D&D 5E Ban Variant-Human! Impact?

[Esker]

I get that and acknowledge it in my post about +2 o my 4th stat.

I'm just pointing out that there ARE reasons that someone might choose to do that in character creations beyond the optimization of their PC's defense or damage output from a "primary" stat.

That's fine; people consider things other than "power" when choosing a race. But it doesn't change the fact that standard human is mechanically weak. It's telling I think that when I asked for an example of a build where wanting a +2 in a 5th stat led to choosing standard human with point buy, the example given neither had +2 in the 5th stat nor was a human...

 

[Esker]

Both classes get bonus ASI's and neither really needs to focus on too many attributes. Getting a general bonus to most checks if someone is making a lot of checks is worth it later when DEX is 20 anyway. It depends how often those other checks are being made compared to combat before capping DEX.

But if it's that valuable, nobody is stopping you from putting an ASI into an "off-stat". If you're still going to get DEX to 20 anyway, you used an ASI for that that you could have put into something else. And you still don't have any of the other features of another race.

 

[Salthorae]

That's fine; people consider things other than "power" when choosing a race. But it doesn't change the fact that standard human is mechanically weak. It's telling I think that when I asked for an example of a build where wanting a +2 in a 5th stat led to choosing standard human with point buy, the example given neither had +2 in the 5th stat nor was a human...

I agree they are mechanically weak.

My first response to this thread was noting that there would be a decrease in the number of humans at a table. At least the tables I've played with if you removed Variant human because it's really mechanically the only sound human to pick.

 

[Esker]

I agree they are mechanically weak.

My first response to this thread was noting that there would be a decrease in the number of humans at a table. At least the tables I've played with if you removed Variant human because it's really mechanically the only sound human to pick.

Ok, seems like we agree. @Ashrym seemed to be making a defense of standard human on mechanical grounds, which is what I was disputing. For RP purposes, by all means, play whatever supports your concept.

 

[Mistwell]

No, because the cost of the points going into higher stats causes issues. Point on variant lets you deliberately stop lower in more ability scores on an odd number to get higher stats in general. On a character looking for a lot of different ability scores that's useful. Just niche.

I agree. With point buy and a non-variant human, you can get a 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9. For some classes, that's a much better array than you can achieve than with the variant human and a feat, even if they feat gives +1 to a stat.

 

[Salthorae]

Ok, seems like we agree. @Ashrym seemed to be making a defense of standard human on mechanical grounds, which is what I was disputing. For RP purposes, by all means, play whatever supports your concept.

Yes, from just a mechanical standpoint there are no reasons to select standard humans since you can get nearly the same +2 spread with a +2/+1 race while also getting all the races bonuses where a standard human gets a language.

"What's that? All the other races start with a bonus language too? Shoot."

I also agree that if the point is non-prime stats you can use ASI's for those instead of starting with them if they are that important.

I agree. With point buy and a non-variant human, you can get a 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9. For some classes, that's a much better array than you can achieve than with the variant human and a feat, even if they feat gives +1 to a stat.

You can get 16,16,14,10,10,8 plus the benefit of a feat and a skill proficiency with Variant Human. I wouldn't call a 12 vs a 10 as a "much better array" necessarily, though it is better slightly. It doesn't match up to the benefits of a feat and a skill to me, but that might just be a preference.

 

[Esker]

I agree. With point buy and a non-variant human, you can get a 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9. For some classes, that's a much better array than you can achieve than with the variant human and a feat, even if they feat gives +1 to a stat.

A variant human can get 16,16,14,10,10,8 if they take a half feat. They give up a +1 in their 4th stat. Seems like a small price to me.

 

[Esker]

You can get 16,16,14,10,10,8 plus the benefit of a feat and a skill proficiency with Variant Human. I wouldn't call a 12 vs a 10 as a "much better array" necessarily, though it is better slightly. It doesn't match up to the benefits of a feat and a skill to me, but that might just be a preference.

Beat me to it.

 

[Esker]

For a more mathematical take rather than proof by example:

Most races get +2/+1, which typically is going to be worth about 6 points during point buy (assuming you stack those on 13s or better), for a total of 33, plus some other features. Standard human gets six +1s, which is typically worth about 9 points during point buy (assuming three stats that start at 13 or better and three that start at 12 or below). It's hard, as we've seen, to make productive use of that sixth bonus -- the examples given tend to result in a 9 or an 11 somewhere -- so for most practical purposes standard human has 8 useful points, for a total of 35, and no other useful features (other than flexibility in language choice). So typically we're weighing 2 points in stat generation against all the other racial features. For half-elf and mountain dwarf, human is strictly worse, as long as you want 16-17 CHA, or 15-17 each in STR and CON, since they include 8 points worth of bonuses too.

You can widen the point gap if you buy five 13s, giving the standard human 10 effective points in racial stat bonuses. But since essentially nobody uses every stat equally often (or even five out of six equally often), the value of that 5th 14 is always lower than the value of the first 16, which you had to forego in order to get five 13s, simply because by definition of unequal usage, you're making more rolls with your main stat than with your 5th most important stat.

 

[Ashrym]

@Esker adding an ASI to an off stat doesn't change the points lost to higher

Human Rogue 1

11 STR
14 DEX ASI's at 4, 8, 10 (caps 2 levels later)
14 CON
14 INT
14 WIS
14 CHA

Choice of feats or ASI's from 12th level.

vs

Elf Rogue from your example need 6 more build points to match that even dropping STR to 8 to get 16 starting DEX and 3 more build points dropping another attribute to 12 to be later picked up via ASI.

"A DEX+INT or DEX+WIS class could be elf, and buy 15, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8" - so Wood Elf

8 STR
16 DEX
14 CON
10 INT
16 WIS
10 CHA

The wood elf start with better checks and saves in DEX and WIS, and worse in STR, INT, and CHA. Those are lesser saves.

It takes 2 ASI's to match the DEX and WIS for the human. It takes 4 ASI's to match the INT and CHA for the elf, or 5 for the STR too but we don't really care as much about that.

Rogues use all those ability scores and the recovering the higher costs of the initial 16's isn't as easy as adding an ASI later. I want generally good scores. Paying for those later is not nearly as efficient as waiting.

Am I missing something here?