Balancing out Racial Abilities

[DEFCON 1]

The abilities the characters will all get from their class features will easily outstrip any supposed imbalances in racial features within the first level or two.

If the players aren't choosing certain races, its probably from a character perspective, not a mechanical balance one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Now, the Human Variant gets choice in choosing where the bonuses go, what Feat and Skill to learn, etc. That is a big deal, but is it really worth everything the Dwarves get beyond the Human Variant? (Notice everything in the blue and red box under the Dwarf column.)

On paper? Not really. In practice, absolutely.

If we take it as a given that a Feat is worth +2 to an ability score, and we directly compare various racial features to Feats that can grant similar bonuses, variant human looks pretty weak. But the reality is, not all Feats are created equal, and the value of a given feature or ability score increase is highly context dependent. The ability to choose any two +1s and any Feat means the variant human can always get the most value out of those options for their specific build, whereas many of the fixed features one might get from race will not be useful to any given character. As well, Feats are a limited resource in very short supply, so you also need to consider the opportunity cost.

Yes, Dwarven Combat Training and +1 Wis is precisely equal to the Weapon Master Feat in terms of pure numerical value, but very few characters would take the Weapon Master Feat over something like Polearm Master or Spell Sniper if given the option. When comparing a race feature to the Variant Human’s free Feat, it is better to compare it to the best possible Feat for a given build, rather than the Feat that most closely replicates the race feature in question.

Likewise, +2 Con and +1 Wis is better than +1 to any two ability scores in terms of total numerical value, but +1 to any two ability scores is better for any character for whom Wisdom and Con aren’t the two most important abilities, and the free Feat can give you another +1 to an ability score if you need it. Sure, a Hill Dwarf might seem like a better Cleric or Druid than a variant human at a glance. But a variant human can get +2 Con +1 Wis as well, by putting their +1s in Con and Wis and taking a Feat that grants +1 Con, such as Resilient (Constitution). Then what you’re really trading that Dwarven Combat Training and Hill Dwarf Toughness for is proficiency in Con saves, which is WELL worth it, especially since a cleric who wants to fight in melee can get martial weapon proficiency from their Domain and a Druid who wants to fight in melee is better off casting Shillelagh or turning into a brown bear than using a battleaxe.

Pretty much, if you can name a class and a race, I can make a variant human that’s as good as or better than that race at being that class. That’s how versatile variant humans are. Other races need that extra value from their race features to make them appealing options next to variant humans.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

My experience:

1) Balance doesn't matter. Players choose the race they like the flavour of. We have a Goliath rogue.

2) Halfing is the most popular race. Players love "lucky". Gnomes are also popular.

3) Dragonborn is the least popular core race. They are generally considered weak.

4) There are dozens of other playable races in places like Volo's guide, you have no chance of balancing them all.

5) Don't allow anyone to play a kenku.

Well, balance does matter to me. If the designers go through the trouble of trying to balance out the classes, why not the races? I understand different classes have their strengths and weakness, but to me the races should be better balanced.

I love the idea of "lucky" for Halflings, but still no one has chosen to play one yet...

We've had two Dragonborn so fare, two Tieflings, a Duergar, a Drow, a Half-Orc, a Wood Elf, and a Human.

I have read through the races in Volo's guide, and doubt I will ever allow any of them as they are too unbalanced. So, you don't have to worry about me allowing anyone to play a Kenku.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

On paper? Not really. In practice, absolutely.

As I wrote, having choice for the Human Variant is a big deal, but doesn't outweigh the variety of other abilities some races get, particularly Dwarves, Elves, and Half-Elves.

Now, how much those benefits weigh compared to the choices of the Human depend greatly on campaigns and how a table is run.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

As I wrote, having choice for the Human Variant is a big deal, but doesn't outweigh the variety of other abilities some races get, particularly Dwarves, Elves, and Half-Elves.

I would agree that it doesn’t outweigh them. I would argue that its value is roughly equal to them. Half-Elves probably have greater total value for a Sorcerer or Warlock, but it’s close.

Now, how much those benefits weigh compared to the choices of the Human depend greatly on campaigns and how a table is run.

Absolutely! My input is based my own experience, so will of course be heavily influenced by how I run the game, and your mileage may vary. That said, my experience has been that variant human is almost always at least as good an option for any character as any race with complementary ability score increases, if not better.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

And that is the point. The Human Variant is underpowered compared to most of the races. Severely underpowered to some, almost on par with others (the closest being Dragonborn). In another post, Paul Farquhar commented how Dragonborn are generally considered weak.

Consider the Prodigy Feat. You gain a Skill, Tool Proficiency, and a Language, PLUS Expertise in a skill you know!

So, I think the general consensus is that a Feat does NOT equal a Skill, and the designers missed that with the Human Variant. Giving the Human Variant something akin to Prodigy would be more appropriate.

Also, since many Feats also grant a +1 to an ability score as well as other features, they are often more valuable than a +2 ASI. That is especially true if the character has an odd score and only needs the +1 boost to get the next increase in modifier bonus.

 

[Charlaquin]

So while I enjoy the various attempts to reverse engineer races (woah, that doesn't sound weird), the math never fully adds up.

For example-

If we assume that a feat is worth 2 ASIs (which makes sense, given the whole level 4 thing etc.), then ...

Human gets 6 ASI, and
Variant Human gets 2 ASIs and a feat and a skill.

Which means that a skill is worth a feat.

But a feat is worth three skills (FEAT: SKILLED).

So ... variant human is "underpowered" by pure math.

Except that I've never heard of anyone taking a regular human when variant human was offered. I'm sure it has happened (especially if they rolled for abilities and end up with 6 odd ones) but it seems to show that feats, especially to start with, are highly valued.

Precisely. And the math never quite works out because the math can’t account for the fact that a given ability or feature’s value is always relative to the character’s needs. Yes, non-variant human gets a total of +6 across their ability scores, but any given character only has two abilities they really need, two they appreciate but don’t prioritize, and two they can safely dump. A rogue, for example, appreciates the +1s to Dex and Con, can probably make some use of the +1 to Wis and Cha, but doesn’t really need them, and gets practically no use at all from the +1 Str and Int. A variant human can just put +1 into their primary and secondary abilities, take a Feat that is roughly equivalent to the two +1s to their tertiary abilities, and don’t miss the two +1s to their dump stats.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Yeah, the concept of the "dump" stat has bothered me a lot and usually find a way for the player to regret that choice LOL!

Anyway, back to the point. While priorities make this subjective (as I said in the beginning, it is all subjective), the racial abilities can also be viewed in the same light. Having spell-like abilities, Darkvision, etc. can also make up for the lack of ASI or a feat depending on the needs of the player.

So, to take those considerations out of it, you have to examine it in a raw manner, equating racial abilities as best as one can. I think the table I made demonstrates that fairly well within those parameters. Looking at it in this raw way, Human Variant, Dragonborn, and Tieflings get the shorter end of the stick...

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, the concept of the "dump" stat has bothered me a lot and usually find a way for the player to regret that choice LOL!

You may not like the concept of dump stats, but like it or not, all classes get more value out of some abilities than they do out of others, so any attempt to examine the raw value of different racial adjustments is flawed if it doesn’t take this relativity into account.

Anyway, back to the point. While priorities make this subjective (as I said in the beginning, it is all subjective), the racial abilities can also be viewed in the same light. Having spell-like abilities, Darkvision, etc. can also make up for the lack of ASI or a feat depending on the needs of the player.

So, to take those considerations out of it, you have to examine it in a raw manner, equating racial abilities as best as one can. I think the table I made demonstrates that fairly well within those parameters. Looking at it in this raw way, Human Variant, Dragonborn, and Tieflings get the shorter end of the stick...

Right, what I’m trying to get across is, Variant Humans do not get the short end of the stick, and the fact that your table seems to suggest that they do indicates a flaw in your system. At the very least, the ability to choose how to allocate your ASIs and/or Feat should be equivalent to +1 ASI/half a feat each. That would put Variant Human mathematically slightly above non-Variant human due to the extra skill, which more closely models what we see in actual play, which is that variant human is almost always the preferred choice over non-variant human.