Humans are too weak compared to other races

First of all, we play with D&D Beyond, and I have a Master Tier Subscription and all content unlocked. So they have access to everything that is offered.

No one plays a Champion fighter.


But it's mainly because in a fantasy world, humans are actually more interesting and unique.

They are mostly experienced role-players (with a few exceptions) and they are just as tired as I am of seeing yet another Elven Archer, another Half-Orc barbarian, another Halfling Rogue or yet the 999th Drow dual-wielding scimitar using Ranger.

Humans are diverse, their basic stat score plus allows for that, and it's more exciting to realize that the Bard you have been traveling with for six levels is actually a Warlock with the Entertainer background than it is to see the Tiefling Warlock cast Eldritch Blast. Again.

Not that there's anything wrong with playing one of the other races. It's just not a detriment to play a human as everyone seems to be making it out to be.


Humans are fine as is.

I usually agree with your posts around here, but you're making an argument using false equivalence. The discussion isn't about the roleplay abilities of your table, or of base humans. If everyone is cool over there playing the exact same race with different classes, then kudos to you guys, but the discussion is about how mechanically inferior base humans are when compared to other races. There's simply no compelling argument to the contrary. Variant Human stands on its own because having a feat at level 1 is exceptionally powerful.

The only time playing a base human could be even remotely useful is if you roll stats and get 3 or 4 odd numbered stats and need to increase them for the modifier. And even then, half elf may just be an even better choice. 

I have browsed forums like enworld and gitpg for years now and have run into 0 class / build guides recommending base human for anything. It just doesn't happen.

That's fine you don't agree. We don't have to agree on everything to still love Solasta and be respectful of other's opinions.

We don't use Rolled stats at my table. We use standard array or point buy because most of the games are AL legal so we have to.

I've never heard anyone complain about the base human in 5e as much as the players for Solasta. Which is fine to. I just happen to disagree with people saying they are weak when they are not.

That's all. 

That's fine you don't agree. We don't have to agree on everything to still love Solasta and be respectful of other's opinions.

We don't use Rolled stats at my table. We use standard array or point buy because most of the games are AL legal so we have to.

I've never heard anyone complain about the base human in 5e as much as the players for Solasta. Which is fine to. I just happen to disagree with people saying they are weak when they are not.

That's all. 

Hear, hear. *Tips hat* 

That's fine you don't agree. We don't have to agree on everything to still love Solasta and be respectful of other's opinions.

We don't use Rolled stats at my table. We use standard array or point buy because most of the games are AL legal so we have to.

I've never heard anyone complain about the base human in 5e as much as the players for Solasta. Which is fine to. I just happen to disagree with people saying they are weak when they are not.

That's all. 

Hear, hear. *Tips hat* 

Thanks. I understand from a videogaming min-max "munchkin" perspective they look weaker than the other races. My argument is that is fallacy and not anywhere close to true.

There's a lot more options in tabletop, I get that, and at the moment Sylvan elves are a statistically better choice than human in Solasta. That's fine. But I like a challenge.

But from a tabletop perspective, my lone human could take out an entire party of Solasta characters and everything we face in the EA without breaking stride. No matter their race or class. So my argument is from a tabletop perspective, not a videogame min-maxer perspective.

That being said, I will acquiesce and let the discussion continue without my interference. :)

I'm glad to have you all in our shared love of Solasta, though. 

This thread, and board in general is what a gaming board should be, civil discussions and exchanges of points of view, it is great reading.

the_glimpse, do not leave, I for one have enjoyed your posts and think that they have relevance and bring things to the discussion.

I think that the contention can be summarised in the three points below?:

1) Default humans are mechanically weaker than the other races.

2) Point 1 is material enough that there is no reason to play default humans.

3) Due to points 1 and 2 default humans are not played.

For me, point one is only compelling if points 2 and 3 are true.

The only data on this that I have seen is that which I have posted earlier in this thread and that appears to contradict points 2 and 3.

I have seen much "everyone I know" and "everyone I have spoken too" and "everywhere I have seen",  noted in this thread, but I do not think I am being rude or horrible if I say that when confronted by those arguments made against their points, the most excellent posters in this thread would, rightly in my opinion, give that argument the full Spanish war galleon broadside.

I would be most interested to read any data, validating points 2 and 3.

(maybe I just got the whole things wrong, in which case, apologies and please point me to he post showing this and i will reread it)

Cheers

It seems the most likely scenario, and one shared by commenters in the enworld thread you posted earlier, that the more dedicated players that usually frequent forums and the like for optimization purposes are not representative of the 5e player demographic as a whole, or they represent the hardcore minority. This is their best selling edition ever after all, so the massive amount of new people just now getting into their products are expected to make unoptimized decisions. 

Either way, player preference does not inherently reflect "good", "better' or "viable" and neither does it necessarily represent "bad", "unusable" or "irrelevant", especially because that large player data pool is not filtered by player experience. It's a numbers game, and in my humble opinion, the default human loses each time. 

It'd be interesting to see data evolution for players that may have started with default humans and have moved on to much better options. 

It seems the most likely scenario, and one shared by commenters in the enworld thread you posted earlier, that the more dedicated players that usually frequent forums and the like for optimization purposes are not representative of the 5e player demographic as a whole, or they represent the hardcore minority. 

Either way, player preference does not inherently reflect "good", "better' or "viable" and neither does it necessarily represent "bad", "unusable" or "irrelevant", especially because that large player data pool is not filtered by player experience. It's a numbers game, and in my humble opinion, the default human loses each time.

It'd be interesting to see data evolution for players that may have started with default humans and have moved on to much better options. 

Good post, as always, is it just me, or does the highlighted section of your post (and most of your post actually) go along way to showing that there is no real cost benefit to homebrewing a variant human that will not attract any "imperial entanglements"?

Also, the contention that "the players who pick humans are new/uninformed/in a rush/inexperienced" made (I think by you above) and others is not valid, in my opinion, as is assumes player intent.

We cannot know why they chose what they chose only that they chose it.

Also, unless I totally misread the whole thread, it has all been about the mechanical disadvantage being so great that it materially effects player choice. This just does not seem supported.

Cheers

Wow, you used a half-elven Paladin and a wood elf ranger?
So humans must be as good as the CHA race in a CHA class and as good as a dex race in a dex class, I would say wood elf ranger is almost iconic. Sad for them that even in their "preferred class" they are not allowed to be the best.

Well I played half-elf paladin created by rolling dices like in old times, so my final numbers were as follows:

Str 18, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 20 

Tacking into account race bonuses this paladin feels much stronger compared to human variant, in particular in combats.

P.S: In my part the only human is Cleric. She is good in buffing and healing and in perception due to the domain.

This thread, and board in general is what a gaming board should be, civil discussions and exchanges of points of view, it is great reading.

the_glimpse, do not leave, I for one have enjoyed your posts and think that they have relevance and bring things to the discussion.

I think that the contention can be summarised in the three points below?:

1) Default humans are mechanically weaker than the other races.

2) Point 1 is material enough that there is no reason to play default humans.

3) Due to points 1 and 2 default humans are not played.

For me, point one is only compelling if points 2 and 3 are true.

The only data on this that I have seen is that which I have posted earlier in this thread and that appears to contradict points 2 and 3.

I have seen much "everyone I know" and "everyone I have spoken too" and "everywhere I have seen",  noted in this thread, but I do not think I am being rude or horrible if I say that when confronted by those arguments made against their points, the most excellent posters in this thread would, rightly in my opinion, give that argument the full Spanish war galleon broadside.

I would be most interested to read any data, validating points 2 and 3.

(maybe I just got the whole things wrong, in which case, apologies and please point me to he post showing this and i will reread it)

Cheers

I'm not leaving, I'm just not going to argue the point any more because I'm in the minority and no one is going to change their minds easily in any way. :)

My character in the one campaign I'm playing at the moment (tabletop) happens to be a bog-standard human and is one of the best characters I have ever played. More than capable in physical confrontation, social interaction and mental tasks. And nightvision cause Gloomstalker.

Before this campaign I played a Warforged Paladin.

My next two characters are a Half-Orc Barbarian who thinks he's a bard, and an actual Goblin bard archaeologist.

I've played a lot of characters of every class, race and ancestry and background over the years in D&D, and I enjoy them all. I just don't think humans are as weak as the powergamers make them out to be.

I'm not leaving, I'm just not going to argue the point any more because I'm in the minority and no one is going to change their minds easily in any way. :)


I've played a lot of characters of every class, race and ancestry and background over the years in D&D, and I enjoy them all. I just don't think humans are as weak as the powergamers make them out to be.

Good, that you are not going anywhere. :)

All my virtual ink, I think shows that while you, and I, may be in the minority on this topic, in this thread, we seem in the majority of players. ;D

Cheers

I recall reading a post on this forum a couple weeks ago where someone made a suggestion for a Homebrew human which could specialize in different areas. It offered benefits to different playstyles which other races couldn't get. That made Humans more interesting mechanically without being overpowered.

 I can't seem able to find that topic now, I'm getting a 403 Forbidden error, but I think that idea has a lot of merit.

Good post, as always, is it just me, or does the highlighted section of your post (and most of your post actually) go along way to showing that there is no real cost benefit to homebrewing a variant human that will not attract any "imperial entanglements"?

That is assuming optimizers don't wish to play them. I very much enjoy my Variant Human builds. Starting with an extra feat does so much for the comically deadly early levels of the game, as well as set part of the character's personality (not all feats, after all, are combat-centric).

Sure, I'll play the game anyways, but going along with the data, it seems most people prefer playing human at some point, and not having an appealing human option to those that spend time researching and wanting to start off with a strong build will be left having to choose something else. 

Also, the contention that "the players who pick humans are new/uninformed/in a rush/inexperienced" made (I think by you above) and others is not valid, in my opinion, as is assumes player intent.

It does indeed assume intent. But again, I have not yet seen the more experienced players, those who make guides, discuss powerful builds, combinations, tricks, etc. ever give default human anything above a very low, or low rating. In spite of data saying users are building their characters with humans, it does not mean they are a good race. If this community ever had "experts", besides WoTC staff, it'd be them. 

This leads me to believe that players playing default humans are:

1. Roleplaying

2. New or inexperienced

3. Rolled stats and got 3 or 4 odd numbered rolls.

But i raise you a question: Since this data does not indeed infer intent on the part of those playing the race, why would the opposite be true? I mean your point of view is totally valid, but I don't see why not allowing some of us the possibility of playing a human by creating a simple homebrew (like the one I've suggested in my Suggestion thread, which does not look like the variant human from the PHB, but is strong regardless). As it stands, I will never pick a human for any of my games, which is a shame because I like playing the race. Unless, that is, I'm looking for a challenge, and run a full party of humans to deal with awkward stats (I play with Default Array) and lighting issues.

Also, unless I totally misread the whole thread, it has all been about the mechanical disadvantage being so great that it materially effects player choice. This just does not seem supported.

You're probably right here, and to be fair, this conversation has been eye opening. Of course DnD beyond is just 1 data point entry, and that's assuming those created characters were played at all. The fact is, if I understood it correctly, that they were just created character sheets.

But as I am an old man shaking my fist at the facts cloud, I just don't think most people who are not engaging in the 3 reasons I stated above play default human at all.

Good post, as always, is it just me, or does the highlighted section of your post (and most of your post actually) go along way to showing that there is no real cost benefit to homebrewing a variant human that will not attract any "imperial entanglements"?

That is assuming optimizers don't wish to play them. I very much enjoy my Variant Human builds. Starting with an extra feat does so much for the comically deadly early levels of the game, as well as set part of the character's personality (not all feats, after all, are combat-centric).

Sure, I'll play the game anyways, but going along with the data, it seems most people prefer playing human at some point, and not having an appealing human option to those that spend time researching and wanting to start off with a strong build will be left having to choose something else. 

Also, the contention that "the players who pick humans are new/uninformed/in a rush/inexperienced" made (I think by you above) and others is not valid, in my opinion, as is assumes player intent.

It does indeed assume intent. But again, I have not yet seen the more experienced players, those who make guides, discuss powerful builds, combinations, tricks, etc. ever give default human anything above a very low, or low rating. In spite of data saying users are building their characters with humans, it does not mean they are a good race. If this community ever had "experts", besides WoTC staff, it'd be them. 

This leads me to believe that players playing default humans are:

1. Roleplaying

2. New or inexperienced

3. Rolled stats and got 3 or 4 odd numbered rolls.

But i raise you a question: Since this data does not indeed infer intent on the part of those playing the race, why would the opposite be true? I mean your point of view is totally valid, but I don't see why not allowing some of us the possibility of playing a human by creating a simple homebrew (like the one I've suggested in my Suggestion thread, which does not look like the variant human from the PHB, but is strong regardless). As it stands, I will never pick a human for any of my games, which is a shame because I like playing the race. Unless, that is, I'm looking for a challenge, and run a full party of humans to deal with awkward stats (I play with Default Array) and lighting issues.

Also, unless I totally misread the whole thread, it has all been about the mechanical disadvantage being so great that it materially effects player choice. This just does not seem supported.

You're probably right here, and to be fair, this conversation has been eye opening. Of course DnD beyond is just 1 data point entry, and that's assuming those created characters were played at all. The fact is, if I understood it correctly, that they were just created character sheets.

But as I am an old man shaking my fist at the facts cloud, I just don't think most people who are not engaging in the 3 reasons I stated above play default human at all.

Sorry @ekimami, I totally missed your post!! (and I have no idea how to do the @ thing here, help an old man out somebody)

Great post again, I have shaken my increasingly old fist at many a cloud myself, sometimes in vain, sometimes not. :)

I do not think that I can answer your posed question, as my proposition was always that there was no need to waste development resources on something that seemed to add minimal, if any value, not that variant humans would unbalance the game. (although see next paragraph)

I will try to answer it anyway, (although I fear it will expose some hypocrisy on my part), and note that almost all builds by the "experts" that I have seen, use the variant human unless it is an iconic build (High elf eldritch knight/ wood elf ranger/half elf bard or paladin for example) and even then the human is just as good by fourth or eighth level, in other cases, two skills of choice, two abilities of choice and a feat of choice makes variant humans too strong, at anything they choose, in my opinion. (Note, here is the hypocrite part as the data I posted indicates that when variants are the choice for human players, they are chosen slightly less than default humans are chosen when they are the human option)

I really just enjoy the discussion, as I play humans very seldom (no mechanical reason, I just like non-humans more), and when I do, especially in a single player CRPG where my choice will not negatively impact party effectiveness, their perceived weakness would not be a factor. (I have already played a full party of humans in Solasta EA(Paladin/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard) and found it quite fun, as I had to think about combat quite a bit more and differently. (side note, they are also much taller and brawnier than elves and half elves in Solasta, a small thing, but certainly made an impression on me) and I did not see it as gimping/a special challenge at all)

I would also note that in earlier stats on player choice I found, humans (no variant/default breakdown) were played 24-25% of the time (some 25K per 100k of players and 1/3rd again more than the next choice). I suspect that wizards made sure to break down their next set of released stats by subrace (the ones I posted) so that they could satisfy themselves and the experts that humans perceived weakness did not impact player choice materially.

Lastly, I think player choice of race is influenced by many things, (what the person read/watched on TV/saw in a movie/saw on critical role etc. with mechanical advantage being a lesser influence for most) Roleplaying for me would be the primary reason I chose a race and class combination, and that choice would only be stymied by a MASSIVE mechanical weakness in my choice that would make things tougher for the other players as they carried me through the adventure.

I begin to ramble, hopefully you get something out of this post and I did not embarrass myself too badly.

Cheers

I'm not leaving, I'm just not going to argue the point any more because I'm in the minority and no one is going to change their minds easily in any way. :)


I've played a lot of characters of every class, race and ancestry and background over the years in D&D, and I enjoy them all. I just don't think humans are as weak as the powergamers make them out to be.

Good, that you are not going anywhere. :)

All my virtual ink, I think shows that while you, and I, may be in the minority on this topic, in this thread, we seem in the majority of players. ;D

Cheers

Nope you are not majority.

Nope you are not majority.

Your opinion is noted, I would be most interested in any data you had on that.

Cheers

I have played in a table-top campaign with one 'munchkin' and it was unpleasant - everyone was role-playing and managing fine, with their less than 'optimal' characters, but said person was always optimzing, looking for a way to multiclass in a certain way to be 'the best' (at everything seemingly) and our DM simply disallowed certain paths...wow, did that cause a reaction.  They then tried the same in my campaign  - I mostly allowed them to do as they wished...but they became 'swollen with power and arrogance' and met an untimely demise, believing that they were somehow smarter than an ancient vampire lord.  Balance was restored to the universe. I have tried all the races, and had no issues with getting any of them to do what they should be doing, or finding the going overly tough  for any one race - most problem were caused by bugs, or the RNG going against them. Bugs will be addressed with time. I fully accept that the devs have tow ork within the confines of the SRD and I am happy with that - I have enjoyed the EA immensely, and I'ms ure I wil enjoy it more once the bugs are ironed out.