[Playtest 2] Races: Humans too good?

[billd91]

HUMANS

Assuming point buy and leveraging of point buy values for optimization:

- Every Human PC will have a 5 % or 10 % better (leveraging a base, high, odd number in primary stat to get a + 3) "to hit chance" with their primary mode of attack than all other Race's PCs. In a game where you have bounded accuracy, this is an enormous advantage.
- Every Human PC will have a 5 % edge on other Races on most (or all if the primary stat of the character is Dex) of the 7 defenses/saving throws.
- Every Human PC will have their their minimum threshold for passing a Skill Check/Ability Check improved by 5 % compared to all of the other Races.
- Every Human PC will be 5 % better than all other Races when forced to roll for a successful Skill Check/Ability Check.
- Implications of Mechanical Resolution: In every single area of the most important/most leveraged mechanical resolution areas of the game (offense, defense, task resolution), humans will be, on average and at apex, 5 % better (or more) before a die is rolled. As a single roll, this perturbation of the mechanical system is irrelevant. Stretched over the course of an adventure and then a campaign, in the aggregate, 5 % is a massive handicap. One in which DMs will have to account for when game-planning. One in which players will soon intuitively grasp...and demi-human choices for characters will recede into the background as extremely sub-optimal choices at character creation...thus dulling down the game and narrowing the scope of the fiction.

Well, given your assumptions, an easy fix here is: don't allow point-buy of stats.

 

[billd91]

On a more serious note, I would like to see an article with the designer notes on why they're thinking humans getting +1 on all of their stats (compared to non-humans) might be a good idea.

 

[Salamandyr]

Because of the optional nature of several of the rules, previous methods of adding versatility to humans, like skill trainings and feats won't work. So you're pretty much left with giving them a leg up in an area that they know will be used at every table...attributes checks. I guess they could bring back level limits, but I doubt that would be popular.

But is what they gave too strong? I don't think so. I think it looks good on paper, kind of like the monk, but the strengths of the other races, while more focused, actually balance things out.

Compare the human fighter to the hill dwarf fighter. The human gets to start with an 18 in strength, by contrast the dwarf gets a bigger hit die, that's equivalent to an extra +1 or 2 to his constitution score over and above the bonus he already gets, and while he's (5%) less accurate, when he hits he does more damage.

In addition to that, the dwarf gets immunity to a common dungeon hazard, has the ability to see in the dark (a trait admittedly, the usefulness of which depends on how much the DM handwaves light sources), and some minor, albeit useful cultural bennies like stonecunning. I don't count the ability to move full speed in heavy armor, since that just means the dwarf and human fighter move the same speed.

The human, by contrast, gets to start with an 18 in his prime stat, and has an equal constitution to the hill dwarf (albeit with a smaller hit die), and +1 that might net him a slight bonus on the occasional roll that falls outside the fighter's specialty.

Seems to me they look pretty equal, possibly even advantage dwarf. But wait...it gets better. As they level, they get to level up their stats every 4 levels, up to a maximum of 20. That means, over the course of play, the dwarf is eventually going to have exactly the same prime stat as the human, and all the other good stuff.

So...if building to archetype, the dwarf is equal at 1st level and slightly more powerful at 20th level, but the human is more flexible. Sounds right to me.

 

[Grimmjow]

ya they gave the humans alot of stats but thats it. can't find their way out of a cave like a dwarf can, not as good at magic as a high elf. I think it is fine.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, I think a nice variant would be to give humans the traditional +2 to any one stat, OR let them get +1 to all stats. Representing the human ability to be as smart as an elf or as sturdy as a dwarf, but also moderately good at many things.

And humans certainly need some sort of racial flavor traits as well....Perhaps some "regions"? I really don't see any way to do humans well without creating some sorts of variable racial qualities.

 

[Ferrous]

Hi Salamandyr,

Thanks for trying to figure out the reasoning on this one. However I note that you made a couple of minor errors in your analysis. The most important is that the Dwarf even with their cultures weapon does the same or less damage (as the the Human has a +4 on damage rather than +3) rather than the more damage you described.

So a Human with 18 Str and Great Axe does an average 10.5 damage on a hit and the Dwarf 10 damage. If the Fighter were both using one handed weapons it would be evens.

The other thing is that Human advantage is +1 on most other dice rolls they will make rather than the few outside their speciality.

I'm afraid that waiting for level 20 for it to iron out does not cut it for me as I rarely if ever play to that level. Your mileage may vary of course.

Of course the Hill Dwarf is the probably the most solid race as well.

Anyway cheers for your reply.

 

[Estlor]

Frame your analysis in the form of DDN's stated goal: To create an experience that unifies the editions.

Okay, check, then what can we say historically about humans throughout D&D's editions?

BECMI: You're either human because you want to be a Fighter/Thief/Magic-User/Cleric or you are the race specified by your class name. For this edition, there are no racial abilities; everything is a class ability. Ergo, the implied benefit of being human is versatility. A human can be an armored swordsman, a pious templar, a sneaky guy in leather than jumps out of the shadows, or a robed wizard channeling the elements. Elves are just... elves.

1e/2e: Each race has certain benefits called out. Humans have no specified benefits, but their benefit is they also have no limits. As a human, you can play any class and advance to any level. So the implied benefit of humans is their ability to do whatever they put their minds to and improve to a level the other races cannot hope to achieve.

3e: Bonus skill, bonus feat, no preferred class. Since the class/level limits by race have been taken away, the human versatility is instead expressed by having access to more goodies and unlimited multiclass potential. But, again, the story is humans can succeed at anything they choose, just with the "and reach heights no other race can" replaced by "and do it all at once if they want."

4e: Bonus skill and feat remain. Floating +2 to an ability score is added because the math of the system is inherently dependent on your primary ability score being 17-18 out of the gate to be effective. Since multiclassing is entirely tied to feats, getting another one makes humans a go-to race because the investment is less. Once hybrids appear, being able to take Hybrid Talent and another feat at 1st level makes them very useful for that brand of multiclassing as well. So, again the narrative is humans dabble in a bit of everything and manage to be good at all of it at once. Then add in the bonus at-will or Heroic Effort and the +1 to all NADs to say "and better at it than everyone else."

So the consistent human narrative seems to be:

• Humans don't have a traditional racial archetype they follow. Humans can be whatever they want.
• Humans have a broad, diverse skill set that often includes things counter to their chosen class.
• Humans have a knack for multiclassing or dipping their toes into a lot of different things.
• Humans are survivors and hard to kill.

Now, because you can't use feats or skill training to express these things (because a portion of your base may not use those modules), what's left that lets a human be whatever they want to be, have skills outside their profession, multiclass easily, and hard to take down because of good saves?


+2 to one ability score, +1 to the other five. It's actually the simplest, most basic, and elegant way to mechanically represent the narrative fluff of the D&D human throughout every edition of the game.

 

[Salamandyr]

Hi Salamandyr,

Thanks for trying to figure out the reasoning on this one. However I note that you made a couple of minor errors in your analysis. The most important is that the Dwarf even with their cultures weapon does the same or less damage (as the the Human has a +4 on damage rather than +3) rather than the more damage you described.

So a Human with 18 Str and Great Axe does an average 10.5 damage on a hit and the Dwarf 10 damage. If the Fighter were both using one handed weapons it would be evens.

The other thing is that Human advantage is +1 on most other dice rolls they will make rather than the few outside their speciality.

I'm afraid that waiting for level 20 for it to iron out does not cut it for me as I rarely if ever play to that level. Your mileage may vary of course.

Of course the Hill Dwarf is the probably the most solid race as well.

Anyway cheers for your reply.

Thank you for your kind reply.

By picking the great axe, you give a slight advantage to human, because the average difference between 2d6 and 1d12 is smaller than the difference between 1d8 & 1d10. Average damage is the same if you compare battle axes or war hammers instead of great axes or mauls. Actually the dwarf has slight damage advantage thanks to larger criticals. Unfortunately, the 1d8-1d10-1d12-2d6 is something we're stuck with, until somebody designs a d14.

Assuming standard array (which as of now I intend to demand in my games), the human will net a +1 to attribute rolls vs other races on exactly 2 stats, the prime one, and one secondary.

Also, you don't have to wait for 20. By 20 the dwarf is ahead. Assuming a stat bump every 4 levels, the human will hit 20 in his prime stat at level 8 and the dwarf at level 16, (yes that's a long time to pull ahead...you started out even). assuming one started with a 16 and the other an 18. Their constitution goes up at the same speed (assuming they are both raising con as their secondary bump) but the dwarf winds up with 20 more hit points. The dwarf winds up with a lot more hit points if the human, instead of raising con every level, spreads his secondary bumps out to take advantage of all those odd numbers his +1 to every stat gave him.

I'll take a look at the other races and see how they compare, if building to archetype. Off the top of my head, I'd say the high elf is at least as good for wizard, and the halfling at least as good for rogue, as the hill dwarf is for fighter.

One thing I recognize is, as they're built, dwarves, elves and halflings aren't as good as humans when built against type, but I think that's the point.

EDIT: one thing I think I'd change...I'd give Mountain dwarves the bonus to strength instead of wisdom. For warpriest clerics it would be just as good, and it would make the mountain dwarf a better option for fighter.

 

[slobo777]

Now, because you can't use feats or skill training to express these things (because a portion of your base may not use those modules), what's left that lets a human be whatever they want to be, have skills outside their profession, multiclass easily, and hard to take down because of good saves?


+2 to one ability score, +1 to the other five. It's actually the simplest, most basic, and elegant way to mechanically represent the narrative fluff of the D&D human throughout every edition of the game.

These two paragraphs don't necessarily follow logically.

The numbers chosen matter. My feeling is that the human PC race design is giving away too much numerical advantage over the other races (i.e. compared to what they get).

I would also prefer that the 6 core stats of D&D were not moved into abstract territory like this, and that e.g. "tough" races simply had higher Con and "agile" races higher Dex than base for humans.

To put it another way, "humans get better numbers, non-humans get special effects" seems fine to me in general as way to represent the differences, but I'm not comfortable to extend that into the 6 stats. It doesn't pass the "smells like D&D" test for me, even if you can demonstrate that there's a logical precedent, and even if in playtesting it comes out as well-balanced or not an issue mechanically.

 

[Salamandyr]

These two paragraphs don't necessarily follow logically.

The numbers chosen matter. My feeling is that the human PC race design is giving away too much numerical advantage over the other races (i.e. compared to what they get).

I would also prefer that the 6 core stats of D&D were not moved into abstract territory like this, and that e.g. "tough" races simply had higher Con and "agile" races higher Dex than base for humans.

To put it another way, "humans get better numbers, non-humans get special effects" seems fine to me in general as way to represent the differences, but I'm not comfortable to extend that into the 6 stats. It doesn't pass the "smells like D&D" test for me, even if you can demonstrate that there's a logical precedent, and even if in playtesting it comes out as well-balanced or not an issue mechanically.

Slobo, I think you bring up an interesting point (I disagree to the extent I think the two paragraphs do follow each other logically), particularly in how you phrase that it doesn't "smell like D&D". I think I can see your point here. This is definitely doing things a bit differently than has been done in the past, and might make the attributes a bit too abstract.

Historically, the demihuman races have paid for their bonuses to a certain attribute with a penalty to another attribute. Every race was "equal", but they were equal by being better at some things and not as good at others. Humans were the baseline and got neither a bonus nor a penalty.

Would you be cool with bringing attribute penalties back? Perhaps even attempting to balance them better by aligning physical to physical, mental to mental? Like the dwarf could pay for his bonus to con with a penalty to dexterity? Or even, since a bonus in something you value is better than a penalty in something you don't, perhaps the penalty should be greater than the bonus?

I'm just brainstorming here.

I actually like their current method, because it fixes another metagame problem that has long made previous games (4e especially) not "smell like D&D". I like that people who have no desire to play a nonhuman race other than for the bonuses it provides have an incentive to play human instead. I've got a feeling that in 5e I won't sit down at a table with 6 people, all playing a menagerie of fantastical creatures they chose for no better reason than that creature synergized best with the class they wanted to play.