(Note: I am using 'race' here to use the current and common game terminology: I prefer the term ancestry or heritage myself.)
This is growing out of a related thread which talked about ASIs and onto humans and feats. Which reminded me of a thought I have had ever since I started to dive into D&D over the past two years:
Humans in the PHB, variant or not, are pretty mechanically boring in D&D 5e.
The basic non-variant human gets no special abilities, no extra skills, nothing to distinguish themselves, except that they automatically get +1 across the board for all ability scores. This is mechanically not the worst but even while not playing 'optimal' in point buy and with standard array just means a character might be better at some save or skill compared to literally any other race that is taking the same class and has the same point distribution. It probably does have a nice bonus affect for anyone rolling if you end up rolling a lot of high but uneven scores, but in the end mechanically there is nothing to interact with outside of character creation.
Fictionally, my interpretation of what these ASIs are designed to represent is the idea that humans are more adaptable as a baseline in the base setting or base concept of D&D. I could derail my own thread by diving into why I dislike that very concept but let's ignore that completely and just focus on representing that concept. It's a pretty poor way to represent it depending on how you build your character, honestly. With the fact that in 5E your actual Ability Score means nothing while your Ability Modifier determines so, so much, often characters built with point-buy won't fictionally show this adaptability; there won't be uneven scores so no extra modifiers will be created. And since the adaptability of a human does not grow in the fiction as the actual person becomes stronger, it ends up feeling like a mechanical and fictional waste.
Variant human is much better in comparison to the normal human. They have two floating +1 ability increase (which is pretty common in the PHB, compared to races from later books), they get to gain proficiency in one skill (which REALLY should have been on the base human), and most interestingly of all, they get to gain a feat.
There are numerous problems with a variant human gaining a feat mechanically.
First of all, mechanically a lot of feats are pretty powerful. There are reasons why in 5E as designed you choose between a feat or an ASI; there are a number of feats, especially in other books, that can make a certain playstyle, weapon and class combination really powerful and in many ways optional or strong. Great Weapon Master, War Caster, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Crossbow Expert, arguably Martial Adept for some classes, arguably Healer, arguably Lucky - these are all in my or others estimations strong feats worth giving up an ASI for, and you can have them at level 1. Arguably more importantly, you don't need to give up an ASI at level 4 (when you REALLY want to, in a lot of cases, get your main Ability Score up, especially if you didn't start with a +3 modifier) to have these.
Or you could have the Polearm Master and Sentinel combo at level 4.
This, in games that allow feats, does in some ways make variant humans the baseline from which we can judge the relative strength and power of other races. While I do like making strong characters I certainly do not select them solely off ability, but if you want to be the very best in a game where feats are running around, then races like the dragonborn are gonna be crushed.
Which actually leads to the second problem: feats are an optional rule in 5e. This isn't always obvious because it seems a significant amount of people run games with feats (and personally while I would play in a feat-less game, I would certainly never run one, and I do prefer to have some choice of character customisation besides ASIs later in the game), but it does mean in a game without them variant humans can't exist, and that means the more mechanically interesting human can't be selected.
Fictionally, there's still not a lot here that excites. There are definitely feats that are designed for flavour, and those are cool to have for fictional reasons, but a significant amount of the particularly helpful choices are very mechanically inclined. War Caster means you're great at casting in battle. Cool! That... doesn't necessarily add a lot when you're playing a Cleric, who can often be assumed to be good at this thing already. Same goes for most feats. Some are quite favourable like Tavern Brawler, but that's not a unique human thing or unique to people with the feat either.
This has further problems due to the fact it's something you get at level 1. Since typically level 1 characters do not have a lot of experience and barely have any skills, it can be a bit hard to justify from a fictional perspective some of these feats. To take War Caster as an example again, it states within it's text that 'You have practiced casting spells in the midst of combat, learning techniques that grant you the following benefits...'
It's not particularly easy, in many ways, to justify a level 1 human as having those skills despite being a relative novice. And while I know starting at level 1 is not popular, even for a level 2 or 3 class it can still be a little fictionally odd, especially when comparing similar fiction against every other race. Doubly so if you play at a pace where you only level up only after five or more sessions, or perhaps after weeks or even months of in-game time.
What this all boils down to that, despite in many ways being seen as a 'milktoast' option, humans from my perspective can be more difficult to role play and write fiction around because there is no non-ASI mechanic to fall back on or excite the imagination.
Compare an elf, any elf. They have Trance as an ability. They don't sleep like most races, instead meditating deeply and remaining semi-conscious, magic can't put them to sleep, and they only need to rest for four hours before benefiting from the effects of a long rest. That is deeply strong fiction not only for DMs and setting writers, but for players. You can easily play into this not only mechanically for resting, but also for your character. Perhaps thanks to this meditation throughout their life your elven character has a strong sense of who they are and deals with the stresses of life by working them out in their Trance. Or as an adventurous person, they are quite used to being alone at nights and doing the work of protecting everyone at night. Does that perhaps seep into their personality - perhaps they feel protective of their party?
I'm not the best writer but there's certainly more to main here. And that's from one ability that elves have - they already have a few more.
Let's take dragonborn, which aren't mechanically the best or more exciting but even in their base version still have more exciting aspects for fiction without assuming setting. Their colour determines their origin and how their own natural weapons work. How does that play into who they are? Perhaps they have become accustomed to using their breath for non violent reasons - while it's not part of the mechanical text, I think it would be okay to describe a Brass, Gold or Red dragonborn cook as using their own natural fire to really spice up their foods. Or keep the fires going for their companions. Or as an entertainment trick.
I could go on but... to me, this really highlights how dependent on setting culture and sometimes DM information to make a fictionally interesting human, as there are no human unique fictional elements to use.
This leads me to the conclusion that for a 6E, something should be done on the mechanical end to make humans more interesting to play.
Or, in perhaps an insane move, they should be removed entirely. Or there are rules for them but the default setting does not have humans.
Now I know the latter too won't be done at all by WoTC (for valid artistic and commercial reasons), even if I would love to see it (not a fan of our species irl tbqh :vvvvvvvvvvv).
I don't have any well thought mechanical fix for humans. But going off the basis of showing human adaptability and such, I wonder if humans should have the ability to, as they level up, adopt more skills or perhaps, some special human-exclusive feats that allow them to know some basics of another class (something like Pathfinder 2E's multi-class feats). Something to show increasing adaptability as a human explores more and develops as an adventurer.
I will note that in personal opinion this is not a problem restricted to D&D. There are a number of games where humans are mechanically boring (even if their fiction is cool) whereas nonhuman races are cool. Some games I think that somewhat give humans cool mechanics are games like Divinity: Original Sin 2, which does give human characters a nice normal ability. Still not the best, however. And D&D can certainly do better.
End note: I ascribe pretty heavily to the notion that 'subjectivity is implied', as explained in this excellent video by Joseph Anderson. Outside of things that are fact based, all of this has been purely on the experience I have had and what excites me as a player from reading official and unofficial material for DND, Pathfinder, etc. I admit I do not have a lot of experience; I have only played around 32 bi-weekly sessions of D&D 5E, and my main exposure to TTRPGs has instead been reading about them or exploring their video game counterparts. This experience at the moment is also unlikely to increase for the foreseeable future. I have however been exposed to a lot of game design rational and talked and tried (key word, tried) to design games before, so I'm not... a complete fool for trying to write this, I guess.
This is growing out of a related thread which talked about ASIs and onto humans and feats. Which reminded me of a thought I have had ever since I started to dive into D&D over the past two years:
Humans in the PHB, variant or not, are pretty mechanically boring in D&D 5e.
The basic non-variant human gets no special abilities, no extra skills, nothing to distinguish themselves, except that they automatically get +1 across the board for all ability scores. This is mechanically not the worst but even while not playing 'optimal' in point buy and with standard array just means a character might be better at some save or skill compared to literally any other race that is taking the same class and has the same point distribution. It probably does have a nice bonus affect for anyone rolling if you end up rolling a lot of high but uneven scores, but in the end mechanically there is nothing to interact with outside of character creation.
Fictionally, my interpretation of what these ASIs are designed to represent is the idea that humans are more adaptable as a baseline in the base setting or base concept of D&D. I could derail my own thread by diving into why I dislike that very concept but let's ignore that completely and just focus on representing that concept. It's a pretty poor way to represent it depending on how you build your character, honestly. With the fact that in 5E your actual Ability Score means nothing while your Ability Modifier determines so, so much, often characters built with point-buy won't fictionally show this adaptability; there won't be uneven scores so no extra modifiers will be created. And since the adaptability of a human does not grow in the fiction as the actual person becomes stronger, it ends up feeling like a mechanical and fictional waste.
Variant human is much better in comparison to the normal human. They have two floating +1 ability increase (which is pretty common in the PHB, compared to races from later books), they get to gain proficiency in one skill (which REALLY should have been on the base human), and most interestingly of all, they get to gain a feat.
There are numerous problems with a variant human gaining a feat mechanically.
First of all, mechanically a lot of feats are pretty powerful. There are reasons why in 5E as designed you choose between a feat or an ASI; there are a number of feats, especially in other books, that can make a certain playstyle, weapon and class combination really powerful and in many ways optional or strong. Great Weapon Master, War Caster, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Crossbow Expert, arguably Martial Adept for some classes, arguably Healer, arguably Lucky - these are all in my or others estimations strong feats worth giving up an ASI for, and you can have them at level 1. Arguably more importantly, you don't need to give up an ASI at level 4 (when you REALLY want to, in a lot of cases, get your main Ability Score up, especially if you didn't start with a +3 modifier) to have these.
Or you could have the Polearm Master and Sentinel combo at level 4.
This, in games that allow feats, does in some ways make variant humans the baseline from which we can judge the relative strength and power of other races. While I do like making strong characters I certainly do not select them solely off ability, but if you want to be the very best in a game where feats are running around, then races like the dragonborn are gonna be crushed.
Which actually leads to the second problem: feats are an optional rule in 5e. This isn't always obvious because it seems a significant amount of people run games with feats (and personally while I would play in a feat-less game, I would certainly never run one, and I do prefer to have some choice of character customisation besides ASIs later in the game), but it does mean in a game without them variant humans can't exist, and that means the more mechanically interesting human can't be selected.
Fictionally, there's still not a lot here that excites. There are definitely feats that are designed for flavour, and those are cool to have for fictional reasons, but a significant amount of the particularly helpful choices are very mechanically inclined. War Caster means you're great at casting in battle. Cool! That... doesn't necessarily add a lot when you're playing a Cleric, who can often be assumed to be good at this thing already. Same goes for most feats. Some are quite favourable like Tavern Brawler, but that's not a unique human thing or unique to people with the feat either.
This has further problems due to the fact it's something you get at level 1. Since typically level 1 characters do not have a lot of experience and barely have any skills, it can be a bit hard to justify from a fictional perspective some of these feats. To take War Caster as an example again, it states within it's text that 'You have practiced casting spells in the midst of combat, learning techniques that grant you the following benefits...'
It's not particularly easy, in many ways, to justify a level 1 human as having those skills despite being a relative novice. And while I know starting at level 1 is not popular, even for a level 2 or 3 class it can still be a little fictionally odd, especially when comparing similar fiction against every other race. Doubly so if you play at a pace where you only level up only after five or more sessions, or perhaps after weeks or even months of in-game time.
What this all boils down to that, despite in many ways being seen as a 'milktoast' option, humans from my perspective can be more difficult to role play and write fiction around because there is no non-ASI mechanic to fall back on or excite the imagination.
Compare an elf, any elf. They have Trance as an ability. They don't sleep like most races, instead meditating deeply and remaining semi-conscious, magic can't put them to sleep, and they only need to rest for four hours before benefiting from the effects of a long rest. That is deeply strong fiction not only for DMs and setting writers, but for players. You can easily play into this not only mechanically for resting, but also for your character. Perhaps thanks to this meditation throughout their life your elven character has a strong sense of who they are and deals with the stresses of life by working them out in their Trance. Or as an adventurous person, they are quite used to being alone at nights and doing the work of protecting everyone at night. Does that perhaps seep into their personality - perhaps they feel protective of their party?
I'm not the best writer but there's certainly more to main here. And that's from one ability that elves have - they already have a few more.
Let's take dragonborn, which aren't mechanically the best or more exciting but even in their base version still have more exciting aspects for fiction without assuming setting. Their colour determines their origin and how their own natural weapons work. How does that play into who they are? Perhaps they have become accustomed to using their breath for non violent reasons - while it's not part of the mechanical text, I think it would be okay to describe a Brass, Gold or Red dragonborn cook as using their own natural fire to really spice up their foods. Or keep the fires going for their companions. Or as an entertainment trick.
I could go on but... to me, this really highlights how dependent on setting culture and sometimes DM information to make a fictionally interesting human, as there are no human unique fictional elements to use.
This leads me to the conclusion that for a 6E, something should be done on the mechanical end to make humans more interesting to play.
Or, in perhaps an insane move, they should be removed entirely. Or there are rules for them but the default setting does not have humans.
Now I know the latter too won't be done at all by WoTC (for valid artistic and commercial reasons), even if I would love to see it (not a fan of our species irl tbqh :vvvvvvvvvvv).
I don't have any well thought mechanical fix for humans. But going off the basis of showing human adaptability and such, I wonder if humans should have the ability to, as they level up, adopt more skills or perhaps, some special human-exclusive feats that allow them to know some basics of another class (something like Pathfinder 2E's multi-class feats). Something to show increasing adaptability as a human explores more and develops as an adventurer.
I will note that in personal opinion this is not a problem restricted to D&D. There are a number of games where humans are mechanically boring (even if their fiction is cool) whereas nonhuman races are cool. Some games I think that somewhat give humans cool mechanics are games like Divinity: Original Sin 2, which does give human characters a nice normal ability. Still not the best, however. And D&D can certainly do better.
End note: I ascribe pretty heavily to the notion that 'subjectivity is implied', as explained in this excellent video by Joseph Anderson. Outside of things that are fact based, all of this has been purely on the experience I have had and what excites me as a player from reading official and unofficial material for DND, Pathfinder, etc. I admit I do not have a lot of experience; I have only played around 32 bi-weekly sessions of D&D 5E, and my main exposure to TTRPGs has instead been reading about them or exploring their video game counterparts. This experience at the moment is also unlikely to increase for the foreseeable future. I have however been exposed to a lot of game design rational and talked and tried (key word, tried) to design games before, so I'm not... a complete fool for trying to write this, I guess.
