Humans


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Frogboy wrote:
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.

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. :)

that is a group thing not a rule thing. Humans breed like rabbits compared to most races. They have 2 or more generations to one of most other common races. So in most woulds they spread and outnumber most races 10 or 50 to 1 easy

You might not like how the race is written but it does work fine. How many people played half orc's and half elves in 3.5 despite being "weak"

People will play what they wish to play and being human does give you befits

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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

Yes but you are saying this from a Flavour point of view, not a Relative Power Comparison point of view.

What you are in essence saying is that it's OK for Elves to get 5 free Feats because it's in their Flavour. But Humans can't even get one extra one because their commoners suck compared to an Elf Commoner?
That reasoning is so wonky it's not funny!

There is no way that a Human Commoner with Proficiency with Hoe is more deadly than an Elven Fighter of the same level. I'm sorry but to even suggest such a thing means that you can't have a firm grasp on the rules.


HEH it was a wee bit of hyperbole wasn't it. Anyhow the weapon feat does not fit humans at all. tell me you been a human all your life what weapon do you know? and your family? the guy down the street? Humans start play at 16 or so elves at 100 or so. elves are written as having sword and bow mixed so heavy into them that it's a part of being an elf.

All I am saying is it does not fit. Besides since when have the races even been far and balance vs each other?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
being human does give you befits

Yep. Exactly one skill point per level and one feat. Just seems a little weak to me especially since the skill point isn't really a draw anymore.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Anyhow the weapon feat does not fit humans at all. tell me you been a human all your life what weapon do you know? and your family? the guy down the street?

Humans have always commonly trained with weapons especially in the past when life was much more violent. Even so, most of my neighbors train with weapons. I hear them firing their guns all the time.

The free martial weapon profiency was fine. They just got scared of DMs messing it up by giving a bunch of farmers great swords even though there is no way that they could possibly afford them.


Frogboy wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
being human does give you befits
Yep. Exactly one skill point per level and one feat. Just seems a little weak to me especially since the skill point isn't really a draw anymore.

may not be a drawl but it is there. You gain a feat and a skill point. some tables will see it very common some tables will not see them much at all.

Just like we have tables of all elves, all gnomes or what have you. But to say the skill point and the feat and the +2 are meaningless goes a bit far


Frogboy wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Anyhow the weapon feat does not fit humans at all. tell me you been a human all your life what weapon do you know? and your family? the guy down the street?
Humans have always commonly trained with weapons especially in the past when life was much more violent. Even so, most of my neighbors train with weapons. I hear them firing their guns all the time.

guns would be simple weapons. Guna as a whole even blackpowder are far easier weapons then a bow or sword.

I do agree that in some cultures you learn to walk holding a weapon but not all and not the majority of them besides you have the simple weapons list to reflect that in most classes. but that is not a human race thing


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
But to say the skill point and the feat and the +2 are meaningless goes a bit far

I never said that it is meaningless, just that it pales in comparison to what all of the other races get.

Sovereign Court

Frogboy wrote:


Yep. Exactly one skill point per level and one feat. Just seems a little weak to me especially since the skill point isn't really a draw anymore.

That makes no sense whatsoever, with the consolidation of skill points it's even better than before. In 3.5 an extra skill point didn't mean much because it was one extra skill that while good was gonna always wind up being situationally useful. Now with combining as many as 3 skills into one. Getting an extra skill point is another great skill that's always gonna be useful. Its a free maxed acrobatics, stealth, or perception. with a SP starved class like fighter or sorcerer that doesn't use int as it's primary an extra skillpoint in this new system is a godsend, especially for non-class skills.


I might not have been clear before.

It's not just a free feat - It's a free feat of your choosing. If I have to take three skill focus feats, or one of my own choosing, the one I pick is always going to win out.

Also: One extra skill point a level? Not just for min/maxers.

Free skill/Free Feat > pre-selected bonuses.


If we look at the player classes, the ones that need good weapons have them, already. Monks, sorcerers and wizards would love to have a good melee weapon, naturally, and if you're so inclined, you can use your free feat to have one. By 5th level, you'll almost never use it, anyway.

The best weapon for a wiz/sor, IMHO, is anything with the defending property. Whip it out, and add to your AC. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is, though. You suck with it, anyway!=P

Most Americans have shot a gun or two, but few of them are so practiced as to be sharp-shooters. People with real proficiency with medieval weapons, or even knives, are quite rare.

In medieval times, peasants weren't allowed to have weapons, anyway. They might rebel if they had the resources to fight their lords. Add in the cost of such things, and most could only dream of a sword or something that effective, let alone the time and money to train with it.

For a compromise, allow human universalist wizards a martial weapon so their Hand of the Apprentice ability could have some better teeth. That would do a little to alleviate the nerfs to that class, too.

Or, rule that only humans with player classes get the feat. That keeps real weapons out of the hands of NPCs who realistically wouldn't have them, and could never fight well with them, anyway.

My 2 coppers...


Dave Young 992 wrote:

I

For a compromise, allow human universalist wizards a martial weapon so their Hand of the Apprentice ability could have some better teeth. That would do a little to alleviate the nerfs to that class, too.

Or, rule that only humans with player classes get the feat. That keeps real weapons out of the hands of NPCs who realistically wouldn't have them, and could never fight well with them, anyway.

So a race ability that does not effect the race as a whole?? You lost me there


seekerofshadowlight wrote:


So a race ability that does not effect the race as a whole?? You lost me there

Well, warriors and aristocrats get martial weapons. They would be trained in them. It makes sense. It's a matter of who has access to that kind of training in a human culture; i.e. people with money or people trained to fight in an army or somesuch. Humans in the real world are divvied up into such social tiers.

We expect certain types to carry and use weapons, while others usually don't. Cops, yes. Teachers, no. Walking around carrying guns may be legal today in many places, but you risk being dismissed as a nut if you do it much, like at a townhall meeting. A commoner walking around with a sword would most likely have invoked a similar reaction back in the day. No one would have dared question a noble or his bodyguards for it.

Elves, as someone said before, had 100 years to learn to use weapons that are common to all of them. It makes sense. Kinda like halflings getting +1 to slings and thrown weapons did, as an archetype.

Half-orc weapon proficiencies are a trickier thing to rationalize than humans who might have it. Perhaps their orcish nature makes 2-handed slashing something that's "in the blood." Maybe they imitate their orc cousins in order to look tough so they won't get messed with. That's a tougher game rule for me to understand than the human adventurer getting a martial weapon. Half orcs are rejected bastards, most of the time, but some of them would get quiet jobs where big ol' weapons don't make sense, or just get in the way.

I'd say that a brand new human universalist wizard, knowing he has hand of the apprentice, might have taken the time to learn to use a better weapon than other wizards use, just to survive a little better his first few levels. He has an easier time learning spells in general, and casts fewer than a specialist, so it makes a little sense.

Just a contrast of the historical striation of humans compared to the fantasy races, who all are more alike, by comparison.

My 2cps.


But that is like saying, you only get the extra skill point if your class have 4 or more.

Race ability like that normally do not depend on class. sorry that just does not work


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

But that is like saying, you only get the extra skill point if your class have 4 or more.

Race ability like that normally do not depend on class. sorry that just does not work

I see your point. That's why they took it out for the final version.

Just posing a potential explanation for folks who want to keep it without handing swords to commoners. Using serious weapons is something not everyone would automatically know about.

I'm happy with the RAW, though I'd consider throwing the universalist wizard a bone with a chance to use a better melee weapon. A flying sword just looks cooler than a flying dagger. That might encourage someone to play it!


well you do have that feat at level one :)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
well you do have that feat at level one :)

Greatsword! Yee-haaa!

Actually, I think a morningstar would be good. Cheap, one-handed, and two damage types. Take a dagger, and you've got your damage types covered, when it matters. A flying morningstar would get their attention!:-)


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
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?

They aren't. Read the rules. These weapons are MARTIAL for the relevant races, instead of EXOTIC. Farmers do not benefit from that.


Zaister 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?
They aren't. Read the rules. These weapons are MARTIAL for the relevant races, instead of EXOTIC. Farmers do not benefit from that.

They'd have to take proficiency, then there's the matter of being able to afford one. That's a lot of hurdles for Joe Commoner.


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. I realize this is the most extreme example, but it is still valid. To top it off, we realized it was a bit redundant. If that is something you desire for your character, you still get a free feat.

The thing is, that it makes more sense for a farmer to choose short or long bow or scythe. They are farmers after all. They don't want to get close to anything and fight in melee. Or, while growing up they liked to pretend they were an adventurer and their reaping scythe was their weapon of choice.


Kalis wrote:
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. I realize this is the most extreme example, but it is still valid. To top it off, we realized it was a bit redundant. If that is something you desire for your character, you still get a free feat.

The thing is, that it makes more sense for a farmer to choose short or long bow or scythe. They are farmers after all. They don't want to get close to anything and fight in melee. Or, while growing up they liked to pretend they were an adventurer and their reaping scythe was their weapon of choice.

Well I could see a farmer using a bow after all he needs to hunt sometimes for meat, and he needs some sort of protection against wild animals. I can see most commoners being trained with at least one simple weapon.


Okay, I'll give you guys the martial weapon proficiency. I get the philosophy behind it. That really wasn't my main point though. It was that humans are likely the weakest race from a min/max point of view and this will lead to funky things with my group.

lastknightleft wrote:
Frogboy wrote:


Yep. Exactly one skill point per level and one feat. Just seems a little weak to me especially since the skill point isn't really a draw anymore.
That makes no sense whatsoever, with the consolidation of skill points it's even better than before. In 3.5 an extra skill point didn't mean much because it was one extra skill that while good was gonna always wind up being situationally useful. Now with combining as many as 3 skills into one. Getting an extra skill point is another great skill that's always gonna be useful. Its a free maxed acrobatics, stealth, or perception. with a SP starved class like fighter or sorcerer that doesn't use int as it's primary an extra skillpoint in this new system is a godsend, especially for non-class skills.

That skill you are using your extra skill point on is going to be the least essential one that you are taking. It's the one that you would have not taken if you chose a different race. Chances are, it's going to be the Swim, extra knowledge skill or appraise. It's not a big draw anymore IMO. Every class can get an extra skill point per level now if they want it. Sure, human can get two but unless you want to play a skilled fighter without multiclassing then you probably aren't going to get anything terribly usful with it.

Feats are always nice but unless you aren't a Fighter and want to hit that feat chain two levels early then it's not really worth giving up something really good like Darkvision or exotic weapon prof. in several weapons. Sure, you could use your feat on an EWP but why waste your only good class feature on something that you can get in another class along with a ton of other bennies?

I just feel that humans need something more to make them a desirable option again for min/maxers.


Frogboy wrote:
just feel that humans need something more to make them a desirable option again for min/maxers.

Not really. They still get earlier PrC qualification (or more PrC's), extra skill point helps meet odd PrC requirements, even if staying single classes, they can get more or longer feat chains (not just earlier, but a broader variety).

And...its a roleplaying game, not a tactical combat simulation...min/maxing potential is in anything (Pun Pun was a frigging KOBOLD for crying out loud...), its in how said min/maxer uses what hes got available.

Sovereign Court

Frogboy wrote:
That skill you are using your extra skill point on is going to be the least essential one that you are taking. It's the one that you would have not taken if you chose a different race. Chances are, it's going to be the Swim, extra knowledge skill or appraise. It's not a big draw anymore IMO. Every class can get an extra skill point per level now if they want it. Sure, human can get two but unless you want to play a skilled fighter without multiclassing then you probably aren't going to get anything terribly usful with it.

You know, I'm a fairly competent min maxer, and I simply disagree. Even with high SP classes extra SP are always welcome. We simply see that differently.

Frogboy wrote:
Feats are always nice but unless you aren't a Fighter and want to hit that feat chain two levels early then it's not really worth giving up something really good like Darkvision

Darkvision is good, I'm not denying that, but it's also easily worked around. Especially with the new gimped as hell darkness spell. Darkvision is an ability that is seriously useful at first and maybe second level, and then after that so easily and cheaply worked around that most games I've dealt with never bothered with it past level 3.

Frogboy wrote:
or exotic weapon prof. in several weapons.

A) it's not EWP unless you play a class that gains all martial weapons. B) with the exception of the dwarven waraxe and elven curveblade, none of those weapons is particularly that attractive a draw. In fact the regular weapon proficiencies are more useful than the exotic weapons being treated as martial. But that doesn't change the fact that when considering builds unless I was going for a class idea based on using one of those weapons and wanted to save a feat slot, I would rather have the human bonus of a free feat of my choosing and an extra SP.

Frogboy wrote:
Sure, you could use your feat on an EWP but why waste your only good class feature on something that you can get in another class along with a ton of other bennies?

you're absolutely right on there, but since none of the exotic weapons are worth the feat, I'd just ignore that whole weapon section and focus on making my build around a better weapon like the rapier, greatsword, or flail.

Frogboy wrote:

I just feel that humans need something more to make them a desirable option again for min/maxers.

I am a fairly decent min/maxer when I want to be, and I completely disagree.


Krigare wrote:
Not really. They still get earlier PrC qualification (or more PrC's)...

I keep hearing this but I can't figure out where it comes from. I can think of only one PrC that requires a human bonus feat to get in earlier than any of the other races. Now that you get feats at 5th and 7th, that's probably not even true anymore.

Krigare wrote:
And...its a roleplaying game, not a tactical combat simulation...min/maxing potential is in anything (Pun Pun was a frigging KOBOLD for crying out loud...), its in how said min/maxer uses what hes got available.

Chill out, man. I know this. Except for Pun Pun; I have no idea who that is. I'm just not too keen on the idea that humans are the least attractive race now.


Frogboy wrote:


Chill out, man. I know this. Except for Pun Pun; I have no idea who that is. I'm just not too keen on the idea that humans are the least attractive race now.

I'm chill...believe me...if my typing seems upset, apologies. And Pun Pun is/was a creation on the CharOp boards WotC had that used some serious design flaws in the system to grant itself godlike power.

Saying that humans are the least attractive race really doesn't make sense to me though. It seems it more like "All the races are pretty close to equally good I have trouble choosing." And isn't that the point?


lastknightleft wrote:
Darkvision is good, I'm not denying that, but it's also easily worked around. Especially with the new gimped as hell darkness spell. Darkvision is an ability that is seriously useful at first and maybe second level, and then after that so easily and cheaply worked around that most games I've dealt with never bothered with it past level 3.

The new gimped darkness spell is one of the reasons why Darkvision is even better now. I'm not sure how it's so easily worked around after 3rd level, though.

lastknightleft wrote:
A) it's not EWP unless you play a class that gains all martial weapons. B) with the exception of the dwarven waraxe and elven curveblade, none of those weapons is particularly that attractive a draw. In fact the regular weapon proficiencies are more useful than the exotic weapons being treated as martial. But that doesn't change the fact that when considering builds unless I was going for a class idea based on using one of those weapons and wanted to save a feat slot, I would rather have the human bonus of a free feat of my choosing and an extra SP.

Elves also get a boat load of proficiencies in some of the best martial weapons. But even so, a Dwarven, Half-orc or Elven Fighter gets a boost from being able to use better than normal weapons. If a human wants to use one of these or a Bastard Sword, he's got to blow half of his class features on it.


If you are making a skilled character and you want that extra feat you normally have to put more points in Int. A human, due to the free skill point allows you to put that attribute somewhere else. Maybe you want your rogue to have more con, charisma or dex. Maybe you want your sorcerer to have one more skill point, but don't want to go past a 10 intelligence.

If you are a martial character the feat helps because many prestige classes make you take feats you would not otherwise take to get into the class. You can use that human feat to take a feat you actually want. The unwanted feat issue also comes up when you may have to take an unwanted prereq feat to get the feat that you do want.

I view the extra feat and skill point as a way to get around the things I don't want.


Krigare wrote:
I'm chill...believe me...if my typing seems upset, apologies.

Sorry, my bad.

Krigare wrote:
Saying that humans are the least attractive race really doesn't make sense to me though. It seems it more like "All the races are pretty close to equally good I have trouble choosing." And isn't that the point?

It might've been what they were attempting to accomplish when tweeking the races but I would've argued against it. For one, humans have always been the most attractive race and were that way for a reason. DMing a group of heroes that are going to save the world and not having any humans in it (or one out of eight by your estimation) just seems...weird. Humans are the "normal" race. People feel like if they play a Dwarf, he's got to stern and gruff. An Elf has to be an elitest that thinks he's better than everyone else. A Halfling has to be all cheery and happy. Humans can kind of be whatever you want. I know that you can play any race however you want but people tend not to.


Frogboy wrote:
Elves also get a boat load of proficiencies in some of the best martial weapons. But even so, a Dwarven, Half-orc or Elven Fighter gets a boost from being able to use better than normal weapons. If a human wants to use one of these or a Bastard Sword, he's got to blow half of his class features on it.

A dwarf gets a slightly better battle axe to use (on an average roll, 1 extra point of damage), an elf gets a slightly better flachion for use (again, 1 extra point of damge on average rolls), and half orcs get a weapon they have to devote a whole feat chain (two weapon figthing) to use to full effect.

For Dwarves and Elves...these are useful only if you want to play to the stereotype. For a dwarf that means playing an axe and board (or TWF...oh, wait, more feats chosen for you...)fighter, and for the Elf a crit build...a gimp yourself on a crit build at that.

How exactly is this so much better?


Brett Blackwell wrote:
OK, I'll play that game :)

Could you please read the rules before you play the game? Because you're playing it wrong.

Brett Blackwell wrote:


Say you want to be a wizard.

No, I don't say that.

The name of the game is "show that humans' +2 is often better than (or at least as good as) those +2/+2/-2 combos" not "humans are always better".

Sure, elven wizards are probably better than human ones (though not always), but the whole point was not that humans are all better all the time

flash_cxxi wrote:


Yes but you are saying this from a Flavour point of view, not a Relative Power Comparison point of view.

Important thing, your flavour.

flash_cxxi wrote:


What you are in essence saying is that it's OK for Elves to get 5 free Feats because it's in their Flavour.

That's a really, really bad way to look at it. 5 martial proficiencies aren't worth 5 feats (or fighters and other classes with all martial weapons would be way beyond broken).


Yooo alll stooopud

Paizo likes goblins
Goblins likes to eet Hoomons
Paizo make hoomans more bad so moor hoomans in goblins stuu pots
Jason loves um him goblinz. Look at goblin stat blok.

Goblins sneaksy and fast not like fat little halfings

We be goblinz yous be fud!!
Now yous shuts up water boils soon.


Krigare wrote:
How exactly is this so much better?

It's better than nothing especially if you were going to go that direction anyway.

KaeYoss wrote:
flash_cxxi wrote:


What you are in essence saying is that it's OK for Elves to get 5 free Feats because it's in their Flavour.
That's a really, really bad way to look at it. 5 martial proficiencies aren't worth 5 feats (or fighters and other classes with all martial weapons would be way beyond broken).

I don't think he was counting five martial weapon proficiencies as five feats. Maybe he was but I didn't take it that way. If I were going to break class features down as feats, I'd do something like this:

Elf (+5 feats)
Low-Light Vision (+1 feat)
Elven Immunities (+1 feat)
Elven Magic (+1.5 feat)
Keen Senses (+0.5 feat)
Weapon Familiarity (+1 feat)

Dwarf (+6.5 feats)
Darkvision (+1.5 feats)
Defensive Training (+1 feat)
Greed (flavor)
Hatred (flavor)
Hardy (+2 feats)
Stability (+1 feat)
Stonecunning (+1 feat)
Weapon Familiarity (+1 feat)

Human
Bonus Feat (any)
Skilled (any)

Is being able to choose your feat and an extra skill really worth 5+ feats?


Frogboy wrote:


It might've been what they were attempting to accomplish when tweeking the races but I would've argued against it. For one, humans have always been the most attractive race and were that way for a reason. DMing a group of heroes that are going to save the world and not having any humans in it (or one out of eight by your estimation) just seems...weird. Humans are the "normal" race. People feel like if they play a Dwarf, he's got to stern and gruff. An Elf has to be an elitest that thinks he's better than everyone else. A Halfling has to be all cheery and happy. Humans can kind of be whatever you want. I know that you can play any race however you want but people tend not to.

I really don't get this. Lets say we make Humans twice as good as all other races, are you still going to have a problem if all your players decide to go non-human? As they are, I'd find it an odd occurance if every one in a game played non-humans but I'd think it was pretty cool, especially since it is the most common race that gets played in our groups. Sure we've had the odd game where 3 people played Halflings (the Halfling deathsquad is now seen as the players actively trying to sink a game by most of our DMs) and my only current game where we have 3 Warforged. In both cases the other half of the party is human.

Rant: I really hate it when people say X race must behave like this. I've played a happy and perputually optimistic dwarf, plenty of of practicle and amiable elves, Halflings that are scary then Batman, and the man from La Mancha in Half Orc form. Why should some be restricted by some stupid sterotype for their character concept?


Frogboy wrote:
How did they end up becoming the dominant race in the first place. :)

The elves left.


Skaorn wrote:
I really don't get this. Lets say we make Humans twice as good as all other races, are you still going to have a problem if all your players decide to go non-human?

No, not at all. It would be cool if every player decided to play a slightly less optimal race. I always felt that whoever made DND (during each revision) purposely made humans slightly more desirable on purpose. This made the less common races, well, less common player characters. It was more special to play one of these races for that reason alone.

Everyone complained for 6000 posts about Clerics losing heavy armor profiency but no one cares that humans are now weaker than they were in 3.5 when all of the other races are better? I find this a little strange.


Frogboy wrote:
Krigare wrote:
How exactly is this so much better?

It's better than nothing especially if you were going to go that direction anyway.

KaeYoss wrote:
flash_cxxi wrote:


What you are in essence saying is that it's OK for Elves to get 5 free Feats because it's in their Flavour.
That's a really, really bad way to look at it. 5 martial proficiencies aren't worth 5 feats (or fighters and other classes with all martial weapons would be way beyond broken).

I don't think he was counting five martial weapon proficiencies as five feats. Maybe he was but I didn't take it that way. If I were going to break class features down as feats, I'd do something like this:

Elf (+5 feats)
Low-Light Vision (+1 feat)
Elven Immunities (+1 feat)
Elven Magic (+1.5 feat)
Keen Senses (+0.5 feat)
Weapon Familiarity (+1 feat)

Dwarf (+6.5 feats)
Darkvision (+1.5 feats)
Defensive Training (+1 feat)
Greed (flavor)
Hatred (flavor)
Hardy (+2 feats)
Stability (+1 feat)
Stonecunning (+1 feat)
Weapon Familiarity (+1 feat)

Human
Bonus Feat (any)
Skilled (any)

Is being able to choose your feat and an extra skill really worth 5+ feats?

You have to really look at the value of the feat, and how much it comes into play to assess it correctly. If I had to choose between 5 feats that I dont care for or a feat of my choice. I would rather choose my own feat.


Frogboy wrote:
Krigare wrote:
How exactly is this so much better?
It's better than nothing especially if you were going to go that direction anyway.

Soooo...something that does you no good, and is in fact utterly useless to your character, is better than nothing? Hmmm...that sounds like your saying nothing is better than zero because it has more letters.

I would put money that if you picked a non-human race, and a class for them, and did a build of them, I can make a human who at the least keeps pace in your builds specialty, and quite possibly does a broader variety of things at the same level (excepting possibly first level, and even then thats debateable.)

So I'm still trying to figure out how humans are weaker...


concerro wrote:
You have to really look at the value of the feat, and how much it comes into play to assess it correctly. If I had to choose between 5 feats that I dont care for or a feat of my choice. I would rather choose my own feat.

I felt that I was very generous in my feat values especially considering that you can't get those as feats.


Frogboy wrote:
concerro wrote:
You have to really look at the value of the feat, and how much it comes into play to assess it correctly. If I had to choose between 5 feats that I dont care for or a feat of my choice. I would rather choose my own feat.
I felt that I was very generous in my feat values especially considering that you can't get those as feats.

...but some of those feats are like Christmas presents that will never be used. The human feat is more like someone giving you money so you can buy something you can want. You can't really put a value on something across the board.

If someone gives me diamonds, while I am dying of thirst it might not do me any good.


Frogboy wrote:
concerro wrote:
You have to really look at the value of the feat, and how much it comes into play to assess it correctly. If I had to choose between 5 feats that I dont care for or a feat of my choice. I would rather choose my own feat.
I felt that I was very generous in my feat values especially considering that you can't get those as feats.

But you can get many as class features or magic items. And the ones you get as magic items really, really makes saying they are equivalent to feats a very moot issue.


Krigare wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
concerro wrote:
You have to really look at the value of the feat, and how much it comes into play to assess it correctly. If I had to choose between 5 feats that I dont care for or a feat of my choice. I would rather choose my own feat.
I felt that I was very generous in my feat values especially considering that you can't get those as feats.
But you can get many as class features or magic items. And the ones you get as magic items really, really makes saying they are equivalent to feats a very moot issue.

..the point I am making is that having a lot of something does not make

If I am making a certain build and I dont need darkvision or the elf weapon proficiencies then their value is situational. The extra feat and skill point are not situation to your build because you will choose a skill or feat that definitely makes your character better.

Humans are not made to take advantage of any particular class, while the other races do fit other classes quiet well, and when people choose a class and never see the human as the first choice they see it as being weak. The point that should be remembered is that humans are not made to do one thing well. I would choose one for a feat dependent build or a multiclass build as an example, but if you plan to stay with one class or a certain build type you may be better off not being a human.


concerro wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Krigare wrote:
How exactly is this so much better?

It's better than nothing especially if you were going to go that direction anyway.

KaeYoss wrote:
flash_cxxi wrote:


What you are in essence saying is that it's OK for Elves to get 5 free Feats because it's in their Flavour.
That's a really, really bad way to look at it. 5 martial proficiencies aren't worth 5 feats (or fighters and other classes with all martial weapons would be way beyond broken).

I don't think he was counting five martial weapon proficiencies as five feats. Maybe he was but I didn't take it that way. If I were going to break class features down as feats, I'd do something like this:

Elf (+5 feats)
Low-Light Vision (+1 feat)
Elven Immunities (+1 feat)
Elven Magic (+1.5 feat)
Keen Senses (+0.5 feat)
Weapon Familiarity (+1 feat)

Dwarf (+6.5 feats)
Darkvision (+1.5 feats)
Defensive Training (+1 feat)
Greed (flavor)
Hatred (flavor)
Hardy (+2 feats)
Stability (+1 feat)
Stonecunning (+1 feat)
Weapon Familiarity (+1 feat)

Human
Bonus Feat (any)
Skilled (any)

Is being able to choose your feat and an extra skill really worth 5+ feats?

You have to really look at the value of the feat, and how much it comes into play to assess it correctly. If I had to choose between 5 feats that I dont care for or a feat of my choice. I would rather choose my own feat.

So you are saying all feats are not created equal? If not, then the feat system must be flawed in some way. Just because race X comes with feats, skill bonuses, abilities, etc that you find worthless doesn't mean they have no value and shouldn't be used to compare against race Y to see if there is some sort of balance issue between both races mechanically.

Arguing over which abilities and bonuses a dwarf, elf, human, etc should have is irrelevant for this discussion thread. This thread seems to be focused on game balance of humans vs the other core races. When I buy a RP game rulebook and examine the core races X, Y, Z, I better get a sense that all those races are somewhat balanced mechanically. Otherwise, something will seem obviously out of whack from the others. I.e. - half-elves in PF. I could care less which race can do what ability, feat, skill, etc, but overall, all the races' traits should be somewhat on par with all the other races' traits.


Frogboy wrote:
no one cares that humans are now weaker than they were in 3.5 when all of the other races are better?

How are they weaker? I cannot find anything they have lost (they still get 1 free feat, they still get a free skill point per level, their multiclassing is even more free-form than before, but that's a system-wide setting, anyway), but they did get a free +2.

How is that weaker?


KaeYoss wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
no one cares that humans are now weaker than they were in 3.5 when all of the other races are better?

How are they weaker? I cannot find anything they have lost (they still get 1 free feat, they still get a free skill point per level, their multiclassing is even more free-form than before, but that's a system-wide setting, anyway), but they did get a free +2.

How is that weaker?

Its weaker because they dont have as many cool goodies as the other races...


abellius wrote:


So you are saying all feats are not created equal?

Of course not. There is no grand formula to calculate feat power. Some are more powerful than others. Some have higher requirements. Some are more useful to this character than to that character. Some are more valuable to this player than to that player.....


KaeYoss wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
no one cares that humans are now weaker than they were in 3.5 when all of the other races are better?

How are they weaker? I cannot find anything they have lost (they still get 1 free feat, they still get a free skill point per level, their multiclassing is even more free-form than before, but that's a system-wide setting, anyway), but they did get a free +2.

How is that weaker?

Tis is what still confuses me. The feat is good as always, the skill point is far more useful now it now means a fully maxed out extra skill if you wish and they now get a +2 which is often blown off as "everyone got a +2" but it's still a large bump in power over the 3.5 one all told


KaeYoss wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
no one cares that humans are now weaker than they were in 3.5 when all of the other races are better?

How are they weaker? I cannot find anything they have lost (they still get 1 free feat, they still get a free skill point per level, their multiclassing is even more free-form than before, but that's a system-wide setting, anyway), but they did get a free +2.

How is that weaker?

Don't all races get a +2 attribute increase overall? You shouldn't refer to a trait bonus that all races share.

From what I can tell so far, humans lost their favor class advantage from 3.0/3.5 over the other races.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Tis is what still confuses me. The feat is good as always, the skill point is far more useful now it now means a fully maxed out extra skill if you wish and they now get a +2 which is often blown off as "everyone got a +2" but it's still a large bump in power over the 3.5 one all told

Hoomans is always confoosed. Makes them eesier to catch and eats.


abellius wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
no one cares that humans are now weaker than they were in 3.5 when all of the other races are better?

How are they weaker? I cannot find anything they have lost (they still get 1 free feat, they still get a free skill point per level, their multiclassing is even more free-form than before, but that's a system-wide setting, anyway), but they did get a free +2.

How is that weaker?

Don't all races get a +2 attribute increase overall? You shouldn't refer to a trait bonus that all races share.

From what I can tell so far, humans lost their favor class advantage from 3.0/3.5 over the other races.

but the +2 is a boost, it does not matter if the other races got one or not. The fact remains humans are in fact more powerful then in 3.5 so they can not be weaker

101 to 150 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.