FormerlyHemlock
Hero
No worries, I understand what you meant. For PHB only I would find the Mobile Life Cleric/Enchanter idea a bit less tempting. Not sure what I would do in that case.
D&D 5E Is the Variant Human ALWAYS better than standard human?
- Thread starter merwins
- Start date
No worries, I understand what you meant. For PHB only I would find the Mobile Life Cleric/Enchanter idea a bit less tempting. Not sure what I would do in that case.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
As your own data suggests, it depends on a couple of things:
1: does your character need that feat at first level?
2: do you have more than 2 important stats you want to pump up?
3: would those increased stats benefit your character?
So really, it depends.
1: does your character need that feat at first level?
2: do you have more than 2 important stats you want to pump up?
3: would those increased stats benefit your character?
So really, it depends.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Assuming, for a moment that a feat is the equivalent to a +2 attribute bonus, if we assume that all points are used to create a stat of 14 or better, then on the point buy scale, Variant Human is worth 8 points for attribute bonuses, and perhaps another one for the skill bonus, for a total of 9 points.
In your case, the +1 to all stats spread would create 4 14's, a 17 and 11, worth 13 points on the attribute scale. That would make the standard human a better buy, especially if you're playing something like a bard with Jack of All Trades.
However, if you don't care about your tertiary attributes, then that deprecates, the points given to the last two 14's and the eleven, bringing it down to a 10, not nearly as much of an advantage.
Either way, your character should be effective and fun with that array.
In your case, the +1 to all stats spread would create 4 14's, a 17 and 11, worth 13 points on the attribute scale. That would make the standard human a better buy, especially if you're playing something like a bard with Jack of All Trades.
However, if you don't care about your tertiary attributes, then that deprecates, the points given to the last two 14's and the eleven, bringing it down to a 10, not nearly as much of an advantage.
Either way, your character should be effective and fun with that array.
It depends on what you want to do. Overall, a base human would be "better" at more things. A variant human who take a half feat (grants a +1) would be really good at several things. A non-human is going to be really good at one or two things, but weaker at most others.
If your DM is like me, and likes to spread around the ability checks, the base human is going to be better in the long haul. If the DM tends to allow you to focus on your strengths without exposing your weaknesses, then the other two are better. If you're not worried about min/maxing, then play what you want to play and don't worry about the "best" choice is. Whatever you choose, Have Fun!
If your DM is like me, and likes to spread around the ability checks, the base human is going to be better in the long haul. If the DM tends to allow you to focus on your strengths without exposing your weaknesses, then the other two are better. If you're not worried about min/maxing, then play what you want to play and don't worry about the "best" choice is. Whatever you choose, Have Fun!
Icharbezol
Explorer
I would second this.
The Variant Human presents an interesting quandary for me, because while most of my players are fine with the base human, I have one that says he'll never play a human unless the Variant is made available as the norm instead of an option in my campaign. He says this is because every other race in the PHB is "better" with all of their additional racial abilities than the core human, and that makes it not worth playing a human unless Variant is actually core and norm. I take it that many others out there feel the same about core humans?
As I was originally wanting to run a fairly basic game when I announced to my Shadowrun group that we'd be playing D&D after this SR campaign's conclusion, I wasn't considering a lot of the things that he's taking for granted as core elements of the game that are actually optional rules. Indeed, it seems that most of my players have not actually read the PHB in depth, and think that these are not optional rules, but core concepts of the game and the DM does not have a choice in whether they are allowed in a campaign and it is the players' decision upon building their character. And I was very leery of allowing a first level character to have a feat at all, due to some of the abilities they will grant.
I've gone on record as stating I will allow the variant human and feats, but multiclassing must include downtime because their characters cannot simply level up and suddenly learn an entirely new skill set without some explanation behind the new knowledge they have acquired. I don't think that 365 days to train in a new class is unreasonable considering the huge gap in knowledge that rests between someone having trained all their lives in combat maneuvers to suddenly begin learning how to become a wizard.
Your players are wrong; EVERYTHING is under the discretion of the DM. You can remove humans entirely if you want (ideally, this should be for story/setting reasons, not just a whim). If you wish to disallow the variant Human, they have 3 options: persuade you otherwise, deal with it, or find another game.
As for the Multi-classing option, I'd recommend you only use this if you plan to have decent stretches of downtime. Additionally, I'd allow them to train early for multi-classing, otherwise you'd have a character out of the game for a year (which is overall not good for the game). If you don't do this, don't expect anyone to want to Multi-class (in which case, you're better off just disallowing it).
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I think, the normal human could get a skill too. So the feat is equal to 4 stat bumps to your lesser important stats.
BUT, there are a lot of character concepts, usually dismissed by optimizers that are good enough with the standard human.
You array allows for 16,14,14,14,14,11 which translates into:
Barbarian in medium armor: 16 Str, 14 dex, 14 con, 14 wis, 14 cha, 11 int. A leader type. As a berserker, every stat is useful.
Eldritch knight again in medium armor: 16 Str, 14 dex, 14 con, 14 int, 14 wis, 11 Cha
Bard, valor: 16 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 11 Int, 14 wis, 14 Cha. You may swap cha and Str, if you want to cast more direct spells
Ranger: 16 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 11 Int, 14 Wis, 14 Cha. Maybe the hardes one to recommend. Usually you only need 4 good stats and you can live well with lower 5th and 6th stat except for story reasons.
So for some corner cases, the standard human gives you good stats from the beginning, which the variant does not offer.
BUT, there are a lot of character concepts, usually dismissed by optimizers that are good enough with the standard human.
You array allows for 16,14,14,14,14,11 which translates into:
Barbarian in medium armor: 16 Str, 14 dex, 14 con, 14 wis, 14 cha, 11 int. A leader type. As a berserker, every stat is useful.
Eldritch knight again in medium armor: 16 Str, 14 dex, 14 con, 14 int, 14 wis, 11 Cha
Bard, valor: 16 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 11 Int, 14 wis, 14 Cha. You may swap cha and Str, if you want to cast more direct spells
Ranger: 16 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 11 Int, 14 Wis, 14 Cha. Maybe the hardes one to recommend. Usually you only need 4 good stats and you can live well with lower 5th and 6th stat except for story reasons.
So for some corner cases, the standard human gives you good stats from the beginning, which the variant does not offer.
Normal human is better in games that don't allow feats. 
More seriously, in terms of sheer amount of stuff, human has more; +4 to attributes is technically worth 2 feats, which is better than 1 feat and 1 skill. But having a +1 to tertiary attributes just lets you be a little less 'meh' at stuff you will never be good at anyway, and simply isn't nearly as effective as a well-chosen feat and skill that give you exactly what you need. It also is rarely as good as unique benefits that non-human races provide, or other benefits that help you be more awesome at the stuff you want to be doing most.
More seriously, in terms of sheer amount of stuff, human has more; +4 to attributes is technically worth 2 feats, which is better than 1 feat and 1 skill. But having a +1 to tertiary attributes just lets you be a little less 'meh' at stuff you will never be good at anyway, and simply isn't nearly as effective as a well-chosen feat and skill that give you exactly what you need. It also is rarely as good as unique benefits that non-human races provide, or other benefits that help you be more awesome at the stuff you want to be doing most.Similar Threads
