Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 akaddk Jul 13, 2014 21:16:24	There seems to be a popular consensus that the variant human is by far the most appealing and powerful option and that the default version is underwhelming and underpowered. I'm curious to hear from both sides of this argument.
#2 Zardnaar Jul 13, 2014 21:39:41	Most classes only need 1-2 good scores so the bottom 2-4 scores do not matter than much. So the bonus feat is going to be by default almost better and it seems to be the only way to get a feat at level 1 full stop.
#3 akaddk Jul 13, 2014 21:51:00	Zardnaar wrote:
#4 Polaris Jul 13, 2014 21:52:31	akaddk wrote:
#5 Polaris Jul 13, 2014 21:54:08	akaddk wrote:
#6 MechaPilot Jul 13, 2014 21:55:54	akaddk wrote:
#7 bawylie Jul 13, 2014 22:01:06	I'm cool with the standard human. Especially if I've rolled a lot of odd numbers.    Even so, imagine a dude with +2s across the board at level one. No great strengths. No big weaknesses. You might focus on simply keeping the bonuses in line, growing them all to +3s.    I rather like it.
#8 Saelorn Jul 13, 2014 22:24:29	At the very least, this further encourages me to not use the option rules for feats.
#9 Lawolf Jul 13, 2014 22:28:26	I rolled a 9, 10, 10, 6, 13, 11 this weekend. I made a human fighter. The +1s to 4 of my attributes didn't matter as I only cares about 2 scores (14 Strength and 12 Charisma). So +1 to every score really wasn't all that great.    A feat might be good, but most PCs will want an ability boost over their career at some point anyway. Compared to a race with a +2 and good racial bonuses, a feat is still quite poor. Both versions of humans seem quite weak to me.
#10 RKVM Jul 13, 2014 22:32:49	My Human Cleric stat line at level 1 is 15 STR / 14 CON / 14 DEX / 9 INT / 14 WIS / 10 CHA using 27 Point Buy and the Variant stat bonus. Taking Toughness for the feat, I have 12 HP at level 1 and can wear Full Plate without speed penalty. At 4th I'll take +1 STR and INT to round out a +3 STR mod and a 0 INT. With +2 in the three important saves (with Proficiency in WIS saves) and near equal capacity in melee and at range, I have a very well rounded character. I love it! :D
#11 emwasick Jul 13, 2014 22:59:38	akaddk wrote:
#12 Hebitsuikaza Jul 13, 2014 23:13:35	You know, it is too bad point buy isn't the standard way of setting attribute scores.   Because otherwise humans could simply get +2 point buy points towards each attribute. Their lowest stats would be raised by 2 points but their highest stats might not even be raised by 1 point if it is already phenominally high.   But I would similarly change the other races from getting a +2 in one stat and a +1 in another to getting +4 points in their main stat and +2 in another based on subrace.
#13 Lord_Kyrion Jul 14, 2014 0:03:36	The variant human was something I asked for in every survey and talked about a lot on the forums, I always hated the +1 to everything human. A feat and bonus skill is so much more interesting, and while a +1 to all stats isn't bad, it means either a +0 or +1 to all checks across the board depending on if it was odd or even, while the bonus skill guarantees +6 to a particular skill over time, which I think is a better investment. I think this is a better representation of humans' versatility than just making them superior to other races in four of their stats. The flavor text talks a lot about how humans accomplish so much in their short lifetimes compared to other races, and having already gained a feat by the end of their basic training while everyone else takes until level 4 fits right in with that notion. I'm very satisfied with the variant human. But I may allow players to choose which one they prefer.
#14 Zardnaar Jul 14, 2014 2:44:34	akaddk wrote:
#15 seti Jul 14, 2014 3:25:27	I think the variant human is OP, considering what we've seen in the playtest about feats. Although it is possible they've toned feats down a bit, and/or made the truly awesome feats have prereq's that a level one PC will not likely meet.   +1 to all is also silly, as it really means all the other races are -1 to four.   So...Yeah, I don't know how to fix it, though. Human race crunch is tricky as hell, IMO. Especially since we don't have either the PHB or DMG to look at.   PS: Slightly off topic, but I also believe that the half-elf and half-orc (and straight human, of course) should be human sub-races.
#16 Zardnaar Jul 14, 2014 3:45:14	seti wrote:
#17 Shiroiken Jul 14, 2014 13:35:37	I dislike the base Human because it changes the way people make characters. If you use Point Buy, the base Human is really strong, because you can set all your Ability Scores to be odd, which then become even, gaining optimal advantage on all checks and saves. If you use Array, the Base Human is really weak, because it has only 2 odd Ability Scores, so you only really get benefit from two +1. If you Roll, then you choose the base Human only if you have 4 or more odd Ability Scores, and then it becomes a no brainer (I detest the idea that one's rolls should determine one's race). I plan on only allowing the variant Human in my 5E game.   EDIT: changed bolded text
#18 Eric888 Jul 14, 2014 4:05:33	Polaris wrote:
#19 strider13x Jul 14, 2014 4:29:06	Wow. They give you options and you still complain...   And how can you say "popular consensus" when feats haven't even been introduced yet? And what if feats are not an option? I can't see the forest because all these stupid trees are in the way...   And "its the same as giving -1 to the other races", WHAT? So because Dwarves have +2 CON Humans are really -1 CON? And Elves have -2! I thought gaming nerds were smart...
#20 akaddk Jul 14, 2014 5:01:33	strider13x wrote:
#21 Emerikol. Jul 14, 2014 5:07:19	Just because some people on these boards have really radical ideas about D&D shouldn't mean we define them as variant humans.....   oh wait what is this thread about?       bawylie wrote:
#22 strider13x Jul 14, 2014 5:53:17	akaddk wrote:
#23 akaddk Jul 14, 2014 6:09:43	strider13x wrote:
#24 AquaticSpaceChicken Jul 14, 2014 6:14:29	I think the variant is a bit better than the lackluster and lacking standard human-- but maybe not by much. It all depends. Getting a feat t first level will be really cool, but if one ever wants to raise ability scores rather than acquire another feat, that extra feat essentially doesn't exist anymore. What the human has acquired for a racial power at that point is the ability to take that starting +1, +1 in secondary stats and place them in primary stats or stat instead. Apparently skills can be bought and learned, too, so as time passes the trade of the tertiary stat increases for a skill basically morphs into a bit of extra gold.   So, I'd compare it like this over the long run, if one assumes both feats and stat increases are likely:   Non-Human: +2. +1, and at least one good special abilty (Darkvision, or Lucky, etc), a few extras perks. Human: +3, +1, some extra gold   If one only ever expects to take more feats and no stat increases, I think the variant human might be okay.
#25 Rastapopoulos Jul 14, 2014 6:39:52	Here's an alternative:   Humans Ability Scores:  +1 to two abilities. Adaptability:  Humans learn and adapt fast to the world around them. +10% XP gained.
#26 1eejit Jul 14, 2014 6:49:29	I've been told that some feats in the PHB include a +1 to a stat. If true then variant human is almost certainly stronger, as you can get +2/+1 as well as the rest of the feat benefit, plus an additional skill.
#27 eleran Jul 14, 2014 6:55:58	I am thinking of using the 2 variant humans as subraces.  The standard human we have seen will be the common men of the world, while the variant human will be the High Men, much like the Dunedain vs the common men in Middle Earth.
#28 Person_Man Jul 14, 2014 7:25:33	Attributes in 5E are not all equally useful.  Not even close.  90%ish+ of the rolls effecting your character in a typical campaign are going to be:   1) Rolls you make determined by your primary attribute.  (Dex or Int for Fighters, Dex for Rogues, Int for Wizards, Wisdom for Clerics, etc).    2) Rolls made against you that deal damage (that target your hit points, 40%ish of which are determined by your Constitution) or that target your Con Save.   3) Rolls modified by your Dexterity or made against your Dexterity; your Dex Save, Initiative, Acrobatics (both for it's normal use and vs Athletics for Shove or Grapple), and maybe your AC (if wearing light or medium armor), Stealth, Pick Locks, etc.    Thus if you have a high primary attribute, high Con, and high Dex, then you're statistically likely to do well in the vast majority of the game.  On the flip side, having an extra +1 bonus from an attribute you use maybe once a game is unlikely to be as useful as a Feat you use in every combat.    Also, odd attributes (11, 13, 15, 17) are literally completely useless.  So the +1 bonus that a human gains to a previously even attribute is entirely wasted (which matters if you're determining your attributes randomly or with a standard array).    The "+1 to everything" human is a trap option which someone included because they thought it was clever and they didn't think through the actual math of their design decisions.
#29 strider13x Jul 14, 2014 7:41:51	akaddk wrote:
#30 SwampDog Jul 14, 2014 7:49:17	Odd numbered attributes are not completely useless.  They factor in in several places; equipment minimums, spell DCs, etc.   My two groups of players unanimously voted to go with +1 to 2 skills instead of +1 to all.   I am certainly looking forward to the release of PHB so that we can finally create a full character.
#31 Karnos Jul 14, 2014 8:13:01	I think both have a place.  Standard humans may be perfect for certain multi-class combinations that need a wide variety of ability scores, or hybrid classes that want to be good at many different skills.  Variant humans seem nice, but I don't think they will be overpowering compared to other options.  Lack of darkvision alone is a huge drawback.