Human stat bonus makes sense once ya roll up a few PCs

When I first looked at the rules for choosing Human as your race I was like "WOW +2 to one stat and +1 to the rest, that seems high!"

Then I actually rolled up my first character following the letter of the law on roll 4D6 drop the lowest, do this a total of 6 times. Being that I have never had luck with dice I got:

10
15
8
10
13
9      

I was like YUCK I have done worse but man two negative stats and two dead average. Now 15 and 13 aren't anything to sneeze at, but this yet to be born individual had some limitation for sure. If I had picked any other race but human I could have either bumped up one of the negative stats or left them and had one really high stat.

But with the Human option you can recover quite well from bad luck with the dice Gods. I did the following:

11 (+1 human add)
16 (+1 human add)
10 (+2 human add)
11  (+1 human add)
14 (+1 human add)  
10 (+1 human add)    

An wham I now have a character with no negative stats and two very good stats. I think it's a great way to deal with bad rolls and might actually make some players come back to the land of humans. In many of the campaigns I've played in there isn't a human in sight, PC wise, because everyone was min/maxing the other races.             
When I first looked at the rules for choosing Human as your race I was like "WOW +2 to one stat and +1 to the rest, that seems high!"

Then I actually rolled up my first character following the letter of the law on roll 4D6 drop the lowest, do this a total of 6 times. Being that I have never had luck with dice I got:

10
15
8
10
13
9      

I was like YUCK I have done worse but man two negative stats and two dead average. Now 15 and 13 aren't anything to sneeze at, but this yet to be born individual had some limitation for sure. If I had picked any other race but human I could have either bumped up one of the negative stats or left them and had one really high stat.

But with the Human option you can recover quite well from bad luck with the dice Gods. I did the following:

11 (+1 human add)
16 (+1 human add)
10 (+2 human add)
11  (+1 human add)
14 (+1 human add)  
10 (+1 human add)    

An wham I now have a character with no negative stats and two very good stats. I think it's a great way to deal with bad rolls and might actually make some players come back to the land of humans. In many of the campaigns I've played in there isn't a human in sight, PC wise, because everyone was min/maxing the other races.             



As far as 3.5 is concerned, everyone in my group picks Human, everytime after the 1st 3.0 campaign we ran. The bonus feat is very pivotal when it comes to feat trees. You can qualify for better feats faster. So it may have been Humans were overshadowed in 4e (don't know never played), but I always find the other races to be not so good in 3.x.

You're right the Human took a bad set of rolls and made a playable character. The only choice for that was a Human. No other race would have accomplished it. That's what is wrong with Humans.

When you take into consideration Arrays though it is very unbalanced.
Ant Farm
It's not  that unbalanced in actual play, it'sonnly unbalanced when you want to to have a pissing contest for highest stats. I've basically cooe to the coonclusion that it really adds about a .5 to attacks, comes up even for damage whhen you allow for racial weapon enhancements, and might add about .6 to saves.   Woooo feel thhat power!
I actually think the Human bonus works just fine with the array presented (only two stats in the array are odd)--it's only potentially problematic for Point-buy, if that's ever implemented.
I think the human points bonus works ok, although it is a little boring.


Humans gain points, but they miss out on:


Weapon training (halflings, dwarves, elves all gain that)

They don't get halfling luck (a very cool ability)

They aren't immune to poison (dwarves), or charm and sleep (elves)

They don't have keen senses (elves)

They don't get toughness like a dwarf

They don't get to hide behind other creatures larger than them. (halfling)

They don't get to hide in the wilderness as easy as elves.



There certainly is a trade off.    


                          

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

It's not  that unbalanced in actual play, it'sonnly unbalanced when you want to to have a pissing contest for highest stats. I've basically cooe to the coonclusion that it really adds about a .5 to attacks, comes up even for damage whhen you allow for racial weapon enhancements, and might add about .6 to saves.   Woooo feel thhat power!



AYE! +1!
My two copper.
I find it odd that this stat set would be considered unplayable even without any class/race bonuses.

Perhaps it is a difference in where we started gaming.

My 2e group rolled 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest for over 20 years.

My favorite characters have been 3d6 play where they lay where at least one stat is 15 or better and one is at least 5 or lower.

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

I find it odd that this stat set would be considered unplayable even without any class/race bonuses. Perhaps it is a difference in where we started gaming. My 2e group rolled 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest for over 20 years. My favorite characters have been 3d6 play where they lay where at least one stat is 15 or better and one is at least 5 or lower.

I have literally never played as a character, nor have I ever run a game for any character, that did not have at least one 18.  

Well, at least not until I ran the first playtest packet.  It's actually worked out quite well--I was surprised.

But yeah, I've run about 95% of the rpgs I've been involved in, and I've usually made special provisions to make sure that PCs got 18s.  

Until a pathfinder game I was just invited into last week, I've never rolled for stats either (though I did roll an 18!).  I find rolling totally unacceptable (and felt hideously guilty about rolling an 18) because it creates such wildly unbalanced PCs (counting up the point buy for the stats people rolled, one guy has the equivalent of a pitiful 19, while another has 46--I ended up with 32).

I've done point buy, but dislike the weighted price of higher stats (since stats give a linear bonus), so my preferred method has always been handing out an array.  Most of the time, it is 18, 16, 14, 13, 12, 10.  If someone specially requests more balanced stats for an unusal MAD build or something, I'll give them 16, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10.  It's worked well over the years, but I might actually stick to the new lower array for Next.


I find it odd that this stat set would be considered unplayable even without any class/race bonuses. Perhaps it is a difference in where we started gaming. My 2e group rolled 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest for over 20 years. My favorite characters have been 3d6 play where they lay where at least one stat is 15 or better and one is at least 5 or lower.

I have literally never played as a character, nor have I ever run a game for any character, that did not have at least one 18.  

Well, at least not until I ran the first playtest packet.  It's actually worked out quite well--I was surprised.

But yeah, I've run about 95% of the rpgs I've been involved in, and I've usually made special provisions to make sure that PCs got 18s.  

Until a pathfinder game I was just invited into last week, I've never rolled for stats either (though I did roll an 18!).  I find rolling totally unacceptable (and felt hideously guilty about rolling an 18) because it creates such wildly unbalanced PCs (counting up the point buy for the stats people rolled, one guy has the equivalent of a pitiful 19, while another has 46--I ended up with 32).

I've done point buy, but dislike the weighted price of higher stats (since stats give a linear bonus), so my preferred method has always been handing out an array.  Most of the time, it is 18, 16, 14, 13, 12, 10.  If someone specially requests more balanced stats for an unusal MAD build or something, I'll give them 16, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10.  It's worked well over the years, but I might actually stick to the new lower array for Next.




That's pretty wild.   I have had maybe 10% of the characters I have played over the last 20 years start with an 18 even after the 3e +2 racial modifiers.  

I can't imagine expecting an 18.   

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

Yeah I'm with Valdark on this one. Sure I've had a few PCs over last 30 years that had 18's but they were few and far between. They were supposed to be the rare bird at low levels, that way you had something to strive for.


I just like the random fun of rolling up a PC and the transformation that occurs as you deal with highs and lows and what he/she will become. Every once and a while ya get an exceptional high set of rolls and make an epic PC and every once and while ya roll really bad rolls and create a wachy background, challenged PC. All have been fun to play in there own way.

I think there should be an array option (to each their own) but I like a dice roll up system and one that seems to take its effects into account as it appears they did with the Human stat Pluses.    
With monster "to hit" scores so low...and monster hit points relatively low....an 18 in any attribute that determines PC "to hit" score seems overpowered.

I'm not a huge fan of the 1st level PCs having +4 or +5 more "to hit" than the monsters who are level 1-6.   

   


A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I agree an 18 should be rare. I also love the recommendation of separating accuracy from stats that was made in the DnD Next General forum.

I rolled three characters last night with this playtest. Two have two 18s, one has one. The one that only has one has two 16s as well. All three Human. It was too easy to choose, and too bland too. I wish they would take away the ease of 18s and give some flavor.
Interesting. So if you get a 17 and 16 in dice rolls you might as well put the 2 into the 16 and let the plus 1 raise the 17 to 18.
Ant Farm
Interesting. So if you get a 17 and 16 in dice rolls you might as well put the 2 into the 16 and let the plus 1 raise the 17 to 18.

If ya wanted to max out your high stats but if your like me and you have a few 8 and 9 stats ya might bump them up to get out of the negatives. AKA you don't have to spike the top two stats you rolled but no there is noting stopping ya.
I've only played fourth edition and the next playtests. We always used the point buy when making characters, and I've never made a character that didn't have an 18... And I often shoot for a 20 post racial. Especially for a dex/int light armor class. Hard to say no to +1 ac, reflex, initiative, stealth, hit, damage .... And from an RP perspective, I want my character to be exceptional at something
I'm excited to go back to a 4d6 drop one die system for stats. The array/point buy system in 4e is nice for balance purposes, but I feel it contributes to the issue of having homogonized characters. 

I am greatly looking forward to a system that doesn't inherintly punish a character whos best stat is a 16.

From a flavor perspective, I actually like the current human stat bonus. While demihumans get very specific (and powerful) traits that make them experts at what they are, humans instead just get a slight boost across the board. Humans are bland and normal, but they are adaptable (+1 to all) and capable of extraordinary feats of dedication and focus, often becoming the masters of their craft, whatever it may be (+2 to one).

I think it feels right for what humans typically are in a setting.

The current standard array is 15/14/13/12/10/8.

Humans are the only race that can turn that into an 18 primary stat for whichever class you want.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So what?

I actually like how this works out. Humans are the flexible ones. Not the best at *whatever*, but the second best when focused on it.

Let the Elves be the best wizards and/or archers, with nifty extras and stuff. Let the Dwarves be the stout ones, who can see in the dark and be resistant to poison.

When I play a Human, I don't need - actually don't want - special abilities that pronounce my "humanness". Give me the "boring" stat ups that I don't have to worry about after I have attributed them and let me spend my time making my character special by fleshing him out fluff-wise and/or maybe by crunch - having a fighter with CHA 13 instead of 12, and getting acces to maybe CHA13 restricted feats or stuff, that the dwarven CHA12 fighter may not have access to. That extra bit of customizability is what makes (and made) the human character "special" (that's at least how I see it).
So what?

I actually like how this works out. Humans are the flexible ones. Not the best at *whatever*, but the second best when focused on it.

Let the Elves be the best wizards and/or archers, with nifty extras and stuff. Let the Dwarves be the stout ones, who can see in the dark and be resistant to poison.

When I play a Human, I don't need - actually don't want - special abilities that pronounce my "humanness". Give me the "boring" stat ups that I don't have to worry about after I have attributed them and let me spend my time making my character special by fleshing him out fluff-wise and/or maybe by crunch - having a fighter with CHA 13 instead of 12, and getting acces to maybe CHA13 restricted feats or stuff, that the dwarven CHA12 fighter may not have access to. That extra bit of customizability is what makes (and made) the human character "special" (that's at least how I see it).



Very well said. This is exactly why I like it. It's flavor through lack of flavor.

I play a 4e human with my friends and i find my character to be good overall but still kinda bland. I like the sub race thing they did with the other races but you can't do that with humans so why not impliment a social standing for them instead.
A Noble who has a better diplomacy or bluff and has connections in high socitey or a lower class poor guy who has street smarts. Something like that would give the humans a little more flavor than the usual blah we're not good at anything but not bad either.
An entire race should not have to be a final fantasy 1 red mage in my opinion at least.
You actually don't need to change the race for that, just select the appropriate background (e.g. "noble"). Additionally, I cant't see how that would be special for humans, since there seem to be "commoners" and "nobility" for elves, dwarves, etc., too.

Maybe it can be put this way: If someone needs/wants extra special, then take the race that fits the "specialness". If you want solid "average" plus the task to make your character "special" yourself (if you so desire) - hey, Human is the right choice for you. I really really enjoy to have a character race that's not inherently special in "fluff terms" at all (so you're not quasi-forced to be special - that's what probably comes with the class then, if you take something other than maybe rogue or fighter).

I'm not familiar with final fantasy (I just can remember watching a friend playing it for a few minutes, with the characters wielding skyscraper-high swords and flash-bling-effects accompanying every move that's on the screen), so I don't get your red mage jibe. But speaking about it, I found 4th Ed. quite what in my mind's picture Final Fantasy looks like: Everyone has many special powers with every sneeze having light-halo effects, etc. How would any adventurer survive anywhere, when every jab with a dagger is accompanied with a roaring clap of thunder or a bowshot causes the skies to roil? (You sneak past the Ogres, your masterful display of skill pleasing your patron who celebrates his joy with red sparks out of your sneakers and a reverberating "hallelujah" echoing through this plane of existence). Granted, I am exaggerating, but that's how it sometimes seems to me: Everything has to be mighty special and packed to the brim with "flavor" to be interesting to the players. (In my opinion, as a roleplayer I am to bring the flavor to my character, not the other way round - but that's just my personal point of view, I guess)

Additionally: As I see it, 5th Ed. is getting more DM-based again. So if you want to change a teeny bit of your character (give some small boons, add some drawbacks), just use your imagination and ask your DM. In my opinion, it's not necessary - not even remotely needed or possible - that every thinkable idea is reflected in the (core) rules.
Personally I'd like to see all races on par in turns of Ability Score bonus with the Human being able to choose which ability bonus they have.

To balance the other abilities just give humans things like a Bonus feat and Bonus skill. In my 3E/Pathfinder games, allot of players take human specifically for that feat and skill bonus.

The feats in 4E arn't as good as in 3E which is likely why the human lost a bit of appeal.
So far I really like the array.  Keeps characters balanced with enough low scores so no one character is too OP.  Point buy in 3.5 was my first experience with not rolling ability and I immediately thought it was a huge improvement.  This new array keeps away the fighter that sacrifices all of his charisma and intelligence scores so he can max out strength and constitution.  Something that got old real quick.

As for Human abilities, my initial reaction was also shock.  But I like what the playtest did with the non-human races.  Increasing Dwarf weapons by one step on all weapon damage will definitely offset the potential strength advantage humans have in the fighter class.  Also the increase in AC by +1 on heavy armor does the same.  The best part is no ability score subtraction.  Write up a Mountain Dwarven WarPriest or Hill Dwarf fighter and I think you will find they can more than hold their own against a Human counterpart.
You actually don't need to change the race for that, just select the appropriate background (e.g. "noble"). Additionally, I cant't see how that would be special for humans, since there seem to be "commoners" and "nobility" for elves, dwarves, etc., too.

Maybe it can be put this way: If someone needs/wants extra special, then take the race that fits the "specialness". If you want solid "average" plus the task to make your character "special" yourself (if you so desire) - hey, Human is the right choice for you. I really really enjoy to have a character race that's not inherently special in "fluff terms" at all (so you're not quasi-forced to be special - that's what probably comes with the class then, if you take something other than maybe rogue or fighter).

I'm not familiar with final fantasy (I just can remember watching a friend playing it for a few minutes, with the characters wielding skyscraper-high swords and flash-bling-effects accompanying every move that's on the screen), so I don't get your red mage jibe. But speaking about it, I found 4th Ed. quite what in my mind's picture Final Fantasy looks like: Everyone has many special powers with every sneeze having light-halo effects, etc. How would any adventurer survive anywhere, when every jab with a dagger is accompanied with a roaring clap of thunder or a bowshot causes the skies to roil? (You sneak past the Ogres, your masterful display of skill pleasing your patron who celebrates his joy with red sparks out of your sneakers and a reverberating "hallelujah" echoing through this plane of existence). Granted, I am exaggerating, but that's how it sometimes seems to me: Everything has to be mighty special and packed to the brim with "flavor" to be interesting to the players. (In my opinion, as a roleplayer I am to bring the flavor to my character, not the other way round - but that's just my personal point of view, I guess)

Additionally: As I see it, 5th Ed. is getting more DM-based again. So if you want to change a teeny bit of your character (give some small boons, add some drawbacks), just use your imagination and ask your DM. In my opinion, it's not necessary - not even remotely needed or possible - that every thinkable idea is reflected in the (core) rules.



Totally agree with your post here.  For fear of turning this into an edition war, I will be brief with my history.  I loved 3.5.  When 4e came out, I played one day and then switched to video games.  My thoughts were, if they wanted to make D&D a video game, I might as well play the real thing.  Now with 5E out, the imagination comes back.  The real beauty with Humans is the endless backgrounds characters can come up with.  They seem bland on paper at first, but when real thought and imagination is put into the Human character, it is tough for the non-human characters to compete in the spice of life department.

There are parts of me that see the human = good side but there is more too it in the long run.  People talk of the +2 ability gives +1 to hit and damage and thats better than the dwarf getting d8 vs d6 or whatever.  The trouble with this comparison is that it ends by level 4 or maybe level 8 when both races have a 20 in their primary stat.  Then the non-humans stay on top the rest of the levels with simple hit and damage plus all the other stuff they get.

The other thing about humans and dice rolling for me is that my humans always end up rolling worse and having worse stats in addition to no special abilities
I'm not familiar with final fantasy (I just can remember watching a friend playing it for a few minutes, with the characters wielding skyscraper-high swords and flash-bling-effects accompanying every move that's on the screen), so I don't get your red mage jibe. But speaking about it, I found 4th Ed. quite what in my mind's picture Final Fantasy looks like: Everyone has many special powers with every sneeze having light-halo effects, etc. How would any adventurer survive anywhere, when every jab with a dagger is accompanied with a roaring clap of thunder or a bowshot causes the skies to roil? (You sneak past the Ogres, your masterful display of skill pleasing your patron who celebrates his joy with red sparks out of your sneakers and a reverberating "hallelujah" echoing through this plane of existence). Granted, I am exaggerating, but that's how it sometimes seems to me: Everything has to be mighty special and packed to the brim with "flavor" to be interesting to the players. (In my opinion, as a roleplayer I am to bring the flavor to my character, not the other way round - but that's just my personal point of view, I guess)




Totally agree with you. My biggest turn off about 4E was that every attack was essentially a power. I like tactical manoeuvres like tripping, disarming etc. But 4E powers essentially turned every character into a marvel super-hero character in a D&D setting. Way I see it, it’s up to the players to act out extravagant 'manoeuvres' and not up to the mechanics. Anyway, 5E is turning from that thankfully.


But for those who like that kind of thing, 3E introduced something similar in Tome of Battle (Book of Nine Swords) so that you could essentially play a warrior like a mage. 5E could have a similar module.

I'm not familiar with final fantasy (I just can remember watching a friend playing it for a few minutes, with the characters wielding skyscraper-high swords and flash-bling-effects accompanying every move that's on the screen), so I don't get your red mage jibe. But speaking about it, I found 4th Ed. quite what in my mind's picture Final Fantasy looks like: Everyone has many special powers with every sneeze having light-halo effects, etc. How would any adventurer survive anywhere, when every jab with a dagger is accompanied with a roaring clap of thunder or a bowshot causes the skies to roil? (You sneak past the Ogres, your masterful display of skill pleasing your patron who celebrates his joy with red sparks out of your sneakers and a reverberating "hallelujah" echoing through this plane of existence). Granted, I am exaggerating, but that's how it sometimes seems to me: Everything has to be mighty special and packed to the brim with "flavor" to be interesting to the players. (In my opinion, as a roleplayer I am to bring the flavor to my character, not the other way round - but that's just my personal point of view, I guess)




Totally agree with you. My biggest turn off about 4E was that every attack was essentially a power. I like tactical manoeuvres like tripping, disarming etc. But 4E powers essentially turned every character into a marvel super-hero character in a D&D setting. Way I see it, it’s up to the players to act out extravagant 'manoeuvres' and not up to the mechanics. Anyway, 5E is turning from that thankfully.


But for those who like that kind of thing, 3E introduced something similar in Tome of Battle (Book of Nine Swords) so that you could essentially play a warrior like a mage. 5E could have a similar module.


That is one thing that several of my friends hate about 4e and my DM won't even let us get creative that way, with the tripping and the disarming etc, because he's too set on following the rules of the manuals. Its a create your own adventure game for goodness sake.
The human ability bonuses are way too much. For the playtest, I decided to replicate my first PC from waaay back in '86/'87 with the Mentzer Basic set. This isn't the first time I've done this--I had turned him into an NPC in 3.5 a couple years back (toned down to 11th-level, and using the non-standard (28-point) point-buy method for generating ability scores). This time, for D&DN, I used the standard (25-point) point-buy method from 3e.... and ended up with better stats than the 28-point, 11th-level version! That's a little gross.

I'd much rather have a +1 to an ability score of one's choice and some specialial abilities that actually speak to the flavor of D&D humans.
As another point buy player, I see the human bonuses as over the top. Especailly that +2 to one stat. A human character would be more tough than a dwarf character if they both focus on it or more agile than an Elf character if they both focus on it and that seems wrong to me. I think I could live with a +1 to two or maybe even all for humans, which would give you that well rounded feel. 

Just my opinion.
Worse than being overpowered (it probably isn't), the +2 to one ability and +1 to all feels contradicts the idea that the other races are naturally good at this or that, and humans are the norm.

Even if you use average values for all scores (3 10s and 3 11s), the human will naturally be at least as good as the other races in everything, and may even exceed them in what they supposed to be naturally better at.

An human commoner is as tough as a dwarven commoner, as dexterous or intelligent as an elf commoner. And he may even be better, if he chose to put his +2 in that ability.

The fact that 5E puts more emphasys on abilities than previous editions makes this issue even more apparent. 
Worse than being overpowered (it probably isn't), the +2 to one ability and +1 to all feels contradicts the idea that the other races are naturally good at this or that, and humans are the norm.

Even if you use average values for all scores (3 10s and 3 11s), the human will naturally be at least as good as the other races in everything, and may even exceed them in what they supposed to be naturally better at.

An human commoner is as tough as a dwarven commoner, as dexterous or intelligent as an elf commoner. And he may even be better, if he chose to put his +2 in that ability.

The fact that 5E puts more emphasys on abilities than previous editions makes this issue even more apparent. 

Two things to keep in mind.

1 - that human commoner is in a lot of trouble once the sun goes down if he forgot his torch, so let's not get hung up on stats so much that we forget the other features many races have. 

2 - the game mechanic for raising stats lends itself to dice rolling and recovering from bad rolls. discusing this with a point buy system and saying its bad is the wrong way to think of it. Instead maybe a different rule could be suggested for those that want the point buy system. Don't through the human out with bath water, for those of us that like to roll up PCs.
1 - that human commoner is in a lot of trouble once the sun goes down if he forgot his torch, so let's not get hung up on stats so much that we forget the other features many races have.


I'm not saying he is better than a dwarf or elf. I'm saying that the concept doesn't fit the mechanics.
For example, hill dwarves are tough, so they get the bigger die to HP.
But when its time to endure strenuous activities for some time, most humans are as good at it as the hill dwarves, and some are better.
There's a dissonance between the mechanics and the concept of the races.

That's why distinguishing races by different Ability bonus was a better idea: if elves are nimble, they are slightly better at everything that requires nimbleness. If dwarves are tough, they are better at everything that requires stamina.

By giving a +1 to every score to humans and a +1 to the other races in their racial ability, they make the bonus meaningless.
In essence, its almos the same as:
"Humans get a +1 to an ability score of their choice, all other races have a -1 penalty to all their abilities except one (which you can't choose)."
Doesn't sound that good when you put it like that, right?

If they are going to model the differences between races with special features, its okay, but then just abandon the ability score bonus from race, because they aren't supporting the concepts of the races.

Altough I didn't play 4E, I think they did it the best: every race gets a good boost at two ability scores. Humans get only one boost, bu they get to choose in which ability they put it.
So, a human can be as nimble as an elf, but most humans aren't.
And humans are flexible: they can be very good at any thing they want, but just that one.

2 - the game mechanic for raising stats lends itself to dice rolling and recovering from bad rolls. discusing this with a point buy system and saying its bad is the wrong way to think of it. Instead maybe a different rule could be suggested for those that want the point buy system. Don't through the human out with bath water, for those of us that like to roll up PCs.



I never created a character by arrays or point buy.
I just gave the 3 10s and 3 11s as an example of a commoner.

However, those other options should be supported.
Even if rolling is the default assumption, arrays and point buy should be balanced in.
And having different racial benefits depending on the method you are using to generate scores doesn't sound like a clean, elegant solution.

I understand your point that humans are a good choice to salvage a not so good list of scores, but if that scores are so bad (I don't think they are), why not implement a re-roll rule?
Does it make sense having a race just for people who rolled bad, or not so good?
"I rolled good this time, looks like I'm finally going to make an elf character!"
The human attribute bonuses are not a problem.  The other races get enough bonuses that make them better then the human could hope to be. In fact, I think the human comes out a bit weak in comparison. Yeah I get when you first read that a human gets +2 to one attribute and +1 to all other attributes it sounds like a lot, but in actual game terms it isn't.


I'm going to compare a human fighter to a hill dwarf fighter. Using the defualt method I've randomly rolled stats. Before assignment and mods they are 13, 10, 9, 15, 15, and 12.

I've decided that a fighter's main bonus is in Strength and Con is next. I've let Charisma be the dump stat. 

Human -- Str 18  Dex 11  Con 16  Int 13 Wis 14 Cha 10   Starting Hit Points 13  Starting AC 17 Damage A greataxe at +7 and 1d12+4


Dwarf ----Str 16  Dex 10  Con 16  Int 12 Wis 13 Cha 9   Starting Hit Points 14  Starting AC 17 Damage A greataxe at +6 and 2d6+3

In addition as a dwarf you gain Immunity to poison, Stonecutting, and Low-Light Vision. (Weapon training has alreadyd been factored in)

So this human has a +1 higher chance to hit....and if he rolls max damage will do 1 extra point of damage. Both the dwarf and the fighter have a min. damage of 5. They both have the same starting AC. (If you decide to go with a mountain dwarf you would trade two hitpoints for +1 AC which would probably be the better choice)

The Dwarf also will slowly gain more hitpoints, but granted has one attribute stuck at -1. But how many figher's need a high charisma? On top of that the Dwarf has gained Immunity to poison and Low-Light Vision which far outweigh that -1.  And if you go underground, well who doesn't want an ability in which they can't get lost?


This difference will remain with the other methods, the  Dwarf fighter in my opinion will always be better then the human fighter due to the randomness of the game. The Dwarf is simply the better choice in a game where everything is determined by rolling dice, as the human will not on average outshine the dwarf.


If you opt for a shield then  the Fighter gets +7 1d8+4 (longsword) while the dwarf gets +6 1d10 +3 (warhammer). So the human fighter might get slightly more damage in a fight, but not at a high enough rate for this to go in his favor.
I don't really feel like -1 (5%?) to hit and 0.5 damage on average is such a big loss to gain lowlight vision,stonecutting and immunity to poison.

When I first read the human in the play test, I was like "wow finally a bonus worthy of perhaps choosing a human for!"

If you consider the case that both fighters could eventually get a 20 str, this bonus would then translate into the human having no damage advantage and one extra hitpoint if they pushed their stat to con instead. I just don't feel that these are meaningful comparisons without seeing/knowing more about how the system is supposed to scale. 

At level 1, they both 'feel' the same to me and I don't really feel like the dwarf is that much weaker even if he has 2 less str.  
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
I thought all the assumptions were supposed to be questioned in this playtest.

I think the title of this thread says it all. The human trait "makes sense," numerically. Humans, as currently written, are boring. They're an option which will, maybe, excite numbercrunchers (don't get me wrong, I'm a bit crunchy myself).

My question: Why are humans boring? 

I won't repost, I've moved my longer reply once already (I don't think the topic any longer qualifies as session feedback).
I liked your trait ideas for the human @lfbanz. I don't really think that +2 is necessary to make the human an interesting choice and maybe it is a 'boring' trait. However, often whatever side-fluff they give the human isn't worth being a human in a lot of rpgs. This felt a bit more significant. Some interesting traits might do the same thing. If they're interesting enough. Maybe.
 
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
I'd much rather interesting traits that these bonuses.
I'd much rather interesting traits that these bonuses.



I'd rather have these bonuses than "interesting traits".  Why because I have not seen a single interesting trait put forth that in any way reflects humanity at least not any more than any other player character race would be reflected by those traits.  

Me personally I'd probably go with +2 in any one stat, +1 in any 3 stats and the stat you chose +2 in can go to 22.  Is it human like?  Well no, but nothing really is or at least not any more so than it would be true for dwarf or elf etc.  But previous editions had humans being the one race capable of reaching the highest potential in a class, now I know class caps wont come back, but letting the human go beyond the normal racial max would kind of reflect that.  Flavored how you want  it and it can fit multiple campaigns, like say Humans as the youngest race in the world are the closest to their gods and many carry the spark of divinity in them allowing them to reach a attribute max of 22 in one stat.  
Sorry, but I find that an utterly boring approach that doesn't invest the character into any flavor or story elements. I also find it craptastic from a mechanical point of view--whoo-hoo, humans win the numbers game!
I also find humans rather bland. I like the stat bonuses, and I get the numbers balance. I just would like to see a special ability to lend more inherent flavor to the humans.

Why don't humans have their own language? Are elves and dwarves inherently better at language than humans? I thought humans were generally good at everything. They should get a bonus language of their choice.

Low-light vision is useful for all classes - a bonus to a stat that is "non-essential" for my class choice? Hrm.