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

[Kobold Stew]

Enough so that I wish the system actually gave out feats on a reasonable schedule, since a lot of the human popularity is probably just perception: "Otherwise I won't be taking a feat until 12th level since my first two are going to be +2 to my primary stat" or opportunity "Well, Healer / Heavy Armor Master looks _amazing_ at low level, though maybe only okay later on. Guess I want it at 1st!"

Is it possible that this is where the dissonance lies? Are players "right" to pursue the 20 in the first instance beyond anything else? As an assumption, it seems pretty widely held, but I'm not sure it's actually the choce that makes sense. Sure,without feats, there's nothing wrong with it, but I would much rather have a 16 in my prime stat and two feats, than forego the feats and have a 20.

 

[keterys]

Is it possible that this is where the dissonance lies? Are players "right" to pursue the 20 in the first instance beyond anything else? As an assumption, it seems pretty widely held, but I'm not sure it's actually the choce that makes sense. Sure,without feats, there's nothing wrong with it, but I would much rather have a 16 in my prime stat and two feats, than forego the feats and have a 20.

Depends on the character, really.

For my rogue, I'm hard pressed to find a feat to compare to +2 Dex: +1 Init, +1 AC, +1 Atk, +1 Dmg, +1 Save, +1 bunch of skills

For a melee fighter type, I'll grant there are some tasty feats.

That said, I'm also not sure there are more than a couple tasty feats for any PC.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Depends on the character, really.

For my rogue, I'm hard pressed to find a feat to compare to +2 Dex: +1 Init, +1 AC, +1 Atk, +1 Dmg, +1 Save, +1 bunch of skills

For a melee fighter type, I'll grant there are some tasty feats.

That said, I'm also not sure there are more than a couple tasty feats for any PC.

That's sort of my point, though -- with only a few ideal or interesting choices per character, I want them in play early, not late. For the rogue, depending on the campaign and the DM, I might want crossbow expert, dual wielder, dungeon delver, martial adept, observant, sharpshooter, ritual caster, or spell sniper.

Are these *better* than +2 DEX? Not necessarily, but I still think that they're good choices and might very well be my preference.

 

[keterys]

That's sort of my point, though -- with only a few ideal or interesting choices per character, I want them in play early, not late.

Agreed. Hence why I'd like the game to offer more feats.

For the rogue, depending on the campaign and the DM, I might want crossbow expert, dual wielder, dungeon delver, martial adept, observant, sharpshooter, ritual caster, or spell sniper.

Are these *better* than +2 DEX? Not necessarily, but I still think that they're good choices and might very well be my preference.

For this particular rogue, none of those are more interesting. Sharpshooter is most interesting, but certainly not more interesting. I'll want it sometime before, like, 19th level, though. It'd probably be my level 10 feat, unless another one struck my fancy.

I'm sorta morally opposed to dungeon delver. I'd consider it for a Tomb of Horrors type campaign, but I'd actually consider it a strictly unfun feat I was only taking out of respect for the rest of the party.
I don't like the way Observant works (only passive).
I don't happen to be an arcane trickster (though even if I was, spell sniper wouldn't be worth it).
I'm ranged so I don't dual wield. I use a shortbow, not a crossbow, though yes I could doublecheck how crossbow expert works to see if it was something worth spending a stupidly precious feat slot on.

 

[Steely Dan]

God, all this analysis and number chasing, really makes me want to go back (aside from Str).

 

[GameDoc]

I'm not sure I agree. Ability modifiers are a lot more important in 5e, because they all function as saves and bounded accuracy means a poor score won't get overshadowed by level-based bonuses. It's harder to compensate for a "dump stat."

I think this is why the +1 to all stats is a real advantage. Humans can avoid having a dump stat and still have a decent modifier in their primary abilities. Non-humans can excel at a couple of stats each, but are stuck with their low ones, particularly if their class emphasizes a stat not subject to a racial increase.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think this is why the +1 to all stats is a real advantage. Humans can avoid having a dump stat and still have a decent modifier in their primary abilities. Non-humans can excel at a couple of stats each, but are stuck with their low ones, particularly if their class emphasizes a stat not subject to a racial increase.

Also, if you want that Half-Elf Cleric, too bad. Your main stat is 15 max with point buy. Humans can be any class.

Pros and Cons. Some people only see the Cons of being a human, but ignore the Pros.

 

[dbm]

Sure, but what kind of meanie-head DM wouldn't allow feats? Boo meanie-head DMs!

The variant human racial stats are optional; we aren't using them in my game even though we are using feats.

 

[Mandragola]

Also, if you want that Half-Elf Cleric, too bad. Your main stat is 15 max with point buy. Humans can be any class.

Pros and Cons. Some people only see the Cons of being a human, but ignore the Pros.

It's true that humans can be any class, and that's obviously an advantage. They aren't necessarily better at all classes than races which are obviously suited to that role.

In this specific instance a half elf clearly can be a cleric with a starting wisdom of 16... and probably an unusually high charisma.

The +1 to all stats advantage is not as huge as it seems. It tends to mean you're a little better at stats you don't use all that much. IT actually won't mean that all your low stats are suddenly good and you're getting an extra +1 in many stats compared to a character made from another race, suitable for the class.

Take an example archer ranger. A Human with +1 to all stats could have S12, D16, C14, I10, W16, Ch9. A wood elf could have S10, D16, C14, I10, W16, Ch8. So the only difference is that the human has a marginally better strength (or whatever). But it's one stat, which isn't hugely important to the class, being improved by a +1 modifier. That isn't irrelevant, but it compares against the wood elf's ability to hide, move faster, see in the dark, better saves and free perception skill.

A human is noticeably different if you don't feel the need for two stats at 16 - which might well be the case. Stats at 14 for a +2 modifier are cheap for humans under points buy. Someone mentioned a wizard earlier, and one with S9, D14, C14, I16, W14 and cha12 would be pretty solid. A high elf might get S8, D16, C14, I16, W10 and cha10, which is a substantial loss to wisdom and charisma, meaning much weaker skills and stats.

I have a choice with the paladin I'm thinking of making, going by variant rules. He can have +1 mods in int and wis and +2 in cha, or +0 in int and wis and +3 in cha. It's not as simple as saying that +1 in two stats is obviously better than +1 in one, because I will eventually get to give everyone a bonus to all saves equal to my charisma mod - which should therefore be as high as possible because it will improve my strength, dex and con saves too. Would be nice to be a bit better at spotting though!

I'm honestly coming to the conclusion that this stuff is quite well worked out. It doesn't feel like there's an obvious "right answer". Humans are good, in a fairly dull way. They swap the fun abilities other races get for a couple of +1s to stats.

 

[KarinsDad]

The +1 to all stats advantage is not as huge as it seems. It tends to mean you're a little better at stats you don't use all that much. IT actually won't mean that all your low stats are suddenly good and you're getting an extra +1 in many stats compared to a character made from another race, suitable for the class.

Take an example archer ranger. A Human with +1 to all stats could have S12, D16, C14, I10, W16, Ch9. A wood elf could have S10, D16, C14, I10, W16, Ch8. So the only difference is that the human has a marginally better strength (or whatever). But it's one stat, which isn't hugely important to the class, being improved by a +1 modifier. That isn't irrelevant, but it compares against the wood elf's ability to hide, move faster, see in the dark, better saves and free perception skill.

S12, D16, C14, I10, W16, Ch9
S10, D16, C14, I10, W16, Ch8

This is mostly true for a player that wants two 16s to start with (one of them Dex) or who wants a 16 Dex:

S11, D16, C14, I10, W14, Ch14 Human
S10, D16, C14, I10, W14, Ch12 Wood Elf

Alternatively if a player only wants a single 16 that is not Dex:

S9, D14, C14, I16, W14, Ch12 Human
S9, D14, C14, I16, W10, Ch12 Wood Elf

This PC has +2 in one stat (or +1 in two stats).

Or he could go:

S9, D14, C16, I16, W10, Ch12 Human
S9, D14, C14, I16, W10, Ch12 Wood Elf

For a Wizard, 16 Con (undead saves and concentration checks and hit points) might not seem a lot, but it adds up.

The wood elf cannot be a 16 Con 16 Int Wizard at first level. Not possible.

In fact, a human could have 3 16s (and 3 9s) if he so desires. No other race can do that.


So yes, for a player who does not mind being shoe horned into one of a few specific non-human races, just so that his class shines a little, those non-human races are good.

But then again, any PC can be human and shine just fine. +2 over a non-human in a single stat modifier is not worthless for many class combos.