For those of you who like to play Humans, I was just wondering which is your preference. The standard version, with +1 to all six stats, or the variant with +1 to two stats of choice as well as a bonus feat and bonus proficiency?
For me, my personal preference is the variant, and I'm so glad that it made it into the book. :D It's also pretty neat how, depending on the Feat which you choose, you can essentially create a Human which is +2 to one stat and +1 to the other. For instance, I've been thinking of making a Human Paladin with Heavy Armor Master. So not only would he reduce all non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage by 3 when wearing heavy armor, but he'd also get +1 Str. So if I go +1 Str/+1 Cha, he'd actually end up being +2 Str/+1 Cha. That, IMO, is pretty neat.
So what's your preference?
Variant, no question.
I like a bit more flavour with my humans than just +1 across the board so the variant.
Lokiron wrote:
As DM? Both.
As player? Probably variant.
Lokiron wrote:
I can see very few situations where I would take the six +1s, and I think that attitude is pretty much going to be the norm. Its primarily there in case feats aren't allowed or a new player doesn't want to mess with choices (both valid reasons), but for an experienced player it is extremely rare for you not to come out ahead by using the variant version.
Dryads are Chaotic Good
If the DM allows them (and consequently feats) I simply see no reason why anyone would not pick the Varient Human over the standard human. I will go further. I will also so that in cases where the DM doesn't allow feats, I see no reason for anyone to pick the standard human. All other races will get at least +2 to an important stat and +1 to another stat that's important to you (and some get a bit more than this). Not only that but all other races have at least minor abilities that help you out.
So what does the human get? Outside of +1s to your two most important stats, not much. Once you get past your second (maybe third) stat, +1 to your bottom stats simply doesn't mean much. If you don't care about Int [for example] does it really matter if you have an 8 Int over a 9 Int?] I think not. As such I feel the bottom three or four +1s for human stats are nearly worthless. By contrast the feat and bonus proficiency you get in trade are extremely nice (esp the feat) particularly when you consider that this will be a feat that most other characters proabably won't get until about level 12 or so.
That being so, IMHO I'd have to say Varient Human or not be a human in 5e.
-Polaris
For my upcoming fighter character I am definitely going with the variant because I want that Shield Mastery feat, as it perfectly matches itself to the idea of the character that was in my head before I read that feat.
On the other hand, I have a wizard in mind that I would like to play that none of the feats are really jumping out at me for, so the default human is what I will go with for him.
In the future, I expect both myself and my players to be choosing on a character by character basis which human rules to use... on those rare times when humans are actually played (they are rare because I am the only person in the group that actually plays human characters more often than non-human characters).
I have two standard ones in play, and I like them.
Will depend a lot on what suits the character. In some instances, the feat is the go and in others the +1's are better.
For most of the human character concepts I have, however, the +1's suit better more often than not.
I'm kinda torn on the whole feat issue. I mean, weren't these feats supposedly designed around +2 to a stat? Apparently, the designers felt like it balanced out.
As I see it, though, Humans get very few useful features, compared to say Halflings, who reroll 1's, and High Elves who get cantrips and spells... Humans feel really flat if only allowed +1 to all their stats.
To think of it another way, Humans are trading +4 ability points for a feat, rather than the +2 to a single stat. Seems reasonable, and unique to me. Additionally, I think if _all_ characters were given a few feats over 20 levels, no one would bat an eye over humans getting and extra one.
It depends on the class but I've been playing a "Viking" 5th Valor Bard with Mobility and War Caster. Just amazing the things he's been doing since 1st Level with Mobility. His stats are a bit lower than the others (all non-Humans) but Mobility is a game changer. I can't wait until 6th Level when I get a bonus attack with when casting a spell.
So far the extra feat has been THE defining feature of my Valor Bard and it's going to stay that way. So are the two dump stats I needed to make it work 
Personally, I find that I prefer the "+1 to all six stats" version... 
Feat version. And no, I don't think it's a problem to let humans have feats three levels before everyone else, not when everyone else has useful features like darkvision and spells, and if you choose a race that is favored for your class an extra +1 to your primary stat.
malisteen wrote:
I expect that, in games that allow both, the variant will be more popular, but I'm doing two standard humans - a green knight who needed four good ability scores (wanted a stealth Paladin with a greatsword, so needed Str, Dex, Con, and Cha) and an abjurer who's just not starved for feats.
Honestly, rather than the variant being too good, if anything the default human is a bit lackluster. If I were running the game, I'd give that version the same bonus skill proficiency that the feat version gets.
malisteen wrote:
Standard for a Monk, variant for all other classes.
I'll use the human variant , i love it!!
Caliburn101. wrote:
Usually the variant, however there are a few cases where the +1x6 seems like a viable options. So it would depend on the character concept and 'spec.'
Lokiron wrote:
The Barbarian seems like a class which could use multiple good stats, given that you might want good Dex and Con to benefit from Unarmored Defense, along with good Str. So in that case, if you had the standard human, you could come up with an array like so...
STR 15, DEX 15, CON 15, INT 8, WIS 8, CHA 8
...and have stats which look like this.
STR 16, DEX 16, CON 16, INT 9, WIS 9, CHA 9
So that's one case where I might go with standard human over variant human.
EDIT: I may have to take that back. With the variant human I can get the following stats...
STR 16, DEX 16, CON 16, INT 8, WIS 8, CHA 8
...by taking any of the following feats, while getting the bonuses associated with them.
- Athlete
- Durable
- Resilient
- Tavern Brawler
GreenKnight wrote:
I was very surprised at the Human race when I read it. But at the same time I understand why; humans are not "special" by default.
In terms of balance, I think that +1s is theoretically (potentially) stronger than the variant, since it essentially gives +1/2 to all saving throws, +1/2 to all skill checks, +1/2 to all attack rolls no matter which type, +1/2 AC, so on. No feat ever comes close to giving such an advantage.
But on the second hand, this 1/2 bonus is just a potential, because you need the other half of a point to actually get an advantage.
In all the tests I made, the best I could get out of a level 20 normal human is +1 total modifiers better than then the level 20 variant one.. So basically you trade a +1 total modifier for a feat and a skill by taking the variant. The tradeoff is even worse when you compare to other races.
I'd easily argue that Darkvision alone (which 90% of the races have) is equivalent to a feat in "value" or efficiency.
So yeah, Humans underpowered in general. Both versions, but especially the normal version. After a few test games as a DM, I'll probably houserule that Humans have the +1s and a free skill prof.
GreenKnight wrote:
Lokiron wrote: