What? I can't think of any edition where playing a human was a mechanically weak choice. In AD&D, they were the only ones with unlimited advancement. In 3e, they got extra skill points, an extra feat and free choice of favored class, these were hefty benefits. In 4e, they get +2 to any one stat(compare to other races +2 to 2 specific stats), an extra skill, an extra feat, extra defenses, and an extra power(or a human-specific racial power that is pretty good).
The running trait for playing humans in D&D is that they are flexible, always a good choice for any class.
I did not mean, nor do I think I said, that choosing to be human was a "mechanically weak choice."
Yes, that they are the most flexible. They were, originally, the only race capable of being any class and the only race able to have "unlimited" levels in all classes. D&D was developed as a humanocentric game to be sure.
Which made Humans, as I said, "the Baseline" against which other racial abilities were tweaked.
Currently, if I'm getting this right, humans can add +2 to any stat they want whereas other races can't do that.
So they are still the most "flexible" choice...and I believe most game worlds still hold humans to be the largest population (they live for so short a time, but breed so quickly!)
Saying they are the "weakest" race is not tantamount to saying they are "mechanically weak."
But they are the baseline...which makes sense since all of our starting reference (when we first come to the game, I mean) only tells us what a human is capable of.
Non-human races have abilities that are, on average, better (or worse) at certain things than what, on average, a human would be.
Dwarves are, on average, "tougher". Elves are, on average, more intelligent/quicker reflexed...
Every race has better senses than what we, as players,
know an average human can sense. (better sight, "noticing" secret doors, stonework stuff, hiding, not being surprised/snuck up on, resistance to magics, etc. etc.)
In the example above, a Goliath getting +2 to their Str and Con makes total sense and in no way, to my thinking, leads to "the rules" demanding a human be allowed a similar bonus...to make them mechanically comparable, least of all.
A "weakling goliath"
should still be well larger and stronger (+2) than all but the most exceptionally large and strong human.
And, as [MENTION=6671274]onedtwelve[/MENTION] so astutely suggests, "exceptions" to a racial norm are always possible (well, if you'll allow "always" to equal "DM's discretion"/"sanctioned rules tweaking")...a physically weak but mentally gifted goliath or an especially clumsy (low Dex) but especially tough (chart topping Con) halfling, just for a couple examples.
This is certainly not, imho, a disagreement about mechanics, per se...
and will harken us back to the point of the thread, I hope...but a basic fundamental difference in
personal perspective and preference to how one approaches the game.
IOW, Does one look at the "
numbers on the sheet", concerned about how they [the numbers] optimize their "character" to the "best it can be at what it does"...
OR does one look at a "
character" and how the "numbers on the sheet" translate into that character's "reality" in the game world (are they clumsy, are they attractive, are they stronger than your average bear?)
...either/any of which is
completely valid as long as it offers one the enjoyment they're seeking in their game/play.
It is at the base of the original poster's question: Do you start with [and, one can extrapolate, then go through the rest of the game with a...] concept [i.e. "character"] or optimizing [i.e. "numbers"]?
That's all I mean/am saying.
Have fun and happy character...creating or building.
--SD