Human vs Variant Human

[Li Shenron]

So I was thinking of one of my homebrew worlds and that maybe yhere were two different human races, one.more barbarian and one more civilized, with appropriate class restrictions. I thought I might use the normal humans (+1 all stats) for the barbarians to sort of indicate they are all-around "better". And I thought I would use the variant human for the others to indicate more the "civilization" effects of training, etc.

But.my concern was is V Human so much more attractive that no one would play the others?

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

How about using Half-Orc to represent your barbaric humans?

 

[TallIan]

I think that's only true if you're using the standard array. If you roll stats randomly, the standard human becomes much more attractive.

I think that depends largely on what you roll, lots of odd numbers - S Human is great, lots of even numbers - S Human is rubbish.

Having two odd numbered stats in nice(ish) from level 4 to 8 where your first ASI can be two +1's and give you two +1 to rolls. Before that you are a little behind and after that you are equal.

I agree that the V Human bonus feat is really good, but that has more to do with the huge range of usefulness for feats (keen mind vs GWM). You might argue it is OP, but I still see a huge selection of races in games with V. Human so it can't be that bad.

 

[jayoungr]

I think that depends largely on what you roll, lots of odd numbers - S Human is great, lots of even numbers - S Human is rubbish.

That's a different point from generalist vs specialist, which is what I was responding to. You said that a standard human was always a generalist. But if you're rolling randomly, the numbers you roll determine whether you're a generalist or a specialist--i.e., whether you have a wide spread between high and low stats (specialist) or everything in about the same range (generalist).

And with a randomly-rolled character, knowing that you get +1 to every stat is more attractive than it is for one using the standard array; I stand by that. If you're a specialist, then your good stats are even better and your low stats are balanced out a little. If you're a generalist, then you're a slightly better generalist.

Even with lots of even numbers, it's hardly "rubbish." It cuts in half the amount of time to upgrade.

 

[Sunseeker]

I've been using the "under the hood" option for ages now. Let people get the mechanics they want to make their character play the way they want without limiting them to races they don't like. This works out great for getting people to play in single-race campaigns too, and also in campaigns where you have more-than-the-book in racial varieties of any given race.

 

[Ganymede81]

What I do is only provide a limited range of the feats available to be taken at first level. Basically anything that states or implies that it makes a character a master or expert in something is out (crossbow expert, heavy armour master etc). This leaves the underused feats like the armour proficiency and skill based feats. It has a side effect of weakening the alternative fighter in combat terms which makes the standard fighter somewhat more attractive

This sounds fine to me; filter out all the raw combat feats and let first level humans pick from the more seldomly-selected feats.

I think that depends largely on what you roll, lots of odd numbers - S Human is great, lots of even numbers - S Human is rubbish.

This is a common misconception. While missing out on an ability score increase because you are the odd number below the threshold certainly stings for the first couple of levels, having lots of odd numbered stats means you can get twice as many ability score increases because you can opt for the +1, +1 instead of the +2.

would changing S human to +2 to 2 stats will balance things up?

I doubt it. Mountain Dwarves get +2, +2, but they also get a whole slew of other goodies on top of that.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I've been using the "under the hood" option for ages now. Let people get the mechanics they want to make their character play the way they want without limiting them to races they don't like. This works out great for getting people to play in single-race campaigns too, and also in campaigns where you have more-than-the-book in racial varieties of any given race.

Aye, that's what we've been using - everyone is human, even though mechanically the character may be an elf/dwarf/orc etc

 

[KahlessNestor]

How about using Half-Orc to represent your barbaric humans?

Unfortunately I have half orcs in the world, too.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[MoonSong]

I think that's only true if you're using the standard array. If you roll stats randomly, the standard human becomes much more attractive.


Same goes for this comment. With randomly rolled stats, you won't necessarily be above average on everything.

I don't like rolling too much. There is the chance to get lower scores, but on average the scores are higher. Also I don't like not being able to control how many meaningful weaknesses my character get. -I really want to have weaknesses-

 

[TallIan]

That's a different point from generalist vs specialist, which is what I was responding to. You said that a standard human was always a generalist. But if you're rolling randomly, the numbers you roll determine whether you're a generalist or a specialist--i.e., whether you have a wide spread between high and low stats (specialist) or everything in about the same range (generalist).

That is a fair point. I have starting running the argument in a different direction.

Your reply got me think that I’ve never actually played (or built) a S Human, so I started playing with numbers. I know you are arguing for rolling, but I used point buy to make sure all was equal and the standard human came out quite well as either a specialist or generalist.

I assumed that a generalist was built specifically to have odd ability scores after racial adjustment to maximise ability bonus increases at each ASI level. They are behind in terms of total ability modifiers until the first ASI, where they get two +1 bonuses, compared to getting a +4 by the specialist. On the second ASI the generalist pulls ahead of the specialist but lacks a +5.

Overall, I would say that the S Human is suddenly more attractive to me than it initially appears.

 

[Aldarc]

The Variant Human's appeal stems less from the V.Human itself, but, rather, from the appeal of feats from the standpoint of character 1) power optimization, and 2) concept customization. The same was true for the basic human in 3E, who gained a bonus feat at 1st level, but the difference between the two is that 1) non-humans also had a 1st level feat, and 2) feats are far crunchier and fewer in number in 5E. Ideally, there would be a way for all characters regardless of race to gain a feat-like means of character concept customization at the outset that performed a similar role.

Depending on game and context, I would potentially houserule that the human bonus feat must be taken from a smaller list of flavor feats or possibly just Resilience. I like the idea that the success of humanity in D&D stems are not so much from being "adaptive" but from being the most resilient. Humans spread much in the manner of weeds that are difficult to get rid of. In this manner, other races find us comparable to goblins and kobolds.