How should humans be human?

[Blood & Bones]

Sooo...

In 1st/2nd edition, humans had unlimited potential (level-wise). In 3rd edition, humans had an extra feat and extra skill points, and "any" as a favored class. In Pathfinder, humans received everything they did in 3rd edition, and a +2 to any one stat. In 4th edition (as I understand it) Humans received +2 to any one stat, an extra feat, +1 to all saves, and an extra at-will power.
In 5th edition, it was revealed today in the newest Rule of Three article that designers are toying with the idea of +1 to all stats, and an additional +1 to any one stat.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. When I think of humans, I think simplicity. Because I am a 3rd edition enthusiast, I think that edition had the best humans. A bonus to every stat just feels... over powered.

Do you agree with me? Is there other bonuses that humans should receive instead? How would you design humans for the next edition?

 

[am181d]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. When I think of humans, I think simplicity. Because I am a 3rd edition enthusiast, I think that edition had the best humans. A bonus to every stat just feels... over powered.

I'll just point out that +1 to all ability scores may (or may not) be overpowered, but it certainly meets your criteria for simplicity too.

 

[IanB]

I want humans to be the default; mechanically to me this means they should be good enough that if a player comes in without a specific concept in mind for the character, she'll gravitate towards picking human. What we've heard so far seems to encourage this, so I am tentatively happy; I am perhaps slightly concerned that humans will be considered so much better that even people with particular demihuman concepts in mind will be drawn to humans.

What we've seen so far from everything else, though, makes me feel like things are going to be less CharOp-y in general so perhaps I don't need to worry about that.

 

[CM]

I'm OK with the stat mods as-is.

As an alternate, the first thing that comes to mind is an extra background to reflect humanity's oft-referenced thirst for knowledge.

With feats as strong as they are now, a single extra feat would probably also be an acceptable alternate.

 

[BobTheNob]

I actually thought what 4e did with the power humans got represented humans well. Cant remember its exact mechanic, but it was along the lines of once per encounter being able to get a bonus to any action.

The reason I reference this is because, to me, humans are about adaptability. Humans should not be defined by what happens at level up, they should be defined by their ability to adapt during the game. I dont know how to do this appropriately for 5e, but for me adaptability is what humans are about.

(Now please, dont poo-poo encounter powers in response to this. I know some people didnt like them and I am in no way advocating them, I just pointed it out because it was a time when someone represented the principle of humans being about adaptability.)

 

[Lwaxy]

I'm tired of the human centered statism It is unrealistic. If the humans are the base race, then no need to add anything at all.

 

[Minigiant]

I am all for

+1 to the ability of the player's choice. (Humans can be good at anything)
+2 to trained skills (Humans learn well)
1 bonus proficiency with a weapon, shield, armor, spell, power, or invocation of the player's choice (Humans are more resourceful with arms)

 

[BobTheNob]

I'm tired of the human centered statism It is unrealistic. If the humans are the base race, then no need to add anything at all.

Im not sure what you meant by "stateism" so I went and looked it up

statism, stateism
1. the principle of concentrating major political and economic controls in the state.
2. the support of the sovereignty of the state. — statist, n., adj.

So...Im still not sure.

However, if you are referring to the humans being the "default" or "most populace" race, well, it doesnt have to be. Depends on you campaign.

In terms of humans having nothing at all? Thats fine, as long as the other races arent just lists of positives. If elves are higher dex+higher senses+faster movement+find secrets+better spellcasting+use elven gear+awesome stealth, well, why would you ever take a human? Give humans nothing and give all the the other races lots of cool features, you will suceed in game with no human characters (maybe human NPC's, but why would players ever take one?).

Humans with no special features works, as long as other races have negative to counter there positives. Either that or you have to give humans something.

No race should be defined by how poor it is.

 

[IanB]

MERP had inferior humans as an option; to my knowledge nobody in the history of the world ever played one.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm sure they want the racial bonuses and abilities to only require the core rules, so I'm not sure skill bonuses are an option. But I agree that this would be my preferred option.

The +1 to all stats works, but it feels strange. The additional +1 beyond that means that human are superior in every ability score to the other races. I'm not okay with that. The half orc, on average, should be stronger than the human. Other examples apply as well.

Personally, I'd prefer that humans get no bonuses, and other races get a bonus and a penalty.