D&D 5E Human Racial Benefits

[fba827]

For me, it's not a matter of stronger/weaker option, but rather whatever character I'm making and which seems more appropriate for the concept and mood I'm in at that time.

 

[Wolfskin]

For me, it's not a matter of stronger/weaker option, but rather whatever character I'm making and which seems more appropriate for the concept and mood I'm in at that time.

This is the best answer I've read so far, hands down.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What amazes me about some char-oppers isn't that they optimize. I've optimized before. No what amazes me is that this sub-set of char-oppers genuinely doesn't understand why anyone would not optimize, and imagines the world of D&D players is all optimizers or people who just don't understand optimization enough to do it.

Not everyone's character concept is about 2-3 high ability scores and the rest being dump stats.

Those people certainly exist, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to this thread. Can you explain?

The issue here appears to be +1 to all stats, which is likely to be fairly meaningless in actual play, as Salymandyr says, because of the way D&D has worked for the last fourteen years (and indeed it would have been fairly meaningless in earlier editions too), in that you only get a useful mechanical effect on an even number, and further, not all stats are likely to have regular relevance to gameplay (moreso in 3E and later games, including 5E), as D&D is a specialized class-based game where it's typically best to let the specialist do his thing rather than all have a go.

Theoretically, that's the same value as three Feats. But the designers of 5E clearly recognise that, in practical terms, in their actual game, it's not that valuable. They seem to rate it at about, what, 2.2 Feats, given the human alternate is two +1s, a Feat, and a Skill?

So I can't see any obvious way in which this is a "balanced character" vs. "two-three stats w/dumpstats" issue. I mean, the choice is, essentially, between 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8, a Feat, and a Skill and 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9 and nowt else (or the former might be 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8 if the player was going for immediate power or something). In neither case is it "two/three high stats and the rest dumpstats". The extra 4 +1s in the standard human deal aren't making those latter three stats "not dumpstats". In fact the ONLY modifier change is the 13 going to 14. All the rest are identical. Nor, would I personally say, that RPing a PC with 9 in a score was likely to be different to 8, 11 to 10, 13 to 12, etc. 16 to 13, or 13 to 10, sure, but that's not what's going on.

With rolled stats, you might have a situation where those six +1s were more valuable - but I'm not buying that that would be an RP decision, because +1 is not really meaningful to RP. It would be a mechanical decision (however naive) either way.

For me, it's not a matter of stronger/weaker option, but rather whatever character I'm making and which seems more appropriate for the concept and mood I'm in at that time.

Presumably by this you mean that, if there were no Feats you felt were appropriate to the PC concept (or you felt, indeed, that they were actively inappropriate), you'd go with the +1s? I can see that.

 

[Joe Liker]

Those people certainly exist, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to this thread. Can you explain?

The issue here appears to be +1 to all stats, which is likely to be fairly meaningless in actual play, as Salymandyr says, because of the way D&D has worked for the last fourteen years (and indeed it would have been fairly meaningless in earlier editions too), in that you only get a useful mechanical effect on an even number, and further, not all stats are likely to have regular relevance to gameplay (moreso in 3E and later games, including 5E), as D&D is a specialized class-based game where it's typically best to let the specialist do his thing rather than all have a go.

Your viewpoint is based on the premise that every group plays D&D exactly the same way you always have.

In the groups I have played with, there have been TONS of situations where we could not just "let the specialist do his thing." If your DM uses any kind of realistic interpretation of the two noncombat pillars of the game, it's pretty much inevitable.

A chasm where the only way across is to jump? Everyone benefits from Athletics (Strength).

Diplomatic mission to a powerful mage guild where you have to discuss matters only a wizard can understand? Your wizard's gonna need Charisma. (A similar situation could reasonably apply to any class or race.)

Your party gets separated for any reason? People in each sub-group might need all kinds of skills they aren't necessarily the best at.

The whole group needs to sneak past a monster you can't possibly defeat? You're better off if you have decent Stealth (Dexterity).

Making a knowledge check that only a character with a certain background can attempt? You'll want some Intelligence.

And Constitution is valuable for everyone for very obvious reasons.

You might consider these corner cases, but in many of the campaigns I've played in, situations like these arise all the time. I'm sure some DMs let the players fudge by using an inappropriate ability score for the roll, but those groups are playing against the rules and spirit of the game by catering to the charops.

If I had always been able to coast by on my primary attributes and never faced any serious consequences for my character's weak points, I would feel like my D&D experiences had been grievously watered down.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your viewpoint is based on the premise that every group plays D&D exactly the same way you always have.

In the groups I have played with, there have been TONS of situations where we could not just "let the specialist do his thing." If your DM uses any kind of realistic interpretation of the two noncombat pillars of the game, it's pretty much inevitable.

A chasm where the only way across is to jump? Everyone benefits from Athletics (Strength).

Diplomatic mission to a powerful mage guild where you have to discuss matters only a wizard can understand? Your wizard's gonna need Charisma. (A similar situation could reasonably apply to any class or race.)

Your party gets separated for any reason? People in each sub-group might need all kinds of skills they aren't necessarily the best at.

The whole group needs to sneak past a monster you can't possibly defeat? You're better off if you have decent Stealth (Dexterity).

Making a knowledge check that only a character with a certain background can attempt? You'll want some Intelligence.

And Constitution is valuable for everyone for very obvious reasons.

You might consider these corner cases, but in many of the campaigns I've played in, situations like these arise all the time. I'm sure some DMs let the players fudge by using an inappropriate ability score for the roll, but those groups are playing against the rules and spirit of the game by catering to the charops.

If I had always been able to coast by on my primary attributes and never faced any serious consequences for my character's weak points, I would feel like my D&D experiences had been grievously watered down.

You've addressed only half my point. Let me make it clearer for you:

1) +1 to an attribute is meaningless to checks (and almost everything else) unless it produces a bonus.

You completely ignored that part, the actual values we were talking about. Even when it does produce a bonus, it's at most +1 - but unless you get a whole bunch of odd rolled numbers, that will be rare.

2) Most important/vital rolls in D&D are made by specialists. I don't think you even disagree here.

These points combine together. Taking one or the other alone is ignoring my argument.

Your examples are indeed pretty much corner-case or actual bad play or even misunderstanding 5E rules.

A) Chasm jump - Misunderstanding 5E rules. You do not roll for jump distances in 5E. They are fixed. If you can't make it, you can't make it. You can, at the DM's option, roll to go further, but that's entirely in his hands. Further, if the party is having every member roll to jump, in a 5-person party, it is very likely that that 2+ people will fail, that's just how things are - so that's potentially bad play. A smart party has the agile/strong people jump, puts a rope across, and then helps the rest (or otherwise work around it). If the DM has set things up so you all have to jump, you need to accept that one of you will probably fail, and plan accordingly.

B) Mage Guild Mission. +1 CHA isn't going to help with this. ROLE-PLAYING and smarts going to help with this. Seriously, if your DM is forcing you to roll your way through this he is a bad DM, unless you are just completely relying on "Oh I roll Diplomacy!"-type stuff. You know what would help a lot more than +1 CHA? The Diplomacy skill, which you could get with the free skill...

C) Split party - Sure, but super-corner-case and +1 X is extremely unlikely to matter. Skills are much more likely to matter.

D) Sneaking past monster - Misunderstanding 5E rules. That's not how group stealth works in 5E (check it out in Basic).

E) Obscure Knowledge check - Let's be real, this check will not be vital, unless your DM is absolutely terrible, because that's just bad adventure design - again, too, +1 INT isn't likely to make a difference here.

F) CON valuable for all - Agreed, but only if you get enough to get a +1, or are going to blow another +1 later and there's no reason the second +1 the alternate version wouldn't be going here with most classes.

So we've got rules misunderstandings, corner cases. and places where +1 is unlikely to matter, so yeah, not really a strong case for +1 all stats.

 

[Juriel]

Yes, your weak stats going from 10 to 11 won't help you any.

Even 11 to 12, actually netting you a whopping +1 bonus, is unlikely to matter.

Surely it'd be better if, in those unexpected situations, you had an extra skill AND a feat like Lucky that gives you a reroll?

+1 to all stats won't help you without a really specific, point-buy-optimized MAD build, so I think it's fair to point to it as a newbie trap.

 

[Salamandyr]

What amazes me about some char-oppers isn't that they optimize. I've optimized before. No what amazes me is that this sub-set of char-oppers genuinely doesn't understand why anyone would not optimize, and imagines the world of D&D players is all optimizers or people who just don't understand optimization enough to do it.

Not everyone's character concept is about 2-3 high ability scores and the rest being dump stats.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

The human doesn't get particular better stats across the array than any other character race. As long as your race and class align, (like mountain dwarf fighter vs human fighter), they're going to wind up having almost exactly the same stats--whether you spread them around or concentrate them into your most important stats.

For instance...

A player might decide he wants to have 16 in his two highest stats, followed by a 14 in the next highest, and whatever the best he could get in the other ones. Using point by...

The 16's cost 9 points a piece, for 18 points. For the next choice, he picks a 14 for wisdom, which costs 5 more. So he's used 23 of his 27 points. That nets him a 12, 10, & a 9 (spending, 3, 1, & 0 points apiece. So he has an array that looks like this...

16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9, which is a nice array, and playable.

Meanwhile another player makes a dwarf fighter. He wants his strength and con to be the best, and then he'll spend points appropriately elsewhere. The two 16's cost 7 points apiece, and the 14 also costs 7. He's got 6 points to allocate to his other stats, he spends 4 on 1, 2 on another, and 0 on the last. For an array that looks like this.

16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8

What does the human have on him? One point in his worst stat, in exchange, he gets darkvision, some resistances, and some other stuff I'm too lazy to look up right now.

Looking at the elf, or another race with a +2, +1, they might go for 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 8 and the human would look like 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 9. Humans net a +1 in the fourth most important stat to the character (and the odd dump die)

If a human really wanted to spread his points around, he could get 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11.

If someone wants to play a human, they'll play a human. I'll just recommend that the variant rule will make a more banging human than standard "bonus". For basic games, I'd recommend they still use the variant, and allow them to exchange the feat for a +2 attribute bump.

 

[Joe Liker]

You've addressed only half my point. Let me make it clearer for you:

1) +1 to an attribute is meaningless to checks (and almost everything else) unless it produces a bonus.

You completely ignored that part, the actual values we were talking about. Even when it does produce a bonus, it's at most +1 - but unless you get a whole bunch of odd rolled numbers, that will be rare.

With point buy, it's not that hard to build a character with mostly odd ability scores before racial bonus. And since point buy is the only way to make official Adventurer's League/Encounters characters, I think it's perfectly valid to assume lots of people will be doing so.

2) Most important/vital rolls in D&D are made by specialists. I don't think you even disagree here.

Nope, I do disagree.

These points combine together. Taking one or the other alone is ignoring my argument.

No, they don't combine, because your first point is not even valid.

Your examples are indeed pretty much corner-case or actual bad play or even misunderstanding 5E rules.

We'll see about that.

A) Chasm jump - Misunderstanding 5E rules. You do not roll for jump distances in 5E. They are fixed. If you can't make it, you can't make it. You can, at the DM's option, roll to go further, but that's entirely in his hands. Further, if the party is having every member roll to jump, in a 5-person party, it is very likely that that 2+ people will fail, that's just how things are - so that's potentially bad play. A smart party has the agile/strong people jump, puts a rope across, and then helps the rest (or otherwise work around it). If the DM has set things up so you all have to jump, you need to accept that one of you will probably fail, and plan accordingly.

You say I misunderstand the rules, then you explain how the scenario I outlined could be entirely valid. (There's not always a workaround that's more effective than being good at jumping in the first place.)

Also, the fact that you do not roll a skill check makes my point even more valid because your jump distance is based on Strength -- so if you didn't hit that magical even Strength score, the odd point wasn't as wasted as everyone keeps claiming.

Furthermore, if it is set up so that everyone has to jump, it's better if no one fails. You cannot deny this.

B) Mage Guild Mission. +1 CHA isn't going to help with this. ROLE-PLAYING and smarts going to help with this. Seriously, if your DM is forcing you to roll your way through this he is a bad DM, unless you are just completely relying on "Oh I roll Diplomacy!"-type stuff. You know what would help a lot more than +1 CHA? The Diplomacy skill, which you could get with the free skill...

Are you saying social skill checks should always be role-played, never rolled? Then why do the skills exist? Anyway, you could easily find yourself relying on more than one skill on such a mission: Persuasion, Deception, and even Intimidate could all come into play, in which case extra Charisma will be more help than a single skill proficiency.

C) Split party - Sure, but super-corner-case and +1 X is extremely unlikely to matter. Skills are much more likely to matter.

Possibly a corner case in the games you've played. Extremely commonplace in games I've played. And the one skill you get as a human variant isn't going to cover everything that comes up.

D) Sneaking past monster - Misunderstanding 5E rules. That's not how group stealth works in 5E (check it out in Basic).

Actually, that's exactly how group skill checks work. Everyone has to roll, and half the group must succeed -- That's three out of five in a standard party. A single specialist cannot carry the entire group. The more people you have who are reasonably good at a thing, the more likely you are to succeed.

E) Obscure Knowledge check - Let's be real, this check will not be vital, unless your DM is absolutely terrible, because that's just bad adventure design - again, too, +1 INT isn't likely to make a difference here.

You say it's bad design because you don't want characters who are not combat-optimized to be worthwhile. You have no other basis for this judgment. It is, in fact, good design to play to the characters' backgrounds, and this is one way to do so.

F) CON valuable for all - Agreed

Good.

So we've got rules misunderstandings, corner cases. and places where +1 is unlikely to matter, so yeah, not really a strong case for +1 all stats.

No misunderstandings except where you invented them, no corner cases because (as I mentioned) these things happen a lot in the games I play, and +1 always matters, otherwise charops wouldn't exist.

I'm certainly not saying the default option is better than the variant, but those who are calling it a trap maybe don't realize that there's more to D&D than combat.

 

[Savage Wombat]

What amazes me about some char-oppers isn't that they optimize. I've optimized before. No what amazes me is that this sub-set of char-oppers genuinely doesn't understand why anyone would not optimize, and imagines the world of D&D players is all optimizers or people who just don't understand optimization enough to do it.

Well, I understand what you're saying anyway.

In any of these myriad playstyle debates, there always seems to be a vocal minority who can't just say "I don't play that way", but go all the way to "nobody really plays that way". As far they're concerned anyone not playing their way isn't really playing. (Wisdom save to resist naming names.)

 

[Remathilis]

I was working on an adventurers league character and found the +1 to all scores valuable.

I did point buy, and picked these scores: 15, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9. With the +1, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10. That is a +3 to primary, two +2s, two +1s, and a 0. Since I was going for a rogue, that allowed me to have no penalties and a good Dex, Con, and Cha. Being able to have a bonus to nearly all rolls (and saves) works for me.