Variant Human is ALWAYS The Best Race For Attributes

[Garresh]

...with a few exceptions.

If you do not have ANY feats in your build, then races such as Half Elf or Triton are better because of their stats, naturally.
If your build is heavily reliant on a particular racial feature, such as the appealing Half Orc crit increase for champions, or Dwarven armor proficiency, then those races are better.


I'm making this thread because I've been going over a lot of guides, and noticing that they rate many races as better than Variant Human from the perspective of attribute gains even though their builds involve feats. Look, a little simple math here. Let's say you're playing a Monk. You decide you want to be a Lizardfolk for that sweet +3 to those Monk stats you get. You also want to pick up Mobile because that feat is amazing for monks. As soon as you skip an ASI for Mobile, that Human with +2 to stats gets a total over +4, putting them at a +1 edge over you.

If you use a feat in your build, and do not benefit from racial features other than attributes, human variant is ALWAYS the optimal race for attributes.

I am not saying other races are not good. I am not saying other races are inferior if they have powerful trait synergies(such as Tabaxi and Monk, or Kobold Pack Tactics and *anything*). I am also not saying that you should always pick Human Variant. You should pick what's fun, and try interesting things in the interest of said fun. But from a purely optimization standpoint, Human Variant is *always* the most efficient for stats if you use a feat. Any guide that says something like Half Elves are better because of their attributes then says you should grab Mobile or Sentinel or whatever is wrong. Half Elves are effectively *equal* to Humans in attributes at that point. They are better because of their racials and free skills, but NOT because of their attributes.

Edit: Trying to make clear it's only from an attributes perspective. Individual racials can radically pump races above human, such as Tabaxi speed and stuff. Just attributes. Only Attributes.

[jaappleton]

I think you're underestimating several Racial features.

Halfling's Lucky
Any race with Fire Resistance
Aasimar's transformations, healing, and resistance
Half Orc's Endurance
Etc

Many classes need Darkvision to get the most out of them, such as Rogues and Rangers

EDIT: Just saw your edit. You don't get to do that. The bonus Feat of VHumans is their racial feature. You don't get to say "Only attributes and you get a Feat VS just the stat bonuses of everyone else", because it's a 100% terrible argument.

[Garresh]

I think you're underestimating several Racial features.

Halfling's Lucky
Any race with Fire Resistance
Aasimar's transformations, healing, and resistance
Half Orc's Endurance
Etc

Many classes need Darkvision to get the most out of them, such as Rogues and Rangers

EDIT: Just saw your edit. You don't get to do that. The bonus Feat of VHumans is their racial feature. You don't get to say "Only attributes and you get a Feat VS just the stat bonuses of everyone else", because it's a 100% terrible argument.

And those races are better because of their traits. Agreed. I'm just annoyed by how many guides rate Half Elf as the best race for a charisma based class because it "gives you the most attributes" as their only reason. That argument fails because if you use a feat Human Variant matches that. That's all I'm saying. Admittedly I used a very clickbaity title. I'm just tired of people ignoring that an extra feat can be CONVERTED into extra attributes, when you factor in opportunity costs. That's all. From the big picture perspective yeah Varhuman is not always the best race. Races have tons of great features they can't match. But if someone rates a race as better than human because of attributes they're wrong.

Edit: Why can't I do that? People make an argument based purely on attributes. I say that argument is wrong based purely on attributes. This a very specific kind of error people make on guides when they talk EXCLUSIVELY about attributes. I want to draw attention to it because its annoyingly incorrect. Obviously having an extra 2 attribute points is crap compared to being able to fly as a racial or having inborn advantage on saving throws or something. But when people use attributes alone as a reason for rating Half Elves as so high it is flawed. Half Elves are fantastic because they get great attributes IN ADDITION to a bunch of fantastic racial features.

[Sirdar]

Warlocks have very limited spell slots which makes a couple of free racial spells per Long Rests (and a cantrip) very attractive (Drows and Tieflings).

Depending on build, it can very well be better than that extra ASI the variant human gets.

[PeteNutButter]

You are pretty spot on. Almost every one of my characters ends up human, and those that don't would be better if they were human.

One thing that I would add to the OP is the only race that compares to a human on attributes is the half elf on cha characters, BUT even he is behind the human if he takes a feat.

Only a human can have both an 18 and a feat at level 4. The HE might have the same amount of stats, but if he grabs that feat he is behind on his highest stat and better in some less important stat than the human.

Full casters don't get much of an offense boost by feats so they are more likely to not suffer from being a non-human race. As an aside I'm pretty sure they didn't give kobolds the +1 cha that most people think they should get as it would make them the king of warlocks.

[Garresh]

Warlocks have very limited spell slots which makes a couple of free racial spells per Long Rests (and a cantrip) very attractive (Drows and Tieflings).

Depending on build, it can very well be better than that extra ASI the variant human gets.


And that's fine. I'm only talking about people who write guides and rate certain races high because of attributes alone, while leaving Human Variant lower. From the perspective of attributes, Human Variant should *never* be rated lower than Half Elf. When you factor in racials, Human Variant can absolutely be lower. But if people write guides and latch onto "Half Elves give so many attributes" they are wrong. Racial traits are worth WAY more than attributes, but that doesn't invalidate that Human Variant is as strong as Half Elf from the perspective of attributes.

[Iamcreative]

So.... humans stat bonues + racial feature = half elves stat bonuses as long as the half elf takes a feat? Alright I mean sure, technically true.

[Garresh]

So.... humans stat bonues + racial feature = half elves stat bonuses as long as the half elf takes a feat? Alright I mean sure, technically true.

Look I know this sounds like I'm splitting hairs and being technical. I sort of am. But so many guides say "Be a half elf. You'll have more attributes than anyone else!"...and that's just flat out wrong. Besides the fact that an extra attribute point or two isn't actually worth that much(Those sweet Half Elf skill proficiencies are where it's at), they're not even advising correctly from their own criteria. It's just an error I'm tired of seeing in guides.

[Sir cryosin]

I think you're underestimating several Racial features.

Halfling's Lucky
Any race with Fire Resistance
Aasimar's transformations, healing, and resistance
Half Orc's Endurance
Etc

Many classes need Darkvision to get the most out of them, such as Rogues and Rangers

EDIT: Just saw your edit. You don't get to do that. The bonus Feat of VHumans is their racial feature. You don't get to say "Only attributes and you get a Feat VS just the stat bonuses of everyone else", because it's a 100% terrible argument.

Rangers learn the spell dark Vision just saying.

[Corran]

Well, I have to agree. The only exception is when darkvision is mandatory for your character (typically a scout type) and you cant get it from any class features. But yeah, you are looking at least to one feat, then vhuman is better imo too. Keep in mind, that the +1 of another race (before ASIs), probably translates to a +2 to a tetriary stat (unless we are talking about some MAD multiclass build perhaps?), so more points to the vhuman.

Hopefully, if we ever get racial feats that balance might change somewhat, for at least a few character builds. But to be honest, I would much prefer a fix of some kind to the vhuman, since as it is, it is a tad more powerful than the other options.

[Vorok]

Only a human can have both an 18 and a feat at level 4.


Half-Orc, Goliath, Mountain Dwarves and Dragonborn starting with 17 in Str, taking a lightly/moderately/heavily armored feat/athlete/tavern brawler/weapon master get a feat and 18 in str at level 4.
Gnome+Keen Mind/observant
+2 cha races with Actor
dex and wis (i'm not sure if there's a +2 wis race, so that might be the exception) based races also have feat to get them to 18 if they start at 17.

[jaappleton]

Rangers learn the spell dark Vision just saying.

And Deep Stalker Rangers gain Darkvision, and Goggles of Night can negate Darkvision, etc.

I wasn't going to get into super specifics. I was general on purpose.

[Lombra]

Half elf is better for any charisma-based build. The 2 points in charisma compensate for the feat that you can anyways take ay level 4, so when you get your first ASI half elf is always a better choice in that case.

[jaappleton]

Half-Orc, Goliath, Mountain Dwarves and Dragonborn starting with 17 in Str, taking a lightly/moderately/heavily armored feat/athlete/tavern brawler/weapon master get a feat and 18 in str at level 4.
Gnome+Keen Mind/observant
+2 cha races with Actor
dex and wis (i'm not sure if there's a +2 wis race, so that might be the exception) based races also have feat to get them to 18 if they start at 17.

The ONLY +2 Wisdom race is the Firbolg from Volo's.

[PeteNutButter]

Half-Orc, Goliath, Mountain Dwarves and Dragonborn starting with 17 in Str, taking a lightly/moderately/heavily armored feat/athlete/tavern brawler/weapon master get a feat and 18 in str at level 4.
Gnome+Keen Mind/observant
+2 cha races with Actor
dex and wis (i'm not sure if there's a +2 wis race, so that might be the exception) based races also have feat to get them to 18 if they start at 17.

Fair enough, I should have clarified about half feats. What I really meant is only a human can have an 18 str and GWM, or an 18 dex and SS. Or PAM or CE or sentinel, etc, those are the real power house feats right there. Half feats don't provide the incredible offense boost of those.

[jaappleton]

And those races are better because of their traits. Agreed. I'm just annoyed by how many guides rate Half Elf as the best race for a charisma based class because it "gives you the most attributes" as their only reason. That argument fails because if you use a feat Human Variant matches that. That's all I'm saying. Admittedly I used a very clickbaity title. I'm just tired of people ignoring that an extra feat can be CONVERTED into extra attributes, when you factor in opportunity costs. That's all. From the big picture perspective yeah Varhuman is not always the best race. Races have tons of great features they can't match. But if someone rates a race as better than human because of attributes they're wrong.

Edit: Why can't I do that? People make an argument based purely on attributes. I say that argument is wrong based purely on attributes. This a very specific kind of error people make on guides when they talk EXCLUSIVELY about attributes. I want to draw attention to it because its annoyingly incorrect. Obviously having an extra 2 attribute points is crap compared to being able to fly as a racial or having inborn advantage on saving throws or something. But when people use attributes alone as a reason for rating Half Elves as so high it is flawed. Half Elves are fantastic because they get great attributes IN ADDITION to a bunch of fantastic racial features.

Anyone making arguments on a build based solely on attributes and not the whole package is a fool. Simply put. I'd consider that statement to be factual and not an opinion.

Races have racial features as well as attribute bonuses for a reason. Because there is more to a Race than strictly their attribute bonuses. Things what can radically augment your play style, and further optimize your build.

[Garresh]

Half elf is better for any charisma-based build. The 2 points in charisma compensate for the feat that you can anyways take ay level 4, so when you get your first ASI half elf is always a better choice in that case.

Paladin. Wants Sentinel Feat.

Level 1:
Half Elf: 17 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats.
Human: 16 Charisma. + 1 to 1 other stat. Sentinel.

Level 4:
Half Elf: 17 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.
Human: 18 Charisma. +1 to 1 other stat. Sentinel.

Edit: I might possibly have brain damage.

[Garresh]

Anyone making arguments on a build based solely on attributes and not the whole package is a fool. Simply put. I'd consider that statement to be factual and not an opinion.

Races have racial features as well as attribute bonuses for a reason. Because there is more to a Race than strictly their attribute bonuses. Things what can radically augment your play style, and further optimize your build.

I agree wholeheartedly. Yet people rate Half Elf as the *best* race bar none for charisma classes based purely on attributes, ignoring the fact that Humans match their attributes, and that other races might have better racials while still doing pretty well on attributes. It's just an incredibly flawed argument, but it's also painfully common even in *really* good guides.

[Iamcreative]

Paladin. Wants Sentinel Feat.

Level 1:
Half Elf: 17 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats.
Human: 16 Charisma. + 1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.

Level 4:
Half Elf: 17 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.
Human: 18 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.


Cant you only point buy to 15?/yes obviously in that case the human would have 1 more cha, they started with it

[Garresh]

Cant you only point buy to 15?/yes obviously in that case the human would have 1 more cha, they started with it

...what?:smallconfused:

[Cybren]

How does the level 1 Human have +1 to two stats AND a 16 in a third stat?

[Iamcreative]

...what?:smallconfused:

Sorry, in that case it looks like before racials were applied, the vhuman started with a 16 in CHA and the half elf started with a 15 in CHA. Or the vhuman would only have

"18 CHA +1 in 1 other stat, Sentinal"
I could also be remembering point buy wrong, I dont use it
Edit: what Cybern said.

[Garresh]

How does the level 1 Human have +1 to two stats AND a 16 in a third stat?

LOL oh wow. Okay I was dumb in that post. My bad. I fixed it. The point does stand though that by level 4 the stat gains have equalized.

[Garresh]

Sorry, in that case it looks like before racials were applied, the vhuman started with a 16 in CHA and the half elf started with a 15 in CHA. Or the vhuman would only have

"18 CHA +1 in 1 other stat, Sentinal"
I could also be remembering point buy wrong, I dont use it

Yeah I screwed up. I meant to say 18 Cha, and +1 in one other stat. You're correct.

[coolAlias]

Paladin. Wants Sentinel Feat.

Level 1:
Half Elf: 17 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats.
Human: 16 Charisma. + 1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.

Level 4:
Half Elf: 17 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.
Human: 18 Charisma. +1 to 2 other stats. Sentinel.

Human should start: 16 Charisma. +1 to 1 other stat. Sentinel.

Also, that ignores all of the other racial benefits from half-elf, but that's the premise of your argument. Yes, if you only look at stats plus feats, a v-human is pretty good, as they're supposed to be. Otherwise, no one would ever play human.

EDIT: Derp, ninja'd multiple times :P

[jaappleton]

I agree wholeheartedly. Yet people rate Half Elf as the *best* race bar none for charisma classes based purely on attributes, ignoring the fact that Humans match their attributes, and that other races might have better racials while still doing pretty well on attributes. It's just an incredibly flawed argument, but it's also painfully common even in *really* good guides.

That's why I take every guide with a grain of salt. Also, to be purely honest, most guides aren't updated as often as they should be. Many haven't been updated since SCAG, or they have slants to personal preferences.

Half Elves are good, but you're right that guides often overrate them. They are sky blue, but not gold. The ability to have +2 Cha, +1 Con and +1 Dex is great, husBut to be frank, that only matters for levels 1-4. Want the bonus to your stats or you want that Feat?

The game is designed to get from 1-3 VERY quickly and 3-5 fairly quickly. That's when everyone gets 3rd level spells / Extra Attack, so they can feel powerful at that point.

[Iamcreative]

No worries, happens to the best of us. And that does make your point well. By level 4 a vhuman will have that juicy +4 bonus and a feat. Where as anyone else will have to take the asi for a +4.

Of course its debatable if thats worth it, but it is true.

[coolAlias]

It's also worth noting that a Half-elf, for example, can start with TWO stats at 16 and one at 14, whereas the human will have only 1 x 16 and 2 x 14.

So, if you value a secondary stat equally to your primary, and possibly a 3rd stat, half-elf starts looking pretty dang good, at least on par with v-human.

1st Level
Human: 16 14 14 12 10 8, feat
Half-Elf: 16 16 14 12 10 8, - (ignoring other racial traits)

4th Level, assuming human bumps primary stat
Human: 18 14 14 12 10 8, feat
Half-Elf: 16 16 14 12 10 8, feat

4th Level, assuming human bumps secondary stat
Human: 16 16 14 12 10 8, feat
Half-Elf: 16 16 14 12 10 8, feat

So, for a non-SAD build that synergizes with a non-human's racial traits, it's an attractive option.

[Reosoul]

I really don't feel like it's that simple. Variant Human is okay, but it doesn't get Dark Vision(Heavily pushes you toward Warlock Darkvision invocation), and it's stat bumps and racial features are weak compared to Half Elf.

I feel like Half-Elf is the really strong pick this edition. Advantage on what is often a save or suck spell, Dark Vision, Double the stat bump that Human gets, and it's main bump is to Cha, one of the most use stats for those popular spellcasters(Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Paladin) and all the powerful multiclasses that opens up.

Variant Human wins if you never go beyond level 5. All other times, Half Elf stomps it into the dirt.

[MaxWilson]

And those races are better because of their traits. Agreed. I'm just annoyed by how many guides rate Half Elf as the best race for a charisma based class because it "gives you the most attributes" as their only reason. That argument fails because if you use a feat Human Variant matches that.

At the risk of stating the obvious:

Setting aside the fact that feats have prereqs (so a multiclassed human may not even have the option of starting out with some of his target feats), half-elf can still match variant human for certain arrays while pulling ahead in traits.

Let's say I roll a completely unremarkable, average array: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. By 8th level, I am planning to wind up a Str 15 Cha 20 Paladin 8 with the Inspiring Leader feat. I have two excellent options:

(1) Start as a human with Str 15 (14) Con 14 (13) Cha 16 and Inspiring Leader. Needs +4 to Cha.
(2) Start a half-elf with Str 15 (14) Con 14 (13) Cha 18 (16). Needs +2 to Cha and Inspiring Leader.

In either case, it takes two ASIs to get to where you want to be at 8th level, so the difference between half-elf and human lies only in the fact that the half-elf gets slower aging, resistance to sleep/charm magics, darkvision, and an extra skill. You might pick either for roleplaying reasons; from a powergaming standpoint you pick human if you think that having temp HP for the party at low levels (where Inspiring Leader is most powerful) is more important than the long-term fringe benefits of darkvision, sleep resistance, etc.

It's a pretty small difference overall, and either choice is justifiable.

[MaxWilson]

I really don't feel like it's that simple. Variant Human is okay, but it doesn't get Dark Vision(Heavily pushes you toward Warlock Darkvision invocation), and it's stat bumps and racial features are weak compared to Half Elf.

Or a druid, ranger, sorcerer, or wizard, all of whom can cast Darkvision (2nd level, 8 hour duration).

Or a Shadow Monk, who can Darkvision the whole party for a mere 8 ki points, regained on a short rest.

[Sirdar]

And that's fine. I'm only talking about people who write guides and rate certain races high because of attributes alone, while leaving Human Variant lower. From the perspective of attributes, Human Variant should *never* be rated lower than Half Elf. When you factor in racials, Human Variant can absolutely be lower. But if people write guides and latch onto "Half Elves give so many attributes" they are wrong. Racial traits are worth WAY more than attributes, but that doesn't invalidate that Human Variant is as strong as Half Elf from the perspective of attributes.

I agree that Half Elf and Variant Human probably deserves the same rating in class guides for the Cha-based classes. The 'Feat + 18 in primary stat' vs. 'Feat + 16 in primary stat + racial perks' at level 4 is often a matter of taste. Especially if you allow the variant half-elfs from SCAG. I haven't read all class guides, but is it really true that several of them make the claim that Half Elfs are better solely based on attributes (i.e. stats)?

I have a related question to the community as well: Is a feat like War Caster (Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell) available for variant humans at creation? If you choose race (first) and class (second) which I think is the correct order, the variant human can't cast spells at creation. So War Caster is not applicable, nor is some of the Armor Feats. I guess most tables don't play it that way, but some might.

[coolAlias]

I have a related question to the community as well: Is a feat like War Caster (Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell) available for variant humans at creation? If you choose race (first) and class (second) which I think is the correct order, the variant human can't cast spells at creation. So War Caster is not applicable, nor is some of the Armor Feats. I guess most tables don't play it that way, but some might.
I wouldn't play it that way - the bonus feat isn't always something you're born with (that would really limit your options); you could just as easily pick it up during your adolescence and/or training, at which point you probably meet the prerequisites.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm probably weird. Well, certainly weird actually, but I like Half-Elf on builds where I'm dumping Charisma. Turning That 8 into a 10 keeps me from having any negative numbers, plus I can still add +1 to two abilities of my choice, making it a decent at being... well anything. I also like the Extra Language, and Skill. Combining Those with Fey Ancestry and Darkvision is a package I would consider worth more than one feat on a lot of characters.

So while Half-Elf Barbarian starting with the standard array and getting scores of 16, 14, 14, 10, 12, 10 is not something you might see a lot or even ever. I'd play one.

I realize this is all beside the point. So to make this post not a complete waste of anybody's time I'll say I don't think Half-Elves are the best at CHA classes. VHuman is always just as good and the difference between those two and other races is not as pronounced as most guides would have you believe it is.

[Pex]

Only matters with 5E's implementation of Point Buy because of its inherent nature. When you use dice rolling you have a chance of getting an interesting array you couldn't get with Point Buy that allows more flexibility in character development. Of course what is unspoken is that the character has an 18 in his prime at 1st level. Since it is not an abomination of greatest apportion that ruins gaming forever for a 1st level character to have an 18 that is why 5E's implementation of Point Buy is bunk.

Usual obligatory clarifications:

1) No, a character doesn't have to have an 18 at 1st level or else. There's nothing wrong with not having an 18 at 1st level.
2) This problem is only a problem with 5E's implementation of Point Buy, not the concept of Point Buy itself.

[Citan]

...with a few exceptions.

If you do not have ANY feats in your build, then races such as Half Elf or Triton are better because of their stats, naturally.
If your build is heavily reliant on a particular racial feature, such as the appealing Half Orc crit increase for champions, or Dwarven armor proficiency, then those races are better.


I'm making this thread because I've been going over a lot of guides, and noticing that they rate many races as better than Variant Human from the perspective of attribute gains even though their builds involve feats. Look, a little simple math here. Let's say you're playing a Monk. You decide you want to be a Lizardfolk for that sweet +3 to those Monk stats you get. You also want to pick up Mobile because that feat is amazing for monks. As soon as you skip an ASI for Mobile, that Human with +2 to stats gets a total over +4, putting them at a +1 edge over you.

If you use a feat in your build, and do not benefit from racial features other than attributes, human variant is ALWAYS the optimal race for attributes.

I am not saying other races are not good. I am not saying other races are inferior if they have powerful trait synergies(such as Tabaxi and Monk, or Kobold Pack Tactics and *anything*). I am also not saying that you should always pick Human Variant. You should pick what's fun, and try interesting things in the interest of said fun. But from a purely optimization standpoint, Human Variant is *always* the most efficient for stats if you use a feat. Any guide that says something like Half Elves are better because of their attributes then says you should grab Mobile or Sentinel or whatever is wrong. Half Elves are effectively *equal* to Humans in attributes at that point. They are better because of their racials and free skills, but NOT because of their attributes.

Edit: Trying to make clear it's only from an attributes perspective. Individual racials can radically pump races above human, such as Tabaxi speed and stuff. Just attributes. Only Attributes.
Disclaimer: you really should stop making titles that awfully look like trolls.
Also, no, it's not always the best choice.
Simply because not feats are equal in terms of opportunity.

A few examples...

- Heavy Armor Master is extremely good at low levels when any class is basically susceptible to fall in one turn when several enemies are attacking it. At higher level, it does provide a long-term benefit (you still have spare several dozen HP in the end) but won't make any difference anymore on the question of "will I be downed": single attacks from enemies just hit too hard for a measly 3 points to change the outcome, usually. At highest levels most attacks have a magical component on them (whether "physical" or another damage type) so it's borderline useless.
So grabbing it as early as possible is the best choice.
In this situation, Variant Human is indeed the best race choice by far.

- Defensive Duelist: while always nice to get a boost to defense, it consumes your reaction and affects only a single attack. Plus it scales with proficiency bonus (starts +2, ends +6). For many classes (most martials, Rogues in particular) using this reaction has a heavy opportunity cost since it means no OA (Sneak Attack, Smite, weapon cantrip, Sentinel effect). And requires a finesse weapon, so usually a DEX build, which usually go with a DEX-based armord. So it's an ASI you couldn't spend on plain bumping your AC by putting +2 in DEX (and better Initiative / saves / checks).
So grabbing it early is inefficient, it's much better to take it after level 10 at least.
In this situation, Variant Human is the worst choice.

- Tough: gives you +2 HP for every level, with an auto-catchup if you take it late. So really, take it when you want. But grabbing it as first level is unimpressive: just +2 HP. It begins being worth near mid-levels. And for early defense, there are better options (armor feats).
In this situation, Variant Human is the worst choice.

- Sharpshooter: exploiting the gamble benefit is usually a bad idea unless you have an outstanding chance to hit for your current level (Archery + Bless or Faerie Fire from a friend for example). However, ignoring cover and range disadvantage is extremely good at all levels. With that said, some racial abilities are also extremely good depending on campaigns.
In this situation, Variant Human is always a good choice: but being better or worse than others heavily depends on how important ranged attacks are for the character, and the kind of campaign he's going into.

- Actor/Observant: admittedly a niche case, most people don't care about these feats sadly ^^. But any caster wanting this would be undermining themselves by taking Variant Human when there are races providing a +2 in their casting stat (there is now an official race with +2 WIS, right? Or am I mistaken? Don't have the Volo's book): because they can have 18 at level 4, exactly as a Variant Human, except they also have all their racial features a Human doesn't provide (confer other posts in the thread).
In this situation, Variant Human is usually the worst choice (well, from an optimisation point of view: you still have to accept all the fluff that comes with any races ^^).

- Ritual Caster: provides ability to learn rituals based on character level, its efficiency depends on DM and party composition. If the DM is nice and nobody has rituals, it *may* be worth it taking it at first level. Otherwise, grabbing it at level 4 is usually good enough.
In this situation, Variant Human would usually be the lesser choice.

- Sentinel/Polearm Master: increases the chance of getting one additional attack per round. Except for a Monk (built-in bonus action attack), it is a power boost that scales naturally as you progress, and extremely good at low levels when you usually have only one attack normally (except Monk / martial with TWF). Even more worthy on classes that have spike damage on weapon attacks (Battlemaster, Paladin, Rogue).
In this situation Variant Human would usually be the better choice (just have to get Darkvision not too late, one way or another).

Etc etc.


And that's fine. I'm only talking about people who write guides and rate certain races high because of attributes alone, while leaving Human Variant lower. From the perspective of attributes, Human Variant should *never* be rated lower than Half Elf. When you factor in racials, Human Variant can absolutely be lower. But if people write guides and latch onto "Half Elves give so many attributes" they are wrong. Racial traits are worth WAY more than attributes, but that doesn't invalidate that Human Variant is as strong as Half Elf from the perspective of attributes.
Making a troll-like, click-bait title is a bad practice. No good reason can justify that (and especially not this, its like "people are behaving or reasoning stupidly so I do the same to make them realize": usually this approach is bound to fail, and I hope I don't have to explain why it should be obvious).

Only matters with 5E's implementation of Point Buy because of its inherent nature. When you use dice rolling you have a chance of getting an interesting array you couldn't get with Point Buy that allows more flexibility in character development. Of course what is unspoken is that the character has an 18 in his prime at 1st level. Since it is not an abomination of greatest apportion that ruins gaming forever for a 1st level character to have an 18 that is why 5E's implementation of Point Buy is bunk.

Usual obligatory clarifications:

1) No, a character doesn't have to have an 18 at 1st level or else. There's nothing wrong with not having an 18 at 1st level.
2) This problem is only a problem with 5E's implementation of Point Buy, not the concept of Point Buy itself.
I don't really understand what made you bring this up but I agree 100%. :smallbiggrin: (In my games people have a 30 point pool and right to get a 16 pre-racial: those who want to optimize can while still having a cap to aim for, the others are a bit better all-around, everyone is happy).

[Elminster298]

...with a few exceptions.

(Clipped)

Only Attributes.

I almost passed this over BECAUSE of the clickbait title. However, I was genuinely intrigued as to which false equivalency you planned on using to justify your point of view. "ONLY ATTRIBUTES" right? You have made that absolutely clear. THEN STOP COUNTING THE FEAT AT FIRST LEVEL! That is a racial feature no different than darkvision, flight, or improved crit. Attributes only human gets (+1, +1). Half elf gets (+2 cha, +1, +1). The feat is equivalent to +2 asi ONLY after 1st lvl. At 1st lvl that feat can only be compared with other racial abilities. That's it. Your argument is flat out, factually incorrect. For that feat at 1st lvl to be counted as a +2 attribute bonus, all races would have to be able to trade in 2 attribute points for a feat at 1st lvl. Which, RAW, they can not.

[Garresh]

I almost passed this over BECAUSE of the clickbait title. However, I was genuinely intrigued as to which false equivalency you planned on using to justify your point of view. "ONLY ATTRIBUTES" right? You have made that absolutely clear. THEN STOP COUNTING THE FEAT AT FIRST LEVEL! That is a racial feature no different than darkvision, flight, or improved crit. Attributes only human gets (+1, +1). Half elf gets (+2 cha, +1, +1). The feat is equivalent to +2 asi ONLY after 1st lvl. At 1st lvl that feat can only be compared with other racial abilities. That's it. Your argument is flat out, factually incorrect. For that feat at 1st lvl to be counted as a +2 attribute bonus, all races would have to be able to trade in 2 attribute points for a feat at 1st lvl. Which, RAW, they can not.

That's a good point. However, at level 1 the human doesn't have less 16s than other races. I admit fully prior to level 4 this argumemt does not apply.

[Maxilian]

That's a good point. However, at level 1 the human doesn't have less 16s than other races. I admit fully prior to level 4 this argumemt does not apply.

Aren't those the moments where the Vuman shine? i mean... they are great at low lvl, mainly for the option to get more feats quite fast. (as you lvl up, it become less relevant)

[King539]

Mountain dwarves. Half-elves.

These both have a total of +4 to stats, while humans can only get +3.

[Garresh]

Aren't those the moments where the Vuman shine? i mean... they are great at low lvl, mainly for the option to get more feats quite fast. (as you lvl up, it become less relevant)

Yes, but again the point I am making is *exclusively* attribute based. That doesn't kick in til level 4.

[Specter]

For any Charisma class (and there are four of them), Half-Elf is better than Variant Human, not equal.

Let's consider two Bards at level 4, with the War Caster feat.

V. Human Valor Bard
ST16, DX10, CO14, IN10, WI10, CH16
Starting feat: War Caster
Level-4 ASI: +2ST

Half-Elf Valor Bard
ST16, DX10, CO14, IN10, WI10, CH16
Level-4 ASI: War Caster

Now, Variant Human has:
- 1 skill

While Half-Elf has:
- 2 skills
- Darkvision
- Fey Ancestry
- 1 extra language

This is, of course, just one example.

[miburo]

I hesitate whenever I see "always" in a thread title or argument. Early on 5E I remember someone posted that a Dex fighter is always better than a Str fighter. Yeah that argument went well...

I agree with the majority here that the narrow scope of argument doesn't make sense. If you count a feat's potential attribute bonus towards the vhuman's benefits, then you need to take into account all the other abilities non-human races get too. The funny part is the best reason to take vhuman usually isn't for an attribute bonus feat, it's usually for something like GWM, Sharpshooter, or Polearm Master. (Although starting resilient: con for a mage is pretty nice too).

I sympathize for OP's frustration with some guides being like "Half Elves are t3h best!!!1111". They are a really powerful and flexible race but even for a Cha-based class they aren't always the best choice. Of course the next obvious choice is usually vhuman, because feats rock :smallcool:

Edit: One example I can think of for when to pick vhuman for Cha-based class is Paladin. Let's say you want Polearm Master and Sentinel. You can have that online by level 4 whereas it would take up to level 8 for a Half-Elf. At level 20 you will likely end up in the same place, true though. But I don't know many games that get to level 20.

[Garresh]

Mountain dwarves. Half-elves.

These both have a total of +4 to stats, while humans can only get +3.

Nono that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying if you have a feat in your build such as Sentinel, the fact that human gets it for free means they effectively get an extra ASI since they don't need to spend one on the feat.

[coolAlias]

Nono that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying if you have a feat in your build such as Sentinel, the fact that human gets it for free means they effectively get an extra ASI since they don't need to spend one on the feat.
An ASI which they would need to spend to bump their secondary stat to match what the half-elf started with, and now they're equal except the half-elf still has all the other juicy racial benefits.

Just take a look at Specter's post, or mine before that. Variant humans are good, surely, but half-elf is undeniably a strong choice.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I figure variant humans being better than other races in most circumstances was a deliberate design decision. It's very clear that the designers considered it potentially overpowered compared to the other races- hence why it's a variant.

I also think it's brilliant to allow them regardless and let them be better in most circumstances. Most D&D settings assume humans are the norm, and more prolific than other races. By having them edge out other races players will naturally gravitate towards them, hence making that rule hold. I figure this is also why the two half-humans are also statistically better than most of the other races, the half-elf and half-orc. It really lends itself to a human-centric world.

It helps that an extra feat, while powerful, doesn't break the game's balance or logic. Alongside the stat cap and bounded accuracy, it also doesn't make playing a different race too terrible for those people that just really want to play a gnome barbarian anyway.

Outside of the heavy weapon problem...

[MaxWilson]

For any Charisma class (and there are four of them), Half-Elf is better than Variant Human, not equal.

Let's consider two Bards at level 4, with the War Caster feat.

V. Human Valor Bard
ST16, DX10, CO14, IN10, WI10, CH16
Starting feat: War Caster
Level-4 ASI: +2ST

Half-Elf Valor Bard
ST16, DX10, CO14, IN10, WI10, CH16
Level-4 ASI: War Caster

Now, Variant Human has:
- 1 skill

While Half-Elf has:
- 2 skills
- Darkvision
- Fey Ancestry
- 1 extra language

This is, of course, just one example.

Hold on, now. This generalization doesn't hold either. If the highest rolled stat was an odd number (e.g. Cha 17), then Half-Elf can have Cha 19 and Warcaster at 4th level, while human can have Cha 20 and Warcaster at 4th level. The human is ahead by either an ASI or a feat. Half-elf does not dominate human in this case--it depends on how whether you value the Darkvision/etc. more than the extra Charisma or feat.

[Tanarii]

Nono that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying if you have a feat in your build such as Sentinel, the fact that human gets it for free means they effectively get an extra ASI since they don't need to spend one on the feat.
If a caster would want to pick the Darkvision spell at level 3, do you count a race's Darkvision as getting their level's class feature for 'free' at level 3?

You're trying to pick apart the racial features and bonuses and say the Feat is the same as the attributes. I understand you're trying to argue that as a counter to other people who are picking apart the racial features and bonuses and focus just on the bonuses. But your argument is just as flawed as theirs is. Which makes it a not very effective counter-argument.

[coolAlias]

Hold on, now. This generalization doesn't hold either. If the highest rolled stat was an odd number (e.g. Cha 17), then Half-Elf can have Cha 19 and Warcaster at 4th level, while human can have Cha 20 and Warcaster at 4th level. The human is ahead by either an ASI or a feat. Half-elf does not dominate human in this case--it depends on how whether you value the Darkvision/etc. more than the extra Charisma or feat.
This is true, but guides and threads discussing general optimization typically use either standard array or point buy as the basis, not rolled stats for the simple fact that once you bring in rolled stats, all bets are off - you have to analyze those on an individual basis.

Anyway, the OP's point that half-elves are overrated in guides is probably true, but half-elves are always a strong choice, especially for Cha-based classes. Variant human is also a strong choice. 5e has done a pretty good job of giving lots of good choices.

[MaxWilson]

This is true, but guides and threads discussing general optimization typically use either standard array or point buy as the basis, not rolled stats for the simple fact that once you bring in rolled stats, all bets are off - you have to analyze those on an individual basis.

But standard array always has an odd number as its highest stat, even moreso than rolled stats. The point still holds and is even stronger than before, if you exclude rolled stats from discussion.


Anyway, the OP's point that half-elves are overrated in guides is probably true, but half-elves are always a strong choice, especially for Cha-based classes. Variant human is also a strong choice. 5e has done a pretty good job of giving lots of good choices.

Agreed.

[coolAlias]

But standard array always has an odd number as its highest stat, even moreso than rolled stats. The point still holds and is even stronger than before, if you exclude rolled stats from discussion.
How so? Taking standard array with a v-human vs. half-elf at 1st and again at 4th level, as Specter did above, can you show how the v-human ends up ahead?

Half-elf, 4th level ASI for a feat
15 +1 = 16
14 +2 = 16
13 +1 = 14
12
10
8

V-Human, feat at 1st, 4th level ASI to bump a stat
15 +1 = 16 +2 = 18
14
13 +1 = 14
12
10
8

So, the v-human can have an 18 + feat at 4th; the half-elf cannot. BUT, the half-elf has a higher secondary stat as well as all the other juicy racial traits.

If the v-human puts that ASI into their secondary stat (a valid option for many builds), then they are unequivocally worse off than the half-elf. Note, though, that this really only applies to builds that utilize Cha.

Again, v-human is not bad, far from it, but I would never say that it is always superior to half-elf, nor would I say half-elf is always superior to human. They are both excellent options.

[Tanarii]

Half-elf, 4th level ASI for a feat
15 +2 = 17

V-Human, feat at 1st, 4th level ASI to bump a stat
15 +1 = 16 +2 = 18

That's how.

Edit: Your example shows it even more, since you're 2 points behind, not just one.

[MaxWilson]

How so? Taking standard array with a v-human vs. half-elf at 1st and again at 4th level, as Specter did above, can you show how the v-human ends up ahead?

Half-elf, 4th level ASI for a feat
15 +1 = 16
14 +2 = 16
13 +1 = 14
12
10
8

V-Human, feat at 1st, 4th level ASI to bump a stat
15 +1 = 16 +2 = 18
14
13 +1 = 14
12
10
8

So, the v-human can have an 18 + feat at 4th; the half-elf cannot. BUT, the half-elf has a higher secondary stat as well as all the other juicy racial traits.

Precisely. Furthermore, if you were using point-buy, even your secondary stat could be a 16.

So if it's a SAD class (e.g. bardlock), or you're planning on playing it in a SAD way (Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock who only ever boosts CHA, not Strength), human is an ASI ahead.


If the v-human puts that ASI into their secondary stat (a valid option for many builds), then they are unequivocally worse off than the half-elf. Note, though, that this really only applies to builds that utilize Cha.

Again, v-human is not bad, far from it, but I would never say that it is always superior to half-elf, nor would I say half-elf is always superior to human. They are both excellent options.

We agree on the conclusion there: neither option dominates the other.

[coolAlias]

Half-elf, 4th level ASI for a feat
15 +2 = 17

V-Human, feat at 1st, 4th level ASI to bump a stat
15 +1 = 16 +2 = 18

That's how.

Edit: Your example shows it even more, since you're 2 points behind, not just one.

Yes, but in 5e, 16/16/14 is better than 17/14/14, unless perhaps you plan on taking the Actor feat.

Anyway, I already acknowledged that the human can have an 18 and a feat before the half-elf, but at the cost of not having any other nice racial abilities. That's the whole point - it is better under specific circumstances (wanting an 18 + feat at 4th and not caring about secondary stat of < 16 nor about other racial benefits), just as half-elf and other races are better under other specific circumstances.

If you are you playing a class (or classes) that is Cha-based and a little MAD, a half-elf tends to be the better choice.

If you are playing a character that is dependent on having multiple feats, variant human is the better choice if your class is SAD and still a good choice if it is MAD.

EDIT: Ninja'd by MaxWilson - we agree on the conclusion, for sure, which was my whole point - neither is strictly better, it depends on what you, as a player, value more for your particular character build. ;)

[Tanarii]

EDIT: Ninja'd by MaxWilson - we agree on the conclusion, for sure, which was my whole point - neither is strictly better, it depends on what you, as a player, value more for your particular character build. ;)Right. His point was a counter the idea that a Half-elf is always better for a Cha class. I only jumped in since it seemed like you were defending the position he was countering. Not that he needs anyone to jump in and defend him hahaha :smallyuk:

[Garresh]

Tbh I should have just said Half Elves are not the best race for Cha classes in terms of attributes. Probably would have been clearer. I should also probably making clickbait titles. XD

[Elminster298]

Tbh I should have just said Half Elves are not the best race for Cha classes in terms of attributes. Probably would have been clearer. I should also probably making clickbait titles. XD

This is an entire site of people who can be generally characterized as perfectionist, nit- picky, and detail oriented. Proper wording is FAR more important than any clickbait title.

[miburo]

This is an entire site of people who can be generally characterized as perfectionist, nit- picky, and detail oriented. Proper wording is FAR more important than any clickbait title.

Man, I really want to consider quoting that in my sig if you don't mind :smallbiggrin:

[Elminster298]

Man, I really want to consider quoting that in my sig if you don't mind :smallbiggrin:

By all means. Go for it!

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Variant Human is ALWAYS The Best Race For Attributes
...with a few exceptions.

Well, that feels a bit dishonest.

[90sMusic]

And those races are better because of their traits. Agreed. I'm just annoyed by how many guides rate Half Elf as the best race for a charisma based class because it "gives you the most attributes" as their only reason. That argument fails because if you use a feat Human Variant matches that. That's all I'm saying. Admittedly I used a very clickbaity title. I'm just tired of people ignoring that an extra feat can be CONVERTED into extra attributes, when you factor in opportunity costs. That's all. From the big picture perspective yeah Varhuman is not always the best race. Races have tons of great features they can't match. But if someone rates a race as better than human because of attributes they're wrong.

Edit: Why can't I do that? People make an argument based purely on attributes. I say that argument is wrong based purely on attributes. This a very specific kind of error people make on guides when they talk EXCLUSIVELY about attributes. I want to draw attention to it because its annoyingly incorrect. Obviously having an extra 2 attribute points is crap compared to being able to fly as a racial or having inborn advantage on saving throws or something. But when people use attributes alone as a reason for rating Half Elves as so high it is flawed. Half Elves are fantastic because they get great attributes IN ADDITION to a bunch of fantastic racial features.

Half Elf is better because it is better. Darkvision, 3 racial languages instead of 2, advantage against charm, immune to sleep, 2 extra skill proficiencies of your choice...

Until they make a feat that can give you all of the above in one package, half elf will be better than human for the other perks.

Darkvision alone is worth a feat in most campaigns.

[Merudo]

Darkvision alone is worth a feat in most campaigns.

Unless you are a scout type character, I doubt Darkvision is worth a feat.

Exception: everyone else in the party has Darkvision, AND everyone in the party is good at stealth, AND the DM doesn't enforce the "penalty to perception in darkness with darkvision" rule.

Add a single human to the group, or someone who sports heavy armor, and Darkvision is near useless.


Half Elf is better because it is better. Darkvision, 3 racial languages instead of 2, advantage against charm, immune to sleep, 2 extra skill proficiencies of your choice...


Does knowing elvish ever help anyone? Like, is there a moment where the DM prevents the PCs from interacting with elves because they can't speak common or something? And the PCs can't complete a quest as the result? Is this a thing that happens at tables?

I'm also skeptical about how useful that sixth (or seventh) skill proficiency is going to be, unless you are in a skill-heavy campaign.

Keep in mind Lucky will likely have a dramatic effect at least once a session, that feats like Sharpshooter/GWM will probability be used at least half of the time during combat, that Crossbow Expert / Polearm Master will likely be used almost every combat round, as will an added +2 to the primary attribute.

I've honestly been in plenty of campaigns where knowing elvish, having advantage on charm, and being immune to sleep would have helped zilch...

[Spiritchaser]

Exception: everyone else in the party has Darkvision, AND everyone in the party is good at stealth, AND the DM doesn't enforce the "penalty to perception in darkness with darkvision" rule.


The first two alone are sufficient.

Even with dim light perception penalties enforced, if you’re the only one in a party like that without Darkvision, find a way to get it.

One group I DM runs this way... everyone has stealth, everyone has Darkvision.

A few years ago, the paladin convinced some bandits to help save a group of villagers from some insectoid critters in a natural cave. (The warlock was pretty ticked off, he’d been looking forward to “playing” with the bandits) Lots and lots of small encounters, and on a clock against a rising water level, so a limited number of short rests.

I had run a few trial combats of the party fighting these bugs and I had a general sense of how many to have, and so on.

I didn’t adjust things with the bandits, naively assuming that the bandits would make things easier up to the point when they tried to backstab the PCs.

The lack of stealth and PC control over choosing their fights (because bandit torches) was actually more of a hindrance than the bandit’s swords were a benefit.

Same story on an island where two other players joined up for a play session. They didn’t have Darkvision. They hurt more than they helped.

From a strictly mechanical point of view, in a stealthy campaign I’d only suggest a human if they could get Darkvision. Fortunately there are quite a few ways to do that.

[Merudo]

The lack of stealth and PC control over choosing their fights (because bandit torches) was actually more of a hindrance than the bandit’s swords were a benefit.

Same story on an island where two other players joined up for a play session. They didn’t have Darkvision. They hurt more than they helped.

From a strictly mechanical point of view, in a stealthy campaign I’d only suggest a human if they could get Darkvision. Fortunately there are quite a few ways to do that.

Thank you for sharing that - I found what you said quite interesting.

It makes me think Darkvision is either near useless or unbelievably good, depending on the party composition.

[Beechgnome]

The ONLY +2 Wisdom race is the Firbolg from Volo's.

Poor ol' neglected Githzerai. If you need them, they'll be meditating over there in the corner.