I am not convinced that humans are balanced properly against the non-human races. By balanced I mean that a human should be as good at a class as the non-human race(s) best suited for it. Not better, just not inferior. I feel that the 6 x +1 ability scores don't really cut the mustard, as the lack of a +2 means that they fall slightly short of the non-human. A non-human with 17 who gets to 4th level can take a feat that also gives him a +1 in his 17, which gets to 18 and that important ability bonus of +4, as well as having a feat. The human to get the +4 ability modfifeir needs to forgo a feat entirely at 4th to take the +2. While not a huge thing, it doesn't feel well enough balanced to me (other may, and will, disagree naturally).
The variant human in the PHB I think is a recognition of this, and tries to amend it by giving a feat at 1st level etc. However, I feel a feat at first level is very overpowered, as some feats are very powerful at low level e.g. Heavy Armour Mastery, Great weapon master etc. In addition, many feats also give a +1 to an ability, meaning the human can get the +2 ability as well as the feat. So, i don't feel this is really balanced either.
Trying to roughly re-engineer how they worked out the races, and basing it off the fact that when a class gives an ability score improvement it equates a +2 in an ability as equal to a feat, and the same with a two +1s being equivalent to a feat. So, for my re-engineering purposes, a +2 has a cost of 1 feat, as does two +1.
If you look at the basic human, they get 6 x +1, so the equivalent feat cost of 3 feats. This is then my baseline for looking at the races. If you look at variant humans they get 2x+1 (cost 1 feat) / One skill proficiency and 1 feat. I think it safe to assume that having another skill having proficiency is not worth a feat, so they are valuing a feat at 1st level as costing more than 1 feat (2 feats in this case). So, for my purposes of re-engineering, the feat at 1st level and the skill proficiency combined cost 2 feats. While this does seem to recognise that a feat at first level is worth more than a feat at 4th, I still think this does not go far enough and it is still too problematic to allow 1st level characters to have them. This is just my view, but it is why I think a feat at first is not the best way of having a human variant.
Now looking at non-humans and looking for this 3 cost feat set-up, we find they do seem to fit into it:
The non-humans with subraces all have:
1) +2 in one ability - costs 1 feat
2) Racial Powers - for argument sake, 1 feat cost
3) a +1 and subrace powers - f1 feat cost.
For a total cost of 3 feats.
e.g.
Hill Dwarf: +2 (Cost 1 feat) / Race Powers - darkvision, resiliance, Combat Training, tool proficiency and stonecutting (cost: 1 feat) / Subrace Power coupled with +1 Ability (cost:1 feat).
Elf: +2 (cost:1 feat) / Race Power - darkvision, keen senses, fey ancestry and trance (Cost:1 feat) / Subrace Power coupled with a +1 (Cost: 1 feat).
Mountain dwarves are an exception, as they get 2x +2, but their subrace power seem to be weaker than the other subraces, so maybe they think a +2 ability and light and medium armour proficiency is still only worth one feat in race terms.
For those non-humans who don't have subraces (Dragonborn, Half-orcs and Tieflings) things are slightly different, as they don't have subrace powers. However, their main race powers are good, so I presume they think that counts as costing 1 1/2 feats. So these non-humans have:
1) +2 one ability - cost 1 feat
2) +1 one ability - cost 1/2 feat
3) Race Powers - cost 1 1/2 feats.
The half-elf again is slightly different - it gets 1x+2 (cost 1 feat), 2 x +1 (cost 1 feat) and then darkvision, fey ancestry and skill versatility (cost 1 feat)
So, using this analysis, I think that perhaps a better human variant might be:
HUMAN VARIANT
1) +2 in one stat (cost 1 feat) - the current human variant does allow a human to start with a 17 if they take a feat that gives them another +1, so this does not seem to break any rule the game makers had. In addition, i think a human being able to get to 17 is what enables it to compete with a non-human on equal footing in a class.
2) +1 in two stats (feat 2)
3) +1 in one stat and a Cultural Package. A Cultural Package consists of gaining 2 skills proficiencies or 2 weapon proficiencies, or one of each combination (a form of the half-elf skill versatility). For DMs who have worked out different human cultures in depth for their campaigns (like the old Moongoose Conan game had) then these skills/weapon proficiencies would be based around those. If you think the Cultural Package is equivalent to costing 1 whole feat (i.e. is equivalent to racial powers) then you could get rid of the +1. However, I don't think this cultural package would be.
I realize there are a raft of assumptions here, but it does sort of make sense and does give a framework for analyising the races against one another.
The other thing I have been toying with is having non-humans limited to using the set ability array, but allowing humans to use the point buy system. Not really sure about this, but it does make humans more versatile.
Your math is way, way off.
Even the most cursory of actual consideration of the powers of the Dwarf and Elf would indicate to you that the powers of the subraces are considerably more powerful than the powers on the main race.
Granting access to martial weapons doesn't mean much at all to most classes because either the classes already have access to them, they have abilities more powerful than martial weapons (i.e Cantrips) or, at the very best, maybe it gives you a +1 damage for the one attack you get a round.
On the other hand, granting +1 hit point per a level or free access to better armor? Or a free cantrip? Those are HUGE boons.
Granted, with the Halfling race it is reversed. The main Halfling race has a crazy good ability, and only one to be sure... while the subraces get sort of "so-so" abilities.
So you have to consider what the race gets as a whole and not treat subrace powers as if they were inferior to main race powers.
Humans are great for any multi-class, Starting with alot of 14's, or simply getting a 13 to qualify.
Varient humans have less total benifits then other races. But, it lets you choose the feat(ure) you need and will use. Which usuaully ends up better.
Either way, they have their place.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
mellored wrote:
A +1 to every stat is nowhere near as powerful as three +2s to stats of your choice.
Its not the total, its the ability to configure.
Iorwerth wrote:
Or to put it another way...
Humans have +1 Str over some dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and tieflings. (4.5 races)
Humans have -1 Str over halforcs, dragonborn, and some dwarves. (2.5 races)
Non-human racials are dramatically less powerful than feats.
A better way to look at the math is: all classes get +1 to two stats. Non-humans get +1 more to a stat, and some number of racials. Humans get either a skill and a feat, or +1 to the other 4 stats (which is far less powerful than 2 feats since you have no control over where those stats go. If you use point buy, they are raising a lot of 8s to 9s.)
So the math is this: Are nonhuman racials equal in power to half a feat and a free skill. By comparison you can look at the feats that grant +1 to one stat and a benefit as a measuring rod. For simplicity I am eliminating all the fluff racials that will never be useful to anyone ever (e.g. elven weapon proficiency, trance, etc.).
Parent Dwarf: Darkvison and poison resistance. Situational but useful. Skills are also situational but useful, so its close here.
Hill Dwarf: Half of the toughness feat. Seems fine.
Mountain Dwarf: +1 strength. Worth exactly half a feat. Armor Proficiency is entirely fluff on anyone who gets use out of the +2 strength. If someone actually would benefit from the armor (like a wizard) than +2 strength is totally useless, so it worth half of the light armor feat and half of medium armor feat. Again, this is completely balanced.
High Elf: They get a bonus skill that everyone should want, so thats a wash. Otherwise a cantrip, a bonus language, charm resistance, and darkvision. Is all that worth half a feat? Probably not, but close enough.
Wood Elf: Again, perception = bonus skill. Darkvision, charm resistance, and 1/3 of the mobile feat. Seems fine.
Half Elf: +1 to another stat that is probably still going to be useful. 2 skill proficiencies, darkvision, and charm resistance. Okay, maybe slightly too good.
I could keep going but I think it is clear that the races are very well balanced. They might be a little better than humans, but the racials all come as a package deal, and humans get their choice of any feat they want; which will only grow in power as future feats come out. The only mistake in my opinion is that the human skill proficiency should be given to both variants instead of only the feat one.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Eric888 wrote:
Also, you say that all racial abilities are less powerful than feats, but I think being able to see in the dark is as powerful as many of the feats.
Iorwerth wrote:
mellored wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
mellored wrote:
I think that humans should not be as good in a class as the race which is designed for that class. The whole point is that human is second best choice for all classes. If i understand you well,you want human to be equally good fighter as half orc,equally good wizard as gnome etc. Let me spin your words a little,if humans are as good in any class as the class's paragon race,why chose any other race over human? Fluff doesn't count. I like human as is,he is like vanilla,good old plain taste you can pick and never be wrong. You cant fail if you take human. Any class you play,you will be slightly behind someone of same classes paragon race,but you will be still better then those that aren't human or prime race for certain class. For me,that is enough of balance.
Iorwerth wrote:
Iorwerth, are you running on the basis that everyone will be minmaxing their class/race combinations? That all Fighters will be Half-orcs or Dwarves. All Wizards will be Gnomes etc?
Why do you believe that humans should be able to match every race in the classes that that particular race is best suited for? I can understand if you want to specifically encourage/promote humans in the player party.
There are races that are not as well-suited to some classes as other races. All races in fact. Why does it bother you that humans are amongst them?
Haytam wrote:
Humans have versatility. That's their benefit. They shouldn't be the as good as the best in every class. Why should they? If you take, for example, that the Half-Orc makes the best Barbarian, the Gnome makes the best Wizard, and the Halfling makes the best Rogue, why should Humans be able to equal all of them in this?
Human versatility gives the opposrtunity to be the second best at something, but still good at other things. They more easily multiclass and can afford to pick up feats with stat pre-reqs that may not match a typical class layout.
Versatility is a very solid benefit, especially in well rounded games.
Iorwerth wrote:
This seems to just massively over power the human
right now any race can be okay in any class, but have some classes they are very good at being.
Himans have no no classes that they are just "okay" in being while also having no classes they are "very good" at being. Humans are simply good at every class, not very good but not just okay. And that's part of their advantage. Making them very good with any class combo would be over powering
At most, I'd say house rule it that a variant human can put both +1s to the same stat (but if they do that they can't use a feat that gives a plus to that stat at 1st level)
giving humans two +1s AND a +2, all customizable to their choice, AND a feat doesn't balance them...it makes them a no brainier mechanically due to how unbalanced it is
Humans are best at multiclassing.
Jell_Moo wrote:
A futher point - I am not replacing the standard human, just coming up with another variant that could be used instead of the variant in the PHB. All this talk about how versatile etc the standard human is and how it is great for multi-classing and excells at beinging 2nd best choice in all classes etc, is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't really concern my proposed variant. My variant is not aimed at getting rid of the standard human, just offering a different variant to that in the PHB.
My variant has two goals:
1. To be less powerful than the official one, by removing the access to a feat at 1st level, which I think is overpowered.
2. To allow humans to get a +2 in one stat, and a +1 in one or more stats. This is possible with the variant in the PHB, depending on what feat is taken, so even the PHB does not thaink a human with +2 and +1 is too powerful.
So, given the above, it seems fair enough to give a human a +2 and a +1. However, if it was left at that, humans would be very underpowered as a race, as they have nothing equivalent to all the racial and subracial powers that non-humans get. That is why i opted to give humans another two +1's and a cultural package. It is this part I am less sure on. Would it be better to give them only one more +1and a cultural package, or keep with two +1's but get rid of the culutral package, or keep two +1's but changhe Cultural package so it is one skill/weapon (not armour) proficiency, rather than two?
Iorwerth wrote:
I appreciate all of you trying to convince me to accept the options in the PHB. However, what would be useful for me would be some feedback on whether my variant is overpowered/underpowered, and if so, why.
Interesting idea to make Heavy armour master give +1 AC by the way 
Jell_Moo wrote:
I think that the real problem is that dwarves are over powered out side of thare prime classes. Gish, mountain Dwarves don't need to multyclass or spend feats. With the right choices you can almost sub as a fighter/MU/theif .Can't do it with any other race.barbarin/cleric /Druid /fighter/paladin/str ranger are all good choices, MU/sorcers/warlock all benift from good armor/ good Con good dump stat of str and battle axe in a pinch 1D8+2 + str. Rogue and bard are the poreest choices but still benefit from a dwaren heritage. Shoot I want play a half Orc wizard and keep thinking i would be better off just re fluffing a mountain dwarf. The slandered human can't-compete with that, the verent can come closes only because of the feat and then only if both the dwarf and the human play the class straight. What happens if you don't use feats, multyclass and point buy? I'll bet that it works out a bit more balanced at lest at low levels.
Hebitsuikaza wrote: