Seems like standard (non-variant) humans get little love as a race. Variant humans get front-loaded power by starting with a feat... what if I let standard humans increase their stats to 22 for some back-loaded power?
(I like that this change would follow in the footsteps of earlier editions, in which baseline humans had the highest level caps and the greatest power potential.)
I suppose this would have the most benefit for fighters and rouges, with their extra ASIs.
If I added this benefit to standard humans, I don't think I'd need to balance it out with a new weakness. First, standard humans are already weak. Second, the character doesn't get any new ASIs -- assuming an ASI is about equal to a feat, the benefit of this change would be modest, not huge.
Thoughts? With this mod, would you be tempted to play a standard human in some situations? Or are common feats more desirable than +6 ability modifiers?
My thoughts are that humans are meant to be "second best" at any particular endeavor, whether variant or otherwise.
The standard human ability modifiers, combined with the right score generation method, are already solidly in that spot - having them have a naturally higher maximum for ability scores is too likely to make them "best" at some, if not all, endeavors.
Example: if you are trying to pick a race to go with your debuff-focused spellcaster, your save DC becomes one of the most important characteristics of the character, and the inherent potential for a 1 higher save DC than another race outweighs most of the other races' features in usefulness to your character.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
intently wrote:
Since variant humans start with lower ability scores, they already can benefit more from ability score increases, so I don't see a need to increase the max.
Edit: Plus, does it even make sense to go for ability score increases on variant humans?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I would rather give every other race except humans that they can have 22 in their prime ability(one with +2 bonus). It's their thing after all.
But due to balance we have all capped at 20, I wouldn't mind it they were capped at 18. It would give more versatility to characters as the would only need to aim for 18 with feats in their primary stat.
on the human note, I would ban variant human. extra feat is too big in this edition. Either give all players extra feat at 1st level, so they feel special among their class, or give none.
I would give humans +1 to all stats and aditional +1 to lowest stat. so they can't be bad in anything. OK, if you leave 2 scores at 8 you would have 9 and a 10 but hey...and bonus skill training.
intently wrote:
supreme_slayer wrote:
What rocked me out of similar thinking was looking at the point-buy costs in 5e. They start escalating at 13, instead of at 14 (which was the norm in 3.5 and 4e).
A character with four 14s and two 12s would have been 32 point-buy ("high power"; 25 was "standard") in those editions, and they didn't have ability score maxima.
The same ability score array in 5e costs 36 points. Racial modifiers usually work out to +2 to one score and +1 to one other; with that in mind, this same six-14, two-12 character would be 31 points. This is very, very good, since the standard is 27.
However, a standard human can attain that same array for 26 points. They can get that score and still have a point left over to get one of those 12s to a 13.
Speaking mechanically, this matters most in two cases, both of them distinctively human - "MAD" classes like the paladin, monk, and ranger (which were often human-only in early editions, and were still frequently described as often human as recently as 3e), and multiclass characters (since you need 13s in multiple scores to consider multiclassing; humans are pretty much the simplest way to make sure that happens regardless of what potential multiclass options you want to consider. Recall that in previous editions, humans were unique in having dual classing.)
This comes with a race that isn't too far behind on the single-ability classes either. A gnome wizard's +2 Int means they start with a maximum of 17 (+3 modifier), and need two ability pumps (or rather, one and a half; either way that's level 8) to hit the cap of 20. A human wizard's +1 Int means they start with a maximum of 16 (+3 modifier), and need two ability pumps (level 8) to hit the cap of 20. I'm seeing a pattern here.
And in either case, +1 to six separate stats means that it's pretty easy to make sure you don't have a poor saving throw, meaning that - again, in a distinctively human manner - you're quite capable of rising to the occasion when that occasion calls for a hero.
The standard human isn't bad by a longshot. It's just boring, and you don't notice its advantages as obviously unless you enforce point-buy. I would have preferred if they had a small ribbon ability of their own, too (no more than, say, one bonus skill, and probably less than that unless you're using the half-elf as your racial balance point), but I have to admit they work quite well for what they do as written. It just wasn't immediately obvious from looking directly at the race.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
intently wrote:
intently wrote:
The main issue is that an extra feat is typically more useful than +1 to your 4 least valuable stats. There is basically no character that cannot make use of a feat during their career, so the feat effectively translates to +2 to a stat.
So the variant human ends up with +3/+1 and a skill.
I think the popularity of variant humans would be significantly less if there was a rule in place giving every character a feat for free some point prior to 4th level.
Saeviomagy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
intently wrote:
intently wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
There is only one problem for standard humans: The stat array does not favour them. There is a similar problem for mountain dwarves, but less so.
The stat array gives 72 points, 4d6 drop lowest gives 73.5 or so. If the default array was: 9,11,12,13,14,15, the standard human would make use of +1 to every stat, even though 2 low stats are boosted. It at least gives some bettr saving throws. Even chose 9,10,12,13,14,15 or 8,11,12,13,14,15 would highlight his +1 to every stat ability.
Admitted +1 to every stat helps with multiclassing and the stat increase at level 12 can be used to increase to lower stats at once. But I believe there should be some earlier reward for sticking with default.
If you use point buy or roll stats default human can already be quite potent. it is only diminished slightly by the fact, that the variant human can also get +1 to three scores of his choice. Possibly making all its stats even.
So no, allowing the default human to get up to 22 seems a bad Idea as it is contrary to his actual strength: Getting higher low stats after maximum on main stat is reached.
They're pretty great with point buys, especially if there's no race whose features happen to really stand out for your concept. I find they're especially good for spellcasters, who don't tend to need a lot of feats and often care less about random racial goodies that they can replicate with spells when needed (darkvision, invisibility, protection vs etc). Wizards, Sorcerers and Land Druids are all also going to appreciate being able to get good Con an Dex on top of their casting score AND avoid dumping their non-casting mental stats. Clerics are in the same boat just exchange Dex for Str. Then you have MAD stuff like Paladins, Monks, Valor Bards, Bladelocks, etc, all of whom will appreciate getting several high scores without a ton of dump stats. And then finally there's always the situation where you want a character who is a little more well-rounded for RP - the fighter or rogue who wants int/wis/cha without giving up str/dex and con.
So maybe I was wrong and people don't generally find standard humans to be weak 
They're still boring though, at least acknowledge that!
intently wrote:
intently wrote:
Partial victory!