D&D 5E (2014) Human Racial Benefits

[KarinsDad]

The feat is way, way, way more powerful than the +1 to all stats.

Is it? Always?

14 14 14 14 14 11

or

16 14 14 14 11 10

That's a lot of +2 (or +3) bonuses to many skills (proficient or not), hit points, AC in some cases, and sometimes the 3 major saving throws. It also allows for a wide variety of multiclassing.

Yes, feats are awesome. But someone cannot use a feat if they are unconscious and there are some concepts where there are not a lot of great feats.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, feats are awesome. But someone cannot use a feat if they are unconscious and there are some concepts where there are not a lot of great feats.

It's not that a feat is always so great. It's that, if you were going to take any feats at all - even just one - then the human racial variant equates to +2 in a stat of your choice, since you can take the ability boost instead of taking that feat later on.

 

[Agamon]

+1 to all stats really opens up multiclassing options, too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Theory crafting is all good but there are consequences for low saves in this edition like that Dwarf in the starter set with 8 dex because he wears heavy armor. Point buy human.

15
13
13
11
11
11

Becomes

12
12
12
14
14
16

Note you still get a 16 in your prime and 2 14's can be good as well. This means your dump stat saves are all 12 which is a +2 bonus over anyone with an 8 and you might like the skill monkey concept and have +1-+3 on all ability score checks.

It may not be better than a feat but feats may not be allowed (DM dependent) or the player might have a versatile concept which doesn't involve giving up to much power and the lack of 1 feat will not make or break your character.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It may not be better than a feat but feats may not be allowed (DM dependent) or the player might have a versatile concept which doesn't involve giving up to much power and the lack of 1 feat will not make or break your character.

If Feats aren't allowed, the entire discussion is irrelevant, so it makes zero sense to even bring that up. You have to use the default option, like it or not, in that case.

As for "a versatile concept", I'm not convinced that, outside of point-buy, which is, ironically, where CharOp is most focused, the default is any better than the Feat + Skill option. You can always use the Feat to buy something that makes you more versatile, likely vastly more so than.

[MENTION=6777505]Joe Liker[/MENTION]

Wow, that's quite a pile of strange assertions you've got there.

If your DM creates a situation where a low/moderate-CHA PC is FORCED BY THE DM to make a bunch of CHA-based skill rolls, which is your example, then +1 CHA is not likely to help much. Role-playing-based bonuses, or role-playing in such a way as to obviate the need for skill checks will have infinitely more importance and value. Yes, I would definitely say that if the reason the mission you described succeeds or fails is Diplomacy checks (or the like), that's a really bad setup and the DM is probably bad (unless he's expecting it to fail and has some sort of fail-forward setup).

What you don't seem to get is that almost all your points rely on the DM forcing the PCs into a situation where their failure is near-certain. For example, you say it's best if all the PCs pass the jump check, but you act like +1 DEX will help there in a meaningful way. It won't. AT MOST it changes a modifier by +1, i.e. 5%. For one PC. So it improves the odds of the PCs succeeding by something like 1%. That's if it does anything at all.

You keep talking about "reasonably good" and so on, but that's nonsense. The difference between +0 and +1 is not "reasonably good". It's 5%. You seem to be labouring under some bizarre illusion that +1 to a stat determines whether you are a liability or an asset. It does not. It's bizarre to see people claim that it does.

The valid point you've made, that I can see, is that the Encounter/LFR people, the prime CharOpers of the world, will be using this, and will CharOp with it by intentionally buying odd scores. That's true. Ironically, though, it goes against what Mistwell was saying, because he appeared to be suggesting that the six +1s option was LESS CharOp-ish! Ironically it's more CharOp-ish.

Let's be clear, too, I never called it a trap. I specifically said it wasn't. But it's less valuable than it superficially appears.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's not that a feat is always so great. It's that, if you were going to take any feats at all - even just one - then the human racial variant equates to +2 in a stat of your choice, since you can take the ability boost instead of taking that feat later on.

So you are saying that +2 in a stat later on is greater than +1 in four stats now?

I tend to disagree. In one case, from levels 1 to x (x being where the feat normally would be taken), the PC has better stats. In the other case, the PC has the feat. But from levels x+1 on, the PC who waited to take the feat has both the feat and better stats (-1 to one stat compared to the other PC, but +1 to three other stats).

The problem with these types of analyses is that they are never apples to apples. There is always a subjective quality to the analysis.

I think that the feat option is pretty sweet, but I also see character concepts that work better with the six +1s.

 

[Zardnaar]

If Feats aren't allowed, the entire discussion is irrelevant, so it makes zero sense to even bring that up. You have to use the default option, like it or not, in that case.

As for "a versatile concept", I'm not convinced that, outside of point-buy, which is, ironically, where CharOp is most focused, the default is any better than the Feat + Skill option. You can always use the Feat to buy something that makes you more versatile, likely vastly more so than.

@Joe Liker

Wow, that's quite a pile of strange assertions you've got there.

If your DM creates a situation where a low/moderate-CHA PC is FORCED BY THE DM to make a bunch of CHA-based skill rolls, which is your example, then +1 CHA is not likely to help much. Role-playing-based bonuses, or role-playing in such a way as to obviate the need for skill checks will have infinitely more importance and value. Yes, I would definitely say that if the reason the mission you described succeeds or fails is Diplomacy checks (or the like), that's a really bad setup and the DM is probably bad (unless he's expecting it to fail and has some sort of fail-forward setup).

What you don't seem to get is that almost all your points rely on the DM forcing the PCs into a situation where their failure is near-certain. For example, you say it's best if all the PCs pass the jump check, but you act like +1 DEX will help there in a meaningful way. It won't. AT MOST it changes a modifier by +1, i.e. 5%. For one PC. So it improves the odds of the PCs succeeding by something like 1%. That's if it does anything at all.

You keep talking about "reasonably good" and so on, but that's nonsense. The difference between +0 and +1 is not "reasonably good". It's 5%. You seem to be labouring under some bizarre illusion that +1 to a stat determines whether you are a liability or an asset. It does not. It's bizarre to see people claim that it does.

The valid point you've made, that I can see, is that the Encounter/LFR people, the prime CharOpers of the world, will be using this, and will CharOp with it by intentionally buying odd scores. That's true. Ironically, though, it goes against what Mistwell was saying, because he appeared to be suggesting that the six +1s option was LESS CharOp-ish! Ironically it's more CharOp-ish.

Let's be clear, too, I never called it a trap. I specifically said it wasn't. But it's less valuable than it superficially appears.

The difference is actually a +2 bonus between your dump stat of 12 and a dump stat of 8. The Dwarf in the starter set has an 8 dexterity for example and that is a -1 penalty on a major save category. It is also a difference of 3 points over 3 abilities (+3 total bonus vs +0 total using the default). If you want a skill monkey character or no penalties on your saves or even a semi charismatic fighter who hasn't used charisma as a dump stat its not a bad option. Also it assumers 2 things.

1 Feats are allowed
2. Even if feats are allowed the variant human may not be.

12,12,12,14,14,16 is not a bad stat array at all especially if you lie some role playing aspects over roll playing aspects. Not sure if it beats out the demi human benefits but I think it has some uses. You are not going to have a gimped character with stats like that even if you are not 100% optimised and have enough brains to put the 16 in the relevant stat. When you only have 1 good save and 1 good save in a meh category having a well rounded character may not be that bad and its not like you can't have a 20 max by level 6 or 8.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So you are saying that +2 in a stat later on is greater than +1 in four stats now?

I'm saying that a +2 in your main stat is better than +1 in the four stats you care least about.

Most characters can get by without using three stats, or only using them once in a blue moon, and a +1 is only 50% likely to even impact that. In a best-case scenario, where all of those stats are odd, it's still only going to come up sporadically.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm saying that a +2 in your main stat is better than +1 in the four stats you care least about.

Except that there is no way for a variant human to get +2 in their main stat faster than anyone else. At lower levels, the variant human has the feat and at higher levels, the normal human has both the feat and +2 to a stat that the normal human does not.

In the long run, the normal human has one stat that is +2 higher.

Most characters can get by without using three stats, or only using them once in a blue moon, and a +1 is only 50% likely to even impact that. In a best-case scenario, where all of those stats are odd, it's still only going to come up sporadically.

16 14 14 14 11 10

The extra two +1 for two 14s instead of 12s come up nearly every gaming session. The 5% chance might not matter, but then again, it sometimes does. Concentration checks, saves, the 1 hit point per level more, whatever.


Since there is no way to get an 18 stat at level 1 and most players will not take a feat until their ability score is 20, this means that a variant human who wants a feat will have stats of approximately:

16 14 12 12 11 10

+3, +2 and 2 +1s. Every 12 moved to a 14 is +1 that costs two +1s somewhere else.

Most players I know care about main stat, Con, Dex, and Wis, and to a lesser extent, Cha (for roleplaying, in our game, if you have a low Cha like 8, NPCs notice, you cannot have your cake and eat it too).

That's 4 to 5 stats that should at least be zero and having positives would help.

NPCs should fire weapons at the surprised PCs that had low Wis. NPCs should negotiate differently with PCs that have low Cha.

If you play the game based on the characteristics and capabilities of the PCs, then stats are important. Being +9 overall to stats is just plain better than +7.

So yes, having an additional hit point per level, +1 to init, able to climb better, +1 to two saves, etc. And yes, having a feat helps a lot too.

It's not cut and dry. Either way has advantages and disadvantages.


PS. I am about to be a player in a game where I took a variant human. I didn't take the feat because it make my PC more uber, I took the feat because it was a concept defining element that I could not get any other way. It's unfortunate that I cannot get the +1 to 6 stats (because it would help out my PC quite a bit) or take an Elf with darkvision, but I too cannot have my cake and eat it too.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

NPCs should fire weapons at the surprised PCs that had low Wis. NPCs should negotiate differently with PCs that have low Cha.

If you play the game based on the characteristics and capabilities of the PCs, then stats are important. Being +9 overall to stats is just plain better than +7.

I guess that depends on how you interpret the stats, then. Is someone with Cha 8 significantly less charming than someone with Cha 10? Or is it negligible?

Using math as the guidelines, I treat someone a -1 as barely noticeable, since it's something that doesn't have an impact on anything, ninety-five percent of the time. It's only one time in twenty that the Cha 8 character will say something dumb and offend the NPC.

If you interpret the stats as much more meaningful than the math would suggest, then I can see the merit in taking a +1 to a bunch of stats that almost never come up.