|
Okay, I was talking to one of my players last night and he told me that one of his big concerns about 4E is that there seems to be a bias against human characters. He pointed out that demihumans get an inherent +4 to attributes and most get at least one really good racial ability. (Dwarves seem to be the exception to the awesome racial ability trend.) However, humans get an inherent +2 bouns to attributes and a bonus at will power. He certainly seems to have a point about a bias towards demihumans, how can I address this?
Okay, I was talking to one of my players last night and he told me that one of his big concerns about 4E is that there seems to be a bias against human characters. He pointed out that demihumans get an inherent +4 to attributes and most get at least one really good racial ability. (Dwarves seem to be the exception to the awesome racial ability trend.) However, humans get an inherent +2 bouns to attributes and a bonus at will power. He certainly seems to have a point about a bias towards demihumans, how can I address this?
I personally think that Dwarves get two great racials. The ability to not be slower with armor, and the minor action for their healing surge.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the humans get a bonus of 1 extra skill, 1 extra feat, 1 extra at-will. For some reason I think they get +1 fort/ref/will too, but I may be totally off on that.
Dwarves seem to be the exception to the awesome racial ability trend.
Are you kidding? Minor action for second wind is the BEST racial ability going. Our last campaign was 3 dwarves, a halfling and a deva, and the current campaign is 2 dwarves, a shifter, a human and a changeling.
To the original point, I think humans do pretty well in the mix. Their benefits are certainly a bit more subtle than those of the other races - a third at-will is not always terribly useful, and the extra skill often seems to vanish in the mix. The bonus feat is always nice, though, and humans have several racial feats available that are really good, so I think it balances out quite well.
Dwarves are really good, sure, but I don't think anything about them makes them 'the best'. Pretty much every race has something to offer, and while plenty are more or less suited to specific classes and builds, I can think of very few combinations that don't have some synergy working for them.Honestly unless your going for a role-playing reason or are a rogue, how could you not go with dwarf?
They're just so amazing.
Though I have heard quite a few jokes around the game table about dwarves representing the master race.
I find this truly bizarre because I have a heck of a time staying away from humans as a race. Of course, I like to build quirky characters, like my Summoning Wizard multi. Shaman who deals direct damage MAYBE once per encounter but can be trusted to keep three or four mobile roadblocks/hazards (Storm Pillar, Spirit Companion, Arcane Debris plus summons) on the board at all times. This of course means I need all the feats and powers I can get, where straight statistics are not as important. It can be hard to do this without being a human.
BTW, Radio Free Hommlet - the podcast - refers to Second Wind as the "dwarven racial power" since they say only dwarves seem to use it. I have to agree.
|
I play the only human of an 8-character party in one campaign, and although it doesn't seem to be a popular choice I have no complaints of being "underpowered" or at a disadvantage. I think the versatility of humans shines just as well with a base class (my choice being human wizard) as it does with a hybrid. The bonuses to defenses have come in handy several times, but the extra at-will is great. As a wizard, I can have an area spell (Chilling Cloud), a direct damage spell with far range (Magic Missile) and the option of a battlefield control/obstacle spell (Storm Pillar). Having unlimited access to three different energy types has also been useful.
edit footnote: Dwarves have great racial abilities, but we don't have any at my table!
|
In our group we haven't found the human to be at a disadvantage compared to the other races (yes we have a Dwarven Cleric - of course). I just think that now all races are viable so humans aren't the default race of choice. In 3.xe the extra feat was incredibly useful, it's nice in 4e. Perhaps what was a seeing isn't imbalance but a balancing of the races?
S.
Could be. I know I play dragonborns because I think they look kewl ^_^Perhaps what was a seeing isn't imbalance but a balancing of the races?
S.
I play them because there is an inherent coolness about playing a dragonman. I've wanted to since I first read about Draconians but would rather gnaw off my own left foot than play Dragonlance.
As for the OP - humans get a lot more than just an extra at will! An extra trained skill (of your choice), an extra feat (of your choice) and +1 to all defenses except AC. That is a heck of a lot just for lacking a (often underwhelming) racial power and a +2 to one ability (btw the +1 to all defenses translates to a +6 to ability scores for that area!).
That being said there are a few classes where I wouldn't bother with a human - Ranger being the most notable. With Twin Strike outshining every single At-Will power a Ranger has access to by such a huge degree the racial at-will humans get doesn't mean anything. But humans, imo, make the best wizards and fighters out there - lots of versatility and the extra feat means the fighter can get fully trained (ie Weapon Expertise) exotic weapons that much more quickly.
I really think it depends on both the campaign and the kind of class being created. Very focused classes probably gain more from being a race that caters to that focus. So builds that are emphasizing a very specific style do better to pick a race that enhances that style. On the other hand clerics and mages and many other classes are more reactionary. They try and overcome a diverse series of problems and here humans tend to shine.
Campaigns featuring more skill checks and skill challenges also support humans very well as that extra trained skill becomes valuable. Extra feats are also very good especially if one is playing with more books and hence more good feats.
I play the only human of an 8-character party in one campaign, and although it doesn't seem to be a popular choice I have no complaints of being "underpowered" or at a disadvantage.
I agree. Humans have always been my favored race, and I don't think they're underpowered in 4e. But I do think that 4e humans are decidedly unappealing to players. In 3e I virtually played nothing but humans, but in 4e I find myself continually drawn to other races simply because the ability bonus entry is two spaces shorter for humans.
So in my own games I give humans an extra +2, because it doesn't matter much either way, but it helps make humans as attractive as other races.
Certain races are well suited to certain classes due to racial abilities that align neatly. Thus I see humans passed over alot if you a buidling a specific striker class, or you are optimizing.
And face it, we all know that it is to be human. The question of race also changes when you shift in paragon tier. I have not played epic yet.
But ultimately we always tend to favor certain races. I do not like playing dwarfs, elves or gnomes. I tend to favor the exotics like revenants, warforged, or devas.
There are some nice optimizations that can be done with Githaynki, in regards to wizards, artificers or warlocks, but I can't get into that race either.
I think that while the extra at will isn't that great, it usually adds an at will power that isn't likely to get used. Also that an eladrin's skill bonuses and eladrin education make them better candidates for being the best race for performing well at skill challenges and such.
But, humans are still among my favored options because, when I build a character, I don't really favor race/class combinations that make full use out of the races abilities. I'm pretty much just as likely to make a dwarven cleric or fighter as I am to make a dwarven rogue, warden, or warlord.
While a human may not be the best choice for a specific class, for me it is a pretty solid on average, because it isn't bad for any of the classes either.
The +1 to most defenses is pretty good though. It took away a bit of the pain of only having one +2 to an ability score.
So in my own games I give humans an extra +2, because it doesn't matter much either way, but it helps make humans as attractive as other races.
I dont know the system well enough yet to start implementing houserules, however the stat modification I was going to give them was +2 +1 +1 - partly to emphasise their "all-roundedness" compared to the other races' more specialised niches.
I don't think this is a massive boost, but it feels much better to counter the impression of underpowered humans (people tend to over-emphasise the benefit of stat increases in my opinion).
I used to think humans were underpowered compared to the other races. I even considered house ruling some additional bonus to make them more attractive.
Two years of play and I've come to see humans as balanced with the other races. Many racial powers are only as good as some at-will powers; some are worse and useful in extremely limited situations. Don't get me wrong; some are pretty awesome (i.e. Dwarf).
The extra stat bumps is nice, but is really only useful when your building a narrowly defined character concept (X race make great insert your class here). Humans tend to be more versatile and the extra feat appeals to many of my players aiming for a specific tree of abilities (every new book with feats makes being human more attractive).
Ultimately our play experience has shown us that the extra stat bump is good not great. You can spend hours making the uber race/stat/class combination and your only 10-15% better than the next guy who spent thirty minutes and was ok with just being good enough (often dice rolls end up being a greater arbiter than stats).
My intent to house rule the human race fell by the wayside as my parties over the last two years have all been majority human.
My intent to house rule the human race fell by the wayside as my parties over the last two years have all been majority human.
In some ways its the lack of humans in my games that make me occasionally consider boosting humans. Humans where pretty much hands down the best race in 3.5 except in certain limited and focused builds which meant that humans predominated - I'd forgotten how much I prefer to play human dominated games. Back in 2nd we had the same problem with other races just being to common in the adventuring group.
While its the power for their characters that attract players to different races (human or otherwise) my experience when I'm the DM is that humans naturally provide more situations for role playing and also tend to be more fleshed out and complex.
Hence this is one area where I'm a bit unhappy with the play balance, its actually better if humans are just 'better' if only just a little. That said its true that every new book released makes humans a better race compared to the rest of the races so I'll likely get my way eventually.