D&D 5E (2014) Human racial abilty modifiers

[Szatany]

Or superior skill training, in which case the other ability of humans should be something else than an extra known skill.

 

[Jester David]

Sure it does. In standard game, you would get a feat (either any feat, or 1st feat from any speciality of your choice). In basic game, the feat choice for human would be preselected.

If the feat is pre-selected, why not just give them an ability? And having a pre-selected feat isn't particularly modular or flexible so it doesn't fit the tone of the race.

and it doesn't work well with the "Standard" game where you might not pick feat but just pick specialities. Because those are set you can't just pick any feat and means you would avoid the related speciality.
The result is humans have one fewer choice of speciality and are less flexible than other races.

 

[Lackhand]

I've posted a thread on this, but I still think it makes the most sense to have specialties, backgrounds, and races each be a little closer to each other in terms of mechanical impact.
Then make "human" mean that rather than selecting a race, you selected a second specialty (or background).

Voila, humans are instantly versatile/talented, because they start out with more knowledge of basic skills, or a few different combat styles, or whatever.
And dwarves/elves/orcs/whatever are less flexible, because you had to give up a background to be one. It's probably an easy choice, since the benefits from being a dwarf or an elf are pretty good, but for a lot of characters, the additional feats/skills/whatever would be pretty helpful!

 

[Szatany]

If the feat is pre-selected, why not just give them an ability? And having a pre-selected feat isn't particularly modular or flexible so it doesn't fit the tone of the race.

In basic (where it's preselected), there's no difference between a feat and an ability. But there's difference in standard. Saying that in basic humans gain an ability, but in standard they can swap it for a feat is clunky.

 

[Szatany]

Then make "human" mean that rather than selecting a race, you selected a second specialty (or background).

It would also make humans the worst race at 1st level. Because, unlike every other race, they gain their abilities over the course of 10 levels instead of right out of the gate.

 

[Lackhand]

Or redesign the races to pace out their handouts.

This is kind of like the multiclassing problem, where level one needs to give enough to be worthwhile, while the later levels don't.

Say we balance the humans by giving them enough backgrounds that you feel like it's even. There must be one such number, even if it's comedically high

Then redesign specialties (and rate of feat acquisition, and stuff) to match that level of power.

 

[mlund]

I think the race entry for humans should just say that your average human isn't as hardy as a Dwarf or graceful as an Elf, but as a race of nearly limitless potential, exceptional humans (adventurers among them) can reach further than anyone. Heck, I'd even name the feature "A Cut Above," and leave them with pretty much the same modifiers, or possibly just +2 to a score of your choice and +1 to a different score.

- Marty Lund

 

[KidSnide]

I think the race entry for humans should just say that your average human isn't as hardy as a Dwarf or graceful as an Elf, but as a race of nearly limitless potential, exceptional humans (adventurers among them) can reach further than anyone. Heck, I'd even name the feature "A Cut Above," and leave them with pretty much the same modifiers, or possibly just +2 to a score of your choice and +1 to a different score.

I was thinking that the humans in the basic set should have the bonuses as written, but the humans in the standard game should have the option of playing a "paragon" human or a get the advantages of a specific culture. The idea is that a "paragon" can arise from any group, or the DM can provide a culture specific benefit. That kind of approach (1) maintains the simplicity of the current rule, (2) removes the issue where standard humans are just as dexterous as the average elf and (3) provides a nice hook for DMs to customize their games.

-KS

 

[Li Shenron]

Remember that feats are optional and possibly tied into the speciality system that a locks them in place with no substitutions. Giving humans an extra feat doesn't work at all with that system.

Likewise, skills are optional as well, despite being included in other races at the moment.

We've been told many times that feats & skills were optional, but given the current rules if the game doesn't use feats than everyone should not use feats, otherwise clearly those who use feats have something more than the others. Still, feats are indeed technically optional, and the easiest thing of the game to leave out without having to change anything else. Unfortunately this is one reason why a human bonus feat may not work for that 10-20% of groups not using feats at all.

Skills are not so optional... You don't have to use Backgrounds, you don't have to give 4 skills per characters, and you don't even have to use skill dice at all, but the Rogue at least cannot be played without skills, it just wouldn't make any sense. Thus you can play a game without skills only if you don't have a Rogue, or you can play a game where only the Rogue uses the skills mechanics. Without skills, non-Rogues characters may be slightly downgraded (other classes have max 1 bonus skill, some races have 1 bonus skill) but still playable, but not so much the Rogue... However, technically this means skills are not truly optional.

IMHO the best way to handle this, would be that instead of giving humans a fixed set of bonuses e.g. one feat + one skill (even tho they are already flexible because they can choose which), humans could be given a flexible set of bonuses e.g.:

- one bonus feat
- one bonus skill
- one bonus proficiency
- a +1 to one ability score
- one known cantrip (any class)
- 1-2 extra known spells (only if they can already cast spells)
- one extra maneuver (if applicable to the class)
- one extra skill trick (if applicable to the class)
- ...

And then just say "pick any 2 from the list". Maybe even allow to pick the same thing twice, i.e. +2 to scores or 2 bonus feats!

This way, it would be impossible for a group not to be able to use such version of Human, because in the worst case at least ability scores will be used in their game. It would also make for a truly versatile human race!

Skill Focus would be the most applicable feat, able to benefit every character across the board equally (IMO).

For a fixed feat, I would go with Toughness (tho I am not necessarily a fan of the current version of it). It makes a lot of sense to give extra HP to a Basic PC, since Basic is more often than not going to be the choice of a newbie, and HP are certainly used in every game.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

It's tempting to make humans without any ability modifiers, I have to say, so that they remain the baseline and other races have a little advantage over them. The problem lies with ability increases as you gain levels though - if another race can start with a 17, whilst humans can start with only a 16, then they have an advantage between levels 4 and 7. This is really down to the way that ability modifiers are so damned critical though.

So let's go with the premise of flexibility - humans are adaptable. Give them just a +1 modifier for an ability of their choice. This is stronger than having a fixed ability modifier, or indeed a choice of two, for the other races.
Next up, let us avoid discussions of feats and skills since their roles in the basic game are uncertain. The other races currently get a weapon tweak (which needs changing) - perhaps we can offer humans a weapon tweak. Allow them to pick one weapon, and they get proficiency or an increased damage dice with it. Many humans live in rural communities where they have to defend themselves, even in urban areas there will often be a militia or etiquette reasons to know how to swing a sword. Even a cloistered cleric or schooled mage has reason to be more familiar with the weapon of their god or how to properly wield a staff.
The other traits of dwarves, elves and halflings are a mixed bag - various skill or condition effects. Trying to think about what general traits human communities share I see an obvious affinity towards the domestication of animals that doesn't fit the other three races - horses and dogs being prominent in both urban and rural environments. But it's not an affinity with nature type ability, it's more that humans can train animals that lend themselves to be trained. I think there's also a strong tendency to make things, whether fine crafts or useful implements. Humans are also highly sociable, but that's a trait apparently also shared by halflings, and it only really applies within human communities they are already familiar with.
So perhaps we can offer a choice that displays flexibility - whatever background you choose if playing with backgrounds, give humans their choice of trade, be that a craft or service, with which they either have advantage or get whatever bonus 'skills' offer in the basic game (I recall them suggesting you get an ability based on class whose checks you're better at), beyond their normal 'skills'.
Is that enough? Well it's very flexible, but in theory you would be no better than another race that fits the right class, but you have a broader range of abilities. Another tempting power might be to tweak their saving throws - whilst elves don't charm easily and halflings don't scare, humans.. could be hard to kill? Death saving throws exist and could be tweaked. That would be a useful feature, no?

Anyway, in summary, there are some things we can offer that don't go beyond the basic game. I say a +1 to any ability, a weapon tweak, a skill or skill-like tweak and a saving throw tweak.