D&D 5E 02/08/13 New playtest packet to released today. [Udate: PACKAGE OUT!][

[Klaus]

You know... I thought the whole issue about the humans getting all six stats at +1 was that it meant they were now equivalent to the demihumans in the demi's primary stats. So all humans were as healthy as dwarves, as smart as high elves, as agile as halflings. That was always the big point that people continually railed against. It wasn't balance, it was just the fiction seemed wrong.

But now you're offering up giving humans a +2 to a stat to start with? Doesn't that now mean the best human is healthier than the healthiest dwarf? Is smarter that the smartest high elf? Is more agile than the most dexterous halfling? Isn't that playing directly into the exact complaints people had about the six +1s?

Actually, it's precisely the opposite.

Instead of being as agile and smart as a high elf (and stronger, healthier, wiser and more charming), a human that starts with an Ability Score Increase has the *potential* to be a match for a high elf (and not better at everything else), or he has the potential to surpass the high elf in either agility or cleverness (but not both). That plays precisely into the lore of humans having the greatest *potential* (in 1e and 2e, humans had no level limits, for instance), while also allowing for humans to be the most adaptable (two +1s that can be assigned to any two scores, so a human can be a good match for any class), and the most resourceful (the option to trade the Ability Increase for a feat).

 

[Ebon Shar]

I would like it better if a human always had a maximum ability score of 18, but the half orc could reach 20.

And this just might be my first house rule. I really like this idea.

 

[Li Shenron]

Also why even call them feats anymore? Seems like specialty is finally the right word to use.

I definitely agree with this. Furthermore, there seems to be apparently many people who hate "feats" even when there are feats which are totally different from each other, and even now that they are different than before. Call them something else, and miraculously they'll get more fans.

You know... I thought the whole issue about the humans getting all six stats at +1 was that it meant they were now equivalent to the demihumans in the demi's primary stats. So all humans were as healthy as dwarves, as smart as high elves, as agile as halflings. That was always the big point that people continually railed against. It wasn't balance, it was just the fiction seemed wrong.

But now you're offering up giving humans a +2 to a stat to start with? Doesn't that now mean the best human is healthier than the healthiest dwarf? Is smarter that the smartest high elf? Is more agile than the most dexterous halfling? Isn't that playing directly into the exact complaints people had about the six +1s?

It's definitely not the whole issue, although it's part of it. The issue also include the total bonuses being 4 point more than other races (which leads to the feeling of "humans are genetically better than other races") and to some also the bare fact of having human bonuses at all (which leads to the feeling of "humans are genetically better than themselves" or alternatively "human adenturers are genetically better than other humans").

At least if humans got an "ability score increase" in the sense of getting the same you get at some level, it's also immediate for a DM to HR that it must be a feat instead.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I definitely agree with this. Furthermore, there seems to be apparently many people who hate "feats" even when there are feats which are totally different from each other, and even now that they are different than before. Call them something else, and miraculously they'll get more fans.

I like calling them "talents." Calling them "feats" has never made sense, as a feat is an extraordinary act or achievement, not a special advantage or ability.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like calling them "talents." Calling them "feats" has never made sense, as a feat is an extraordinary act or achievement, not a special advantage or ability.

Talents would be perfectly valid.

 

[Balesir]

Actually, I don't think it does. This means that the average dwarf or halfling is stronger or more agile than the average human, but that humans have a greater range of variance.

From a "fluff" perspective I think this is spot-on. Humans on average are inferior to other races in their natural strengths, but humankind has the evil geniuses, the outstanding gymnasts, the incredible acrobats, the "world's strongest man" and so on. Seldom are such extraordinary characters non-human, and yet the average human stat is worse than the appropriate non-human's.

I like the "two +1s or a feat" idea. It just maybe needs another boost (wider proficiencies?) as an addition to balance it up.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4

 

[1of3]

I guess, it won't change. It's the only thing that hasn't changed through any iteration of the playtests. (Apart from Advantage, I guess.)

Human stats not about simulation. They are about game play. As there are sub classes that do not require much effort (like Warrior for Fighter), there is one race with the same quality. You can choose a fancy race with fancy abilities, but if you don't want to, take Human.

Giving humans options to choose from does not conform to this idea.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There's also this longstanding D&D lore that most demi-human races aren't keen adventurers, or rather that, because humans have such short lifespans, they go adventuring like crazy. I sort of like the 'candle that burns quickest burns brightest' idea for humans, and the attribute increase or feat idea fits that nicely.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, it's precisely the opposite.

Instead of being as agile and smart as a high elf (and stronger, healthier, wiser and more charming), a human that starts with an Ability Score Increase has the *potential* to be a match for a high elf (and not better at everything else), or he has the potential to surpass the high elf in either agility or cleverness (but not both). That plays precisely into the lore of humans having the greatest *potential* (in 1e and 2e, humans had no level limits, for instance), while also allowing for humans to be the most adaptable (two +1s that can be assigned to any two scores, so a human can be a good match for any class), and the most resourceful (the option to trade the Ability Increase for a feat).

Okay... what you say here makes sense. I can see where you're coming from.

 

[the Jester]

Really, how about all the 4e players, all the people who enjoy organized play from 3.x/pathfinder/ect, all the groups I have seen at game stores and conventions over the last few decades that use something like fixed hit points or roll twice take the higher, roll and if less than half take half, ect....

I'm just going to say, as a 4e player, that you're jumping to conclusions about preference based on format. I far prefer to roll for hps, and I suspect that some players in organized play mode would prefer to roll if they had their druthers, they just don't get to because of the format.