency bonus is almost equivalent to +2 to every stat, except that it isn't subject to the max 20 issue. That's way too powerful.

I would pause to consider human if its stat bonuses were changed to +2 to all scores accepting max 20. The extreme is 17 17 17 10 10 10 with Point Buy. Eye-twitch. Other races are having 17 16 and stuff. Half elf 17 16 16 and stuff. Mountain dwarf 17 17 and stuff. The extreme isn't twitching my eye as much anymore.

[Gurgeh]

Alternatively: 15 15 15 14 14 14. Take it on a Bard and go full skill-monkey, with an absolute minimum of half prof +2 on every ability check (and full prof on many).

[Tanarii]

Small tweak:
Use a non-standard standard array that's all odd numbers.

Something like 15, 15, 13,13, 11, 9Another tweak: Allow standard humans to use the optional point buy rule, while all others must use the default standard array rule.

That would allow a player to choose to start with 16 16 16 9 9 9 if they wanted. Three 16s to start might be worth it. They could also start with 14 14 14 14 14 11 or 15 14 14 14 14 9 if they wanted to play a crazy Multiclassing MAD character.

[Rynjin]

The way to make something good is not, typically, to make everything else bad.

[diplomancer]

For specific things I'd be okay with this (like a mini-expertise or half-expertise), but not in general. There's a lot of statistics keyed off PB that would catapult them to the best possible pick for nearly every build, and several builds even double-dip on it (e.g. +PB to [roll], PB times/day.)

Yeah, I suggested that sometime back, but with WotC's shift to "proficiency times per long rest", it's definitely overpowered. Should be used only for rolls, and maybe spell DCs, i.e, attacks, ability checks, and saving throws.

[Gurgeh]

The fundamental problem standard human faces is that Variant Human exists; so long as that remains, standard human will have to put up with "we need to able to gut almost all of the power budget from this chassis and replace it with a feat" as a design constraint, which rules out giving it anything that is both flavourful (because VHuman needs to do without it but still feel like it's the same race) and powerful (because if you leave it in then odds are VHuman will become outrageously good).

You don't have many qualitative options, so "just pile on more ability scores" ends up being the easy lever to pull.

So, you have three choices:

1) Remove the distinction, make feats a core part of the game, and make the VHuman "get a feat" the core part of the new, unified Human package. This is not going to work for everyone (though in the unlikely event that the PHB revision makes wide-ranging changes to the feat system to address some of its limitations then this might be the best choice)

2) Remove the distinction by removing Variant Human entirely, and make a completely new Human package with actual features. Some of the suggestions in this thread are pretty good approaches in this vein.

3) Stick with the status quo, and standard human remains something chosen only in the rarest of circumstances (the only one I can think of is "feats are banned and I just want to play as a human for its own sake").

[Amnestic]

Floating +2/+1 (Heresy, I know)
Relentless Endurance - half orcs got to get it from one side of the family and orcs don't have it*, so clearly it's a human thing. Humans being persistent is a trait that crops up in a lot of media, so this fits.
Advantage on any saving throws vs. exhaustion. Same reason as above.
1 skill prof of choice.
1 weapon or tool of choice.
PB/LR advantage on any attack roll, ability check or saving throw. They had a racial feat that did that in a UA (Human Determination), though it was 1/SR instead of PB/LR.

*okay Ixalan orcs do but ignore that.

[Gurgeh]

Relentless Endurance is an Orc trait in MotM, too - that said, I'm totally on board with humans-as-natural-endurance-hunters for a race package because that's what we are.

[Amnestic]

Since Kobolds have now lost it, maybe humans should get pack tactics.

[f5anor]

3) Stick with the status quo, and standard human remains something chosen only in the rarest of circumstances (the only one I can think of is "feats are banned and I just want to play as a human for its own sake").

I think you are spot on. Standard Human is the equivalent of the Fighter Champion.

Its an option that is specifically targeted towards low complexity players, while widely acknowledged to be pointless by more advanced players.

In other worlds VHuman is the real human race option for the people on this forum.

[Dr.Samurai]

Low complexity players can play any race or class and simply not use their features. No need to make the standard human super boring and featureless for them.

[loki_ragnarock]

Low complexity players can play any race or class and simply not use their features. No need to make the standard human super boring and featureless for them.

If it's there and they don't use it there will often be pressure from the rest of the group to "use their character right."

If there's nothing to use, no pressure. No one chiming in "Hey, you actually should have advantage on this history check" or "You can reroll ones, remember?"

[Dr.Samurai]

If it's there and they don't use it there will often be pressure from the rest of the group to "use their character right."

If there's nothing to use, no pressure. No one chiming in "Hey, you actually should have advantage on this history check" or "You can reroll ones, remember?"
I don't see this as a big problem though. I currently do this now with a couple of the other players at my table; the wizard often forgets about Arcane Recovery and the cleric never uses his Channel Divinity. I don't think a reminder mid-session is going to kill anyone (they actually appreciate it), and I don't think it's a big enough reason to have the default (read: non-variant) human be almost entirely without features. Half of its features (3 +1s) are now had by any race in Monster's of the Multiverse.

I'll chime in with thoughts on the suggestions so far when I have more time.

EDIT: I like the idea of an additional Background. This by itself adds 2 skill proficiencies and then languages or tool proficiencies as needed/wanted, plus another background feature. Great idea in my opinion.

On top of that, I like Mark Hall's suggestion about a +1 to saving throws. This would include death saves and saves against exhaustion and fear, etc. which makes sense for resilience that allows a people to be adaptable in the first place.

A free cantrip or martial weapon may be too much on top of this, not sure.

[Bobthewizard]

An idea expressed in a past similar thread was to give them +1 proficiency bonus. It would definitely have a strong impact on their play, but I'm on the fence as to whether it's too powerful.

I really like this idea. It shows that humans are better at what they practice but doesn't give any overt abilities, therefore leaving humans as the base, just better, race. So +1 to every stat and +1 proficiency bonus.

With belts of giant strength and a +3 spellcasting focus available for every class, I wouldn't worry about an additional +1 proficiency bonus breaking the game.

[Psyren]

So, this question comes up often in AD&D, and I usually have a couple of suggestions

1) +1 to Charisma (in 5e, we'd go with +2). Humans are presented as getting along with everyone. We can deal with elves and dwarves and trolls and we like to pet animals and they like us to pet them.

2) +1 to all saving throws. This one, I think would do really well in 5e. It doesn't give you an additional proficiency in saving throws, just a +1 to all of them.

3) To this, I'd throw in an extra 4 points of proficiencies (2 for skill or weapon, 1 for language or tool). I would not, necessarily, do an extra background, since that can get hard to justify for an entire species, but it could be intriguing.

Now, Castles and Crusades has a thing called "Primes". Primes are attributes in which you have great natural ability. One of them is chosen by you, one of them depends on your class... and humans get an extra prime. However, since that's also the core of the skill system, I'd leave that off.

Missed this earlier:

#1 would go against WotC's design direction of moving away from fixed ASIs in races (and also it'd make Humans better at some classes than others when ideally they should be apt at all of them) so not a fan of that one. But I definitely like #2; decent for a racial without being too strong, and simple enough that a new player can easily benefit.

For #3 I think that "you get two backgrounds" is just more elegant than introducing a points system, plus it will make humans from {setting} much more likely to want a setting background since they're not giving up a core one, thus tying them to the world more. I think you could get some really great combinations and it would make people excited about being a human even in a featless game. I think all you'd need is a clause saying you need a combination that makes sense to your GM or something along those lines. (Obviously your DM needs to approve your background[s] regardless, but an explicit reminder wouldn't hurt.)


If it's there and they don't use it there will often be pressure from the rest of the group to "use their character right."

If there's nothing to use, no pressure. No one chiming in "Hey, you actually should have advantage on this history check" or "You can reroll ones, remember?"

I like the idea that the simplest race shouldn't have to keep track of anything active/extra like a reroll. A static benefit, like a bunch of +2s, another background or Mark Hall's +1 bonus to saving throws works for that - you put that stuff on the sheet once and it's baked into your stats from then on.


I think you are spot on. Standard Human is the equivalent of the Fighter Champion.

Its an option that is specifically targeted towards low complexity players, while widely acknowledged to be pointless by more advanced players.

In other worlds VHuman is the real human race option for the people on this forum.

I don't think buffing something to be less bland/boring means it has to be more complex. Tasha Ranger is simultaneously stronger and easier to use (and DM for) than the PHB one for instance.


I really like this idea. It shows that humans are better at what they practice but doesn't give any overt abilities, therefore leaving humans as the base, just better, race. So +1 to every stat and +1 proficiency bonus.

With belts of giant strength and a +3 spellcasting focus available for every class, I wouldn't worry about an additional +1 proficiency bonus breaking the game.

I dunno, the fact that you're comparing a racial to two rare/very rare magic items is definitely a bad sign in my book.

[Saelethil]

I’ve been considering allowing them to recover a level of exhaustion on a short rest 1/LR and advantage on saves against exhaustion. If they want to waste it on pulling all-nighters and living off of naps so be it (plenty of rl people do it and they don’t live in a magic world) but it allows them to be persistence hunters hunters and push through things that would exhaust most others.
I also like the idea of letting them ad their PB to an attack roll or ability checks they aren’t proficient in PB/LR instead of just giving them a bunch more proficiencies.
Between the two we see humans that are tenacious and versatile which fits what the PHB has to say about them. As for ability scores, I would give them 4 separate (non-stackable) floating +1s. They shouldn’t be the best at anything but better than you’d expect at more than you’d assume. Throw in one skill and tool and I think you have a competitive race that does what the flavor suggests.

[Tanarii]

I think you are spot on. Standard Human is the equivalent of the Fighter Champion.

Its an option that is specifically targeted towards low complexity players, while widely acknowledged to be pointless by more advanced players.

In other worlds VHuman is the real human race option for the people on this forum.
Feats are an optional rule. They really messed up with the balance of humans, since feats are assumed NOT to be in play for balancing ... and Variant Humans are also out of balance anyway, just in the other direction. Mainly because Feats.

OTOH I still saw a fair number of humans IMC, which didn't have feats and had a very large player base. Not as many as I personally would have considered 'normal' for D&D (around 2/3-3/4 human in a party), but on par with what shows up in WotC stats (around 1/4). And my 'normal' hasn't been normal for all of WotC D&D, which has become much more fantasy menagerie parties.

[diplomancer]

I'vw heard a few times about the "extra background" idea. Mechanically, it's fine. Simple, sweet, quite atractive, but not too powerful.

But don't you guys find it just weird that one of the supposedly youngest races is the one to get this benefit? The green youth going into adventuring is quite a common trope. If I remember correctly, back in 2nd Edition, suggested starting age for Humans was 15+1d4. It just feels strange to me storywise, and hard to justify for a lot of character concepts (though working fine for others).

It's a good balance point, I'd say, and could even be one of a "list of options". But saying "all humans have it"? I'm not sure I like it.

[da newt]

IMO adding +1 to proficiency for the standard human is a very elegant and balanced suggestion.

Just enough to make them competitive but not so much they go to the front of the pack, very simple, and very easy to implement. The only down side that jumps to mind is that its boring - but this is the vanilla man so maybe that's on theme ...

[KorvinStarmast]

The fundamental problem standard human faces is that Variant Human exists; so long as that remains, standard human will have to put up with "we need to able to gut almost all of the power budget from this chassis and replace it with a feat" as a design constraint, which rules out giving it anything that is both flavourful (because VHuman needs to do without it but still feel like it's the same race) and powerful (because if you leave it in then odds are VHuman will become outrageously good). My first two clerics were standard human, no feat, since DM did not like optional rules/feats until level 4.

My recent bard (got to level 20) was standard human.

Somehow, I had fun. :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

Relentless Endurance is an Orc trait in MotM, too - that said, I'm totally on board with humans-as-natural-endurance-hunters for a race package because that's what we are. True (in this (real) world).

[Angelalex242]

Just make the bonus +2 instead of +1.

Guaranteed to make most monks normal humans.

[Chronos]

Y'know, on thinking about it, I think that "improving the standard human" might be a fool's errand. We already have an improvement on the standard human. If a group doesn't accept the variant human, are they going to accept a "new standard human"?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Y'know, on thinking about it, I think that "improving the standard human" might be a fool's errand. We already have an improvement on the standard human. If a group doesn't accept the variant human, are they going to accept a "new standard human"?

The goal of improving Standard Human is to make an appealing human race that doesn't use feats to emphasize their impressive adaptability.

[Rukelnikov]

This was something Pathfinder did, and it led to a lot of discrepancy since you were trading your extra skill point per level for the privilege. For some it was worth it, for some not.

That was the natural evolution of Alternate Class Features that started appearing by latter 3.5, these were Alternate Racial Features, in principle I think its cool, but same as with everything where you get choices some will be stronger than others.

Regarding the +2 to all stats I don't think its out of line powerwise, there are few builds that can really make use of their 4th, 5th and 6th stat, so its mostly +1 to your secondary and +2 to Con most cases, which boils down to:

+1 to secondary stat
+1 hp/level
+1 to Con saves/checks
+1 to lowest 3 stats saves/checks

Its not bad, but at a glance doesn't seem to be broken either. Its still boring, but its not mechanically weak anymore. (FWIW I think these could make strong Bladesingers, Sorcadins, and gishes in general, so a pretty strong choice for strong builds)

Anyway, there's nothing about +2 to all stats that says "adapatability"

[Pex]

The fundamental problem standard human faces is that Variant Human exists; so long as that remains, standard human will have to put up with "we need to able to gut almost all of the power budget from this chassis and replace it with a feat" as a design constraint, which rules out giving it anything that is both flavourful (because VHuman needs to do without it but still feel like it's the same race) and powerful (because if you leave it in then odds are VHuman will become outrageously good).



Wrong assumption here. Standard human isn't that great, but it can be relevant depending on starting ability score array. Variant Human is better but doesn't obsolete it. The problem with standard human is when floating ASIs introduced in the Tasha book are used, they're obsolete, more so since every race will now have them. Players get the ASIs where they care to want them, including a +2, and get racial abilities. Humans get bupkis. It has nothing to do with feats at all.

[JLandan]

I'vw heard a few times about the "extra background" idea. Mechanically, it's fine. Simple, sweet, quite atractive, but not too powerful.

But don't you guys find it just weird that one of the supposedly youngest races is the one to get this benefit? The green youth going into adventuring is quite a common trope. If I remember correctly, back in 2nd Edition, suggested starting age for Humans was 15+1d4. It just feels strange to me storywise, and hard to justify for a lot of character concepts (though working fine for others).

It's a good balance point, I'd say, and could even be one of a "list of options". But saying "all humans have it"? I'm not sure I like it.

I agree about the younger race. BUT, it would show their much greater adaptability as written in the fluff.

[Pex]

If it's there and they don't use it there will often be pressure from the rest of the group to "use their character right."

If there's nothing to use, no pressure. No one chiming in "Hey, you actually should have advantage on this history check" or "You can reroll ones, remember?"

I prefer thinking newbies are capable of learning things more complicated than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. They are able to learn various game mechanics interactions instead of just rolling a die and add a number printed on their character sheet.

[Kane0]

And it's simple.

[LibraryOgre]

In our 2e games, we ultimately gave humans a flat +5% to experience as well as 5 extra character points at creation (using Skills & Powers). We also banned dual-classing and allowed humans to multiclass per normal demihuman rules.


TBH, 5% is not enough. Really, the 10% from Prime Req is almost nothing. When XP usually doubles from level to level, 10-15% is not significant.

[Amechra]

I'vw heard a few times about the "extra background" idea. Mechanically, it's fine. Simple, sweet, quite atractive, but not too powerful.

But don't you guys find it just weird that one of the supposedly youngest races is the one to get this benefit? The green youth going into adventuring is quite a common trope. If I remember correctly, back in 2nd Edition, suggested starting age for Humans was 15+1d4. It just feels strange to me storywise, and hard to justify for a lot of character concepts (though working fine for others).

It's a good balance point, I'd say, and could even be one of a "list of options". But saying "all humans have it"? I'm not sure I like it.

This didn't come up in the campaign where I first implemented this, but that's mostly because the one guy who wanted to play a human played a grizzled old veteran (and I think went Marine/Outlander). That said, if you wanted to play a younger human, I could see you easily justifying having a background due to social status (Noble, Urchin), one-off experiences (Folk Hero, Haunted One), or cultural upbringing (in my setting, some obvious pairings would be Seafolk↔Sailor and Marked↔Acolyte).

[loki_ragnarock]

I prefer thinking newbies are capable of learning things more complicated than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. They are able to learn various game mechanics interactions instead of just rolling a die and add a number printed on their character sheet.

Newbies aren't usually savvy enough to naturally gravitate towards the simple options. They just want to play something cool. The number of new players I introduced to D&D in the 3rd ed days who gravitated to bards because "they could do a little of everything" broke me of that notion a long time ago.

People explicitly seeking simplicity, on the other hand...

[LibraryOgre]

#1 would go against WotC's design direction of moving away from fixed ASIs in races (and also it'd make Humans better at some classes than others when ideally they should be apt at all of them) so not a fan of that one. But I definitely like #2; decent for a racial without being too strong, and simple enough that a new player can easily benefit.


This is mostly an import of my AD&D rules, and, there, the Charisma bonus was actually a design feature... two of the human-centric classes (druids, paladins) had Charisma requirements, which meant that humans were more likely to be those classes than others, even if you open all classes to all races.

[Tanarii]

I prefer thinking newbies are capable of learning things more complicated than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. They are able to learn various game mechanics interactions instead of just rolling a die and add a number printed on their character sheet.
If they aren't experienced board gamers, just 6 ability scores and remembering they have proficiency in something is a challenge.

If they are, they can handle a Wizard or a Druid.

[TotallyNotEvil]

What about ignoring the stat requirements for multiclasing? Or at least one of them?

[ProsecutorGodot]

What about ignoring the stat requirements for multiclasing? Or at least one of them?

Again, we want to avoid bonuses that rely on strictly optional rules. Feats and Multiclassing don't exist as far as this discussion is concerned.

To be a bit more engaging with the idea though, I don't like it because there's no way that a level 1 character can use it, it's a non feature unless you're at least level 2 and have plans to multiclass. It can't stand on its own and I think it would feel out of place bundled in with anything else.

[Rynjin]

Not every feature has to be good for every character, TBH. Going back to PF again for a second, the Half-Elf is the "master multiclasser" in that system, because they get to pick a second class to gain a Favored Class Bonus from, unlike every other multiclassing character.

It's a minor benefit, but one that can be useful for some people, and that's fine.

The wanting to stay away from optional rules is a bigger point, but one I don't think is super relevant either, in the grand scheme. Not every option needs to be good at every TABLE either, and the idea of Feats, multiclassing, and magic items being "optional" is largely a farce in 5e, and one I'm not sure why they went to the effort of constructing. Even the Adventurer's League rules allow the use of them.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I'd point players who want to play humans toward V. Human and just direct them toward a simple and easy to understand feat.

Standard Humans are kinda stuck. They're supposed to be the simple and easy to understand option, so no abilities that need to be remembered and used. So the only means they have to be portrayed is then purely mathematical. But, you can't add straight bonuses because of bounded accuracy shenanigans, and with ASIs streamlined they don't make sense. So we're left with, what? Proficiencies?

Only thing I can think of that might fit all the boxes is letting them get an additional proficiency in a saving throw and skill. Maybe half proficiency in all saving throws. Half proficiency isn't exactly the most difficult thing to keep track of. You just put it on your character sheet and ignore it until you level up.

[Rukelnikov]

Honestly, I'd point players who want to play humans toward V. Human and just direct them toward a simple and easy to understand feat.

Standard Humans are kinda stuck. They're supposed to be the simple and easy to understand option, so no abilities that need to be remembered and used. So the only means they have to be portrayed is then purely mathematical. But, you can't add straight bonuses because of bounded accuracy shenanigans, and with ASIs streamlined they don't make sense. So we're left with, what? Proficiencies?

Only thing I can think of that might fit all the boxes is letting them get an additional proficiency in a saving throw and skill. Maybe half proficiency in all saving throws. Half proficiency isn't exactly the most difficult thing to keep track of. You just put it on your character sheet and ignore it until you level up.

I guess this is the point we need to agree upon, are we trying to keep the spirit of "really simple" or not?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I guess this is the point we need to agree upon, are we trying to keep the spirit of "really simple" or not?

I've been back and forth on the idea that there should be designated simple options for people to play but I'm definitely convinced at this point that you'd really have to do a lot to make a racial choice "complicated".

If the vast majority of races are already fairly simple and straightforward while still having unique features, why are standard humans worse off than that?

[Psyren]

This is mostly an import of my AD&D rules, and, there, the Charisma bonus was actually a design feature... two of the human-centric classes (druids, paladins) had Charisma requirements, which meant that humans were more likely to be those classes than others, even if you open all classes to all races.

I understand and that totally makes sense for 2e, just saying it doesn't seem to fit with 5e's (current) direction.


I'vw heard a few times about the "extra background" idea. Mechanically, it's fine. Simple, sweet, quite atractive, but not too powerful.

But don't you guys find it just weird that one of the supposedly youngest races is the one to get this benefit? The green youth going into adventuring is quite a common trope. If I remember correctly, back in 2nd Edition, suggested starting age for Humans was 15+1d4. It just feels strange to me storywise, and hard to justify for a lot of character concepts (though working fine for others).

It's a good balance point, I'd say, and could even be one of a "list of options". But saying "all humans have it"? I'm not sure I like it.

A lot of the backgrounds are feasibly available from an early age. If you're an Urchin or a Noble for example, chances are you always were, and had plenty of time to fit in being a Soldier or a Folk Hero on top of that. Even some that are implied to occur close to adulthood like Soldier + Sailor can be easily combined.

Again, I think a clause that any combinations have to be approved by your GM would be enough to veto any implausible ones (which, I can't even think of any if I'm honest.)


I prefer thinking newbies are capable of learning things more complicated than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. They are able to learn various game mechanics interactions instead of just rolling a die and add a number printed on their character sheet.

There is appeal in a race whose racials you don't have to keep track of though. Standard Human seems most ideal for that. A 1/round or x/rest reroll is indeed one more thing to track.



If the vast majority of races are already fairly simple and straightforward while still having unique features, why are standard humans worse off than that?

I agree, there's a lot of room to make humans more appealing without overcomplicating them. So far "two backgrounds" is my personal favorite, but I'd be fine with +2/+2/+2 also, or maybe +2/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1.

[Pildion]

PHB 29: "Humans are the most adaptable and ambitious people among the common races." "Whatever drives them, humans are the innovators, the achievers, and the pioneers of the worlds."

With both Tasha's and MotM having made floating stats and customizable proficiencies the new norm for many D&D races, the standard PHB human appears to have been a bit left behind. Variant Human is still doing okay, as they are one of the very few ways to start the game with a feat or an 18 (assuming PB/array) and get a bonus proficiency besides - but even in games that use feats they are not always allowed.

How would you buff the standard human? What do you think WotC will give them in the updated PHB in 2024?


- Extra background
- Floating proficiency (changeable on LR)
- Bonus Tool + Skill proficiency (unchangeable)
- Expertise in one skill or tool they're proficient in
- Choice of free cantrip , free martial weapon proficiency, or two tool proficiencies


You know, with Tasha's and MotM changing the way you flip flop stats around I didn't even think of what it would mean for normal humans. I've only ever seen vHuman in real campaigns haha. Your 100% right though they will need something very good to overcome this. Honestly the easiest thing to do is scrap human and just make vHuman the standard.

[CapnWildefyr]

Building on Mark Hall's and others' comments, how about adding something like:

Dabblers. Unlike other races, even humans dedicated to a profession dabble in other areas. Choose two skills. For these skills, you are half-proficient. Add one half of your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any roll you make using that skill.
Languages. Humans diversify and speak many languages, getting along with everyone who gets along with them. Humans start knowing Common plus two other languages, one of which is their local human dialect.
Saving Throws. Humans can adapt to situations that leave other species behind. Humans gain a +1 on all saving throws.
Adaptable Spirit. Humans find new ways to achieve the seemingly impossible. Once per long rest, when a human fails either an attack roll (including a spell attack) or a skill check roll, re-roll the die. You must use the new result. [modeled after halfling luck] Or maybe this is "Dogged determination."

I've maintained for a long time that there's no reason to play a plain human, mechanically, since 5e is all about bonuses and no restrictions, and plain humans don't have a list of bonuses. Sure we play them anyway, but that's not an excuse for them being too bland.

Darkvision, which most playable species have, is really really powerful. Other species get advantage (+5) on one class of saves, or sometimes resistance, breath weapons, and so on. Powerful stuff. So getting a +1 or 1 re-roll shouldn't be OP.

Of, if using feats, simply allow humans to add +2 (or +1/+1) to ability scores AND get a feat -- not either/or.

[Dienekes]

I guess this is the point we need to agree upon, are we trying to keep the spirit of "really simple" or not?

Well are we making a change to the game only for myself or to keep the feeling of 5e?

If it's just for myself? No. I'd tear up the concept. In fact a good majority of my problems with 5e come from the desire to keep one thing or another simple at the cost of being interesting.

But if we're trying to keep it feeling 5e, then yeah I do think we need the so dirt simple it can be forgotten about once applied option.

[JLandan]

My version of Basic Human:

+2 to one stat, +1 to all others
2 skill proficiencies, 1 tool proficiency
2 languages (doesn't have to be Common)

Varient Human:

+1 to two stats
1 skill proficiency
Feat
2 languages (doesn't have to be Common)

Simplicity, adaptability, variety.

I didn't care for three +2 stats; I think that's out of scale with the other races. I like the two background idea, but I think extra proficiencies is simpler than all the other stuff that goes with backgrounds. I definitely don't think proficiency bonus increases are a good idea, especially with the prof/LR mechanic.

This competes with Vhuman without stepping on its toes. It provides a reason to play Human rather than VHuman, while VHuman is still perfectly viable. Personally, I don't like total floating ASI's on any race but Human. I would prefer the +2 stay fixed, and only the +1 float. I wouldn't allow custom lineage at my table without a great deal of convincing.

[Psyren]

You know, with Tasha's and MotM changing the way you flip flop stats around I didn't even think of what it would mean for normal humans. I've only ever seen vHuman in real campaigns haha. Your 100% right though they will need something very good to overcome this. Honestly the easiest thing to do is scrap human and just make vHuman the standard.

As mentioned though, the big problem with this approach is feat-less games. If the only human is Vhuman, then humans are either banned from featless games entirely, or they're even more subpar than normal; neither outcome is good. So ideally, altering/buffing standard human to be more on par with modern race design is something they're looking into for 5.5.



Dabblers. Unlike other races, even humans dedicated to a profession dabble in other areas. Choose two skills. For these skills, you are half-proficient. Add one half of your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any roll you make using that skill.

As a cautionary note here, I seem to recall a ruling that half-proficiency counts as proficiency... I'll go look that up.


Languages. Humans diversify and speak many languages, getting along with everyone who gets along with them. Humans start knowing Common plus two other languages, one of which is their local human dialect.

I'd remove this one or at least make it one option among several. There are plenty of humans who aren't bilingual (much less polylingual) and "local human dialects" don't necessarily exist in a given campaign.



Saving Throws. Humans can adapt to situations that leave other species behind. Humans gain a +1 on all saving throws.
Adaptable Spirit. Humans find new ways to achieve the seemingly impossible. Once per long rest, when a human fails either an attack roll (including a spell attack) or a skill check roll, re-roll the die. You must use the new result. [modeled after halfling luck] Or maybe this is "Dogged determination."

The saving throw one I'm fine with. The 1/LR reroll with no bonus... eh. Yeah technically it's more likely to come up than the Halfling ability to reroll 1s all day, but I'd say the latter feels better since you don't just use it in the morning and then have no racial at all the rest of the day.


My version of Basic Human:

+2 to one stat, +1 to all others
2 skill proficiencies, 1 tool proficiency
2 languages (doesn't have to be Common)

Varient Human:

+1 to two stats
1 skill proficiency
Feat
2 languages (doesn't have to be Common)

Simplicity, adaptability, variety.

I didn't care for three +2 stats; I think that's out of scale with the other races. I like the two background idea, but I think extra proficiencies is simpler than all the other stuff that goes with backgrounds. I definitely don't think proficiency bonus increases are a good idea, especially with the prof/LR mechanic.

This competes with Vhuman without stepping on its toes. It provides a reason to play Human rather than VHuman, while VHuman is still perfectly viable. Personally, I don't like total floating ASI's on any race but Human. I would prefer the +2 stay fixed, and only the +1 float. I wouldn't allow custom lineage at my table without a great deal of convincing.

I'm okay with these, though personally I would bump standard human up to three proficiencies.

[JLandan]

I'm okay with these, though personally I would bump standard human up to three proficiencies.

I considered 3, but thought 3 skills and 1 tool was a little too much. Maybe I was wrong and 3 is okay.

[Yakk]

Pick an attribute. If you don't add proficiency to a check of save with that attribute, you now add 1/2 proficiency. If you already add proficiency, add +1.

It has lots of neat synergy.

[rlc]

I’m leaning toward the +1 proficiency, or at least the +1 to saving throws, if you’re worried about things like proficiency bonus per long rest or expertise.

I’m also expecting variant humans to be completely replaced by custom lineage completely.

[Gurgeh]

Pick an attribute. If you don't add proficiency to a check of save with that attribute, you now add 1/2 proficiency. If you already add proficiency, add +1.

It has lots of neat synergy.
Jack-of-one-trade; I like it. Very newbie-friendly (only need to remember which attribute you're good at from the start to the end of your career) and offers some solid possibilities for more involved play, too. Would this go with the current universal +1, or with an alternative ability score distribution?

[Psyren]

I’m leaning toward the +1 proficiency, or at least the +1 to saving throws, if you’re worried about things like proficiency bonus per long rest or expertise.

I’m also expecting variant humans to be completely replaced by custom lineage completely.

Personally I expect Custom Lineage itself to be replaced, or at least augmented. Something like "pick a race, remove two or more of its racial traits and get a starting feat instead."

That way you can have, say, an Aarakocra who can still fly at 1st level and gets a feat, but loses Wind Caller and Talons instead. If your build was never going to use those latter two abilities then you'd probably consider that a solid trade.

[diplomancer]

Personally I expect Custom Lineage itself to be replaced, or at least augmented. Something like "pick a race, remove two or more of its racial traits and get a starting feat instead."

That way you can have, say, an Aarakocra who can still fly at 1st level and gets a feat, but loses Wind Caller and Talons instead. If your build was never going to use those latter two abilities then you'd probably consider that a solid trade.

Goodness, I hope they don't. So many Races (like the Aarakocra) get one powerful racial trait and a smattering of weak ones, that this will end any possibility even of balancing it against the old races.

"Hi Mr. Dwarf, would you like to exchange Stonecunning and Tool Proficiency for a feat?" is not exactly a tough choice.

[Kane0]

Yeah two racial traits of your choice for a feat is too good a deal. Even putting aside dropping ribbons, you could trade two skill proficiencies for three via the Skilled feat and so on.

[Gurgeh]

The obvious choice would be to swap the +2 ASI out, given the game effectively considers it to be equivalent to a feat whenever you get an ASI.

[diplomancer]

The obvious choice would be to swap the +2 ASI out, given the game effectively considers it to be equivalent to a feat whenever you get an ASI.

Yes, that was my suggestion on another thread. I think it's a power boost for many builds, but definitely not for all

Edit: Sorry, Gurgeh, just noticed you're the one I was having the conversation on that other thread :)

[Angelalex242]

I'm still for my plan of giving Humans +2 across the board. And see what people do with their +1 to irrelevant for their build stats.

[diplomancer]

I'm still for my plan of giving Humans +2 across the board. And see what people do with their +1 to irrelevant for their build stats.

The math of point-buy makes me dislike that (16 16 16 14 12 10 is so good that I think most humans would end with that distribution in point buy; maybe a few would go for 17 17 16 12 10 10). If I went in that direction, I think I'd go with +2 (x3), +1 (x3), and something else.

[Boverk]

The math of point-buy makes me dislike that (16 16 16 14 12 10 is so good that I think most humans would end with that distribution in point buy; maybe a few would go for 17 17 16 12 10 10). If I went in that direction, I think I'd go with +2 (x3), +1 (x3), and something else.

I really like the idea of 15/15/15/14/14/14 as a character who is just really into self care, both internal and external - a Monk/Paladin or something


edit:
Or a 15/14/15/15/14/14 Rune Knight who uses all 7 ASI's to round out their stats, winding up at

20/14/20/16/14/16 - takes a half feat to get crusher or expertise or something

[KorvinStarmast]

Wrong assumption here. Standard human isn't that great, but it can be relevant depending on starting ability score array. Variant Human is better but doesn't obsolete it. The problem with standard human is when floating ASIs introduced in the Tasha book are used, they're obsolete, more so since every race will now have them. Players get the ASIs where they care to want them, including a +2, and get racial abilities. Humans get bupkis. It has nothing to do with feats at all. If you look at how Drow and Tiefling get innate spells at level ups as racial features (I am finally playing a drow, which I swore I'd never do in this edition, but a friend asked me to in order to round out a group that will mostly be adventuring in the Underdark analogue to his world) then Standard human can be slightly improved without losing the simplicity factor and leaning into the adaptability bit: at level 3 add a skill proficiency (parallel to drow faerie fire) and at level 5 add a tool proficiency (paralle to Darkness at 5) or the other way around, tool at 3 and skill at 5. (There are other races that.

One of the advantages of this would be that new players who play a human make a choice at 3d level for a tool or a proficiency as they learn the game and see something they would like. (
On the other hand, the front loading at chargen isn't a bad idea in terms of the KISS principle. (The added tool and the added skill proficiency).

[Rukelnikov]

If you look at how Drow and Tiefling get innate spells at level ups as racial features (I am finally playing a drow, which I swore I'd never do in this edition, but a friend asked me to in order to round out a group that will mostly be adventuring in the Underdark analogue to his world) then Standard human can be slightly improved without losing the simplicity factor and leaning into the adaptability bit: at level 3 add a skill proficiency (parallel to drow faerie fire) and at level 5 add a tool proficiency (paralle to Darkness at 5) or the other way around, tool at 3 and skill at 5. (There are other races that.

One of the advantages of this would be that new players who play a human make a choice at 3d level for a tool or a proficiency as they learn the game and see something they would like. (
On the other hand, the front loading at chargen isn't a bad idea in terms of the KISS principle. (The added tool and the added skill proficiency).

Tbh this is the route I hope races go to in 5.5, instead of having to be extremely frontloaded they can get stuff every now and then.

[KorvinStarmast]

Tbh this is the route I hope races go to in 5.5, instead of having to be extremely frontloaded they can get stuff every now and then. I understand why they did this with Drow - the powers from AD&D1e era drow (enemies in the G and U modules) being a legacy they want to carry forward - but I find that certain 'special' races getting racial boosts at level ups and others not being a design inconsistency that I care for less and less as I get deeper into this edition.

[Rukelnikov]

I understand why they did this with Drow - the powers from AD&D1e era drow (enemies in the G and U modules) being a legacy they want to carry forward - but I find that certain 'special' races getting racial boosts at level ups and others not being a design inconsistency that I care for less and less as I get deeper into this edition.

I agree, they should all get level ups

Wait, maybe I missunderstood that, "I care for less and less" means you don't mind or you dont like?

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree, they should all get level ups

Wait, maybe I missunderstood that, "I care for less and less" means you don't mind or you dont like? It's the inconsistency bit, and the "special {X} are special" crap (IIRC Eladrin have a similar level based racial boost) while halflings, humans, dwarves and others don't.

We have had some very nice threads on "how do w rate/score racial features" and the most recent one had a decent spread sheet (Detect Balance?) that helped me to put a finger on why some racial design models (Yuan Ti is a whole 'nother story) just don't register with me.

[Amnestic]

Tbh this is the route I hope races go to in 5.5, instead of having to be extremely frontloaded they can get stuff every now and then.

If the trend is that they want to make races have more 'unique' differences then this is probably what they'll have to do. I could definitely see them dropping a "Racial Paragon Path" optional thing that advances by character level (alongside class levels) in an MTG setting book or the like, since that's where they like to do such things.

[Psyren]

"Hi Mr. Dwarf, would you like to exchange Stonecunning and Tool Proficiency for a feat?" is not exactly a tough choice.

...But you can already, today, Custom Lineage your Mr. Dwarf into something that looks and acts exactly like a dwarf and has floating ASIs, darkvision and a feat. So this actually changes nothing :smallconfused:

What this does let you do is Custom Lineage other existing races in a more believable way too.

[Rukelnikov]

...But you can already, today, Custom Lineage your Mr. Dwarf into something that looks and acts exactly like a dwarf and has floating ASIs, darkvision and a feat. So this actually changes nothing :smallconfused:

What this does let you do is Custom Lineage other existing races in a more believable way too.

But he wouldn't be able to take Dwarven Fortitude with that feat cause his race is not Dwarf, its Custom Lineage.

[Psyren]

But he wouldn't be able to take Dwarven Fortitude with that feat cause his race is not Dwarf, its Custom Lineage.

I'm sure all the builds clamoring for Dwarven Fortitude at 1st level will be crushed :smallbiggrin:

Would it really break that much if an updated CL let you count as "X" race for prereqs? I honestly don't think so.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm sure all the builds clamoring for Dwarven Fortitude at 1st level will be crushed :smallbiggrin:

Hey, its not that bad! I took it on my Cleric to Dodge with Spirit Guardians up and it was decent


Would it really break that much if an updated CL let you count as "X" race for prereqs? I honestly don't think so.

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of DMs allowed it, but IMO that's even worse, because it makes CL even better than it already is.

[Psyren]

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of DMs allowed it, but IMO that's even worse, because it makes CL even better than it already is.

If you're allowing CL at all, then you're okay with a feat at first level, so letting someone's CLineage actually be an example of the race they're trying to emulate is not a big deal on top of that. Sure it's technically stronger, but the result is the player actually has a stronger connection to their customized race than seeing it as a bundle of stats with a feat attached, and I see that as a win.

(Hell, they might do exactly what you proposed and pick some jank like Dwarven Fortitude because it fits their concept - that would actually be better than just leaving the feat open for the typical Lucky/PAM/CBE/Telekinetic etc.)

[Rukelnikov]

If you're allowing CL at all, then you're okay with a feat at first level, so letting someone's CLineage actually be an example of the race they're trying to emulate is not a big deal on top of that. Sure it's technically stronger, but the result is the player actually has a stronger connection to their customized race than seeing it as a bundle of stats with a feat attached, and I see that as a win.

(Hell, they might do exactly what you proposed and pick some jank like Dwarven Fortitude because it fits their concept - that would actually be better than just leaving the feat open for the typical Lucky/PAM/CBE/Telekinetic etc.)

This is where my problem is, if they want an attachment to the race and not just a bunch of stats, then play the Race, not something with better stats that tries to emulate the actual race.

[Amnestic]

Presumably you could/would use CL for certain half-races that aren't represented with stats already, but do exist in lore (eg. half-dwarves) which, like half-elves, would qualify for both of their 'halves' racial feats.

[heavyfuel]

I generally dislike "Humans are the most adaptable" as the main Human trait. I don't see WotC changing it any time soon because that's how they've historically treated humans, but I'd much prefer seeing some other fantasy trope as far as humans are concerned.

My favorite is "Humans can overcome any odds" trope. I'd go for something along the lines of:

Inner Strength: When push comes to shove, humans can overcome even the greatest challenge. If you are currently at half or lower of your hit point maximum (rounded up), you can, once per round, either end one Condition affecting you, or gain Inspiration. You can use this ability a number of times equal to your Proficiency bonus, and regain all expended uses on a long rest.

A mechanic like this would give humans some actual flavor on top of something unique

[Anymage]

The math of point-buy makes me dislike that (16 16 16 14 12 10 is so good that I think most humans would end with that distribution in point buy; maybe a few would go for 17 17 16 12 10 10). If I went in that direction, I think I'd go with +2 (x3), +1 (x3), and something else.

If you're MAD to the point that your fourth or later priorities matter, you're already spread thin and feeling the stat pinch. If you're SAD, those +2s to your lower priority stats are basically just if you're caught needing to make an offstat save or ability check. The save part doesn't suck, but +1 on offstat ability checks is basically a ribbon. While +12 to stats might sound like a lot on paper, +6 to stats also sounded like a lot on paper and we all see what that's really like in practice.


...But you can already, today, Custom Lineage your Mr. Dwarf into something that looks and acts exactly like a dwarf and has floating ASIs, darkvision and a feat. So this actually changes nothing :smallconfused:

My mountain dwarf wizard would be quite happy to keep the armor proficiency and stat points, while giving up weapon proficiencies he's not going to use and a tool proficiency that might never come up in exchange for warcaster. Being able to swap out ribbons while still keeping headline features is just going to power creep things even more.

[Psyren]

My mountain dwarf wizard would be quite happy to keep the armor proficiency and stat points, while giving up weapon proficiencies he's not going to use and a tool proficiency that might never come up in exchange for warcaster. Being able to swap out ribbons while still keeping headline features is just going to power creep things even more.

Make it so the features you give up can't be skill or tool proficiencies then. The example I gave (aarakocra) had to give up their natural weapon and racial spellcasting. I'd be cool with that.


This is where my problem is, if they want an attachment to the race and not just a bunch of stats, then play the Race, not something with better stats that tries to emulate the actual race.

I think there's a middle ground between "play the race, sucks if you wanted a feat" and "you get a feat but you can only get there by being an amorphous stat blob. Or human."

[Rukelnikov]

I think there's a middle ground between "play the race, sucks if you wanted a feat" and "you get a feat but you can only get there by being an amorphous stat blob. Or human."

Well my group plays with a free feat at lvl 1, it solves that problem, and VHuman and CL being OP

[Psyren]

Well my group plays with a free feat at lvl 1, it solves that problem, and VHuman and CL being OP

So giving up two racials for a feat is OP, but getting a free feat on top of all your racials isn't? :smalltongue:

[Rukelnikov]

So giving up two racials for a feat is OP, but getting a free feat on top of all your racials isn't? :smalltongue:

Giving up two traits for a feat is bad because it creates a trap scenario where "saavy" players will lose nothing and get a feat, while new players may not know these interactions.

A free feat for everyone levels the play field making balance differences between races less impactful, since the overall power has been risen.

[diplomancer]

...But you can already, today, Custom Lineage your Mr. Dwarf into something that looks and acts exactly like a dwarf and has floating ASIs, darkvision and a feat. So this actually changes nothing :smallconfused:

What this does let you do is Custom Lineage other existing races in a more believable way too.

But he doesn't have Poison Resistance, his speed gets reduced from Heavy Armour, he doesn't have the subrace benefits, he only has +2 to a stat, not +2,+1 (or even +2,+2)...

Letting a dwarf keep all those and a feat on top is crazy.

[Yakk]

Jack-of-one-trade; I like it. Very newbie-friendly (only need to remember which attribute you're good at from the start to the end of your career) and offers some solid possibilities for more involved play, too. Would this go with the current universal +1, or with an alternative ability score distribution?

No, it gets pasted on top. So they get +1 to all attributes.

I also
1. Everyone gets a feat at level 1 (vhuman/CL not allowed)
2. Cap on lineage/feat bonus is +2 to an attribute.
3. Everyone gets a "lineage" HD (d8 usually, d6 for small races, d10 for powerful build races).

This is intended to give about 0.5 to 1.0 extra levels of power, and make level 1 PCs less squishy.

The "and if you already get proficiency, you get +1" makes using it for min-maxing possible, and makes it stack with jack-of-one-trade; if you take Natural Talent (Dex) and get Jack-of-one-trade, you get +prof/2 + 1 to dex checks (including initiative), and if you are proficient (or have expertise) you get that extra +1.

A half save and half proficiency on a stat isn't bad. A +1 stacking bonus on something you care about isn't bad. Being able to get half-proficiency on stuff you usually can't isn't bad.

[Angelalex242]

If you're MAD to the point that your fourth or later priorities matter, you're already spread thin and feeling the stat pinch. If you're SAD, those +2s to your lower priority stats are basically just if you're caught needing to make an offstat save or ability check. The save part doesn't suck, but +1 on offstat ability checks is basically a ribbon. While +12 to stats might sound like a lot on paper, +6 to stats also sounded like a lot on paper and we all see what that's really like in practice.



My mountain dwarf wizard would be quite happy to keep the armor proficiency and stat points, while giving up weapon proficiencies he's not going to use and a tool proficiency that might never come up in exchange for warcaster. Being able to swap out ribbons while still keeping headline features is just going to power creep things even more.

I figure it will probably be monks who are happiest with my +2 across the board plan. They have more uses for stats than other classes. But yes, +2 across the board depends on, in practice, improving unimportant stats isn't as strong as it looks, even if it would make it obvious why humans are the dominant race in the world.

[Psyren]

Giving up two traits for a feat is bad because it creates a trap scenario where "saavy" players will lose nothing and get a feat, while new players may not know these interactions.

A free feat for everyone levels the play field making balance differences between races less impactful, since the overall power has been risen.

I'm getting a little "ivory tower design" here, but I don't see that as a trap at all, I see it as rewarding system mastery and creating depth in the system. So long as the features you give up aren't too ribbon or basic (proficiencies essentially, especially tool proficiencies) then I can see the tradeoff being meaningful.

Whereas "everyone gets a feat at first level," while simpler, you're going to have a harder time getting that allowed at a table since it's a straight power boost over what we have now. It also exacerbates the human problem - do VHumans get two? Do they no longer exist? If the latter, humans fall even further behind etc.


But he doesn't have Poison Resistance, his speed gets reduced from Heavy Armour, he doesn't have the subrace benefits, he only has +2 to a stat, not +2,+1 (or even +2,+2)...

Letting a dwarf keep all those and a feat on top is crazy.

The stat thing is getting standardized at +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 for everybody in 5.5, mark my words. The rest of these are all situational at best. (Poison Resist is nice but that's likely one of the features a CLineage-Dwarf would have to give up with tool proficiencies off the table.)

[Rukelnikov]

I'm getting a little "ivory tower design" here, but I don't see that as a trap at all, I see it as rewarding system mastery and creating depth in the system. So long as the features you give up aren't too ribbon or basic (proficiencies essentially, especially tool proficiencies) then I can see the tradeoff being meaningful.

I don't really like that design for non competitive games, and to me at least, DnD and all TTRPGs I play are not competitive games (there can be for sure, but they are not my cup of tea)


Whereas "everyone gets a feat at first level," while simpler, you're going to have a harder time getting that allowed at a table since it's a straight power boost over what we have now. It also exacerbates the human problem - do VHumans get two? Do they no longer exist? If the latter, humans fall even further behind etc.

Yeah they get 2, but that doesn't exacerbate the problem, quite the contrary, it lessens it, a 1st level feat is powerful because how scarce they are, if everyone started with 10 feats, VHumans 1 feat would be a crap feature, everyone starting with one feat makes VHumans 1 feat less impactful.

[KyleG]

Id prefer a human with floating stats +2/+1 and some sort of reusable feature.
I think i plan to steal from halfling (removing from setting) and have

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 roll
Determined: When you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can do so with advantage. Once you use this ability, you can't use it again until you finish a short or long rest.


There was an earlier example of a 5th level trait kicking in...i reckon you could get away with something like the skilled or skill expert feat here.

On a slight divergence i wonder whether instead of linking the specific attribute to a race you could leave them floating but give something like this
Races who previously had a +2 to dex get "Add d4 to one dex check or saving throw a number of times based on proficiency"?
Previously str get the same to str checks/savings, wis to wisdom check/savings etc. Preserves the flavour of being naturally that way inclined but frees the attributes up.
Humans might get the ability to do it to any check/save?

[Psyren]

I don't really like that design for non competitive games, and to me at least, DnD and all TTRPGs I play are not competitive games (there can be for sure, but they are not my cup of tea)

"Some build choices are better than others" doesn't turn D&D into a "competitive game" in my book. Like, does the existence of jank like Grappler or Weapon Master mean D&D is a competitive game because there are likely much better uses for your feats? I don't think so.


Yeah they get 2, but that doesn't exacerbate the problem, quite the contrary, it lessens it, a 1st level feat is powerful because how scarce they are, if everyone started with 10 feats, VHumans 1 feat would be a crap feature, everyone starting with one feat makes VHumans 1 feat less impactful.

Giving VHuman two feats at first level would catapult them way ahead of the pack. If your DM is cool with that go for it, but I suspect not many would be.

[Damon_Tor]

In many settings humans have the defacto "bonus" of being the most common race. They're rarely out of place in the same way as even a dwarf or elf might be. You could go from one end of the continent to the other and spend every night in a human-dominated settlement.

[Rukelnikov]

"Some build choices are better than others" doesn't turn D&D into a "competitive game" in my book. Like, does the existence of jank like Grappler or Weapon Master mean D&D is a competitive game because there are likely much better uses for your feats? I don't think so.

You cited the Ivory Tower design, which is supossed to reward players for having game knowledge, that's an inherently competitive game design, since players with knowledge get better stuff than new players.


Giving VHuman two feats at first level would catapult them way ahead of the pack. If your DM is cool with that go for it, but I suspect not many would be.

So I guess if they had 11 feats when everyone else had 10 that would catapult them even more right?

[Psyren]

You cited the Ivory Tower design, which is supossed to reward players for having game knowledge, that's an inherently competitive game design, since players with knowledge get better stuff than new players.

Disagree; knowing that Polearm Master is a better feat than Grappler doesn't necessarily make me better off than a player who doesn't know that. If I'm more experienced, he's likely going to listen to my suggestions when building his character - that's cooperative gaming, not competitive.

Similarly, if I'm playing an Open Hand Monk and they're playing a Moon Druid, me knowing which feats or other build options are better doesn't mean I'll have the stronger character.


So I guess if they had 11 feats when everyone else had 10 that would catapult them even more right?

I'm more concerned about them having 3 feats when everyone else has two or even just one because they needed that ASI.

[KorvinStarmast]

My favorite is "Humans can overcome any odds" trope. I'd go for something along the lines of:

Inner Strength: When push comes to shove, humans can overcome even the greatest challenge. If you are currently at half or lower of your hit point maximum (rounded up), you can, once per round, either end one Condition affecting you, or gain Inspiration. You can use this ability a number of times equal to your Proficiency bonus, and regain all expended uses on a long rest.
it's somewhat appealing, but it is also in the "that's too fiddly" school of D&D which 5e was trying to move away from (with mixed success).

But if 5.5e or 6e has something like that for basic human, I'd probably salute that flag as it went up the flag pole.

[Rukelnikov]

Disagree; knowing that Polearm Master is a better feat than Grappler doesn't necessarily make me better off than a player who doesn't know that. If I'm more experienced, he's likely going to listen to my suggestions when building his character - that's cooperative gaming, not competitive.

Similarly, if I'm playing an Open Hand Monk and they're playing a Moon Druid, me knowing which feats or other build options are better doesn't mean I'll have the stronger character.

So you are adding an additional layer of knowledge needed.


I'm more concerned about them having 3 feats when everyone else has two or even just one because they needed that ASI.

1 is half of 2, 2 is two thirds of 3, its pretty easy to see the impact of a feat is lessened when everyone has more of them.

[JLandan]

So you are adding an additional layer of knowledge needed.



1 is half of 2, 2 is two thirds of 3, its pretty easy to see the impact of a feat is lessened when everyone has more of them.

But it is a greater impact on the opponent NPCs and monsters.

[Rukelnikov]

But it is a greater impact on the opponent NPCs and monsters.

CR as a guideline breaks from the moment you allow Feats and MC, and the subs that came after PHB and Tasha's only made it worse. It may still be broken even if you use PHB no feats no MC, but I'm not sure since I've never played like that.

[Amnestic]

It may still be broken even if you use PHB no feats no MC, but I'm not sure since I've never played like that.

Considering a number of the top tier subclasses and spells are PHB...yes.

[Psyren]

So you are adding an additional layer of knowledge needed.

You mean that classes are different from one another? If that's undesirable, may I suggest 4th edition?

[Kane0]

You mean that classes are different from one another? If that's undesirable, may I suggest 4th edition?

Applaud the good snark, but 4e classes were different (if only during combat)

[Rukelnikov]

You mean that classes are different from one another? If that's undesirable, may I suggest 4th edition?

No, the what are good traits to swap for a feat and which are not.

[Psyren]

No, the what are good traits to swap for a feat and which are not.

That's not "another layer," that's the whole proposal. As opposed to "everyone gets a feat" - which is certainly straightforward, but ends up being considerably more powerful even for inexperienced players.

I'm not a fan of the idea that every choice needs to be equally optimal. Will there probably end up being a "best trade" for most races, sure. But at least there's a trade of some kind; "free feat" has none, it's just power creep.

[Rukelnikov]

That's not "another layer," that's the whole proposal. As opposed to "everyone gets a feat" - which is certainly straightforward, but ends up being considerably more powerful even for inexperienced players.

There's the layer of classes and feats that you mentioned, this would be another one.


I'm not a fan of the idea that every choice needs to be equally optimal. Will there probably end up being a "best trade" for most races, sure. But at least there's a trade of some kind; "free feat" has none, it's just power creep.

Its impossible to make every choice equal, unless there's only one choice, and that's the problem with CL being so strong, that it removes choice, because its almost strictly better than 90% of the choices.

And while a free feat might seem "power creep" in a vacuum, it actually smoothes the difference between the most powerful racial choices and the rest, so it has the opposite effect that power creep has, which is reducing the number of comparably strong choices.

[Psyren]

There's the layer of classes and feats that you mentioned, this would be another one.

Classes weren't a problem before and they aren't now. And a game where feats are a problem wouldn't allow CLineage and VHuman anyway.


Its impossible to make every choice equal, unless there's only one choice, and that's the problem with CL being so strong, that it removes choice, because its almost strictly better than 90% of the choices.

And while a free feat might seem "power creep" in a vacuum, it actually smoothes the difference between the most powerful racial choices and the rest, so it has the opposite effect that power creep has, which is reducing the number of comparably strong choices.

Yeah still not seeing how a trade is somehow less of a power concern than getting feats for free on top of all your other racials. Especially for VHuman (and CLineage, if not banned) which now either get two and become even worse, or none and might as well be deleted. But fine, we can agree to disagree.

[Rukelnikov]

Classes weren't a problem before and they aren't now. And a game where feats are a problem wouldn't allow CLineage and VHuman anyway.

Classes and feats are not a problem, the need to know the system to not fall into a trap is. A new player may want to take Weapon Master expecting to be a... Weapon Master, or Grappler expecting it to be the best way to grapple, while a player that knows the game, would go for a feat that synergyzes with the weapon they want to master (GWM, SS, PAM, etc), and take Skill Expert(Athletics) in order to make a grappler.

Those are traps and unintentional gatekeeping.

The more systems you need to know, the higher the bar to not feel frustrated with your PC when you realize by the second or third adventure that you chose wrong. Of course its as simple as changing those choices which I want to believe most DMs allow during the first adventures, but the system should try to minimize that frustration.


Yeah still not seeing how a trade is somehow less of a power concern than getting feats for free on top of all your other racials. Especially for VHuman (and CLineage, if not banned) which now either get two and become even worse, or none and might as well be deleted. But fine, we can agree to disagree.

Those are two different issues you are mixing. Trade is a problem because it requires player knlowledge in order to make good use of, something 5e had set to minimize.

Extra feat is to lessen the already existing Vhuman and CL too strong lvl 1 feat in low level games. 1 vs 0 is much more of a problem than 2 vs 1.

[Psyren]

Those are traps and unintentional gatekeeping.

By this logic any suboptimal choice is a trap and thus gatekeeping. I disagree.


1 vs 0 is much more of a problem than 2 vs 1.

I fundamentally disagree with this too, so we can stop here.

[Rukelnikov]

By this logic any suboptimal choice is a trap and thus gatekeeping. I disagree.

Its not any suboptimal, is when the better way to be a Grappler is not taking the grappler feat, or when the better way to be a Dwarf is not being a Dwarf.


I fundamentally disagree with this too, so we can stop here.

Can you explain why you disagree?

[Anymage]

You're unlikely to find a character with a free first level bonus feat at a table of characters without, just like how you're unlikely to find a second level character at a table with first levels. Free bonus feats are a tablewide thing, everybody gets them equally, and the DM is reasonably expected to pump encounters up a bit to match.

Compare swapping out arbitrary racial features for a bonus feat. Whether the option is even taken is up in the air, as is what features wind up swapped. That's a lot more variability with trap options. Comparing a per character option to a tablewide option is apples and oranges.

[Gurgeh]

Compare swapping out arbitrary racial features for a bonus feat. Whether the option is even taken is up in the air, as is what features wind up swapped. That's a lot more variability with trap options. Comparing a per character option to a tablewide option is apples and oranges.
This, a thousand times this.

Also - for those who are expecting to see PHB races standardised to floating +2/+1 - yes, it is very likely. It is also likely that Mountain Dwarves will lose their armour proficiencies since the developers have realised that they're way too convenient (and if hobgoblins are anything to go by, they'll get something much better to replace their lost abilities).

[diplomancer]

Extra feat is to lessen the already existing Vhuman and CL too strong lvl 1 feat in low level games. 1 vs 0 is much more of a problem than 2 vs 1.

While it's true that, in theory, the law of diminishing marginal returns applies (i.e, the difference between getting 10 feats and 11 feats is quite small), there are a few feats that synergize specially well with each other, like PAM and Sentinel, for example.

I like the idea of giving free feats to every race, but I think Humans would have to be dealt with differently

[Kane0]

I used to give free feat at level 1 for everyone, but now I find myself preferring the cost of that +2

[diplomancer]

I used to give free feat at level 1 for everyone, but now I find myself preferring the cost of that +2

I like it too (as long as you make half-Elves and Mountain Dwarfs give up their "extra" increases; otherwise half-Elf will be V. Human+, and Mountain Dwarf will be Custom Lineage+). It's easy to balance, and you don't need to modify Humans at all.

[rlc]

I generally dislike "Humans are the most adaptable" as the main Human trait…My favorite is "Humans can overcome any odds" trope.

They’re kind of the same thing

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're allowing CL at all, then you're okay with a feat at first level, so letting someone's CLineage actually be an example of the race they're trying to emulate is not a big deal on top of that. Sure it's technically stronger, but the result is the player actually has a stronger connection to their customized race than seeing it as a bundle of stats with a feat attached, and I see that as a win.

(Hell, they might do exactly what you proposed and pick some jank like Dwarven Fortitude because it fits their concept - that would actually be better than just leaving the feat open for the typical Lucky/PAM/CBE/Telekinetic etc.) As I read this discussion, CL makes my dislike of racial feats even stronger. Gating feats behind race: a crap choice (not a trap) when one looks at the Feats in PHB structure. OK, I'll stop.

[diplomancer]

As I read this discussion, CL makes my dislike of racial feats even stronger. Gating feats behind race: a crap choice (not a trap) when one looks at the Feats in PHB structure. OK, I'll stop.

I get your point, but I think the few feats that improve a specific racial feature (like Dragon Fear, an improvement to a Dragonborn'a breath weapon) are alright. But Elven Accuracy? Yeah, assuming it should exist, it's a dumb move to racially gatekeep it.

[Segev]

How about, "Adaptability: during a short or long rest, choose one skill, tool, or language you have access to to practice with. You become proficient with it until you next take a short or long rest. At the DM's discretion, you may be awkward or have a heavy accent, but you can functionally get your point across and understand others, or use the tool or skill with your proficiency bonus."

[Amechra]

But Elven Accuracy? Yeah, assuming it should exist, it's a dumb move to racially gatekeep it.

I could see racially gatekeeping it if it was restricted to an otherwise meh race. But making it an elf-only thing was kinda silly, because people will always be down to play elves.