D&D 5E Humans, am I missing something? And what's up with half-elf skill bonus?

Drudenfusz said:

Straight up abilities and skills are most of the time more useful to me then getting a spell or some other fancy stuff from a feat (I would love to build a character that utilises the Tavern Brawler feat, which I think is kinda cute, but in the end it is just luxury... a luxury the gals I build usually cannot affort).

Click to expand...

I actually just started a game with a variant human bard. It was a tough choice between that and half-elf. The half-elf is very good.

In the end I figured that I don't actually need a high charisma. I'm happy with a 15 for now. Instead I have 16 strength and Tavern Brawler. (If we were using standard array or point buy I could even have my 2 16s)

Tavern Brawler is awesome. I get to use my torch as a weapon so I don't worry about darkvision. It does decent damage at 1d4+1 and I get to use my bonus action to grapple if I hit.

So I have a full spellcaster who gets to do interesting things in combat, has great skills and is the party face.

Pretty awesome. More well rounded than if I had taken half-elf.

Drudenfusz said:

It bothers me so much, since I usually love to play humans, but so far every time I tried to build one, I ended up playing a half-elf, since it always turned out to be the better option.

Click to expand...

Not for me.

My first PC was a non-variant human with stats: 16 14 14 14 12 9.

The ability to have +2 (or even a +3 to one of them) for all three major saves. Priceless.

16 16 14 12 10 9 is also possible and the player decides which two stats to make 16, not the race.

If people have a "problem" making a human of a given class, try making a conflicting race/class such as a Gnome Paladin.

This is why tables often ends up with cookie cutter combinations of race and class.

DracoSuave said:

You're really underestimating that feat. Being able to start with one is huge--that feat is usually comparable to an entire suite of racial powers, and most of them come with an additional attribute which means the variant human can start with +2 on the stat of their choice, +1 on another good stat.

Most races in the game get:

+2 main stat, +1 second stat, skill, suite of abilities.

Variant humans can get:

+2 main stat, +1 second stat, skill, suite of abilities.

Some feats obviously don't compare as well, but that's not the fault of the variant human.

Half-elves might get that extra point in an off-stat, but the suite of abilities they get are.... not so exciting. They don't compare to the raw power a feat gives.

Click to expand...

I'm with [MENTION=73113]Drudenfusz[/MENTION] on this one... not a big an of the feat.

I find the feat only of any true value if you were planning to play a low-level one-shot game of some sort. I will of course concede that a few feats are really nice, but others are either lackluster or just plain not good.

I think the biggest problem comes into play in looking at the game at level 4 and beyond for the human. If at any level the human takes stats instead of another feat, they basically can then look at +2 stat points against the "suite of abilities" presented by other races.

For example a human who took stats at level 4 would have:
1 feat, 1 skill, and 4 stat points (2 from starting race and 2@lvl 4)

By comparison, an elf at level 4 would have:
1 feat, perception skill, long life (not a big deal in most games), Darkvision, fey ancestry, trance, +2 dex

So already we're about on par between human and elf, with 2 stat points vs Darkvision, fey resistance, and trance... (Darkvision and Trance being amazing abilities while fey resistance is more situational).

but then we add a subrace to the mix where the elf then gets: +1 Int, Elven weapons, a Wizard Cantrip, and an Extra language
or +1 Wis, Elven weapons, +5 move speed, and Mask of the wild

So by the end of adding high elf or wood elf the human is only ahead 1 stat point (but does choose where all 4 go) vs the elves above and their arrays of abilities.

Granted, some racial abilities become less important as you get higher in levels, but things like always being fully aware every shift of watch plus automatically having perception is always going to be useful.

I'll also cede that a human may take another feat at 4th level to combo something up and hold a strong advantage with some choice maximization early on... and if you aren't playing a longer term campaign it is likely a good frontloaded option. Besides, even at high levels some of those racial abilities can have big implications, especially if you have a whole party trying to sneak around in the dark / underground at any point in your adventuring careers.

KarinsDad said:

Not for me.

My first PC was a non-variant human with stats: 16 14 14 14 12 9.

The ability to have +2 (or even a +3 to one of them) for all three major saves. Priceless.

16 16 14 12 10 9 is also possible and the player decides which two stats to make 16, not the race.

If people have a "problem" making a human of a given class, try making a conflicting race/class such as a Gnome Paladin.

This is why tables often ends up with cookie cutter combinations of race and class.

Click to expand...

Humans (non-variant) are awesome with point buy for this reason. A 13 is the highest ability score you can get that costs 1 pt/1pt and then the human +1 boosts it to 14. It's so easy to get +2 ability score adjustment to multiple stats. And, like you mentioned, it's also the only race that will get you 2 16s in any ability scores you want.

The problem I have with it is everyone who thinks it is awesome to get the feat are still thinking in old edition terms when I talk to them. They are thinking min/max and that only forces the character to a focus that once it is outside it's element it is useless. 5e really seems to play to the need to play broad, not narrow. Thus the balance of replacing stat bumps with feats and vice verse. Feats have broadened out some, but they are still pretty focused.

dm4hire said:

The problem I have with it is everyone who thinks it is awesome to get the feat are still thinking in old edition terms when I talk to them. They are thinking min/max and that only forces the character to a focus that once it is outside it's element it is useless. 5e really seems to play to the need to play broad, not narrow. Thus the balance of replacing stat bumps with feats and vice verse. Feats have broadened out some, but they are still pretty focused.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense to me. As someone who is advocating for feats, it is precisely *not* in min/max terms that I am presenting them. Min/max, you take the attribute bonus. In no previous edition have gets (or their equivalent) been this broad or this rare.

Faradon said:

For example a human who took stats at level 4 would have:
1 feat, 1 skill, and 4 stat points (2 from starting race and 2@lvl 4)

By comparison, an elf at level 4 would have:
1 feat, perception skill, long life (not a big deal in most games), Darkvision, fey ancestry, trance, +2 dex

So already we're about on par between human and elf, with 2 stat points vs Darkvision, fey resistance, and trance... (Darkvision and Trance being amazing abilities while fey resistance is more situational).

but then we add a subrace to the mix where the elf then gets: +1 Int, Elven weapons, a Wizard Cantrip, and an Extra language
or +1 Wis, Elven weapons, +5 move speed, and Mask of the wild

So by the end of adding high elf or wood elf the human is only ahead 1 stat point (but does choose where all 4 go) vs the elves above and their arrays of abilities.
...

Besides, even at high levels some of those racial abilities can have big implications, especially if you have a whole party trying to sneak around in the dark / underground at any point in your adventuring careers.

Click to expand...

Choosing where the stat points go is really the key though as the human will have them all in their primary ability. This is +1 to hit & damage for all their attacks for anyone who attacks(!) or +1 to save DCs. Far more useful than a bump on any other stats & better or at least comparable to the best feats.

As the new p pointed out for someone like a monk who almost has 2 primary stats the feats are a less good pick when levelling which makes the one you can get to start even more valuable.

Kobold Stew said:

This makes no sense to me. As someone who is advocating for feats, it is precisely *not* in min/max terms that I am presenting them. Min/max, you take the attribute bonus. In no previous edition have gets (or their equivalent) been this broad or this rare.

Click to expand...

But that's the thing. When looking at feats people are telling me "you want to take this one because it gives you a stat/skill bump, which is awesome when you're starting out." That's min/max thinking. Don't take something that doesn't increase a stat or skill. If you choose the plain human then you get +1 to all your attributes. But, if you go with the variant you get feats! You get stat enhancements. You get skill bumps. That's is old thinking in a new system. That's focusing on being good at X, when 5e emphasizes being good at A,B,C... because you no longer need everyone you use to need to have a complete party. The game finally is back to the old way of build a party of characters you want and the DM will make it work. You want to play a fighter who knows how to steal, then build it. However, if you don't have anyone with thief abilities, it doesn't matter.

Toward the end of 2e and all through 3.x that was the big problem. You needed a balanced party. If you didn't have a healer you were screwed (actually more so in Basic and 1e in this respect). 4e tried to fix the problem but over generalized to the point everything played the same to me with slight variations. You don't need a balanced party in 5e. Everyone has a way to heal at least a portion of what they have lost, but having a healer does help. That thinking though from 2e to today, was that you needed better stats, proficiencies, and skills in order to be more effective as a character. That was part of the escalation problem. People bumping things and then it wasn't a challenge to them so the encounter had to become more difficult and so they have to increase the weakness again. It was more obvious with combat than skills, but it was the same. Rolling the dice became more important and that's what people are doing when they try to shoe horn the stats and feats to make their character better. You're not roleplaying, you're roll playing. Break the cycle and play a character straight up and you'll have second thoughts about how awesome the stat bonuses are, as well as the feats.

The humans are the bottom dwellers because for what we are supposed to represent in a fantasy world, they are not. Humans are always depicted as rash, diverse, excel in whatever they focus on, constantly changing their goals and professions compared to the long lived races in the game. Part of me wishes they would have put racial restrictions back in, but modified to more up to date standards. Maybe require a higher stat to multiclass compared to what Humans need. Increase the XP to level if they multiclass. Something that makes you think, you know I'll play a human because they can do whatever they want.

dm4hire said:

The humans are the bottom dwellers because for what we are supposed to represent in a fantasy world, they are not. Humans are always depicted as rash, diverse, excel in whatever they focus on, constantly changing their goals and professions compared to the long lived races in the game. Part of me wishes they would have put racial restrictions back in, but modified to more up to date standards. Maybe require a higher stat to multiclass compared to what Humans need. Increase the XP to level if they multiclass. Something that makes you think, you know I'll play a human because they can do whatever they want.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the feat and the skill represent.

Either excelling in one area, or diversifying into another.

Whereas the other races come out fixed, humans come out different each time.

Half elves, slightly less so.