D&D 5E Human racial abilty modifiers

[MoonSong]

Well, if I look to Olympic games, I don't see any case where women excel at physical attributes more than men.

Strength is obvious: weightlifting or hammer throwing.

Dexterity: sports where coordination, aim or quickness are the main attribute. Men win in diving, sharpshooting, and table tennis for example.

Constitution: Men win in Marathon. They also win in sports where "hit points" are used, like boxing.

So I don't see how that would go with anything but a -2 to all physical stats for females (or +2 for males), if you try to make an extreme simulationist game. I agree it's not worth bother with it, but if you would do, from a simulation point of view, females would be very underpowered in physical stats. Which is dumb from a balance point of view, and from narrativist point of view (Red Sonja should be as capable as Conan)

[Warning, pointless uselees childish arguing ahead]
I think your examples are biased, and most of those are actually consecuences of strength rather than the other stats. Actually if gender modifiers existed, women would be overpowered:

Strength: yes, the only one where males win, no arguing
Dexterity: many of your examples relly on strength, (shooting with a bow requires strength, so does shooting with a gun or rifle in order to counter the ricochet and it requires spatial coordination, something men's brains are better at). Actually, only because of smaller hands and bodies and lower center of gravity women are more agile and quicker.

Constitution: your marathon example is flawed, again it all comes to more strength. But if anything historically women have been longer lived despite having suffered from worse nutrition than men in many cases. Talk about endurance.

Int. this point is better left alone

Wis: Women have better peripheral vision on average, and are more perceptive and sensitive, not to mention are less susceptible to fits of rage, that sure warrants a wis bonus

Cha: this is also best left alone
[Back to totally serious posting]

But anyway that is silly, humans shouldn't have any racial/gender bonus at all (or have a bonus to any stat only, though that is already pushing it). That would only bring needless unfortunate chauvinistic and racist implications, no please no. Specially because HUMANS ARE THE BASELINE, if people were more receptive of racial penalties we wouldn't need to have this conversation in first place, bring back negative racial modiffiers, a PC with more than one low stat ought to be viable. (And yes I don't only strongly dislike the current human bonuses, I truly hate them)

And I find it quite sad that what little had remained cosntant about humans in 3e and 4e (bonus feat and skill) has been entirely thrown out the window (maybe allow to pick and extra ability to use skill dice in the basic game and an extra background in the standard game? with the option of an extra feat is specialties are in?). Understand that what they attempt is simple, but it feels entirely wrong, that is no human, that is a kryptonian, or a demigod, or a saiyan, or atlantean, or a metahuman, or whatever you fancy, but human? no, not by any measure.

 

[Dice4Hire]

My take on gender differences is that PCs are already so exceptional that the average abilities for gender are meaningless.

 

[Nikosandros]

Could we get back to discussing the racial modifiers for humans in Next?

 

[Nikosandros]

About my second question in the OP: does anyone know if something has been said officially about the races? They haven't been modified in quite some time and I'm wondering if they are happy with the current iteration or if they are simply strongly focusing on classes and don't want to add too many "moving parts" to the test.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Giving them +1 to everything (and +2 to one) is ridiculous. Basically, that says that humans are genetically superior to the other races, and (for instance) the supposedly ultra-sturdy dwarves are so sturdy that they can match Con scores with most humans (and not even with a human of superior health).

The human ability mods, as they stand, are awful. In fact, I'll go so far as to call them the worst thing in the current iteration of the playtest.

I second this.

The easiest thing would have been to give humans a bonus skill and feat, but they can't, because those things are "optional" now. *sigh* (Though I noticed in the latest packet that while feats are still optional, skills are not. So the bonus skill option is back on the table).

In any case, I'm sure they can come up with something better than "+1 to every stat." When you're starting in such a low place, there's nowhere to go but up.

 

[Li Shenron]

Strongly dislike.

I don't think they are going to change them, but if I will be running 5e games, I'll remove all human abilities bonuses and replace them with something else. Not just something fixed, but rather an array of extras to pick 1-3 from: maybe a bonus skill, a bonus feat, additional spells known, additional spell slots, extra proficiencies, a favored weapon of choice, an extra maneuver or skill trick, or even a cherry-picked special ability from another class.

If we ever define human subraces, I'd probably fix some of those bonus stuff however, to differentiate them.

 

[Klaus]

I'm with the Jester in this. Human ability score bonuses are the single worst thing in the game, and the very first thing I will house rule away if they stay.

It looks like the Skill Die is going to remain as an integral part of the system, used even in the basic version of the game. Perhaps Humans could always have a one step better skill die than the other races. Perhaps other human abilities would interact with the skill die, such as letting them apply it to additional rolls.

This is part of what I suggested in my feedback. The full suggestion is:
- Every race get +1 to one ability score (like Dex for elves) and +1 to a second, subrace-based score (like Int for high elves).
- Humans get +1 to any two ability scores (making them capable of equaling any race). (Adaptability)
- Humans get one skill from a background different than their own. (Diversity)
- Humans' skill die increase by one step, up to d12. (Ingenuity)

 

[Nikosandros]

- Every race get +1 to one ability score (like Dex for elves) and +1 to a second, subrace-based score (like Int for high elves).

In this case, I'd prefer a +2 fixed bonus for non-humans on their "main" stat. This way, humans overall have less of a bonus, but more flexibility.

 

[Klaus]

In this case, I'd prefer a +2 fixed bonus for non-humans on their "main" stat. This way, humans overall have less of a bonus, but more flexibility.

The exact numbers can be tweaked, of course, to make sure humans stay on equal footing with other races and their racial traits. I considered allowing humans to add their skill die to a failed saving throw. (Resourcefulness).

 

[DonAdam]

Since feats are optional and/or will be baked into basic characters, humans could still get a bonus feat that is just fixed (or fixed by class) in the basic game. Then it's just an extra special ability without introducing feat slots generally.

As far as ability modifiers, I sort of like the idea of humans get a +2 to any stat, simply because that might inspire a return to humans being the modal racial choice. I like that aesthetically (though I understand if others do not).