Humans


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I Just see Humans as more adaptable (maybe not the word I am fully looking for). But it would just be a house rule in my game if everyone else would like it in my group. I won't force you to use it, I promise :)


hmmm maybe scratch that. Wouldn't want to unbalance the group having some characters higher level.


See humans already are far more adaptable then the other races. The extra skill at level on and the extra feat means from the gate they can pull off concepts other races just can not.


Goblin Witchlord wrote:
Humans got everything they got before, plus +2 to an ability score. Where's the nerf?

The nerf would be the loss of their favored class benefit. The +2 is a wash since all races gained a +2, two gaining the same +2 benefit as the human. While they changed the favored class rules, they still kept favored class (in a fashion) but the humans lost their "special benefit" that used to be there. To me, and apparently others, that is a "nerf".

If you grant the same benefit to all races but don't give the one class that originally had a "perk" based on the benefit a "perk" in the new rules... that is a nerf in my book.


I fail to see that they could have not got the +2 , yet every one is waveing it off. They lost nothing. Not one single thing did they loose

How many people even used the xp penalty? I mean really it was not all that great anyhow. They have lost nothing


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

In a point-buy situation for ability scores, in terms of getting maximum value from your point buy, it may well be preferable to play something which isn't a human, half-elf, or half-orc.

Point-buying abilities for an elven thief, with the goal of finishing up (after racial modifiers are applied) of Dex 18, Int 18, Con 12, costs me 25 points total for those stats (10 points to buy each of Dex and Int to 16, before the racial modifiers bump them up to 18, 5 points to buy Con to 14 before racial modifier drops it to 12). To point-buy the same thief, as a human, half-elf, or half-orc (assuming I use the +2 racial modifier to bump one of these stats) costs me 29 points (17 points to buy one of Int or Dex to 18 and 10 points to buy the other to 16 before applying a +2 racial modifier, 2 points to buy Con to 12).

Granted this only really matters though, if you care about having a character with an optimised class/race point-buy...

What you fail to note is that the reason your rogue want INT is because he wants more skills and the human gets bonus skill points. Essentially the human rogue has 90% of the advantages the elf rogue has due to ability scores but without the -2 to CON. I'm not sure about you but CON never a dump stat, generally it's my second or third highest stat.

(edited)

Err, the reasons (in my opinion) for a rogue finding high Int desirable now that the skill system has been shaken up leaving any rogue with more skill ranks to spend on other things are:
1) to multiclass into wizard/arcane trickster or duelist.
2) to max out knowledge checks for working out if the rogue can handle the monster he/she spotted whilst out 'on point' on his/her own, or if the rest of the party has to be involved.
3) (optionally - still not quite sure if this works) crafting his/her own magical items using Master Craftsman/Craft x feat chain.

Further, you missed my main point (possibly obscured by my using a specific example) - that in a point buy environment +2/+2/-2 is (in at least the majority of cases I suspect) significantly more efficient in terms of getting your desired end result for ability scores than +2, given the way that the point buy table is arranged.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
See humans already are far more adaptable then the other races. The extra skill at level on and the extra feat means from the gate they can pull off concepts other races just can not.

Very true point taken. It was just something that I thought on the fly while reading through these post.

Liberty's Edge

Thazar wrote:
The advantage of humans is versatility.

In this spirit, I think humans should have been able to have two favored classes like the half-elves.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I fail to see that they could have not got the +2 , yet every one is waveing it off. They lost nothing. Not one single thing did they loose

How many people even used the xp penalty? I mean really it was not all that great anyhow. They have lost nothing

I'm not waiving off the +2 bonus, it is a boost. But at the same time, the Half-orc and Half-elf also recieved it, while the other races gained a "lesser" version. However it does seem a lot of people are waiving off the favored class "benefit" loss.

BTW, we used the XP penalties for multiclassing.. if that helps you understand my side for the loss of the old human favored class "perk".


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I fail to see that they could have not got the +2 , yet every one is waveing it off. They lost nothing. Not one single thing did they loose

How many people even used the xp penalty? I mean really it was not all that great anyhow. They have lost nothing

They lost the unique ability of favored class ability, which is not just a game mechanic. If you can not see this, I can't think of how else I can explain this any simpler.

Logically since having a favorite class is no longer a special racial trait, then perhaps the multi-talented trait should also be a human trait. Humans were the jack of all trades, now, that is the half elf, humans have lost the versatility trait. So it seems like all the races gained something, an the humans have fallen behind and thus less powerful.

Also, all GMs I have played under used the EXP rule, to my knowledge. People just never multi-classed in a way to get hit by the exp penalty, so it was never an issue.


There are advantages that aren't simply mechanical. Most campaigns are humanocentric. The bulk of the population is human and probably react more favorably to humans. Half Elves and Half Orcs are percieved as (and probably mostly are) bastards. Misfits in any society, especially your typical quasi-medieval culture which stresses legitimacy. Dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings, while not unknown, are unusual and somewhat "alien" which can generate some difficulties. Good old human bigotry. Halflings probably have the easiest time of any of the other races fitting in to human society. Their small size and harmless appearance would go a ways to balancing the "alien" factor. Of course, that's not saying the other races don't have their own prejudices and are probably going to exercise them where they are the primary racial group...

Of course this is subjective and certainly not true of every campaign, but reading the racial descriptions in the core book it seems fairly reasonable. A good example of it in literature is the Garrett PI series by Glen Cook. Violent para military right wing groups develop from social stresses after the end of a war. Extreme racial prejudice is part of their ideology. My own game doesn't go near that far, but it does reflect the fairly common racial prejudices of typical fantasy games / settings.


If the Favored Class bonus is such a problem, why not just remove Favored Class all together? I can understand why they got rid of specific racial Favored Classes when theyy gave a bonus to Favored Classes, because it railroads you into one specific character type. Say I come up with a concept for a Dwarven Sorcerer, I'm already taking a suboptimal build. Now, if my Favored class is restricted fighter, I now get hit twice. Even if I choose to take Barbarian, I still take a hit for playing a little outside my stereotype. Yes it is a hit if I'm not taking advantage of anavailible bonus and not multiclassing. If I can choose my favored class then I get a little back for taking the suboptimal choice as my favored class.

So I suggest getting rid of it altogether if it doesn't make you happy. That way no one you solve the problem and don't penalize players who want to try something different.


R_Chance wrote:

There are advantages that aren't simply mechanical. Most campaigns are humanocentric. The bulk of the population is human and probably react more favorably to humans. Half Elves and Half Orcs are percieved as (and probably mostly are) bastards. Misfits in any society, especially your typical quasi-medieval culture which stresses legitimacy. Dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings, while not unknown, are unusual and somewhat "alien" which can generate some difficulties. Good old human bigotry. Halflings probably have the easiest time of any of the other races fitting in to human society. Their small size and harmless appearance would go a ways to balancing the "alien" factor. Of course, that's not saying the other races don't have their own prejudices and are probably going to exercise them where they are the primary racial group...

Of course this is subjective and certainly not true of every campaign, but reading the racial descriptions in the core book it seems fairly reasonable. A good example of it in literature is the Garrett PI series by Glen Cook. Violent para military right wing groups develop from social stresses after the end of a war. Extreme racial prejudice is part of their ideology. My own game doesn't go near that far, but it does reflect the fairly common racial prejudices of typical fantasy games / settings.

So, by that logic the Half-orc really didn't need a bonus to Intimidate... the book just needs to say that half-orcs are scary monsters and most people wet themselves when they see one charging :)

Non-mechanical bonuses/penalties just don't do anything when it comes to game balance, IMO, because of the fluctuation in gaming types like you mentioned. Maybe the campaign is set entirely within an elven land and humans are treated like diseased dogs... being put down at first sight :p

Quote:

If the Favored Class bonus is such a problem, why not just remove Favored Class all together? I can understand why they got rid of specific racial Favored Classes when theyy gave a bonus to Favored Classes, because it railroads you into one specific character type. Say I come up with a concept for a Dwarven Sorcerer, I'm already taking a suboptimal build. Now, if my Favored class is restricted fighter, I now get hit twice. Even if I choose to take Barbarian, I still take a hit for playing a little outside my stereotype. Yes it is a hit if I'm not taking advantage of anavailible bonus and not multiclassing. If I can choose my favored class then I get a little back for taking the suboptimal choice as my favored class.

So I suggest getting rid of it altogether if it doesn't make you happy. That way no one you solve the problem and don't penalize players who want to try something different.

Well, I personally liked the concept of the old favored class system... if not the mechanics. Yeah, I liked the stereotyping of the races, so sue me :p However, I can see the benefits of the new system, it just really irks me when people dismiss the human as only gaining abilities and not losing anything.... they did loose one of their main benefits (even if it was the lowest one because groups didn't implement the XP penalties).

Heck, back before Pathfinder we used to set everything in Greyhawk and even modified the human race to grant a +2/-2 stat adjustment depending on the human subrace/culture (Baklunish, Suel, etc.) to even the playing field. We still had elves/dwarves/half-orcs in the party???


I enjoyed my DM's ruling on humans. They gain Ambition

Ambition: Humans gain both a skill point and hit point for each level they take in their favorite class.


Peter Stewart wrote:

I enjoyed my DM's ruling on humans. They gain Ambition

Ambition: Humans gain both a skill point and hit point for each level they take in their favorite class.

I like the sound of that.


Peter Stewart wrote:

I enjoyed my DM's ruling on humans. They gain Ambition

Ambition: Humans gain both a skill point and hit point for each level they take in their favorite class.

Now that is a possibility :) It gives the human race something back for thier loss of favored class benefit, keeps the Paizo goal of sticking with the base class viable, leaves the half-elves their focus on being multiclass kings, and gives the humans the new role of being very focused for their short lifespan :p


Peter Stewart wrote:

I enjoyed my DM's ruling on humans. They gain Ambition

Ambition: Humans gain both a skill point and hit point for each level they take in their favorite class.

+3

I will try to get our group to house rule that!

I will be ruling that in what ever game I run, if only eventually.


If humans were not the alpha dogs of char op you just made them a must have. 40 extra skill points 20 extra HP, and a feat

That is a bit much to me


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

If humans were not the alpha dogs of char op you just made them a must have. 40 extra skill points 20 extra HP, and a feat

That is a bit much to me

That is in less dramatic terms 2 extra skills, and 20 hit points, but 1 extra skill and 20 hit points dependent on staying in your favorite class and not going into a prestige class; which sounds fine.

P.S. Lets say we are comparing this to other races. Lets say favorite class only granted 20 HP, humans would only get 1 extra skill in comparison, as their already 1 extra skill, and feat, is balanced with their long list of other abilities.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

If humans were not the alpha dogs of char op you just made them a must have. 40 extra skill points 20 extra HP, and a feat

That is a bit much to me

I don't think so. They only get that by sticking to the same class. And they are in truth only getting a extra 20 points of Skill or hit points since they would already beable to get +20 skill points or +20 hit points as every other race can do by sticking to the same class.


If humans are underpowered, they're still the favorite. Look at the stats that keep being quoted: when it comes to play, humans rule by a large majority.

When it comes to playing a game with the option of humans versus another race, humans rule, and apparently there are players who feel so strongly that they refuse to show up. When given the option of a game with humans or a game without them, the one with them almost always wins.

We can never forget that DnD, too, is something of a numbers game. People play races because there's a mechanical advantage to do so. Roleplay also comes into factor, but that extra feat, the skills, no negative attribute penalty, and +2 to anything they choose hold alot of sway, mechanically.

In base 3e, humans were intentionally given extra oomph by designers, similar to what the cleric had, to make them the "top" race, the more popular race. It was done so that what happened in 2e didn't happen in 3, where everyone wasn't choosing this or that monster (elf, dwarf) race for mechanical benefits. They wanted a game where humans were the dominant race, not elves, dwarves, or bugbears. :)

Many minmax/CharOp builds feature humans as core--it's the free feat. Multiclassing rules can come into it, but many games ignored that. Instead, humans continue to qualify earlier for PrCs. They had more options, more versatility because as an earlier poster stated, by the time someone was celebrating getting a feat chain, the human was yawning, because they'd already been playing with it for a few levels and saying, "aw, how cute. You know I was doing that levels ago, right?"

The other races did get some added color, it's true. I might argue that they received something that made them necessarily more interesting. How many nonhumans were there in a campaign, on average, in 3e?

Humans are/were too mechanically advantageous for anyone to look beyond them.

They still are, and they still have the majority. In large numbers. This fits, I think, with design intent.

The human didn't exactly lose much, either. They gained. They now receive a bonus that he or she never had to begin with. They always had a virtual +2 to intelligence--they could end up with a virtual +6 to intelligence if they wanted to (human bonus, favored class, +2 choosable) in terms of skill points.

With the combined PF skill system, and the lack of CC costs, additional skill points are more powerful than they used to be. A single point buys Perception, whereas what Perception now does would used to have cost 2 or 3 or 4 or 6.

So in that way, it becomes a benefit.

Humans are still being played. They're in the majority. They'll qualify for PrCs earlier, faster. They'll complete feat chains earlier, faster. They'll have versatile options other races might dream of. CharOp will still like them.

I wouldn't say they "lost." I'd say they gained some, and that other races got more interesting. ...but not interesting enough that humans aren't, anymore, the majority race. They still are, and will continue to be, and that, I think, matches the design intent.


Brett Blackwell wrote:


So, by that logic the Half-orc really didn't need a bonus to Intimidate... the book just needs to say that half-orcs are scary monsters and most people wet themselves when they see one charging :)

Non-mechanical bonuses/penalties just don't do anything when it comes to game balance, IMO, because of the fluctuation in gaming types like you mentioned. Maybe the campaign is set entirely within an elven land and humans are treated like diseased dogs... being put down at first sight :p

I'd say it explains the half orc bonus to intimidate. Non mechanical elements are an important element in game balance. That part is up to the DM of course. Some settings / campaigns will differ, but the flavor part of the racial text indicates the tone of the "standard" game. Putting the intangibles into a campaign is part of role playing. It's another reason to have a DM. If it was all just mechanics you would be playing a miniature war game. While these are fun (imo), it's not role playing.


SquirrelyOgre wrote:


Many minmax/CharOp builds feature humans as core--it's the free feat. Multiclassing rules can come into it, but many games ignored that. Instead, humans continue to qualify earlier for PrCs. They had more options, more versatility because as an earlier poster stated, by the time someone was celebrating getting a feat chain, the human was yawning, because they'd already been playing with it for a few levels and saying, "aw, how cute. You know I was doing that levels ago, right?"

Humans are/were too mechanically advantageous for anyone to look beyond them.

Very, very true. Looking at a game long haul, unless you want a racially restricted prestige class, a human will get into most prestige classes earlier (and even the bab/skill rank/caster level restricted ones, they will be more versitile), be able to qualify for a wider variety of prestige classes, and as I have said before, the other races racial perks are evened out by magic items and/or spells at later levels (as in...5th or 6th and on most of the time.)


The free feat is a huge bonus. It's more powerful and useful then anything any other class offers.


nexusphere wrote:
The free feat is a huge bonus. It's more powerful and useful then anything any other class offers.

It is a nice bonus but not a huge one IMO. I think with Ambition a extra hit point or skill point by staying with a class is good way to go for me.


I hate to say this, but I will. It's true, most people play humans, but it is NOT because of the mechanical benefit, I assure you. They play humans DESPITE the fact of them being underpowered.

I have a group(yes, HAVE) of 2nd edition, all in all 14 players passed through the table (we are in 8 today) of those 14 TWO were no humans, TWO! Benefit of humans in second edition? NONE. Considering that my GM ignored the rule of max level for the other races. And none of the humans multi classed... so why play humans? Cause we like it, cause we ARE humans.

Most players I know say, I don't like the dwarven look, I think elves are too androgenous, halflings are too damn small and so on, there is NOTHING to be said about the looks or cultures of humans, cause they can look like "anything" u like and be from anyplace in your campign (most settings anyhow) to have a nice cultural difference (Greek like, Norse Like and so on) while the other races have mostly the same cultural backgrounds.

In the end, mechanically, they are underpowered. And lost their flavor "power" of versatility.

The Ambition house rule reminds me of the core 2nd edition where only humans had no level limits, it's not the same, but it's a bonus that streatches on and reminds me of it, and only if they stick to the basics, wich was a nice second edition trait since Multi classing sucked and Dual classing rocked (Another win for non-humans).

You keep saying wonderfull things about the Free Feat, well, I like it too, but does it really make THAT difference in the end when despite of class you will have by level 11 and the nonhuman guy 10? I really don't see it.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

If humans were not the alpha dogs of char op you just made them a must have. 40 extra skill points 20 extra HP, and a feat

That is a bit much to me

Me thinks thou must jest. Character optimization contingent upon staying in a single class for 20 levels to gain... 20 hit points or 20 skill points?

It's certainly a perk - and a nice one if they are being reconed by Pathfinder (as they seem to be) into the masters of specialization rather than diverse abilities (e.g. multiclassing) - but to call it the overwhelming favorite is nonsense.


(edited, feat corrected)
Dennis da Ogre:
Having reflected some more, I believe that careful use of the bonus feat humans have can in many circumstances more than compensate for any comparative ability score problems resulting after a restrictive point-buy; EG if behind on Dex then take Improved Initiative or Dodge, if behind behind on Con, then take Toughness or Great Fortitude, etc.
As to skill points, I feel that to a certain extent racial bonuses to skills (at least for the early levels) keep the net skill modifiers situation fairly even or the humans lagging slightly behind other races for the first few character levels, but I have yet to investigate what happens in practical terms when I try to build a character from a '2 points/level' class. In those particular classes, in terms of skills, I admit humans may be slightly better advantaged than other races.
Anyway, interesting to exchange views with you... :)


Humans are my favorite race, followed by the half-elf.


I like my characters human, mostly due to the familiarity. Also, my understanding was that nobody really paid any attention to AD&D level caps on demihumans in the first place.

I did pick half elf for my recent wizard, but that is mostly because I thought nobody else would choose it(since I was playing 3.5, and half elves sucked in 3.5). Ironically, I was wrong, and half the group ended up choosing half elf, initially.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


We cut the weapon proficiency for a variety of reasons, the largest being that it made for some strange changes to the game world. Every farmer being proficient in greatsword was not something we wanted to see.

That still doesn't mean they should be able to afford one. :(


I see where the Humans are underpowered is coming from now.

I also see humans as being a lesser race in my group which I don't particularly care for. The changes to Pathfinder's skill system (which I love) makes the extra skill point not as big a boon as it once was. The feat still rocks but the other races get better stuff (always have) and even that isn't as big a deal now that you get extra feats. Human's even lost a little since they didn't get Multitalented.

Out of the five people in our group, four are playing non-human races. I'm the only human and it's purely for role playing purposes. My character concept would be much harder to conceptualize as anything but. It's definitely not the optimal race as neither feats nor skills are important for the build.

Although my character isn't set in stone. If I decide to play something different, chances are I'd play a half-elf. I almost always overspecialize in a skill so my free human feat is still there in skill focus. I almost always take it anyway somewhere down the line. Low-light vision is very good. I like being able to multiclass without penalty as well. I see me playing a lot of half-elves in the future.

My only gripe with the new system is that it does look like humans got nerfed a little. Yeah they were a better race than the rest but that was by design. You might be able to build anything you want with humans still but you can build them better with one of the other races. For most characters, playing a human will probably hurt your character optimization which means a lot of groups filled with mostly non-humans.

I'm not complaining, though. We can always house humans to be better choices if it gets out of hand.


Mind you Im not a human player, I usually play elf or drow and gnome, but I have to say humans should have been the only race with the versatility to choose their favored class. That choice exemplified the human adaptibility throughout time, and a major reason humans have dominated and have coped with the ever changing universe. The other races get cool special abilities, which at first glance makes the human seem weak. Humans have adaptibility which should be the lacking feature in the non-human races. Non-human races have their racial and cultural tendencies which have held their expansin back throughout the centuries.


I don't know why, but gnomes have absolutely no appeal to me.
They don't really seem to fit a particular niche.


I really do miss the human's weapon proficiency and I'm sorely tempted to house-rule it back in, but I'm going to trust Paizo's judgement on this.
These guys are the professionals, right?

Actually, instead of being proficient with all martial weapons, what if humans were proficient with any one weapon of their choice?


Shadow13.com wrote:


Actually, instead of being proficient with all martial weapons, what if humans were proficient with any one weapon of their choice?

Umm that was how it worked. And really it did not work it caused more changes to the game and flavor. Farmers with two handed swords and great axes ,mid wives with glaves, stable hands using longswords, and so on


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Umm that was how it worked. And really it did not work it caused more changes to the game and flavor. Farmers with two handed swords and great axes ,mid wives with glaves, stable hands using longswords, and so on

It's been too long since I've seen the beta rules.


Perhaps having all humans proficient with one simple weapon would have been a good compromise? Not a big benefit for martial types, but good for classes that aren't proficient with all simple weapons.


Shadow13.com wrote:

I don't know why, but gnomes have absolutely no appeal to me.

They don't really seem to fit a particular niche.

Gnomes unfortunately have always been overshadowed by the halfling. But try playing one and you will have the time of your life


Frostflame wrote:
Shadow13.com wrote:

I don't know why, but gnomes have absolutely no appeal to me.

They don't really seem to fit a particular niche.
Gnomes unfortunately have always been overshadowed by the halfling. But try playing one and you will have the time of your life

Gnomes and halflings both need the vermin type.


Peter Stewart wrote:


Gnomes and halflings both need the vermin type.

Tee hee!


I don't buy the farmers with Great Swords excuse. What farmer is going to spend 50gp on a freakin' sword? That's over a years income for them. Plus, you could easily just exclude commoners from racial weapon proficiencies. Does it make a difference that every Elf farmer can use an Elven Curved Blade or every Half-orc farmer can use an Orc Double Axe?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Shadow13.com wrote:


Actually, instead of being proficient with all martial weapons, what if humans were proficient with any one weapon of their choice?

Umm that was how it worked. And really it did not work it caused more changes to the game and flavor. Farmers with two handed swords and great axes ,mid wives with glaves, stable hands using longswords, and so on

How about a free weapon focus (+1 bab not needed) for any weapon that they are already proficient in.

This would have farmers get a weapon focus in scythe, hoe, etc..

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Brett Blackwell wrote:

Hmm, I have to agree that the changes to humans kinda irritate me. Basically, most of the other classes gained something during the conversion, but the human actually lost.

+2 Stat - everyone gained an additional +2, with the half-orc and half-elf gaining the exact same benefit as the human, so that is a wash

+1 feat - already had that in previous editions

+1 skill - again, already had that in previous editions

Preferred class - Everyone now gets one class as preferred, with no restriction. This used to be one of the perks for the human and now everyone has it, and the half-elf goes one step better...

Heck, in our current group a lot of players are actually thinking the Half-orc looks better on paper... same stat bonus, free weapon proficiencies, one less skill point and 1 less feat, same preferred class rules, a weaker version of Diehard (about equivalent to 1 feat since Diehard actually requires two feats), Darkvision, and +2 to Intimidate (okay, that one isn't that spectacular :) ). Heck, darkvision is worth at least a feat by itself in a lot of campaign settings (I think there was even an old 3e Dragon Magazine feat that granted limited darkvision for the cost of a feat....).

I agree.

Darkvision is easily worth a Feat. And with the other benefits of a Half-Orc they also overrule +1 Skill point/level.

Same with Half-Elves. They get the same +2. They also get a free Feat (all be it one that they can't choose, but still a free Feat). Then they get an additional Favoured Class which is quite powerful. and also LL Vision, Elven Immunities and Keen Senses. 2 abilities more than the Human's free Skill Point.

I don't think that Humans were underpowered before, as the Free Feat is a big drawcard, but I very much feel that giving them a free Martial Weapon Proficiency was a wonderful thing that played in nicely with their whole "Human Diversity" theme. Taking it away made no sense when every other Race bar Half-Elves have multiple free Weapon Proficiencies, sometimes with Exotic Weapons!

To sum it up: How is letting a Human have a Martial Weapon Proficiency more powerful than letting another Race have a free Exotic Weapon Proficiency to go with their multiple other free Weapon Proficiencies?


Frogboy wrote:
I don't buy the farmers with Great Swords excuse. What farmer is going to spend 50gp on a freakin' sword? That's over a years income for them. Plus, you could easily just exclude commoners from racial weapon proficiencies. Does it make a difference that every Elf farmer can use an Elven Curved Blade or every Half-orc farmer can use an Orc Double Axe?

what it means is it changes how the world works. It means that every single human has trained his whole life with a weapon. That is how other races get it normally. Sure most farmers wont have great swords but the point stands,


Mistwalker wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Shadow13.com wrote:


Actually, instead of being proficient with all martial weapons, what if humans were proficient with any one weapon of their choice?

Umm that was how it worked. And really it did not work it caused more changes to the game and flavor. Farmers with two handed swords and great axes ,mid wives with glaves, stable hands using longswords, and so on

How about a free weapon focus (+1 bab not needed) for any weapon that they are already proficient in.

This would have farmers get a weapon focus in scythe, hoe, etc..

Myself I do not like it. They have 1 feat anyhow I am not giving them 2. No point in humans being better at hitting folks with weapons none at all.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
I don't buy the farmers with Great Swords excuse. What farmer is going to spend 50gp on a freakin' sword? That's over a years income for them. Plus, you could easily just exclude commoners from racial weapon proficiencies. Does it make a difference that every Elf farmer can use an Elven Curved Blade or every Half-orc farmer can use an Orc Double Axe?
what it means is it changes how the world works. It means that every single human has trained his whole life with a weapon. That is how other races get it normally. Sure most farmers wont have great swords but the point stands,

ummm... Hello!

Fighters are proficient with just about every single weapon there is... If it takes someone their whole life to become proficient with one Martial Weapon then how in the name of crap can a Fighter know how to use all of them by the time they are 16-21 (which are the random starting ages for a Fighter as per page 169 of the Core Rulebook)? I'm quite sure I didn't know how to use every weapon known to mankind by the time I was 16! Did you? I doubt that there are naught but a handful of 16 year old in this world who could even come close to being able to say that.
Having proficiency with one weapon is in no way shape or form a game breaking ability!

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Myself I do not like it. They have 1 feat anyhow I am not giving them 2. No point in humans being better at hitting folks with weapons none at all.

If you are equate it this way then that means you think it is perfectly reasonable for say an Elf to have 5 free Feats? Four Martial Weapon Proficiencies and one Exotic Weapon Proficiency (and that's only if you use the Core Rulebook, if you are using 3.5 Splat Books then you can add probably another 2-4 Exotic Weapon Proficiencies on top of that list).


elves are fine, Humans it just does not fit at all. Elves it has been written about for ages hell they do something that first 100 years.

It just does not fit humans at all. A few cultures may practice with weapons endless I can think of a few but as a whole it does not fit.

"Weeeee I's a farmer watch out elven fighter I am more deadly then you with my hoe of Doom!"

Now if ya think humans needs something cool, your game after all I just do not think this is it


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
what it means is it changes how the world works. It means that every single human has trained his whole life with a weapon. That is how other races get it normally. Sure most farmers wont have great swords but the point stands,

Kind of true. You don't have to train your whole life to be proficient with a long sword. You could be a 10th level Commoner, take one level of Fighter and boom; you're now proficient in every martial weapon known to man.

EDIT: Damn ninjas :)

My only gripe is that I see humans getting played less than almost all of the other races and this just doesn't seem right to me. They usually make up at least half of the group.

The less common races should be just that. Given the racial attributes provided, humans should be almost extinct by now. They can't see well. They don't live very long. They aren't good with weapons. They aren't multitalented. They aren't resistant to poison or magic. How did they end up becoming the dominant race in the first place. :)

51 to 100 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Humans All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.