Actually, this applies to any human character that takes a warrior class...
I'm not sure this was brought up during the Alpha, but our group is getting ready to start a new compaign and we were waiting for the Beta to be released to see if there were any changes.
One thing we noticed was that the Human weapon training ability is worthless for any warrior-based class (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) becuase they already gain all martial weapons. We decided that if it wasn't changed, we would house-rule it so that it provides a free Weapon Focus feat if the class already has proficiency in all martial weapons.
What are other people's thoughts on this? We didn't want to give out free exotic weapon proficiencies since those weapons tend to be better than their martial counterparts.
|
That's how I run it - if you play a race that has a certain weapon proficiency and take a class that gives you that same weapon proficiency you are allowed to take a free Weapon Focus in one of those over-lapping weapon proficiencies. It doesn't seem too out of balance (though the +1 is +5% to hit, and a bigger deal at low levels), but I think it makes sense.
|
Actually, this applies to any human character that takes a warrior class...
<snip!>
We decided that if it wasn't changed, we would house-rule it so that it provides a free Weapon Focus feat if the class already has proficiency in all martial weapons.
What are other people's thoughts on this? We didn't want to give out free exotic weapon proficiencies since those weapons tend to be better than their martial counterparts.
That was exactly our thought process when preparing for our Alpha playtest - and exactly what we did! I would second this request.
Actually, this applies to any human character that takes a warrior class...
I'm not sure this was brought up during the Alpha, but our group is getting ready to start a new compaign and we were waiting for the Beta to be released to see if there were any changes.
One thing we noticed was that the Human weapon training ability is worthless for any warrior-based class (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) becuase they already gain all martial weapons. We decided that if it wasn't changed, we would house-rule it so that it provides a free Weapon Focus feat if the class already has proficiency in all martial weapons.
What are other people's thoughts on this? We didn't want to give out free exotic weapon proficiencies since those weapons tend to be better than their martial counterparts.
I hate to bring this up, but don't Elves also have this problem - their proficiency with Sword and Bow will be overwritten by taking a Warrior class? And, Orcs also - Are not both Falchion and Great Axe martial weapons?
I hate to bring this up, but don't Elves also have this problem - their proficiency with Sword and Bow will be overwritten by taking a Warrior class? And, Orcs also - Are not both Falchion and Great Axe martial weapons?Actually, this applies to any human character that takes a warrior class...
I'm not sure this was brought up during the Alpha, but our group is getting ready to start a new compaign and we were waiting for the Beta to be released to see if there were any changes.
One thing we noticed was that the Human weapon training ability is worthless for any warrior-based class (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) becuase they already gain all martial weapons. We decided that if it wasn't changed, we would house-rule it so that it provides a free Weapon Focus feat if the class already has proficiency in all martial weapons.
What are other people's thoughts on this? We didn't want to give out free exotic weapon proficiencies since those weapons tend to be better than their martial counterparts.
Good point. I'm guessing we will probably end up giving those races Weapon Focus in one weapon as well.
Maybe we will decide to drop this, but to me that seems to take an advantage away from a character who chooses to be a warrior. If you are a wizard/rogue/cleric/druid/bard/etc. you gain an extra benefit depending on your class. If you are a warrior though, you miss out on a key racial benefit for dwarves, elves, half-orcs, and humans. Just doesn't sound balanced IMO. What do the warriors get for picking a race that none of the other classes get? Look at the Gnome for example. They get their extra spells whether they can cast spells or not. Going along the same lines as the weapon proficiencies, if a you are a gnome sorcerer, wizard, or bard than you shouldn't get the spells since you can already cast them, for example.
Um... why not take an exotic weapon?
Bam! Solved.Y'all can thank me later.
Because as a group we decided that an exotic weapon proficiency was too much. Being able to get a free bastard sword exotic weapon proficiency (using it in 1 hand instead of two) for example, would mean from a rules perspective no human warrior would wield a longsword. 1d8 vs 1d10? Or why take a battleaxe when you can wield a dwarven waraxe the same way? Then of course there would be the mass production and use of spiked chains....
|
Um... why not take an exotic weapon?
Bam! Solved.Y'all can thank me later.
Because as a group we decided that an exotic weapon proficiency was too much. Being able to get a free bastard sword exotic weapon proficiency (using it in 1 hand instead of two) for example, would mean from a rules perspective no human warrior would wield a longsword. 1d8 vs 1d10? Or why take a battleaxe when you can wield a dwarven waraxe the same way? Then of course there would be the mass production and use of spiked chains....
Granting a feat that is almost certainly taken by any warrior type is just as strong as granting an exotic prof imo. In fact, weapon familiarity takes care of your waraxe example anyway- there already are NOT any dwarves who take battleaxes when waraxes are available. I don't see a problem with a single exotic proficiency in the place of a martial proficiency for warrior types. Weapon focus is a pretty significant increase (easily as much as an exotic proficiency in terms of mathematic design) and can be used to meet pre-req's which could end up being an issue.
How about granting a +1 CMB if you end up with "double proficiency" instead of a feat? This could represent additional training in the weapon without necessarily granting a feat (which can be used to meet prereqs for PrCs earlier than intended etc).
--- Magis
|
Um... why not take an exotic weapon?
Bam! Solved.Y'all can thank me later.
Because as a group we decided that an exotic weapon proficiency was too much. Being able to get a free bastard sword exotic weapon proficiency (using it in 1 hand instead of two) for example, would mean from a rules perspective no human warrior would wield a longsword. 1d8 vs 1d10? Or why take a battleaxe when you can wield a dwarven waraxe the same way? Then of course there would be the mass production and use of spiked chains....
but you will gave them "Weapon Focus" instead... so with the Free feat the humans get instead of the Weapon Focus they get the Exotic Weapon Proficiency?
i myself say let it as it is...
its to boost any non-fighting class
already Dwarves, Elves and Humans have this benefit... which only about less than 40% of the classes would NOT benefit from
and the other classes get to use 1 martial weapon (vs the ALL Martial Weapon from such classes)
i don't really see how this makes it unbalanced, but if you still want to give them something that would not unbalance a lot the game
intead of a feat gave them a MW Weapon of their choice, that woudl amke sense to me, since they have been practicing a lot with such weapon that they be able to get one that works better (without giving free feats that affect other feats and feat selection, ok its 300 GP gift, but sounds cheaper than a feat :P)
How about granting a +1 CMB if you end up with "double proficiency" instead of a feat? This could represent additional training in the weapon without necessarily granting a feat (which can be used to meet prereqs for PrCs earlier than intended etc).--- Magis
This one makes more sense to me than exotic weapons. I may pass it by the DM when we get together to go over houserules. The problem is that combat maneuvers don't come into play much with our group, so as a general concensus the group won't see any benefit of the +1 CMB which puts us back at square one for warriors missing out on a racial benefit.
Extra feats can be a problem I guess, we've just never ran into it. We currently start at 1st level with 1 normal feat, one "regional" feat, and human's get a bonus feat. During the last campaign, we even allowed flaws for an additional feat. That was 4 feats at first level for a human.....
I've been tossing up the idea of just granting a +1 unnamed attack bonus with the chosen weapon instead of an extra feat. That would grant the same benefits without the "extra feat" issue coming into play....
Just to play devil's advocate here :)
What if there was a racial benefit that granted the character the ability to cast certain spells, but it was worded so that a spellcasting class of that race didn't gain any benefits?
Would those of you who say leave it as is still say the same?
|
|
This one makes more sense to me than exotic weapons. I may pass it by the DM when we get together to go over houserules. The problem is that combat maneuvers don't come into play much with our group, so as a general concensus the group won't see any benefit of the +1 CMB which puts us back at square one for warriors missing out on a racial benefit.Extra feats can be a problem I guess, we've just never ran into it. We currently start at 1st level with 1 normal feat, one "regional" feat, and human's get a bonus feat. During the last campaign, we even allowed flaws for an additional feat. That was 4 feats at first level for a human.....
I've been tossing up the idea of just granting a +1 unnamed attack bonus with the chosen weapon instead of an extra feat. That would grant the same benefits without the "extra feat" issue coming into play....
you guys don't fight wolves? bears? many animals have bonus maneuvers. Improved grab's a pretty common monster trait as well. In addition, the extra CMB will probably be as effective for a warrior as longbow proficiency will be for a moderate-level spellslinger (that is, the longbow will sit limply in his hand). The class that will see the most benefit from this, i suspect, will be the bard and frankly it needs the love (yes, even post-paizo, though they definitely gave it some oomph).
Also, I believe I read some discussion at some point claiming that post-paizo simplification the combat maneuvers were too difficult to pull off- this will help give those fighter types another small boost to such things, making it 5% easier to do.
--- Magis
ps- giving a +1 unnamed bonus was something I considered until I realized it would stack with weapon focus. not a good idea imo.
|
|
Just to play devil's advocate here :)
What if there was a racial benefit that granted the character the ability to cast certain spells, but it was worded so that a spellcasting class of that race didn't gain any benefits?
Would those of you who say leave it as is still say the same?
I understand your goals with this, but extra spells >> proficiency in a weapon when you don't have a strong BAB. Not necessarily an apt comparison and tough to argue without extreme specifics.
--- Magis
|
I believe that this situation has always been around. As far back as I can remember, elves had racial bonuses for bows and swords. 3.5 gave them "Martial Weapon Proficiency
feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including
composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats. Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and
archery, so all elves are familiar with these weapons.". The Alpha and Beta are working in the same spirit.
This is only a bonus if you take a non-Fighter class. I do not ever recall a fighter being threatened by the martial prowess of a Wizard with a long sword.
Multi-classing does the same sort of thing. All it takes is a level of fighter to get all of the armor and weapon proficiencies.
I do not see the need to keep upping the power curve. Fighters fight and they do it well regardless of race.
|
|
Multi-classing does the same sort of thing. All it takes is a level of fighter to get all of the armor and weapon proficiencies.
I do not see the need to keep upping the power curve. Fighters fight and they do it well regardless of race.
Definitively i am with Da Zombie
and for the hypothetycal situation of spellcasting not given to those who are not spellcaster, well they don't have it int the irst place... why complain?
That racial skills its to give ALL other HUMAN CLASSES a boost so they don't have to spend a feat in learning a so desired martial weapon feat... this is just for the people who want to play a wizard with a sword or a rogue with a battleaxe.
its not overpowering to give them this items... in single combat a fighter (or a paladin or a babrbarian) will make pulp of the squishis... so besides this give more benefits for the warrior classes (free feat!!) just sounds mucnhkin :P
as a GM i would not allow it... as a Player i will not ask it... i know my GM will say "NO and stop whinning" :P
if your DMs say it goes... well it does... but i would not like to see that part of the human to change... i may want to do later a human rogue with love for longswords :P
That makes perfect sense to me. I would also let fighters or barbarians take an exotic weapon proficiency for free, instead of weapon focus, if the weapon would reasonably be available to their culture. The common fantasy weapon that is barbarian fare would be the bastard sword, which was exotic in 3.5.
I thought this WAS going to be in the pathfinder beta?
I'd go with the ability to treat one exotic as martial that does NOT have a racial name, enabling the Bastard Sword to become the "human" weapon. After all, of all the weapons in DnD, it's the one I see used more by humans than by any other race.
...You know what?
"Human Bastard Sword" and "Human Two-bladed Sword" would be awesome. Why can't humans have specially named weapons?
|
|
I'd go with the ability to treat one exotic as martial that does NOT have a racial name, enabling the Bastard Sword to become the "human" weapon. After all, of all the weapons in DnD, it's the one I see used more by humans than by any other race.
...You know what?
"Human Bastard Sword" and "Human Two-bladed Sword" would be awesome. Why can't humans have specially named weapons?
I think I agree.
The Human and Half Elf have no weapon familiarity. All the other races do. Both should have access to a racial exotic weapon like the rest. Maybe the half elf should get the elven martial proficiencies (if they have embraced their elven heritage) or the "human" exotic weapon of their choice (if they have embraced their human heritage). Regardless, this treatment of an exotic weapon as a martial weapon is really only useful for Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
Halflings have the weapon familiarity ability but there is not a special halfling weapon on the equipment list. A halfling weapon should be added to make this ability useful.
The weapon familiarities give races an edge in the middle ground classes, Monk, Cleric, Rogue, and Bard... they don't really affect fighters or spell casters.
If that were the case, it wouldn't allow Elven Rangers to use the superior Curveblade or Dawrven Fighters to use the Waraxe. And if an Elven Monk is using a rapier, he's doing it wrong (though I admit the Longbow helps)
Yes, they're good for the Middle classes, but they're ALSO very good for the full BAB classes who then get a free exotic proficiency. Except for Human, which is ONLY good for the middle classes.
I vote "Human Bastard Sword" for the win.
|
|
I think you guys made a good point, then missed it.
The weapon familiarities give races an edge in the middle ground classes, Monk, Cleric, Rogue, and Bard... they don't really affect fighters or spell casters.
They USED to affect spell casters at low levels, since they ran out of spells fast and can hit low level monsters with next to no attack bonus... but now that wizards and sorcerers get unlimited use SLAs, it's really not a big deal, they're going to go for the ranged touch at low levels, vs the higher damage of a martial weapon.
I agree that the Martial weapon proficiencies are good for all the non-martial classes. Which was the point of my first post.
The Exotic proficiency part is only good for the martial characters. Otherwise a feat is still required to effectively use the exotic weapons (Martial Weapon Proficiency or Exotic Weapon Proficiency).
|
|
I'm a dwarf cleric. Aw man, I already get Profession skills as class skill - my Profession (stone stuff) racial ability is useless! I should get a Skill Focus feat!
I'm an elf fighter. Aw man, my elven magic and my racial proficiencies are useless! I should get a free cantrip and Weapon Focus feats!
I'm a gnome paladin. Aw man, I don't have any illusion spells on my spell list - my illusion ability is useless! i should be able to add an illusion spell at each level to my list!
I think you guys made a good point, then missed it.
The weapon familiarities give races an edge in the middle ground classes, Monk, Cleric, Rogue, and Bard... they don't really affect fighters or spell casters.
They USED to affect spell casters at low levels, since they ran out of spells fast and can hit low level monsters with next to no attack bonus... but now that wizards and sorcerers get unlimited use SLAs, it's really not a big deal, they're going to go for the ranged touch at low levels, vs the higher damage of a martial weapon.
What's an SLA?
|
I'm a dwarf cleric. Aw man, I already get Profession skills as class skill - my Profession (stone stuff) racial ability is useless! I should get a Skill Focus feat!
I'm an elf fighter. Aw man, my elven magic and my racial proficiencies are useless! I should get a free cantrip and Weapon Focus feats!
I'm a gnome paladin. Aw man, I don't have any illusion spells on my spell list - my illusion ability is useless! i should be able to add an illusion spell at each level to my list!
This.
What's an SLA?Spell-Like Ability.
Thanks!
Not all Sorcerers get SLAs useful for this though. Arcane, Destined, and Fey all have non-agressive level 1 and 3 SLAs.
I agree with the OP that this is a problem, and I agree with others who have said the same problem applies to other races as well. My biggest gripe is the elf who is supposedly a master swordsman but gets no boost in this regard while playing classes with martial weapon proficiency. My preferred solution to this problem is as follows:
Give all the races a bonus feat, either Weapon Familiarity or Greater Weapon Familiarity (see below), related to their racial weapons(such as dwarves and axes, humans and their one martial weapon, etc). The choice must be made at first level and cannot be changed.
Weapon Familiarity
Pre-requisites: Racial familiarity with weapon.
Effect: Gain proficiency in weapon.
Normal: Character is not proficient with weapon.
Greater Weapon Familiarity
Pre-requisites: Racial familiarity with weapon, proficiency with weapon.
Effect: Gain +1 unnamed (or racial?) bonus to damage
Normal: Character does not get the extra bonus to damage
The text in the "races" section could read something along these lines:
Humans recieve racial familiarity with any one martial weapon of their choice, and they recieve a bonus weapon familiarity feat (they must meet all pre-requisites).
Elves receive racial familiarity with longswords, rapiers, longbows, and shortbows, and they recieve two (could give them more or less here) bonus weapon familiarity feats (they must meet all pre-requisites). Note: if you want to restrict elves to getting one sword and one bow you could do that but I would let them have the flexibility of loading up on one weapon if they were a rogue or wizard.
Halflings receive racial familiarity with slings and receive one bonus weapon familiarity feat (they must meet all pre-requisites). Note: This gives all halflings (except for halfling wizards) a +1 to damage with slings!
And so on...
Thoughts?
|
|
On my initial look, humans stack up just fine to the other races, they don't need a power up. Afterall, the ability comes in very handy if I'm playing a cleric for example.I don't see this as being a problem with humans being too weak. I see it as a problem of mechanics encouraging humans - who are supposed to be equally adept at all classes - instead preferring certain classes. The weapon training ability encourages humans to take non-warrior classes, which is contrary to the idea of humans being the most versatile race. Every human ability should be equally beneficial - or nearly so - for characters of all classes.
huh?
so i make a human... and i would want to make him something different say from paladin or fighter, because my wizard gets to use 1 MARTIAL weapon?its me or this is only an excuse to be munchkin and power more the warrior classes and NOW yes make it MORE atractive to humas to make WARRIOR classes?
why do a rogue? i get free feat for do a paladin/ranger/fighter... just for being human!! ys aside of the already free feat!
in every ones house rules you can give this extra feats, or +1 in CMB, i hope they don't in the book
but making the Bastardsword and a few other weapons mostly used by humans... as HUMAN weapons and the elf baing able to chose either this or elven ones... ok that SOUNDS good with me :)
|
OK, this thread has developed two separate topics. I'm going to give my opinion on both.
First, regarding warrior classes and racial proficiency, I do like the idea of boosting the bonus Martial Weapon Proficiency up to Weapon Focus for classes that already receive all martial proficiency. Yes, it puts a character ahead of the curve and that's a good thing. It encourages flavor. A DM who does not care for a certain flavor can adjust the WP choices to fit his campaign.
Second is the issue of "Human Bastard Sword". I must confess, I'm personally a fan of this particular fighter build, so I like it quite a bit. I wonder if it will damage the theme of human flexibility, though. On that point, I'm undecided. Is that blank template best for humans, or could a little focused flavor make them more interesting? If so, Human Bastard Sword FTW!
Actually I think the best solution would be to give the warrior classes a feat... the one that allows improvised weapons without penalties (can't recall the name at the moment and I'm too lazy to look) or improved unarmed fighting.
Fighters should be able to kill with anything at hand... or with bare hands. He'll never reach the same heights of this art as the monk, but it would certainly be in place for them. Of course that this would allow them access to the feat tree, but I think that this can be handled a little later. The thought that the fighter without any weapon at hand has to go through all the unarmed penalties is somewhat silly.
I'm a dwarf cleric. Aw man, I already get Profession skills as class skill - my Profession (stone stuff) racial ability is useless! I should get a Skill Focus feat!
It's not a question of abilities useful to a class and not to others, it's a question of a balanced standard among races.
Consider the 4E races. Every race, sans human, get +2 to 2 skills. Humans get +1 bonus trained skill instead (An effective +5 to one skill, but without becoming better than other races in it.)
Now, imagine if instead, all races go +2 to 2 skills, except Half-Elves who got +2 to Diplomacy but not to a second skill. Everyone would just be tilting their had and saying "wait... why only to one skill?" Unless there were other balance factors blatantly at play, it just wouldn't make sense.
I'm not asking to power up fighters. I'm asking for a standardized Weapon Familiarity, in which familiarity works mostly the same for all races, or at least in which the Human benefit is NOT useless to the classes that the Dwarven and Elven benefit is best for (Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians who get free Waraxe/Curveblade proficiency)
Human Bastard Sword FTW.
I'm a dwarf cleric. Aw man, I already get Profession skills as class skill - my Profession (stone stuff) racial ability is useless! I should get a Skill Focus feat!It's not a question of abilities useful to a class and not to others, it's a question of a balanced standard among races.
Consider the 4E races. Every race, sans human, get +2 to 2 skills. Humans get +1 bonus trained skill instead (An effective +5 to one skill, but without becoming better than other races in it.)
Now, imagine if instead, all races go +2 to 2 skills, except Half-Elves who got +2 to Diplomacy but not to a second skill. Everyone would just be tilting their had and saying "wait... why only to one skill?" Unless there were other balance factors blatantly at play, it just wouldn't make sense.
I'm not asking to power up fighters. I'm asking for a standardized Weapon Familiarity, in which familiarity works mostly the same for all races, or at least in which the Human benefit is NOT useless to the classes that the Dwarven and Elven benefit is best for (Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians who get free Waraxe/Curveblade proficiency)
Human Bastard Sword FTW.
This is were the big difference lies. Other racial warroirs do get an exotic weapon pro. I agree human bastard sword for the win.
I agree that human's martial weapon w/ martial class issue is a bit off.
Dwarves: battleaxes, heavy picks, warhammers. "Dwarven" as martial
Elves: longbows, shorbows, longswords, rapiers. "Elven" as martial
Gnomes: "Gnome" as martial
Half-Elves: NADA
Half-Orcs: greataxes, falchions. "Orc" as martial
Halflings: slings. "Halfling" as martial
Humans: single martial
I think that
1) Half-elves should get to choose between the human or elven weapon familiarity.
2) Some sort of "Human" as martial ability. I like the bastard sword because many human cultures had a bladed weapon of about this size. No other exotic weapon really jumps out at me.
3) I think people should keep in mind that there are lots of other books out there with racially named weapons out there (Elven Thinblade anyone?) that are balanced as far as an exotic weapon goes, but they make that particular race that much better.
4) Give Gnomes light picks and halflings some funky thrown weapon (bolas perhaps?)
The lack of a half-elven weapon is a problem, too. I suggest giving half-elves all the Elven proficiencies PLUS the Human Bastard Sword, considering it's quite clearly the weakest race.
|
|
I'm a dwarf cleric. Aw man, I already get Profession skills as class skill - my Profession (stone stuff) racial ability is useless! I should get a Skill Focus feat!It's not a question of abilities useful to a class and not to others, it's a question of a balanced standard among races.
(sigh)
One thing we noticed was that the Human weapon training ability is worthless for any warrior-based class (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) becuase they already gain all martial weapons. We decided that if it wasn't changed, we would house-rule it so that it provides a free Weapon Focus feat if the class already has proficiency in all martial weapons.
What are other people's thoughts on this? We didn't want to give out free exotic weapon proficiencies since those weapons tend to be better than their martial counterparts.
Or, to put it another way, I wasn't talking to you.
Now, that said, your comparison still doesn't hold. Because it's not "every race but half-elves." It's half-elves, humans, half-orcs, and halflings - in other words, more than half of the core races. I would agree that half-elves get perhaps the shortest end of the stick, and would have no issue with the idea that half-elves should either get the elven martial proficiencies or get the ability to treat "elven" weapons as martial weapons. Either of those would be spiffy keen. But taking three races and then claiming they represent an "unbalanced standard" is extremely inaccurate.
This is a good idea! I hate it when abilities overlap and are thus lost - this proposal resolves this issue for this particular instance.
Not sure if it should be added to the rules or not, but my solution to this would be a simple statement to players that they can have an exotic weapon proficiency if they can justify it for role-playing purposes...The idea being that I'm from culture x, and they have a history of using double swords in combat, so my fighter has been trained to use it!
Not sure if it should be added to the rules or not, but my solution to this would be a simple statement to players that they can have an exotic weapon proficiency if they can justify it for role-playing purposes...The idea being that I'm from culture x, and they have a history of using double swords in combat, so my fighter has been trained to use it!
Which is overpowered and defeats the purpose of "exotic" weapons. It's not that they're necessarily rare, it's that they're more powerful. Bastard sword does an average 1 point more than Longsword. There'd be no reason for a character to NOT try and justify a bastard sword.
The solution should be simple.
Dwarves and Elves have the line "treat any weapon with the word “Dwarven”/ "Elven" in its name as a martial weapon".
We don't have to actually add "Human" or "Halfling" onto weapon names, but there could be a line added to the other races saying "Humans treat Bastard Swords, etc as martial weapons" and "Halflings treat Nets, etc as martial weapons" which lets Fighters of those races gain appropriate exotic weapons, WITHOUT granting them "ANY" exotic weapon, such as the Dwarven or Elven weapons. There might need to be one or two more exotic weapons added for Halflings (Given their common employ as sailors, a "Pin" that worked like a sap/club, but with a CMB bonus, would make sense. I think that existed in al-Qadim)
And though it's too setting-specific for the Pathfinder RPG itself, there could be an update for the Golarion setting modifying the 'racial weapons' for Humans, making them specific to the sub-races, i.e. Ulfen, Chelish, Kellid, etc.
|
|
And though it's too setting-specific for the Pathfinder RPG itself, there could be an update for the Golarion setting modifying the 'racial weapons' for Humans, making them specific to the sub-races, i.e. Ulfen, Chelish, Kellid, etc.
This makes sense to me. It's probably the best solution, but the setting specific nature makes it difficult to implement.
That's why, as a default, I still say:
Human Bastard Sword FTW
Actually, this applies to any human character that takes a warrior class...
I'm not sure this was brought up during the Alpha, but our group is getting ready to start a new compaign and we were waiting for the Beta to be released to see if there were any changes.
One thing we noticed was that the Human weapon training ability is worthless for any warrior-based class (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) becuase they already gain all martial weapons. We decided that if it wasn't changed, we would house-rule it so that it provides a free Weapon Focus feat if the class already has proficiency in all martial weapons.
What are other people's thoughts on this? We didn't want to give out free exotic weapon proficiencies since those weapons tend to be better than their martial counterparts.
I actually have some issues with the design of the human racial abilities. Personally speaking, I think humans are plenty powerful as is without the inclusion of any sort of weapon familiarity. They get a bonus feat and bonus skill points. That's a huge gain. They don't really need to be proficient in any martial weapons, and including it leads to weird things like dirt farmer Commoner NPCs wielding bastard swords two-handed (it's considered a martial weapon when used this way)
They've done the same thing to several of the other races, dwarves especially. Does it really make sense that a dwarven commoner knows how to use a battleaxe, heavy pick, and warhammer? Or that Half-orcs know how to use falchions and greataxes? The worst is halflings, who have this awesome racial knowledge of... slings. Every PC class but wizards know how to use slings.
As far as elves are concerned, to me at least, it makes a degree of sense. They're longer lived then every other race, have more time to train, and their whole generically-applied culture revolves around forestry where bowmanship would make sense.
It just feels like the whole weapon familiarity area needs to be seriously re-examined.
-Steve
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
Interesting discussion. To be honest, I never saw the overlap as much of a problem. To be honest, this is a relatively minor bonus. The real use for this is for reinforcing some racial preconceptions. The human bit was added to give them at least some focus (but since they are humans, the thought here is that it might turn regional, for your particular campaign world).
If we are looking at redesigning this, I would strongly suggest that the line of thought be: "what can we do to make these bonuses reinforce the racial ideas" and avoid worrying about a little bit of overlap or obsolesence if a class with all martial weapons is chosen.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing