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

[OpsKT]

I personally love the basic human - while we've seen a lot of good debate on the _numbers_ side of it, we are not seeing as much on the _story_ side of it.

Human's are one of the few races (the other one being half-elf) that gets to pick a language. Elves and Dwarves all hate Orcs, and Goblins, and etc, but they always need to go find a human to translate unless they use a feat for languages, or 250gold and 250 days to learn the language.

Other races can live next to each other for generations and never learn each others language, humans that grow up next to Dwarves (for example) likely know it. While Common always works, diplomacy and trade is always enhanced if you honor the people you trade with by using their language.

Settings wise, human's dominate in 90% of the published settings. Sure, you can be a Dragonborn, or a Gnome, or whatever to get the best stats, but the bartender that "Don't serve your kind here." doesn't care that you have darkvision and are more graceful than he is. If anything, that perhaps makes you more _alien_ to him.

People forget this is a RPG some days, and there are consequences and advantages for non-math parts of your characters.

 

[Salamandyr]

The somewhat frustrating thing is that the races that are supposed to be rare, all seem to have the best overall bonuses. Sure, humans are lackluster (even the variant human, in my opinion), but they're not that that outshined by the elf, the dwarf, or the halfling. But when you start looking at the Half-Elf, the Drow, the Tiefling, or the Half-Orc, they're just better. The half-elf is probably the worst offender, because it's such an easy replacement for human. If your mental image of your character is human, then you're probably not going to be satisfied playing a dwarf, dragonborn, or half-orc, even if those races fit better mechanically for your class. But the offspring of two starcrossed loves of different communities who looks human in all but the most insignificant way (that really awful half-elf illo aside-but this is recurrent problem with 5e's art), the half-elf nearly always fits a human concept almost as well as a human does.

 

[marcelos]

I agree with the OP.

Humans look underpowered in this edition when compared to subraces.

I gave my player the usual 6 ability boosts plus the extra feat and he is still below the dwarfs and elves of the group.

Darkvision, by itself, could be comparable to the extra feat.

The immunities of the races are much more powerful than proficiency on one skill.

I am not ranting, I love the edition so far, but this bothers me a little bit.

 

[Drudenfusz]

I also think Humans are slieghtly underpowered. I think I give the standard Human the additional free skill, and let the Variant have three different ability scores at +1. Basically deciding that the feat is worth three +1s (even though feats are only worse one ability increasement of two +1s or one +2). Anyway, compared to half-elf it seems also then a little bit more fair (with four ability score points, two skills and darkvision, which I also count like one point, like the skills would bring us to a total of 7, and the human six +1s, or the variant with two +1, one skill and one feat, which I count generously as three, the human is always one point short... maybe the dragonborn are the only other race one could argue are a little under valued).

Sorry, to necro this months old thread, but this is currently bothering me.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I also think Humans are slieghtly underpowered. I think I give the standard Human the additional free skill, and let the Variant have three different ability scores at +1. Basically deciding that the feat is worth three +1s (even though feats are only worse one ability increasement of two +1s or one +2). Anyway, compared to half-elf it seems also then a little bit more fair (with four ability score points, two skills and darkvision, which I also count like one point, like the skills would bring us to a total of 7, and the human six +1s, or the variant with two +1, one skill and one feat, which I count generously as three, the human is always one point short... maybe the dragonborn are the only other race one could argue are a little under valued).

Sorry, to necro this months old thread, but this is currently bothering me.

Is it bothering because of some play experience, or is it based on theory-craft? Because my sense (as a player and a ref) is that no one is complaining about the variant human at all. It is the only way to get a feat before fourth level -- the only way! -- and so consistently offers build opportunities other races do not.

You can't treat bonuses to a class's prime stats as equivalent to their sub-prime ones.

Sure, give the non-variant human an extra skill if you like; but the variant humans need nothing more -- they shine in play, from level 1.

 

[Drudenfusz]

Is it bothering because of some play experience, or is it based on theory-craft?

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. I feel gimped when I take a human. Don't get me wrong, feats are nice and dandy (and I even calculated them as being worth 3 points, even though they are later in the game only worth two). Worse, when starting at higher levels (what is only a matter of time in my group I guess, and thus everybody being able to get a feat start), the human will completely become obsolete (of course more races that get released in the fuure will also make that more obvious). The maths is just against the human, and that makes me sad.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Again, this just doesn't match my experience.

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.

That's certainly possible: half-elves are strong for charisma-based classes -- but using point-buy, they still can only start with a +3 modifier, which is the same as the human. That they are "better" (for you) is perhaps true. I don't believe that the two can have been that far out from each other, though, especially if you also chose a feat (e.g. spell-sniper for a warlock or sorcerer).

I feel gimped when I take a human. Don't get me wrong, feats are nice and dandy (and I even calculated them as being worth 3 points, even though they are later in the game only worth two).

Well, obviously I can't evaluate how you feel, but as I've said I think this evaluation is unhelpful.

Worse, when starting at higher levels (what is only a matter of time in my group I guess, and thus everybody being able to get a feat start), the human will completely become obsolete (of course more races that get released in the fuure will also make that more obvious).

I don't see how this can be so: the human at high levels has an *extra* feat, or can use an ability boost to boost his abilities, depending on your play style. The variant human is ahead of every other race on this, throughout the game.

The maths is just against the human, and that makes me sad.

Really, you shouldn't be sad. The human is very strong and will always be so. Rejoice!

 

[TrippyHippy]

I’m quite happy with Humans if they take the option of a feat, a skill and +1 on two Abilities of their choice. The variable abilities, in combination with a Feat (which often have more Ability bonuses) large makes them on a par with other basic Races. It’s the variety of choice that makes me feel that way, even if mathematically they may not balance.

I do think the Half-Elf seems a little overpowered though - to the degree that I don’t really like them being used by players. Again, it’s not that they have abilities, it’s because they seem to have the best of Elven abilities and Human flexibility. Really, ought they have an extra two Abilities at +1 in addition to a +2 CHA? Where did having an extra two skills come from?

 

[DracoSuave]

I also think Humans are slieghtly underpowered. I think I give the standard Human the additional free skill, and let the Variant have three different ability scores at +1. Basically deciding that the feat is worth three +1s (even though feats are only worse one ability increasement of two +1s or one +2). Anyway, compared to half-elf it seems also then a little bit more fair (with four ability score points, two skills and darkvision, which I also count like one point, like the skills would bring us to a total of 7, and the human six +1s, or the variant with two +1, one skill and one feat, which I count generously as three, the human is always one point short... maybe the dragonborn are the only other race one could argue are a little under valued).

Sorry, to necro this months old thread, but this is currently bothering me.

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.

 

[Drudenfusz]

That's certainly possible: half-elves are strong for charisma-based classes -- but using point-buy, they still can only start with a +3 modifier, which is the same as the human. That they are "better" (for you) is perhaps true. I don't believe that the two can have been that far out from each other, though, especially if you also chose a feat (e.g. spell-sniper for a warlock or sorcerer).

My current character is a Monk, not a charisma-based class, and still the half-elf felt like a better option.

I don't see how this can be so: the human at high levels has an *extra* feat, or can use an ability boost to boost his abilities, depending on your play style. The variant human is ahead of every other race on this, throughout the game.

Guess I am just not feat dependent. Sure, there are some nice feats, but with only 5 ability increases for most clases, I will most often end up not taking any feats at all (like I assume I will with my mentioned Monk, boosting DEX and WIS for obvius reaons, and also CHA because of personal preference).

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.

I just talked with a friend of mine about this, she told me that my problem with this could be that there is no good feat that provide a Charisma bonus and then something useful that I would like to have. I prefer to play non-magical classes, but also like to be the social character in the group, with that set of interests the half-elf beats the human every time. 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).