I've heard it said before that it is so useful that it encourages the use of the Human race, which has a lot of flexibility with no drawbacks, and it does sometimes seem like demihumans aren't that common compared to Humans as PCs.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if humans don't dominate the campaign, then the bonus feat isn't good enough.
If the campaign is supposed to be distinctive in that humans are not the (far and away) dominant race of the world, then that begs all kinds of interesting discussions. But your standard world where the norm is human and every demihuman place is special for not being human, it doesn't make sense for demihuman racial advantages to overtake human ones.
I dunno. You could make an argument that other racial features may be better... But the bonus feat helps a lot of builds go online sooner, which makes the most vanilla race the best choice if you want to do something creative mechanically. How's that for irony?
I mean, dwarves get +2 on all their saves, against MOST things they would need to save against. That's roughly the equivalent to 3 feats. But they don't get to choose what those feats are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darkvision alone is super powerful, and often makes me consider Dwarf or Half-orc when I'm thinking of my new characters.
That extra human feat is great but every other race has so many awesome features that I don't for a moment believe it is over-powered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if humans don't dominate the campaign, then the bonus feat isn't good enough.
If the campaign is supposed to be distinctive in that humans are not the (far and away) dominant race of the world, then that begs all kinds of interesting discussions. But your standard world where the norm is human and every demihuman place is special for not being human, it doesn't make sense for demihuman racial advantages to overtake human ones.
That assumes PCs should be reflective of the population as a whole, however.
My assumptions on race are extremely non-standard, however. I usually call the Human race Magni, because I assume Elves and Dwarves and Orcs and Drow to be Human.
That extra human feat is great but every other race has so many awesome features that I don't for a moment believe it is over-powered.
I don't worry about power, I worry about it being overly flexible.
Now that Racial Favored Class Bonuses are a thing (as opposed to not existing in 3.5), it's a class-by-class basis.
For the Wapriest for example, the Human racial bonus is the only real choice (unless you're going for a crazy build like the Tengu with natural attacks, but that's an atypical-yet-strong build). However, a Scion of Humanity Aasimar is just better in basically every way - better stats, better abilities, crazy resistances, and still gets the Favored Class Abilities of the Human. Yes, you lose out on the Racial Bonus Feat at first level, BUT you are an Aasimar, which means you have access to Aasimar Racial Feats. If you think about it, that's the same as taking Racial Heritage as a Human to gain access to those feats, so no real Feat lost if you make the most use of that Race.
The Half-Elf and Half-Orc optionally gain the same RFCAs as a Human, and the Half-Elf is arguably better in every way than the Human, since they either gain Skill Focus or Exotic Weapons Proficiency as a Racial Bonus Feat while still counting as a human - all the bonuses, and no downsides. Oh, and let's not forget that the Half-Elf can have TWO Favored Classes, so commence with Multiclassing like a boss
For the Barbarian, Human is the most iconic race, but the Half-Orc and Dwarf are just 100% better. You get an extra round of Rage per level, which doesn't seem like a lot at first, but by lv7+, that's the same as having taken Extra Rage and then-some.
Human is a generally-good race to take, but there are TONS of other races that work better with some classes than a Human (and several get their Racial Favored Class Abilities, as well).
|
The bonus feat is a great choice for many builds and makes human a good choice for lots of characters. I look at this as a good thing.
There are still lots of other racial abilities that are exceptional in some situations. As mentioned above Darkvision can be very powerful, and combined with the versatility of choosing what ability score your bonus goes to often makes Half Orcs a great choice... arguably as good or better than human for some characters. If your wizard is ever going to invest a feat in Spell Penetration, then the elven bonus that mimics the feat is as good as a feat in the long run. Just a couple examples of situations where the bonus feat may pale in comparison to other races abilities.
So while the bonus feat and extra skillpoint are good I still don't know if the bonuses are as good as they should be to encourage humans to take the central role they are intended to in the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That assumes PCs should be reflective of the population as a whole, however.if humans don't dominate the campaign, then the bonus feat isn't good enough.
If the campaign is supposed to be distinctive in that humans are not the (far and away) dominant race of the world, then that begs all kinds of interesting discussions. But your standard world where the norm is human and every demihuman place is special for not being human, it doesn't make sense for demihuman racial advantages to overtake human ones.
Actually, it doesn't. The CRB provides races that are more or less balanced against each other. PCs are equal, but they are equally exceptional.
The default assumption for Pathfinder is that humans dominate the setting. Normally that assumption is based upon some idea that humans are noteworthy among all the sentient races at being so flexible- they can adapt to anything and generally drive innovation. This is the reason for the stereotypes that hobbits halflings live in the shadows of human cities, elves and dwarves are stuck in their decaying realms because of their stubborn sticking to outmoded ways of life, orcs and goblins don't threaten to overrun the world (without outside help leading them) because they too are too uncreative, etc.
If a setting takes the focus off humans (i.e. quits defining everything by how they compare to humans) it'd be a neat idea for a fresh look at racial abilities. But so long as humans are the literal center of the game/setting, and that center is based on being adaptable/ambitious, humans' racial abilities giving them the most flexibility is pretty appropo. It's just my own opinion that humans should dominate a party- that's completely separate from whether or not humans should dominate a setting. (they just usually DO)
Human is great if you're going for a slightly-unconventional builds that are feat heavy.
If you absolutely need a feat that isn't covered by:
Skill Focus
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Racial Heritage (for entrance into Aasimar, Elf, or Orc Feats)
Extra X (Extra Rage, Extra Grit, Extra Discovery, etc.)
Then the Human is what you want. Other than that, taking a Human is simply an RP choice (and, depending on the Campaign, a major bonus, if xenophobia is rampant, where non-humans and non-pureblood humans have a major penalty to social skills).
----
Actually, really thinking about it, the Half-Elf and Half-Orc are far-and-away way more powerful for optimizing than the Human, unless you are tremendously feat-starved.
Taking away Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Scion-of-Humanity Aasimars as possible races would probably greatly "re-balance" the game towards "Humans are Best" but I don't know if I really agree with that - I actually like Humans being mundane in a world filled to bursting with non-human races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans are almost always the best or tied for best race for a particular class. If we're going by relative power, yes. Human bonus feat is too good. Feats are super important in pathfinder, and you rarely get enough of them. Most builds rely on human bonus feat to survive the numerous taxes in this game.
From a story perspective, I disagree with the poster above who says that humans SHOULD dominate mechanically because they dominate culturally in pathfinder. That's such a bad game design mentality, it actually hurts me.
All this being said, I don't think it needs a change. I think it's more of a result of other factors in the rules system.
|
|
From a story perspective, I disagree with the poster above who says that humans SHOULD dominate mechanically because they dominate culturally in pathfinder. That's such a bad game design mentality, it actually hurts me.
I don't mean to argue, but if that's directed at my comments I'd like to stress that's not what I said.
In fact, I said the opposite: Humans are balanced against the other races, mechanically.
What I WAS saying that it's my opinion that if the setting is dominated by humans (and that is something that is outside the rules), then a party "should" be also dominated by humans. Barring of course, some thematic reason otherwise.. like an expedition from the Dwarven Mountain Kings to explore what those uppity humans have done with the surrounding countryside in the past 500 years or so, and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly... I don't even consider humans to be all that good...
Most of the time, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves to be a mechanically superior choice, unless your class is both Feat and Skill starved, like Cleric or Paladin.
The bonus feat and skill points are nice, but far from overpowered...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this reputation is something that followed them from 3.5. Back in 3.5 when feats were 1-3-6-9...and many classes were feat starved and some races were simply not worth it... yeah that feat was a really big deal. And humans didn't even get +2 to any stat too. You could never go wrong with humans (not that you can now).
Now that feats are 1-3-5-7-9... with all these extra ways to get feats and powers(bloodlines, new paladin stuff, favored class bonuses etc) I think not so much. Sure its an extra feat and it's a good thing, but you will not think again (and maybe regret it) when you pick a race that is not human.
Even now though, humans are quite versatile and have good racial features.
I tend to go more for Half Orc from an optimization stand point unless it's super low level starting and I really need the feat. Dark vision, access to human feats/FC bonuses, +1 luck bonus to all saves alternate racial, plus alternate racial for a bite attack? Oh hell yes.
Humans are always a good choice... But rarely the best choice. I wish all races were like that.
Dwarves are the big outlier among the basic races, imo. They get so much stuff. Humans bonus feat is often required for some builds, so they'll always have that advantage, even against -orcs and -elves.
Human flexibility makes them "not bad for any class" but they are also not the best at every class. Many have argued that dwarves are the best race and they make valid points. The feat is not overpowering IMO. If I were to modify the races I would help halflings.
If slings weren't absolute garbage, halflings might see some use.
Sorry, I know I'm a filthy water-balloon lover...
Human flexibility makes them "not bad for any class" but they are also not the best at every class. Many have argued that dwarves are the best race and they make valid points. The feat is not overpowering IMO. If I were to modify the races I would help halflings.
"Steel soul" and "Glory of Old" would be two of these points for me to play a dwarf.
Human flexibility makes them "not bad for any class" but they are also not the best at every class. Many have argued that dwarves are the best race and they make valid points. The feat is not overpowering IMO. If I were to modify the races I would help halflings."Steel soul" and "Glory of Old" would be two of these points for me to play a dwarf.
No slowdown in heavy armor, Charisma for their stat penalty, darkvision...
And besides the mechanical benefits of being a dwarf, everyone has wanted to be an ale-soaked axe fighter with a big beard and a Scottish accent at least once.
Human flexibility makes them "not bad for any class" but they are also not the best at every class. Many have argued that dwarves are the best race and they make valid points. The feat is not overpowering IMO. If I were to modify the races I would help halflings."Steel soul" and "Glory of Old" would be two of these points for me to play a dwarf.
Oddly enough, "Glory of Old" is a regional trait, not a race trait, so technically, even an elf can get that trait. Haha.
|
|
The extra feat is very helpful for classes like Paladins.
The extra skill point is useful, particularly if you are taking an irregular path into a Prestige Class. However, Half-Orcs can get the extra skill point by giving up Darkvision. I have an Urban Barbarian who did that. She intends to take two levels of Shadowdancer.
Because the Dark Tapestry sometimes comes up in PFS, I like to take Aklo. Only Humans and Half-Elves can do that without Linguistics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a story perspective, I disagree with the poster above who says that humans SHOULD dominate mechanically because they dominate culturally in pathfinder. That's such a bad game design mentality, it actually hurts me.
I don't mean to argue, but if that's directed at my comments I'd like to stress that's not what I said.
In fact, I said the opposite: Humans are balanced against the other races, mechanically.
What I WAS saying that it's my opinion that if the setting is dominated by humans (and that is something that is outside the rules), then a party "should" be also dominated by humans. Barring of course, some thematic reason otherwise.. like an expedition from the Dwarven Mountain Kings to explore what those uppity humans have done with the surrounding countryside in the past 500 years or so, and so on.
You said that if humans weren't dominant in the setting, the bonus feat wasn't good enough. You're quite obviously saying that you want the mechanics of the game to be imbalanced to make the setting make sense. You also say that it doesn't make sense for demi-humans racial mechanics to be better than humans. If you meant otherwise, that's totally fine, but you were pretty clear you wanted humans to be stronger mechanically in your original post.
|
|
Let's deconstruct my original post:
if humans don't dominate the campaign, then the bonus feat isn't good enough.
If the campaign is supposed to be distinctive in that humans are not the (far and away) dominant race of the world, then that begs all kinds of interesting discussions. But your standard world where the norm is human and every demihuman place is special for not being human, it doesn't make sense for demihuman racial advantages to overtake human ones.
First of all, I didn't say humans should be dominating a setting, but a campaign. As in, the plotline. That first statement in my OP is meant to be slightly humorous, and a declaration of my opinion that human PCs should be well represented in a party.
Moving on from that is my second statement that distances opinion from objectivity. It acknowledges that my view is not relevant to a nonstandard setting where humans are a minority/nondominant species. The last sentence is saying that so long as demihumans are indeed minority/nondominant species, their exceptional individuals represented by PCs should never be more powerful than the exceptional individuals of humanity represented by PCs. That last sentence is an unspoken repudiation of a hypothetical notion that non-human races might need "boosting" to compensate for human racial advantages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard it said before that it is so useful that it encourages the use of the Human race, which has a lot of flexibility with no drawbacks, and it does sometimes seem like demihumans aren't that common compared to Humans as PCs.
I used to think the bonus feat from human was the haxxors but I grew out of it. I've come to realize that in Pathfinder, the other racial abilities like darkvision, low-light vision, bonuses to saves, and so forth are usually better overall. A large part of this being that you're limited to feats you can take at 1st level. Everyone gets more feats than they used to in 3.x as well.
It's really most attractive for grossly long feat trees but most of those are bad anyway. Meanwhile the strongest classes tend to require few feats that aren't baked in, have little if any prerequisites, or have requirements that put them well outside the realm of what the human bonus feat is going to grant.
It's good but a number of the other core races (especially dwarfs) are far more stacked.
I kind of want to make a pathfinder game that takes place in Endless legend.
Humans aren't dominant nor extremely flexible, they're niche is advanced technology/smart tactics making up for their physical weakness. however, they have an obsession with discovering the power of the ancients.
|
Humans have an interesting relationship with the game's mechanics for building. Pardon me if I repeat what's already been said, but it's their flexibility that makes it so good.
Yeah, other races can be straight up more powerful. But pretty much every martial build requires a decent feat tax, some heftier than others. (Looking at you, my glorious Archer allies) It all depends on your starting level, for sure. But speaking as someone who's bias because of mainly playing PFS, it's really annoying to have a build that doesn't really come together until 5th level or higher. The bonus feat is part of the triforce of Human Racials: Skill point, Feat, Stat. You can build literally anything with them and be effective at it. It means that you can pick a 2+Int skill point class that isn't an Int-based caster and still have more than Perception maxed out.
The racial bonuses and penalties of other races tend to drive (or even dictate) what you can build. But with Humans? I feel free to do as I please. Even if I don't quite feel comfortable playing a scout without darkvision, and racial stats/FCBs make most races perform better than Humans at the things they do best.
I just love being able to kick-start my build if I need a lot of feats, or to take something helpful but not quite vital if I've got some wiggle room.
tl;dr: No, it's not stronger. But with the way feat chains work, it will save you a lot of headaches and prevent some early level non functionality.
the human bonus feat is for meeting prerequisites for completing the important parts of feat chains or entering prestige classes 2 levels earlier. it isn't a top tier ability, but a situational one that applies in a broadly applicable list of scenarios. the real power of the feat comes from flexibility.
My view is that it varies by level.
If you are looking at long term, the extra bonus feat and skill point for being Human look better and better as the game progresses, and the initial stuff other races get look less and less important.
However, that bonus feat rarely, if ever, is equal to the racial bonuses being not-human can get you, many of which are cited above. Thus, at low levels, no, the bonus feat is not too good. It's simply helpful in getting the benefits of later levels a bit faster, is all.
===Aelryinth
If slings weren't absolute garbage, halflings might see some use.
Sorry, I know I'm a filthy water-balloon lover...
A halfling with the Warslinger alternate racial trait can give a dedicated archer a run for their money during low-mid level play (until Manyshot): slings allow Str to damage without limitations and Warslinger allows reloading as a free action; the 50 ft range increment is fairly close to a shortbow for most purposes and the 1d3 vs. 1d6 damage is marginal (1.5 avg per hit; although the critical hit values are better with bows). The biggest issues with halflings are the 20 ft movement (which can be "fixed" with the Fleet of Foot alternate racial trait; however, it's incompatible with Warslinger) and the -2 Str penalty.
Even outside of low-mid levels, a halfling cleric or oracle with Warslinger and magic stone can be a pretty effective ranged combatant for less WBL cost than an archer cleric or oracle.