I think this is a "yes, but..." answer.
First off, less water in the oceans means less water in the hydrological cycle. So less rainfall. Earth at the height of the ice age is a good model for this: with lots of water locked up as ice, the climate became drier. Deserts expanded, rainforests contracted. Here's a map of how small the rainforests and how large the deserts were at the glacial maximum.
So your planet will be like an ice-age Earth on steroids! Except without the massive ice caps. If it actually HAS an ice age, it will get drier still.
How hospitable it will be for humans (or any big land animals) will depend on how your continents are arranged. If you have a third less water than Earth, then supercontinents are going to be a lot more common during your planet's history.
The centre of a supercontinent is very arid and uninhabitable by pretty much everything other than microbes. Basically it is such a long distance from the sea (where water gets into the atmosphere) that any clouds have dumped their rain and ceased to exist long before they reach the centre of the continent. Think of the driest deserts on Earth (hot or cold) - those are positively dripping with water compared to the centre of a supercontinent.
Bits of the supercontinent are subject to a mega-monsoon climate, so the biomes there will be unlike anything currently on Earth. All this mega-monsoon data is for Earth at a time it had no ice caps. I've no idea how polar ice sheets would affect this mega-monsoon wind pattern. Here's a paper on the mega-monsoon through geological time.
This article suggests that reptiles and proto-mammals may have lived in separate parts of Pangea because of the weird climate. So again, biomes would be very different from Earth today.
So your humans could live there, but they - and much of the rest of life - will be constrained to the habitable areas. Ironically your planet has more landmass than Earth, but it very likely has less habitable land area than Earth.