Humans or Super Humans?

I am really enjoying the developing game here, and really do think developers and testers are on the right track, but I am a bit confused by the Human racial bonuses.

In a fantasy world I feel that humans should be the lowest common deniminator of races, tenacious and versitile, but also a benchmark for the average being.  In 3 and 4 wizards did a great job reflectig their tenacity and adaptablity without out-shining the extra-human abilities of the other races.

As it stands now humans are the best at every ability.  Their floating +2 and +1 to everything else gives them a massive +7 vs all other races +1 to ability scores.  This, to me, breaks the idea of what humans are in the DnD worlds.  I know these massive ability bumps are intended to offset the racial powers of the non-human races, but I don't feel they make sense.  Why not bring back things like bonuses to saving throws, extra skills or training, bonuses to surviving death, or anything else that tells us about human nature, rather than inflating the race to super-human proportions?  How can we reflect human adaptablity in their ability scores without eclipsing the traits that make each other race special?

Really, should humans be stronger and more fortuitous than dwarves?  More chraming and nimble than halflings?  More intelligant and wise than elves? 
I see your point though since this is playtest package 2, I take that they didn't work enough on races to finely balance them. Maybe it's just a "Give them something cool by now" because at the moment we dont know how to proceed, since talents, specialties, skills and classes are yet on their definition course.

that said, I honestly won't dislike to have a human race without special qualities and have more "human" base score abilities power. I don't see it so unbalancing.

 "Really, should humans be stronger and more fortuitous than dwarves?  More chraming and nimble than halflings?  More intelligant and wise than elves?"
I won't put it that way. It's just a mere +1 to base abilities and the fact that a human will be more than another race, all depends on where you put the best scores in (for the comparing races). (so a dwarf warrior can have 17+1 cos and 16 sternght, and a human warrior 14+1 cos but strenght 17+1). same thing for elves etc..

they will be, on avarage, slightly better than. seen in that way, yes they should be so considering the race description on the playtest. imo.  : )
I agree, OP.

It is a tricky dilemma to be both average and balanced, but making Humans supers, doesnt feel like D&D.
At first I was thinking it was a bit over balanced, but over the life of the character, ability scores mean less and less as the game goes on. Especially with level additions to ability scores. Humans start out as better then everyone, but after a couple levels it balances out. The advantages that the other races get more then balance out. I would like it if their primary ability bonus was +2 but that is a minor concern.
Cobblestone Chaos: A general all around blog. Mainly wargaming, but also some RPG thoughts, game philosophy, and industry thoughts.

Baatezu's Advocate: The angry, NSFW blog. I rant and rave, and generally act politically incorrect.
At first glance, I too thought the +2/+1 boost to stat for humans looks overpowered, but in really examining it and having quite a number of character created by the other playtesters in our groups here, it became less and less a concern.  It felt relatively balanced in the end.

About the only suggestion I would make at this point is that the other races get their primary stat boosted from +1 to +2.  It will show they they are as good as any human at what they do, but lack the overall diversity in areas they aren't as focused on.
Maybe it would be better if the non-humans got +2 to their single stat while humans got +1 to everything plus some minor racial power.
Maybe it would be better if the non-humans got +2 to their single stat while humans got +1 to everything plus some minor racial power.



Yah I think something like that might work.  Many of the non-human racial powers are so powerful that messing with human ability stats alone doesn't seem to balance things all that well.  And, I still feel that even if the huge stat boosts to humans did balance the game's mechanics, they do not reflect actual human abilities and limitations.  

The world's strongest human should not be stronger than the world's strongest dwarf (yet the numbers say a rolled 18 STR human could choose to end up with 20 STR after racial modifiers, while a rolled 18 STR dwarf ends up with a 19 after racial modifiers), and this can be true with any human ability vs any race.

Another option might be to give humans a +1 to all and other races a specific +2/-1, and then give racial powers to all.  One problem here would be the fact that a +1 to all for humans doesn't reflect their ability to improve at the abilities they focus on.  It more just covers their all around skill.

But, as others have mentioned, the game is young, and I'm sure Wizards will be putting more thought into racial abilities as they go.
Maybe it would be better if the non-humans got +2 to their single stat while humans got +1 to everything plus some minor racial power.



The world's strongest human should not be stronger than the world's strongest dwarf (yet the numbers say a rolled 18 STR human could choose to end up with 20 STR after racial modifiers, while a rolled 18 STR dwarf ends up with a 19 after racial modifiers), and this can be true with any human ability vs any race.



The world's strongest human and the world's strongest dwarf are equals: 20 Str.

With the 20 cap, they end up being the same pretty soon.  (And let's use Con as an example, since dwarves don't have a "strong" so much as "tough" flavor.) Should the world's toughest human be as tough as the world's toughest dwarf?  It seems like ability caps are the problem in addressing this, really.  

Toughness-specced high/medium level chars could all have 20 Con, representing the peak.

Here's an idea: cap all human stats at 18, while demihumans can raise their racial bonus abilities to 20, with all others at 18?

In flavor terms, this just means that a newbie human adventurer could be tougher than a newbie dwarf adventurer, but the dwarf has higher potential.  I kinda like this, because it represents how humans grow quickly, peak quickly, etc.
You people should remember that level 4 characters gain +1 point in two ability scores, abiding by the rule that a character’s ability score cannot go above 20. This rule is on the last page of the Character Creation document and probably you can increase your ability scores again in higher levels.

Since you can't increase your ability scores beyond 20 without magic itens, I do think that human's racial benefit is not overpowered. His primary ability scores will be higher for not much time, so in mid and high levels he trades racial features for better secondary and terciary stats, what isn't always a fair trade.

Sure, you can dislike the mechanic anyway, but it's not true that it creates Super Humans.
Maybe it would be better if the non-humans got +2 to their single stat while humans got +1 to everything plus some minor racial power.



The world's strongest human should not be stronger than the world's strongest dwarf (yet the numbers say a rolled 18 STR human could choose to end up with 20 STR after racial modifiers, while a rolled 18 STR dwarf ends up with a 19 after racial modifiers), and this can be true with any human ability vs any race.



The world's strongest human and the world's strongest dwarf are equals: 20 Str.

With the 20 cap, they end up being the same pretty soon.  (And let's use Con as an example, since dwarves don't have a "strong" so much as "tough" flavor.) Should the world's toughest human be as tough as the world's toughest dwarf?  It seems like ability caps are the problem in addressing this, really.  

Toughness-specced high/medium level chars could all have 20 Con, representing the peak.

Here's an idea: cap all human stats at 18, while demihumans can raise their racial bonus abilities to 20, with all others at 18?

In flavor terms, this just means that a newbie human adventurer could be tougher than a newbie dwarf adventurer, but the dwarf has higher potential.  I kinda like this, because it represents how humans grow quickly, peak quickly, etc.



Personally I would be perfectly happy if non-humans had a cap of 20 in their 'traditional' stats compared to 17-19 for the other races but a lot of people have expressed reservations with that.  Quite apart from disagreement about what consitutes the race's key abilities, some people feel that their character is horribly substandard if limited to +4 or even +3 in their key stat instead of +5.  I think the thread talking about divorcing stats from attack rolls might give ideas to dilute this perception.  For example, while halflings have traditionally always been given a bonus to dexterity, in 1e their cap was 18 compared to the elves' cap of 19.  Halflings were more agile on average than humans but elves were capable of being more agile.  On the other hand, halfling had a constitution cap of 19 compared to elves 17 (hobbits do not fade easily) even though on average, they were no hardier than humans.

One thing to consider is that the races all have mitigating abilities that stack them up to the human trying to directly compare.

For instance with a 16 con stat in the base roll the Hill Dwarf starts with 26HP if he takes survivor.

The human gets only 22.

Now without survivor the Dwarf has 16 to the human 14.

Not a huge difference but it still favors the hardy dwarf in the area of specialization.

Odd numbers in the starting roll allow the human to reduce the gap by one point but that still leaves the dwarf with survivor 3 pts ahead.

Similar things are available in other races. Halflings get rerolls and extra options to hide.

All in all I feel that the super human is less super that it first appears.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

You don´t get con bonus to survivor and the survivor die is not maximised!

so it is only 22 for the dwarf and 19 for the human
You don´t get con bonus to survivor and the survivor die is not maximised!

so it is only 22 for the dwarf and 19 for the human


Ok so it has to be rolled.  No problem.  However I did not add con bonus to the die. 

Fighter is 10+ con bonus. So human fighter with 19 con is 14+d8 for survivor. 
Dwarf adds one level to all hit die making his 12+con for fighter so his 18 con yields him 16+d10 

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

OP: Agreed. It just doesn't FEEL right. So what if at higher levels the difference is smaller, +7 is too much. The implication is that humans are in every way superior to all other races and the flavor is wrong. So where other races get +1 to one stat, give humans +1 to 2, or maybe even the option of +2 to one. However, as the concept is human versatility, getting +1 to 2 stats feels right, then maybe allow humans to also have a bonus skill.
what my sugestion would be is the folowing:

in older editions the maximum ability score was 18 so i would go back to this as base rule.
if you get a ability score bonus that would raise a ability score to above 18 you can aply it to another ability score of your choice instead.

races that have a ability score bonus to a specific ability score are alouwed to raise that ability score upto 20.
 
I for one love humans as racially supreme 'Princes of the Universe' demigods.
Personally this is how I'd do humans:


Size: Medium.
Speed: 
30 feet.
Languages: 
You can speak, read, and write Common, and another language of your choice.

Versatile Training: Choose a weapon. Increase your attack rolls with that weapon by +1. Whenever you advance a level, you may change the chosen weapon to another weapon.

If you know spells, you can instead increase the attack rolls and DCs of one spell of your choice from each spell level by +1. Whenever you advance a level, you may change one of these chosen spells to another of your choice of the same level. 

When you advance a level and gain a weapon proficiency, or the ability to cast spells during that advancement, you can change your Versatile Training to enhance your spells or a weapon as above.

Heroic Effort: Once per encounter, after making a check, saving throw or attack roll, or after a creature makes an attack roll or saving throw against you, you can expend any number of hit dice. If you do, for each hit dice spent in this way, you can reroll up to two dice for that check, saving throw or attack roll and take the result of your choice.

Once per day when you use this ability, you can increase its benefit as if you'd spent one hit dice.

Adaptive Nature:
 You gain training in a skill of your choice. Whenever you advance a level, you may change your training in this skill to another skill of your choice.

Human Tenacity: You need to make one less saving throw to become stabilized. If you roll a natural 20 on a death saving throw, you become stabilized instantly, and can regain HP as if you'd spent a Hit Dice.

Ability Score Adjustment: One starting ability score of your choice increases by 1.


As it stands now humans are the best at every ability.  Their floating +2 and +1 to everything else gives them a massive +7 vs all other races +1 to ability scores.  This, to me, breaks the idea of what humans are in the DnD worlds.  I know these massive ability bumps are intended to offset the racial powers of the non-human races, but I don't feel they make sense.  Why not bring back things like bonuses to saving throws, extra skills or training, bonuses to surviving death, or anything else that tells us about human nature, rather than inflating the race to super-human proportions?  How can we reflect human adaptablity in their ability scores without eclipsing the traits that make each other race special?

Really, should humans be stronger and more fortuitous than dwarves?  More chraming and nimble than halflings?  More intelligant and wise than elves? 



This, to me, is key -- using Con as the example, do we want the toughest human to be tougher than the toughest dwarf?

If the answer is no, then the ability scores must reflect that.  Thing is, there's a cap of 20.  So, among adventurers, the toughest dwarf and the toughest human are -- by ability score measurement -- equally tough.  The fix, then, would be to have a higher maximum ability score for the demihuman races.  A starting human may be tougher than a starting dwarf, but the dwarf has a higher (22?) Constitution potential. 

(This is leaving out the idea that toughness is reflected in other mechanics besides Constitution, of course.) 
Yeah the +2 to one, and +1 to all others is too much. 

+1 to 3 stats at most, and some human type abilities to match their versatility instead of just padding the stats. 



As it stands now humans are the best at every ability.  Their floating +2 and +1 to everything else gives them a massive +7 vs all other races +1 to ability scores.  This, to me, breaks the idea of what humans are in the DnD worlds.  I know these massive ability bumps are intended to offset the racial powers of the non-human races, but I don't feel they make sense.  Why not bring back things like bonuses to saving throws, extra skills or training, bonuses to surviving death, or anything else that tells us about human nature, rather than inflating the race to super-human proportions?  How can we reflect human adaptablity in their ability scores without eclipsing the traits that make each other race special?

Really, should humans be stronger and more fortuitous than dwarves?  More chraming and nimble than halflings?  More intelligant and wise than elves? 



This, to me, is key -- using Con as the example, do we want the toughest human to be tougher than the toughest dwarf?

If the answer is no, then the ability scores must reflect that.  Thing is, there's a cap of 20.  So, among adventurers, the toughest dwarf and the toughest human are -- by ability score measurement -- equally tough.  The fix, then, would be to have a higher maximum ability score for the demihuman races.  A starting human may be tougher than a starting dwarf, but the dwarf has a higher (22?) Constitution potential. 

(This is leaving out the idea that toughness is reflected in other mechanics besides Constitution, of course.) 



If you cap a race at lower stats or give a race a higher cap you basically made everything but the right race to class combo a crap choice.  Do we really only want halfling  and elf rogues and anything else is a crap choice you take for pure roleplaying.  If you can get to max with every race in every stat you wont get double hit on racial abilities where its both stats and special abilities that help towards certain classes.  If it is just stats or just abilities that make them a better x class it isn't so bad, but when its both it gets rare to see other options.  

Also yeah I want humans to be able to be as smart as the smartest elf, as nimble as the most agile halfling.  That traditionally has been the human thing, they can reach the highest summit in ability. This idea of making the human the first loser at everything still ends up with the human being a loser.  If I were to give any race the ability to go past 20 it would be humans, the ability to go further than any other race in a field has kind of been their niche.  Maybe give non-humans +2 to their prime the human either +1 to any or +1 to any x number or maybe none but let humans go to 22 in one stat of choice.  



If you cap a race at lower stats or give a race a higher cap you basically made everything but the right race to class combo a crap choice.  Do we really only want halfling  and elf rogues and anything else is a crap choice you take for pure roleplaying.  If you can get to max with every race in every stat you wont get double hit on racial abilities where its both stats and special abilities that help towards certain classes.  If it is just stats or just abilities that make them a better x class it isn't so bad, but when its both it gets rare to see other options.  

Also yeah I want humans to be able to be as smart as the smartest elf, as nimble as the most agile halfling.  That traditionally has been the human thing, they can reach the highest summit in ability. This idea of making the human the first loser at everything still ends up with the human being a loser.  If I were to give any race the ability to go past 20 it would be humans, the ability to go further than any other race in a field has kind of been their niche.  Maybe give non-humans +2 to their prime the human either +1 to any or +1 to any x number or maybe none but let humans go to 22 in one stat of choice.  




This is an attitude that I can't get on board with.  How does giving a race an advantage in a particualr stat equal a disadvantage on other classes that don't use that stat?  Firstly, all stats affect saving throws and skills.  Secondly, in a bounded system, the gaps between the haves and have nots should be close - at least if they can limit the bonuses to attack rolls from stats a bit better or remove them entirely.

I 1e humans had supoerior strength, and equal widom and charisma.  The other races couldbe better at intelligence, dexterity and constitution.



Also yeah I want humans to be able to be as smart as the smartest elf, as nimble as the most agile halfling. 




The problem with this set up is they aren't just as smart as the smartest elf, or nimble as the most agile halfling.

They can be smarter, or more nimble, and still be as tough as a dwarf, wise as _____, charismatic as a _____, strong as a ______   almost all in one character. 

+2, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1

Plug that into their standard array from the test sheets: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8    That is still pretty high.  Add in the class ability score adjustments

And if you do the rolling method, who knows how high of stats you could end up with even with a limit of 20 being the most you can have, you could end up with characters with no stat lower than 14 to start easily, and several stats capped at 20.  

Sure they lowered the standard array base stats from last edition (4e: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) because they added class stat adjustments.

Before 4e you needed to be a half-ogre or half-giant to get a +2 to your stats on character creation.  Even then you likely had a negative stat in Charisma.  Even after negative stats were removed, +2 was to most your character stats would be modified in total.   This blows right past that peak to a +7.   And all you need to get that is roll a human. 

I'm guessing they threw this out there as a large increase just to see what the players would finally think of a where it should settle back to as reasonable.  I can't seriously think they were considering this as the end result for publication would be. 

I can understand wanting humans to have some advantage, but this is too much even without special abilities.  




This is an attitude that I can't get on board with.  How does giving a race an advantage in a particualr stat equal a disadvantage on other classes that don't use that stat?  Firstly, all stats affect saving throws and skills.  Secondly, in a bounded system, the gaps between the haves and have nots should be close - at least if they can limit the bonuses to attack rolls from stats a bit better or remove them entirely.

I 1e humans had supoerior strength, and equal widom and charisma.  The other races couldbe better at intelligence, dexterity and constitution.




The issue isn't just the stat.  Halflings will have a serires of racial perks designed to make them better rogues, that + a better max stat is a double hit to other races playing that class.  And god forbid you try to play something a bit off and get triple or quadruple hit.  

The thing that reflected humans having a better max potential in 1e ans 2e was level limits, really harsh ones in 1e.  Since no one would be for level limits in 5e, a better max stat in the prime req would be another way to reflect that. My elf would have elf perks that help at being a mage lets say and the human and elf would be roughly balanced at being mages, a dwarf who decided to be a mage would still be competitive since he can get to a 20 INT so is only behind either the human or the elf in one regard the prime stat or special abilities but not both.   



I can understand wanting humans to have some advantage, but this is too much even without special abilities.  





I don't think it is too much mechanically, but my point isn't they have to get +2 to a stat of choice while others get +1.  Just that humans being worse in the stat they decide to focus on and many of the other suggestions in this thread makes them a pile of suck.  What I was specifically responding to was the idea that non-human races would get to 22 in thier stat and humans would be capped at 20.  Given that non-humans also come with a series of pretty cool perks you would have to have one doozy of a perk to make humans remotely competitive
I agree that the issue isn't mechanical so much as one of perception.  The hard stats frame your perception of your character.  A +1 on all saves and a +1 to any stat might be mechanically equivalent but would probably be less 'offensive' because the characters would not look physically and mentally superior on paper.
Hello.


I think it's a good thing the human to be the most powerfull race. Often in the campaign setting, the human power are rising and the elfe and power ones are lowering, the creation rules shows that fact.

I played a game yesturday. 4 players : 2 humans and 2 dwarves, the player made the choice to create dwarves character because they wanted to play a dwarf and not because of the technical bonus. The roleplay was greater that way.

Now if you choosed a non human race, it wouldn t be because you want to be more powerfull but because you like this race.

The powerfull human is a good rule !


Shadowi 
How about +1 Any Stat, +1 All Saves and you can choose a second speciality.
How about +1 Any Stat, +1 All Saves and you can choose a second speciality.

Interesting suggestion.

Second Speciality is probably not a good idea since it would deviate from the idea that it's an area of focus and specific attention that helps define a character.  Plus, it could lead to synergistic problems with Specialties that are not balanced when used together.

+1 to Any Stat plus something else to show human adaptability and broad/quick learning seems to be the growing sentiment here.

You have to be careful with this, though.  Give humans just +1 and even +1 saves or extra skills, and suddenly that +1 to AC, damage bonus to weapons, improved speed or stealth, etc., all seem MUCH BETTER than the little boon humans get. 

Let's see, I can be a human with the same stats and an somewhat occasionally used 5% bonus, or I could be a Dwarf with one damage die higher, one hit point die greater, low-light vision, and some minor boons.  Or an elf with low-light, keen senses, improved damage, and a spell or extra speed plus.  Or halfling with improved luck, nimblenes, damage, and stealth plus.

The most common race would be anything but.
 
Specialties are optional.
So are backgrounds. 

Giving humans bonuses to those doesn't work. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Honestly, i think the whole argument boils down to a overemphasis on stats as the ultimate arbitrator of character power.  Personally, if it was up to me, i'd eliminate racial stat bonuses and just give every race a small power at character creation just enough to make them all different and then race would be completely choice of what you like to rp.  But then the chorus of "IT'S JUST AN MMO ON PAPER"  people would raise thier heads.


I don't think it is too much mechanically, but my point isn't they have to get +2 to a stat of choice while others get +1.  Just that humans being worse in the stat they decide to focus on and many of the other suggestions in this thread makes them a pile of suck.  What I was specifically responding to was the idea that non-human races would get to 22 in thier stat and humans would be capped at 20.  Given that non-humans also come with a series of pretty cool perks you would have to have one doozy of a perk to make humans remotely competitive



Well one you are acting like this is the final iteration instead of suggesting adjustments.

The perks non-humans have really are subjective to the situation.  While a stat adjustment can affect a lot more things, and a lot more things consistently.  

I'm really not convienced by your argument they are fine at all.  And you seem to be in the minority. 



I don't think it is too much mechanically, but my point isn't they have to get +2 to a stat of choice while others get +1.  Just that humans being worse in the stat they decide to focus on and many of the other suggestions in this thread makes them a pile of suck.  What I was specifically responding to was the idea that non-human races would get to 22 in thier stat and humans would be capped at 20.  Given that non-humans also come with a series of pretty cool perks you would have to have one doozy of a perk to make humans remotely competitive



Well one you are acting like this is the final iteration instead of suggesting adjustments.

The perks non-humans have really are subjective to the situation.  While a stat adjustment can affect a lot more things, and a lot more things consistently.  

I'm really not convienced by your argument they are fine at all.  And you seem to be in the minority. 




I may be in the minority in this thread but there are a lot of these threads and a lot of people who don't think this is a balance issue.  




I think it's a good thing the human to be the most powerfull race. 



Why do you think that when we're looking for balance?

This isnt' a human specific fantasy game.  This is a fantasy game in general.    

Now if you choosed a non human race, it wouldn t be because you want to be more powerfull but because you like this race.



If they were balanced this would be more true.  

But now just the opposite, people will be feeling they need to pick humans to play to be powerful.

If you want humans to be more powerful in your campaign, change your campaign.   This is talking about the core rules and the core set of rules need to look for a balance.  


I may be in the minority in this thread but there are a lot of these threads and a lot of people who don't think this is a balance issue.  




Yeah I've looked at those, you are grasping at straws now. 





I may be in the minority in this thread but there are a lot of these threads and a lot of people who don't think this is a balance issue.  




Yeah I've looked at those, you are grasping at straws now. 






Whatever floats your boat.    
It isn't a balance issue, its a flavour issue.  I just don't like the "humans have better stats on average" deal.  But I do like the idea of humans having a simple factor to balance with the other race's traits.  Human's basic advantage, as it has been throughout evolution, is adaptability.  The human traits should reflect that.
I think your forgetting  that no character can have a stat over 20.

With class ability bonus and racial ability bonuse any character can have a Stat of 20 if thier race and class support it. Meaning humans cannot be stronger than the stronger dwarf or more nimble than halflings they are all caped at 20.

I don't want to see humans go the route of 4E where every other race was better than them because it was always better to be a specialist. A generalist should get a wide number of bonuses.

There are two ways to look at this - pragmatism and theory.  For me, it's working both ways.

Pragmatism: it's working for us.  For the first time, people are deliberately choosing to be Human, but also choosing other races.  It gets really boring when everyone's an elf every time (or whatever).  There is something about the sweetener of +7 that really pulls people in.

Theory: humans keep winning in real life, why not in fantasy?  This makes them pretty strong.  That sort of makes sense.  People who like the other races can still pick them, but really need to make the most of their abilities.  Humans can be dumb and just rely on being the uber race.  That's an exaggeration of course, but to my mind this is all pretty consistent philosophically. 
In general I feel that WOTC made a good attempt to put humans on par with this iteration. Before it was simply suboptimal.
Specialist races were overall better, in specific classes. It's indeed harder to balance bonus stats vs. specific abilities. But I must say, for the first time I feel humans definetly has a place as a choice.
 I don't see it overall überunbalancing and it fits with the background of every DnD world there is. Humans are a dominant race and versatile.
 They lack pretty  good abilities like nightvision for example.
The other races have good special abilities (ok there are som that might be questionable), but in overall I like the feeling that humans are versatile and specific races are stereotypes. After all that is a defining trait in most versions of fantasy worlds. 


I don't want to see humans go the route of 4E where every other race was better than them because it was always better to be a specialist. A generalist should get a wide number of bonuses.



This statement is extremely inaccurate as humans where the best overall choice for many classes and character builds in 4e,  but this is completely off topic as we are discussing next.

The argument that humans are balanced because the stats even out at upper levels is, unfortunately irrelevant to me as I can't say that I've been in a game that has reached upper level in recent memory.

As they are now I also find them to be extremely flavorless and boring.
I too am finding the current humans boring.