D&D 5E A tweak for humans?

[variant]

By that logic, finding a +1 sword in a 1st or 2nd level dungeon would "break the math". If giving a character +3 to his stat breaks the early game, the math isn't as robust as the designers claimed.

A +1 in 5e is close to the equivalent of a +3 in previous editions. An 18 ability score versus a 17 is giving a +1 in saving throws, all ability score checks on top of attack rolls or damage.

At what point did they claim it was robust? They claimed the math was tighter and it is. That means each +1 is significantly more valuable than it ever has been and a DM needs to be careful when handing out bonuses.

 

[variant]

It can't be the bounded accuracy math, since by core rules there's nothing stopping you from having a 20 at 1st level. Remember that rolling stats is the core rule, and point buy is the variant.

Yeah, unfortunately I think it's a bad idea. Not for the fact that a player will have a 20 or an 18, as you can adjust encounters for that if all characters had them. The problem is that the standard rolling can make a large gap between characters. A monster that a level 1 with a 20 can handle isn't necessarily something someone with a 15 can.

 

[SigmaOne]

Yup, if optimal balance is your priority, don't roll stats. Plenty of groups still prefer to roll stats. Different strokes for different folks. Of course if balance isn't your priority, this thread isn't terribly relevant anyway.

 

[vecna00]

House rules are great that way, since they only apply to your "house." My removal of the stat cap in my game does not affect anyone else's game. Personally, I do not see a problem with a +3 to an ability score at first level. If one of my players approached me and wanted to do something similar, I would allow it. Even if I would recommend against it because I think the feat would be the better option overall, but I still wouldn't deny that request.

 

[doctorhook]

In the Basic Rules, humans get +1 to all stats; other races get +2 to one stat, +1 to another, and racial abilities which seem to be about the same as two feats. This has been extensively criticised in a number of threads. It seems to me to be unbalanced. (OTOH one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that you can't create a human PC with a 3 stat. I can't think that you'd want to, but it is an oddity that's there.)

Anyway, instead of having the +1 to all stats, what would be the effect of having +2 to two separate stats, and +1 to two (separate) others?

The effect would be that being human would be strictly mechanically superior to any other option.

 

[Quartz]

The effect would be that being human would be strictly mechanically superior to any other option.

So, what is the happy medium?

 

[arjomanes]

What about +2 to a stat of your choice and +1 to all others?

As it stands now, I can't think of anyone who would take the basic option instead of the variant option.

 

[Salamandyr]

I just saw the Half-Elf: +2 to Charisma, +1 to two stats of your choice, Darkvision, advantage against charm and sleep, and two skills.

Darkvision and advantage vs charm and sleep; has got to be worth at least a feat, so yes, I think Humans need a bump. I'm thinking about

+1 to all stats, training in one skill.

A feat or +2 to an ability of your choice, +1 to two other stats of your choice, and training in 2 skills.

It's kind of frustrating that the humans "thing" is good stats, but any race who is able to put a +2 in his primary stat and wants at least a 14 in the stat he gets +1 in, can have practically identical stats to the human.

 

[Salamandyr]

What about +2 to a stat of your choice and +1 to all others?

As it stands now, I can't think of anyone who would take the basic option instead of the variant option.

Ironically, that's what they had when the playtest started, and people screamed bloody murder until they were nerfed.

 

[Meatboy]

Considering a feat is explicitly stated to be equivalent to +2 to a stat. I can't see how it could possibly be over powered.