|
I really like the change of half-elves gaining skill focus rather than a class skill. Nice change.
However, I'm still of the belief that giving humans a free martial weapon proficiency is a bad idea. I've never had an issue with human characters being underpowered. And it skews one of the tropes of D&D -- now *all* human wizards can have swords, druids can have greatswords, monks can have battleaxes, and so on.
I would still strongly recommend the weapon training skill be removed from humans.
I really like the change of half-elves gaining skill focus rather than a class skill. Nice change.
However, I'm still of the belief that giving humans a free martial weapon proficiency is a bad idea. I've never had an issue with human characters being underpowered. And it skews one of the tropes of D&D -- now *all* human wizards can have swords, druids can have greatswords, monks can have battleaxes, and so on.
I would still strongly recommend the weapon training skill be removed from humans.
That makes a lot of sense. A choice that costs nothing is less interesting. A weapon that is normally restricted ought to incur a sacrifice elsewhere. I'd prefer to let human characters spend a human bonus to achieve this, such as extra feat or extra skill points.
There must be some reason the designers felt that humans needed something to make the choice of human more compelling. Assuming they're right, I still agree with Archade about the martial weapon proficiency, and feel that there must be a different benefit that feels more typically human. A little more brainstorming might hit upon it.
Humans are still the strongest race, because of that bonus feat. Also, in many builds, like Rogues and Bards, or any skill-based non-Wizard build, that +1 skill point per level effectively is the same as +2 Int. So suddenly a human is +2 Anystat, +2 Int, with no stat penalties.
And then on top of that, they get not one, but two bonus feats? That's insanity! It's enough to make half-elves keep their spot as weakest race, that's for sure.
-Matt
Humans are still the strongest race, because of that bonus feat. Also, in many builds, like Rogues and Bards, or any skill-based non-Wizard build, that +1 skill point per level effectively is the same as +2 Int. So suddenly a human is +2 Anystat, +2 Int, with no stat penalties.
And then on top of that, they get not one, but two bonus feats? That's insanity! It's enough to make half-elves keep their spot as weakest race, that's for sure.
-Matt
I disagree. Even for non-wizards a +1 skillpoint/level is still not an effective +2 int. There are still skills using Int as asociated ability, but they don't get +1 also there might occur Intelligence checks for whatsoever (the group has been faced with several situations and an intelligence check might be telling the players that these situations are linked to each other, for example). Those won't be benefitting from the +1 skillpoint either.
But I have to agree that the Weapon Training is too specific for humans. Not every human in the world is training themselves with a specific weapon, even in the most barbaric or brutal environments. A whole extra bonus feat would be way overpowered of course (i mean beyond the one they already have)
I could imagine they could be allowed to ignore an ability prerequisite for one feat they take somewhere during their career. But I'm not sure about this either.
Do you think that splitting +2 stat to +1 and +1 and breaking down the humans into sub classes by region would help. Other systems do this IK for example.
I don't think that would work very well. +1 on 2 stats doesn't really make sense in my opinion. A +1 stat at all is kind of off the track, looking back at the long history of 3.X races having even numbers for their ability modifications.
Also how do you mean sub-classes?I think if you want to make your human more specific to its home region, do it like it has been done in the FR campaign setting, use your bonus feat slot for a regional feat. This leaves you the choice to make your character more characteristic for their homeland or to build him like an more unusual person, someone who does not go with the customs of their nation.
|
Do you think that splitting +2 stat to +1 and +1 and breaking down the humans into sub classes by region would help. Other systems do this IK for example.I don't think that would work very well. +1 on 2 stats doesn't really make sense in my opinion. A +1 stat at all is kind of off the track, looking back at the long history of 3.X races having even numbers for their ability modifications.
Also how do you mean sub-classes?
I think if you want to make your human more specific to its home region, do it like it has been done in the FR campaign setting, use your bonus feat slot for a regional feat. This leaves you the choice to make your character more characteristic for their homeland or to build him like an more unusual person, someone who does not go with the customs of their nation.
Like the Azlanti gets a +1 to Int and Wis,Chelaxians +1 to chr and +1 Int, Kellids +1 Str, +1Con. etc...
Like the Azlanti gets a +1 to Int and Wis,Chelaxians +1 to chr and +1 Int, Kellids +1 Str, +1Con. etc...
I dont see that making a lot of sense sorry.
Humans are still the strongest race, because of that bonus feat. Also, in many builds, like Rogues and Bards, or any skill-based non-Wizard build, that +1 skill point per level effectively is the same as +2 Int. So suddenly a human is +2 Anystat, +2 Int, with no stat penalties.
And then on top of that, they get not one, but two bonus feats? That's insanity! It's enough to make half-elves keep their spot as weakest race, that's for sure.
-Matt
I wasn't suggesting that humans get a second bonus feat. Rather, I was suggesting that a human could spend the one bonus feat she already has to achieve the normally restricted weapon proficiency. If the bonus feat is too valuable, something else a human already has could be spent, whatever people think is balanced.
Do you think that splitting +2 stat to +1 and +1 and breaking down the humans into sub classes by region would help. Other systems do this IK for example.
I think that splitting the +2 bonus into two +1 bonuses for humans is a wonderful idea. I wouldn't bother with specific ability pairs for regions. Just let the player pick any two different abilities. I think this change improves the versatility of humans without diminishing the edge in specific abilities enjoyed the non-human races. Two +1 bonuses is actually better than a single +2 bonus, because the player can boost two ability modifiers rather than only a single ability modifier (chances are, a new character has several odd-numbered ability scores).
Do you think that splitting +2 stat to +1 and +1 and breaking down the humans into sub classes by region would help. Other systems do this IK for example.I don't think that would work very well. +1 on 2 stats doesn't really make sense in my opinion. A +1 stat at all is kind of off the track, looking back at the long history of 3.X races having even numbers for their ability modifications.
Also how do you mean sub-classes?
I think if you want to make your human more specific to its home region, do it like it has been done in the FR campaign setting, use your bonus feat slot for a regional feat. This leaves you the choice to make your character more characteristic for their homeland or to build him like an more unusual person, someone who does not go with the customs of their nation.
Actually, that's the long history of 3.X non-human races having even numbers for their ability bonus. Humans never got an ability bonus in 3.X, so we're talking about something off the track in either case. Since I've always thought of the non-human races as having super-human abilities (take for example elven accuracy with a bow), a less extreme bonus actually makes a lot of sense for humans, in my opinion.
Actually, that's the long history of 3.X non-human races having even numbers for their ability bonus. Humans never got an ability bonus in 3.X, so we're talking about something off the track in either case. Since I've always thought of the non-human races as having super-human abilities (take for example elven accuracy with a bow), a less extreme bonus actually makes a lot of sense for humans, in my opinion.
Zero is still an even number in some way. ;)
Also I don't know if you should see an elf's grace, a dwarf's hardyness or a half-orcs brute strength as something superhuman or rather something simply unusual for a human. I mean looking at humans some of them posess exceptional abilities. Some of them are incredibly smart, others are unusually strong (those enhanced with drugs are not meant), again others know how to use common sense, and then there are the ones that can convince masses of people of their ideas easily.
Actually, that's the long history of 3.X non-human races having even numbers for their ability bonus. Humans never got an ability bonus in 3.X, so we're talking about something off the track in either case. Since I've always thought of the non-human races as having super-human abilities (take for example elven accuracy with a bow), a less extreme bonus actually makes a lot of sense for humans, in my opinion.Zero is still an even number in some way. ;)
Also I don't know if you should see an elf's grace, a dwarf's hardyness or a half-orcs brute strength as something superhuman or rather something simply unusual for a human. I mean looking at humans some of them posess exceptional abilities. Some of them are incredibly smart, others are unusually strong (those enhanced with drugs are not meant), again others know how to use common sense, and then there are the ones that can convince masses of people of their ideas easily.
:-) Well said. I guess I just like to see it that way because it's fun to imagine. And "unusual for a human" suggests that a human has to work a little harder for it, which the rules for level advancement still let her do.
Director of Games
|
Hi there all,
The initial thought on the human weapon proficiency is that this would vary by region, allowing one group of humans to be proficient in one weapon almost universally, while that might differ in other regions. That said, I think their might be other ways to get that, ways that are more campaign specific.
I am strongly considering striking this bonus weapon proficiency.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Hi there all,
The initial thought on the human weapon proficiency is that this would vary by region, allowing one group of humans to be proficient in one weapon almost universally, while that might differ in other regions. That said, I think their might be other ways to get that, ways that are more campaign specific.
I am strongly considering striking this bonus weapon proficiency.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, I believe removing it is a good idea, to avoid human Wizards with greatswords. However, someone had a marvellous suggestion of changing it so nonweapon proficiency penalties with humans were -2. Would you consider that change?
I think that taking away the Martial Weapon Proficiency for humans is probably a good thing, and this comes from someone who wants the rules to favor humans over other races! In a number of the Beta Playtest campaigns I have seen posted recently, there seems to be a large number of humans, which I consider a good thing, but I am starting to worry that Beta PfRPG humans might be a tad too good. I also think that the +2 to any ability score might be too tempting for many players. I wonder if +2 to any one ability, +1 to one other ability, and -2 to any one ability would actually be better balanced. Humans would be net +1 instead of net +2 like other races but they would make up for that with their greater flexibility. Not sure about this change as I really do like the way the rules have improved humans....
Marnak
Hi there all,
The initial thought on the human weapon proficiency is that this would vary by region, allowing one group of humans to be proficient in one weapon almost universally, while that might differ in other regions. That said, I think their might be other ways to get that, ways that are more campaign specific.
I am strongly considering striking this bonus weapon proficiency.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Are you looking at removing or replacing?
I'll chime in to state that I'm in favor of keeping the bonus human weapon proficiency. It hasn't been a problem in our playtests. Then again, my group doesn't usually go for with wizards with *swords*. Instead, we usually go for 'improved unarmed strike' or 'longbow', both of which could have cases made for them as Human cultural weaponry.
Perhaps there should be something to clarify the 'cultural weaponry' idea behind the bonus. Of course, those of us using homebrews would then have to define those specific 'cultural' weapons.
|
I honestly don't see too much of a problem with the martial proficiency. Yes, it is exploitable up to a certain point. But that just means it needs a little sidebar, 5 minutes of editing later, done.
Hell, this should just be treated like clerics choosing a deity (since every god has a favored weapon). Why not just define the world a bit more to include a brief aside on weapons of choice or a list of 'suggested' weapons that a character can choose from?
For the Society Campaign Setting, it is very very easy to define cultural weapons for each of the five factions (some of the faction feats already reflect a weapon preference).
If the perceived problem is with greatswords and the like, why not restrict the proficiency to a 'one-handed, non-exotic weapon'?
Hi there all,
The initial thought on the human weapon proficiency is that this would vary by region, allowing one group of humans to be proficient in one weapon almost universally, while that might differ in other regions. That said, I think their might be other ways to get that, ways that are more campaign specific.
I am strongly considering striking this bonus weapon proficiency.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
What about weapon familiarity (any one weapon)?
Of course, that would mean that the other races need to get more out of their weapon familiarities. (Are more racial weapons scheduled, including some that are worth an exotic weapon proficiency? One of the few things I still find fault with in the Beta)
Jason, I believe removing it is a good idea, to avoid human Wizards with greatswords. However, someone had a marvellous suggestion of changing it so nonweapon proficiency penalties with humans were -2. Would you consider that change?
In case it's helpful to anyone (I had to look it up), the non-proficiency penalty is normally -4. The proposed -2 fits the versatility theme, but how often does anyone fight with an unfamiliar weapon? It seems like this is a benefit that may seldom or never come into play. In general I think that an "I suck slightly less" ability is unappealing. I'd rather see the weapon proficiency replaced with a positive benefit, maybe something unexpected like
Serendipity: Humans are apt to discover things by accident. A human who gets a natural 1 on a skill check may benefit from an immediate re-roll with a +2 circumstance bonus.
While it may be a little quirky, it would be a trait with a strongly human flavor in my opinion.
If it was just unbalancing the humans, we could mitigate it somehow with some other restriction, but it's the fact that it is thematically inappropriate for Joe Farmer to be proficient at a Greatsword or Halberd. All common farming implements are simple weapons, anyway...
Well, I might argue that it isn't thematically as inappropriate as it might sound.
Realistically, "Joe Farmer" might well end up in a local militia and there for learn a weapons such as Greatspear or (if British) Longbow.
And then there is the additional issues that "Joe Farmer" might have to deal with in a Fantasy Setting: Goblins, Ankheg, Ghouls, Bulette, Ogres, etc. Since the nearest adventurer might not get there for some hourse, he might have good reason to need that weapon to defend his family.
|
|
Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.
Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.An interesting fix. It would open things up a bit for the Bard, and the Druid (although they still have their minimal metal issue).
I've already NPCd that, a bit. A character with Martials chose a single Exotic.You've got my vote. ;)
Ooo, me three! I like this idea. I'll still keep the option for 'IUS' but ths is very nice, as well.
I really like the change of half-elves gaining skill focus rather than a class skill. Nice change.
However, I'm still of the belief that giving humans a free martial weapon proficiency is a bad idea. I've never had an issue with human characters being underpowered. And it skews one of the tropes of D&D -- now *all* human wizards can have swords, druids can have greatswords, monks can have battleaxes, and so on.
I would still strongly recommend the weapon training skill be removed from humans.
Why is it unbalancing to have a human wizard/druid/monk/etc. with a sword/axe/etc. but not unbalancing to have an elven wizard/druid/monk/etc. with a longsword or longbow or a dwarven wizard/druid/monk/etc. with a battleaxe or warhammer? As someone else pointed out on this thread, racial martial weapon proficiencies are hardly unbalancing since several classes already get all martial weapon proficiencies. And I doubt players choose to play humans because of the weapon proficiency--they're far more interested in the +2 to any ability, bonus feat, and/or bonus skill points.
Speaking of the +2 to any stat, I for one would prefer it to stay that way instead of a +1 to any 2 stats. As far as I am aware, all races in 3.5 get even-numbered bonuses and/or penalties to their stats. This way, the bonus/penalty will always have an immediate effect on the ability modifiers in question--whereas an odd-numbered bonus/penalty will only have an effect if the stat is odd-numbered.
I support Set's suggestion. It is elegant and eliminates the proliferation of exotic weapon use among humans.
|
|
Hi there all,
The initial thought on the human weapon proficiency is that this would vary by region, allowing one group of humans to be proficient in one weapon almost universally, while that might differ in other regions. That said, I think their might be other ways to get that, ways that are more campaign specific.
I am strongly considering striking this bonus weapon proficiency.
Jason Bulmahn
Why not keep it, and spell this out. Surely we can expect DMs to do a little work on their campaign worlds, and come up with a few cultural weapon ideas. Add a small sidebar with either generic cultural weapon ideas (nomadic horsemen: scimitar or shortbow, island fishermen: trident or net, etc.), or ideas using the human ethnicities from the Campaign Setting (thus providing weapon choices for PF Society organized play and avoiding wizards with greatswords).
That seems the simplest solution to me, although Set's idea has its appeal as well.
Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.
I support Set's suggestion. It is elegant and eliminates the proliferation of exotic weapon use among humans.
While elegant, it doesn't completely solve the problem raised by the OP. It gives a human wizard automatic access to morning star and spear, both d8 damage weapons, when a wizard's melee weapon is normally limited to d6.
Rather than rescue Weapon Training, I'd rather find a trait that captures something that makes humans essentially different from the other races.
Everyone, dial down the vitriol.
Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.
I had something like this, too, but in the end I think "weapon familiarity (any one exotic weapon)" is more succinct. Or maybe "martial weapon proficiency (any one weapon) OR weapon familiarity (any one exotic weapon)".
Something like that, anyway. Great idea, all we have to do is to dress it up nicely.
I would like to throw my support behind replacing the human martial weapon proficiency with something more generic and/or regionally specific. It is hard to justify human commoners, experts, or adepts (some of whom may not be particularly martial) wielding martial weapons with immunity and daring.
Something more like a bonus class skill might be more applicable to non-martial characters (particular non-optimized NPCs).
CJ
I thought that humans getting that extra weapon proficiency was a bit out of the ether. I don't think it's necessary at all.
I thought that humans getting that extra weapon proficiency was a bit out of the ether. I don't think it's necessary at all.
Very true. They already get one bonus feat, why give them yet another?
-Matt
Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.An interesting fix. It would open things up a bit for the Bard, and the Druid (although they still have their minimal metal issue).
I've already NPCd that, a bit. A character with Martials chose a single Exotic.You've got my vote. ;)
put me down for a vote too!
I will use this modification : a human culture transform an exotic weapons to a martial one.
So, Varisian consider the "star" as a martial weapon
Japense could consider "katana / bastard sword" as a martial weapon
(remember only Samurai can wear katana in medieval japan)
and so on
First of all I would like to say cheers to Set and MSCam for coming up with some really neat variations of the Weapon Training racial feature which really "fix" the issue in my opinion and do not require a lot of extra work on the DM's side to impart the change to the players.
Secondly, I would like to say that the Weapon Training feat is not really game imbalancing in my opinion. You can give a greatsword to a wizard, but unless that wizard is gifted enough to offset his low BAB with a high strength score (which is typically kind of wierd to see a wizard with a high strength) then he probably won't be using it very much. Same thing goes for the commoner. A great sword with a strength of 10 can be kind of crazy, but in the hands of someone with a strength of 18, a good BAB, and power attack/cleave it can be much nastier.
Finally, in my opinion the racial feature can stay or go, I play a lot of humans in the rare instances when I am playing and not running a game, and anything that can make the humans stand out a bit from the other races is something I welcome. I agree with what some other people have said in that the weapon training was a racial feature that came out of nowhere, with no real backing behind it, but I had believed the reason for it to be that some form of weapon training was standard for each race (although half-elves seemed to have missed the boat on that one and picked up skill focus, which I like as well). If the racial feature is causing issues and arguements, however, just throw it out, no real harm done.
totally agree, Humans are well balanced with the other races now. (I would like to see a touch more love for the Gnome) if you prized versatility more, of course the human will look better to you. but as pre created packages, the other classes are slightly more powerful ( and thats goods, the trade off for being fixed)
I must chime in and offer to Jason that he should not feel brow-beat about the Weapon Training as well.
Honestly, there are MANY human cultures and variations that could justify such training. While some might speak about Merry Olde Englande as their benchmark, others might think of Ancien Régime France, Imperial China, Ptolemic Egypt, Delaware Nations, and so forth.
This racial feature does not overly affect characters or character creation. The warrior classes don't get any use out of it, and the "combat-support" and "support" classes won't have the kind of BAB and class abilities to exploit the martial weapons to fullest potential. It's just to offer variety so that humans can "come in different flavors" just as they are supposed to. I like and support this because it's not game-breaking and it offers human characters a degree of versatility and variety that makes them unique as compared to elves and dwarves who come from homogenous cultures.
You know what the answer is then if you want all humans to have a racial weapon feat - you make it regional. To cite the quaint Merry Olde England example, every man would get proficiency with (just) the longbow. I don't know enough about mediaeval women to give an accurate "weapon".
Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.An interesting fix. It would open things up a bit for the Bard, and the Druid (although they still have their minimal metal issue).
I've already NPCd that, a bit. A character with Martials chose a single Exotic.You've got my vote. ;)
I love this idea it realy dose open things up but not to much
Can some one please tell me how Human is more powerful than either elf or dwarf? even half elf?
Because that bonus feat is one you want, not one that's given to you. You don't have to work around it; you can always incorporate it. It's always a boost. Compare to the elven +2 to spell penetration rolls: it's useless to Elf Fighters.
Also, that bonus skill point virtually equates to +2 Int in non-Wizard builds.
-Matt
|
|
Can some one please tell me how Human is more powerful than either elf or dwarf? even half elf?Because that bonus feat is one you want, not one that's given to you. You don't have to work around it; you can always incorporate it. It's always a boost. Compare to the elven +2 to spell penetration rolls: it's useless to Elf Fighters.
Also, that bonus skill point virtually equates to +2 Int in non-Wizard builds.
-Matt
As well as their extra skill points, and with Favored Class, an extra skill point or hit point every level ... that all adds up.
The best way to tell if it's balanced is to see if people are playing Humans ... I bet a lot are (I am).