Humans


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Frogboy wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:

I can see how you feel it is something that humans lost, but the fact is that humans never had that ability to begin with. Paizo added that ability to half-elves as a racial ability… it never existed before.

Perhaps you're thinking from a standpoint that a multiclass half-elf can now get more skill points than a multiclass human?

...

The human beats the half-elf under all possibilities involving race alone. Humans don't need to be Multitalented.

Yeah but they have to use exactly half of their racial features to achieve this. The half-elf gets a whole bunch of other things to go along with it.

I won't argue that if you want to play a skill monkey then you aren't going to get more SP than a human with his +2 put in INT. That's the only place I see them shining though.

Well then let's delve a little deeper into a racial comparison between a human and a half-elf:

Where they are the same:
1) Both get a +2 bonus to any ability score of their choice.
2) Both are medium sized
3) Both move at normal speed
4) Both can choose any bonus languages they want with a high Int

Where they are similar:
1) Half-elves get Adaptability (Skill Focus +3 or +6 to one skill), Keen Senses (+2 bonus on Perception checks), and Multitalented (which equates to being useful only if you multiclass) V.S. Humans get Skilled (+1 skill point per level)

Comparing these features on a skill basis (i.e. not using your favored class bonus for hp), the half-elf will get the "equivalent" of 25-28 skill points vs. the human's actual 40 if single class or 30 if multi-class.

Where they differ:
Half-elves get-
1) Low-light vision (nice)
2) Elf blood (not really any advantage here)
3) Elven immunities: immune to magic sleep (very situational at low level and almost non-existent past level 5, and really, really almost non-existent past level 11)
4) Elven immunities: +2 bonus on saves enchantments (nice)
5) Elven as a starting language (ok)

Humans get-
1) One bonus feat

So yes, Half-elves get a lot more, but comparatively it boils down to:

Is a free bonus feat equivalent to Low-light vision, and a +2 bonus on saves vs. enchantments?

I say yes, with maybe even a slight nod to the human because its one feature is customizable.


Frogboy wrote:

From a players perspective, I don't really care either way. I at least want them to be equal in power to the other races. I don't feel they are and have a bad feeling that when people really start min/maxing characters, that humans are going to get left in the dust.

From a DMs perspective, no I don't. I want humans to be slightly more attractive so that the playing a different race means more than just playing the race that best suits your class. It means playing a race because you wanted to play that race. Humans have always been the most attractive race just like Clerics have always had heavy armor prof. Even though I haven't opposed the latter, I'm not too fond of the former being changed.

It's going to be hard for me to play humans now, though. I have a tendency to take Skill Focus and specialize in one of my skills. This means that the only advantage that human would give me over half-elf is one SP per level. That compared to everything else a half-elf gets isn't even worth considering. Any spell caster who wants to take Combat Casting might as well choose half-elf over human now too unless that skill point and +1 to casting defensively (and -3 to all other concentration checks) is that important to you.

You can always houserule. If you aren't the GM, then talk to yours. It sounds like for your campaign, you need to either add Adaptability to Humans, or take it away from Half-elves. I'd leave Multitalented alone if that is your main concern. Remember it's only useful if you multiclass and the only possible advantage a half-elf can get over a human with it is +10 hp over 20 levels.

Casting defensively is now a caster level check. Skill points don't help there.


Frogboy wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:
Humans are still the preferred choice of race in my groups. Considering that at least 75% of my players pick a human, when creating PCs, I think they are fine the way they are.
I guess that free feat is worth 20 abilities that you don't get to choose. :)

Don't understand the 1st part.

No one seems to be on my side that 1 feat of your choice is not worth as much as Low-light/Darkvision + martial WP + Exotic WP + bonuses to some or all of your saves + plenty of other perks. I do appear to be pretty much on my own here.

No. Not on your own here. It does seem to be, in balance to most of the other races, that the humans have become a little under powered. My GM is integrating the "Ambition" function spoken on page 2 (eventually).


anthony Valente wrote:

Where they differ:

Half-elves get-
1) Low-light vision (nice)
2) Elf blood (not really any advantage here)
3) Elven immunities: immune to magic sleep (very situational at low level and almost non-existent past level 5, and really, really almost non-existent past level 11)
4) Elven immunities: +2 bonus on saves enchantments (nice)
5) Elven as a starting language (ok)

Sorry, but Elf blood generally is a very big bonus as they gain access to PrCs like Arcane Archer, and some could argue is worth a feat in it self.

I can also talk about the Immunity to Sleep spells, that single spell was a result of 2 PTKs at our first game, so while it loses its usefulness a lot in later levels, it can take this priceless ability to get there in the first place.

Adaptability

It is a limited bonus, but it makes a huge difference in specific builds, such as a perfectly synergy with a fight/barbarian character.

I would say that these two abilities, Adaptability and Elf Blood, are definatly worth a feat together, if not more. Low-light, Save bonuses, and sleep immunity, seem to bring things over the top with being worth 1.5 if not 2 feats; which compared to a +1 skill point per level is worth 1 feat equivalent. So it does look like the half elves have gotten 0.5-1 feat more than the human IMO.


Skaorn wrote:
Frogboy wrote:

They used to be able to multiclass without penalty. Now they have a penalty (they get less HP/SP). How is that not a loss?

You can say that XP penalty doesn't exist anymore and was completely replaced by something totally differnt but that still removes an advantage that humans had and nothing was put in to replace it. They lost something. They had three advantages over almost every other race. Now they have two. That appears to be one less than they had.

How is a mechanic that gives you a bonus a penalty? Why not just get rid of the favored class bonus all together? No one gets bonus HP or SP, no more problem.

Still a problem. You still effectively eliminated one of their three advantages that they had over other classes. They still lost because everyone else gained it. Give every race an extra free feat of their choice and +1 SkP per level and tell me that humans are still just as good compared to them because they haven't lost anything.

anthony Valente wrote:
Casting defensively is now a caster level check. Skill points don't help there.

Oh yeah, they got rid of the concentration skill. Whew! That just saved human spell casters from extinction.

----------------------------------------------------

I guess one of my biggest problem from a balance standpoint are race features that are or replicate feats that a human might use his bonus feat on. They really shouldn't have added these. Most notably, if you want to take Skill Focus (Any), Spell Penetration, Martial or Exotic Weapon Prof, you've virtually eliminated any reason to be a human as his only remaining feature is +1 SkP per level which doesn't compare on it's own.

Sovereign Court

Frogboy wrote:
Martial or Exotic Weapon Prof, you've virtually eliminated any reason to be a human as his only remaining feature is +1 SkP per level which doesn't compare on it's own.

Once again that's only if you're taking the specific weapon that the race grants. If you're taking EWP in the hand or repeating crossbow, or the scythe when you aren't a whole martial weapons list class, then humans still have their advantage.

So when building a character where you are building around one of those things you mentioned then yes, you're better off taking the race that grants them because you'll get other goodies as well. But the whole point of min/maxing is that you'll know that. So yes in those situations it's better for a non-human race, but for other situations where you aren't taking EWP in a racial weapon and you're a class with all martial weapons, skill focus, or spell penetration you're still ahead with a human.

So as clear as I can tell your argument is that for certain builds humans aren't as attractive as other races. Yeah, that's true, but for certain builds humans wind up ahead over other races.

A really good example is when my wife wanted to go into the Suel Arcanamach PrC without leveling in any class other than fighter. The Suel Arcanamach takes a lot of magic SPs and feats (as pre-reqs so you can't have the racial equivalent you need the feat) that a fighter just isn't going to take normally. With PF rules she would have gotten into that PrC earlier as human without sacrificing non-magic skills. Whereas if she was another race, she would have had a lack of skills that a fighter needs because they would have gone into magic skills she had no use for until the PrC was attainable.

So I agree with you that in certain curcumstances humans are the less desirable option. That doesn't mean that they are weaker than those other classes because there are other situations where a human is the better option.

Which to me says that the class is balanced in comparison to the other classes from a min/max perspective, because I'll know that there are times where a human build will benefit me more than a non-human build.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I think the human is a quite viable race choice. The bonus feat and skill points are quite useful to nearly any character type, not to mention the +2 to any ability score.

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.

Anyway, every race will not appeal to every group. If the human does not work for you, by all means, play a different race.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I personally think it was a mistake. A good example of how such 'changes' could be covered is longbow training and militia training, while it might be silly that every human could use a greatsword in many settings, would it be so silly if every man of age in a country could use a longbow and had to practice once a week?


Can we move on please?
I'm not sure why this thread is so long, the same things are being said on this page as on page one. No one on either side of this discussion is convincing anyone of anything.

Frogboy wrote:
No one seems to be on my side that 1 feat of your choice is not worth as much as Low-light/Darkvision + martial WP + Exotic WP + bonuses to some or all of your saves + plenty of other perks. I do appear to be pretty much on my own here.

(Note the top bit is not at you specifically)

If those things are important to you then they are more valuable a lot of folks see it as a mishmash of stuff which doesn't really benefit the characters class development. Those folks prefer a bonus feat that can be used to move their characters forward instead of getting an assortment of abilities that might not be related directly to the character concept.

If you think this stuff is awesomesauce then take elf/ dwarf. If you are more interested in getting your character built out then take human. If you are more interested in role playing then you don't care about the trivial differences and pick up whatever race is the most interesting for your character concept.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
I personally think it was a mistake. A good example of how such 'changes' could be covered is longbow training and militia training, while it might be silly that every human could use a greatsword in many settings, would it be so silly if every man of age in a country could use a longbow and had to practice once a week?

This sounds like a great regional trait for your campaign but really hasn't this been said 10 times already? Isn't 5 pages of this stuff on both sides enough?


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
I personally think it was a mistake. A good example of how such 'changes' could be covered is longbow training and militia training, while it might be silly that every human could use a greatsword in many settings, would it be so silly if every man of age in a country could use a longbow and had to practice once a week?
This sounds like a great regional trait for your campaign but really hasn't this been said 10 times already? Isn't 5 pages of this stuff on both sides enough?

*Shrugs* Come on dennis :P every one else has had a negative comment about the RPG, and if the fact that i rather liked the humans get one free martial proficiancy is my biggest gripe surely i should be allowed to say one bad thing about the book ;)

Youre right, that would be an awesome traits for a campaign.


Zombieneighbours wrote:

*Shrugs* Come on dennis :P every one else has had a negative comment about the RPG, and if the fact that i rather liked the humans get one free martial proficiancy is my biggest gripe surely i should be allowed to say one bad thing about the book ;)

Youre right, that would be an awesome traits for a campaign.

"Don't tase me, bro!"

I don't have a problem with people venting their complaints. This thread has jumped the shark though. Same complaints same counter arguments blah blah blah.... Nothing new has been said in 4 pages.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

*Shrugs* Come on dennis :P every one else has had a negative comment about the RPG, and if the fact that i rather liked the humans get one free martial proficiancy is my biggest gripe surely i should be allowed to say one bad thing about the book ;)

Youre right, that would be an awesome traits for a campaign.

"Don't tase me, bro!"

I don't have a problem with people venting their complaints. This thread has jumped the shark though. Same complaints same counter arguments blah blah blah.... Nothing new has been said in 4 pages.

Well, just saying 'your mileage may vary' according to play style, and your both wrong and both right. Humans are both the best and the worst race in the game, just isn't as interesting as arguing over it to many people.

If people wanna go over the same ground, does it really matter?


Correct me if I am wrong I am reading them at the moment.
But it still reads to me blah blah blah we get an extra feat.
...
No have I missed the point here?
Well I will re read.
Blah blah blah... we get an extra feat.

I know pathfinder gives more feats then 3.5 on a general whole but correct me if I am wrong but they get an extra feat.
I am sure I have made this point above a few time but does anyone understand how mind breakingly good this is compared to other races?

Elves read blah blah blah I still have low light vision but need accual sleep now.
Dwarves read I still have a movement of 20ft.
and the other people read I am small or half human which makes me more human... minus a feat, which is quite frankly why I want to be part human.

Does your game master allow you only core rules?
Sorry just the pathfinder book.
Now I started counting and it seemed like a waste of time so I rounded but it seems to me like as a human you only get what option of seventy different abilities?
Not one of those feats is as good as say.
Low light vision?
Not one?

But lets say for arguements sake that your game master allows say the complete stuff from three point five.
Nothing nutty just the 'core' stuff for the four roles.
That only gives you what over two hundred options.
Not one of those is better than say letting you use any armour and not be slowed but still have a movement of twenty?

Some of you are going your missing the point.
Well hold up.
I don't I am.

Unless this feature was removed from humans you need a very good reason not to be human still.
Whats better for my charater as a min/maxer +2 to two relevent stats or an extra feat?
As a rule a extra plus one loses out to the feat.

Humans still the best race to be for any build unless you need something from another race.


Awwe, and I was having so much fun too. Ogres. They can be so moody sometimes. I will go back and weap over my stifflingly small list of class features my new character has now. :)


I guess we're of differing opinion:

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Sorry, but Elf blood generally is a very big bonus as they gain access to PrCs like Arcane Archer, and some could argue is worth a feat in it self.

And just as much a hindrance: favored enemy, bane weapons, and such. If the usefulness of Elf blood is to gain access to certain PrCs, then (all classes being equal) I don't see that as a racial ability that gives advantage over a human… who has equivalent prestige classes to choose from. All this feature does is stress the half-elf's shtick, which is to be a very adaptable, versatile race as opposed to a human which is represented as a diverse, flexible, ambitious race.

Also, a half-elf choosing Arcane Archer as a prestige class will compromise his Multitalented feature as prestige classes don't count for favored class bonuses.

Immunity to sleep… a feature that protects you from two spells in the game that may never appear in any given campaign, yes it's a perk, but hardly a feature worthy of holding up as a clear advantage over a human, and the slight advantage virtually disappears at high level.


Frogboy wrote:
I guess one of my biggest problem from a balance standpoint are race features that are or replicate feats that a human might use his bonus feat on. They really shouldn't have added these. Most notably, if you want to take Skill Focus (Any), Spell Penetration, Martial or Exotic Weapon Prof, you've virtually eliminated any reason to be a human as his only remaining feature is +1 SkP per level which doesn't compare on it's own.

This is a sentiment I can sympathize with. I still think humans can stand on their own, because they get to choose their bonus feat.


anthony Valente wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
I guess one of my biggest problem from a balance standpoint are race features that are or replicate feats that a human might use his bonus feat on. They really shouldn't have added these. Most notably, if you want to take Skill Focus (Any), Spell Penetration, Martial or Exotic Weapon Prof, you've virtually eliminated any reason to be a human as his only remaining feature is +1 SkP per level which doesn't compare on it's own.
This is a sentiment I can sympathize with. I still think humans can stand on their own, because they get to choose their bonus feat.

Yeah, humans won't have any problem standing on their own. You could probably give a race absolutely nothing and they would still be fine. Not as good of course but wouldn't be too, too much worse.

Honestly, I just think that humans should've been given Multitalented. I feel like this would've made them a stright port from 3.5 and would've made them a lot more desirable even if you didn't plan on multiclassing. Just having that option open to you in case you decide that you want to dabble a little without giving up your HP or SkP would've made a world of difference IMO. The way it is now, Humans along with all of the other races besides Half-elf will likely not multiclass because people won't want to loose that point.


I also see the human being a bit less powerful to other races (not all, I find half-orcs still less powerful). In 3.5e I actually found them the 3rd best race (after dwarves and elves) and no1 for some classes.

Now, I can take half-elf or half-orc most of the time and not worry (if I am going for stats and not just flavor).


Pretty much all the arguements have been said and done on this issue. Humans are meant to be a lesser powerful race by way of racial powers, but at the same time the strongest because humans are the most adaptible of all races. The longer lived races cannot keep up with the changing of the times, a human with his short lifespan has the need and drive to constantly move foward and shift and adapt to whatever circumstances are at hand. How often do we see Elf and dwarf empires rise and fall compared to humans...The extra skill point and feat represents this human drive. Something the other non humans do not get. Humans are the dynammic force of change in the world and becuase of this I believe the non-humans should not have been given the choice of favored class they lack this unique human inventivness.


Why are people so quick to house rule this, my advice is give the books to the players and see what they pick, for most groups your going to see a big take up in the "underpowered race", people need to learn to try the rules before they give them stick, the games not been out long enough for this discussion to carry any merit.


If the free weapon proficiency was making problems for games they could have given humans a free class skill to chose at lvl 1 no matter what their starting class is.


-Archangel- wrote:
If the free weapon proficiency was making problems for games they could have given humans a free class skill to chose at lvl 1 no matter what their starting class is.

I always thought that would be a good idea for the Humans really, but I often wondered if that would make them too good for getting into some PrCs when combined with the bonus feat. However IDK if it would be, and again, I really like the idea.


Humans are less powerfull mathematicaly, as I stated ealier, that is a fact, cannot be argued. Just do the math. (Savage Species can help a little with that) Despite of that, they are still a viable choice, and I would play a human as would anyone else who didn't think ONLY about min/maxing.

The favored thing is what bothers the most. According to history and flavour from several books, none is as adaptable as the Humans, not even half-elves, and now they are.

The last point, is valid, I always thought that humans should get some extra bonus related to a skill, besides the +1 per level, a Skill focus would be good, since it is practically the same as a class skill now(except for the fact that the bonus stack).

I am glad to see my thread is going well ;)


Xum wrote:

Humans are less powerfull mathematicaly, as I stated ealier, that is a fact, cannot be argued. Just do the math. (Savage Species can help a little with that) Despite of that, they are still a viable choice, and I would play a human as would anyone else who didn't think ONLY about min/maxing.

The favored thing is what bothers the most. According to history and flavour from several books, none is as adaptable as the Humans, not even half-elves, and now they are.

The last point, is valid, I always thought that humans should get some extra bonus related to a skill, besides the +1 per level, a Skill focus would be good, since it is practically the same as a class skill now(except for the fact that the bonus stack).

I am glad to see my thread is going well ;)

Giving them a skill of choice by PF standards is with less than a feat. There are a lot of traits they have made that not only grant you a specific skill, but a bonus to that skill.

Sovereign Court

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I always thought that would be a good idea for the Humans really, but I often wondered if that would make them too good for getting into some PrCs when combined with the bonus feat.

Not at all, if you notice, PrC requirements are based off of ranks, not total modifier. In pathfinder all skills can be maxed out, even non-class skills, so being able to choose any skill as a class skill doesn't affect anything really other than that one skills total modifier. I like this houserule, I think I'll take it even though I don't agree that humans are underpowered.


Xum wrote:

Folks, thanks for the reply. Specially u Jason. But as it was pointed out, the only problem I really see is that the humans were "nerfed" and the other races were boosted.

It really is a viable choice and I am sure many people enjoy it, as do I. But all I am saying is they should, in my opnion get something more, even if it was something like "Always Favored class" It looks like a human thing cause of the versatility.

Nevertheless, the game is fantastic, thanks for the AWESOMENESS!

From what I am seeing in my games and the posts here it looks like maybe they were too good if between 75% and 90% of the players are playing them....but I see your point. If you really feel they need some more versitility I have 2 suggestions(both houserule types at the moment):

1) Allow a second favoured class
and/or
2) Allow humans to add one skill to the list of allowable class skills for their 1st class.

Either should up the feel of versitility without changing the balance much.


lastknightleft wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I always thought that would be a good idea for the Humans really, but I often wondered if that would make them too good for getting into some PrCs when combined with the bonus feat.
Not at all, if you notice, PrC requirements are based off of ranks, not total modifier. In pathfinder all skills can be maxed out, even non-class skills, so being able to choose any skill as a class skill doesn't affect anything really other than that one skills total modifier. I like this houserule, I think I'll take it even though I don't agree that humans are underpowered.

Good point.

________________________

On a different subject. Looking at the Half Elven racial traits, and compare them to normal traits, which are priced as literally 1/2 a feat, each are worth more, or equal to a 1/2 a feat, with exception of skill focus.

Half Elves

Low-Light Vision
1/2 a feat

Adaptability
1 Feat

Elf Blood
1/2 a feat

Elven Immunities
1/2 a feat(debatable as 1 feat)

Keen Senses
1/2 a feat

Multitalented
1/2 a feat

Total feat worth: 3.5-4 feats

Probably 4 sense most of these 1/2 feats are probably more powerful than traits.
_____________

Human

Bonus Feat (of choice)
1 1/2 Feats (additional 1/2 feat for being of choice)

Skilled
1 Feat

Total feat worth: 2 1/2 feats
____________

So there is a 1 1/2 to 2 feat difference in power between the two races.

Even by a generous standpoint a human still should have a 2nd feat of choice or a select subject feat like 1 class skill of choice.


Frogboy wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
All I know is good luck finding a Wizard or Rogue who isn't elf these days. :)
I have a halfling rogue in my game right now and a human wizard.

Yay! You found one...well, two. :)

Human still is great for any class. They're still my favorite for sure. Halflings still make great Rogues, of course.

It won't be as bad as it was before but I ended up having to ban the Gray Elf because that +2 INT had every Rogue and Wizard going after it. Gray Elves ended up becoming way too common in my group. It's not a big deal now that four different races can get that +2 INT. Still, Elven Wizard is hard to pass up on these days. :)

Human makes the best wizard, and IMHO the best rogue.

Elf gets spell penetration (whic stacks with spell penetration) and +2 int for wizard. Human gets +2 int and ANY extra feat + 1 extra skill. Also Human comes out ahead slightly on the +2 dex, -2 Con vs +0 dex -0 con (I never like giving up HP).

As for Rogues, elf gets nightvision, Human gets an extra feat and an extra skill. Since Rogues are the skill class, I consider them to need the skills more then most classes so again waited towards the Human.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well in our groups humans make up the huge majority of PC races...we usuallly have one or possible two non humans in one group of five and another of six. That bonus feat is a seller for anyone who is building a Style Character that relies heavily on Feats. Also I agree with several other posters, a Bonus Skill Point is Awesome...especially when you are a 2 skill point per lvl class...thats 23 points over the life of a 20th level character. human Adaptability is also a wonderful advantage. Almost any class can be enhanced with two levels of Fighter and Humans can snatch those up without batting an eye. Overall I would say that Human was the most successful race in both of our groups

Non-human races are usually played as flavor in our campaigns.... We've even had a guy say...hell your all human...I'm gonna play a dwarf just to mix it up.

Of the Non-human races the dwarf has consistently gotten more play than any of the others

Halflings have been the second most common

Elves have only been played 4 times since 3.0 came out and only one person even bothered with a half-elf

We've had a cpl of gnomes and a cpl of half-orcs

We've actually had more Tieflings and Goliaths played than about half the core races regardless of the LA

I'm looking forward to seeing some half-orcs and half-elves now that they seem to be not only playable but possibly able to challenge human dominance for the most playable race


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Half Elves

Low-Light Vision
1/2 a feat

Adaptability
1 Feat

Elf Blood
1/2 a feat

Elven Immunities
1/2 a feat(debatable as 1 feat)

Keen Senses
1/2 a feat

Multitalented
1/2 a feat

Total feat worth: 3.5-4 feats

Probably 4 sense most of these 1/2 feats are probably more powerful than traits.

After looking over the traits again, I noticed that Elven Immunities is actually with 3 traits.

So the total actually should be 4-4.5 feats.

So even counting the human bonus feat as 1.5 feats, and the bonus skill points as 1.5 feats, your still lacking 1-1.5 feats in power in comparison.


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Half Elves

Low-Light Vision
1/2 a feat

Adaptability
1 Feat

Elf Blood
1/2 a feat

Elven Immunities
1/2 a feat(debatable as 1 feat)

Keen Senses
1/2 a feat

Multitalented
1/2 a feat

Total feat worth: 3.5-4 feats

Probably 4 sense most of these 1/2 feats are probably more powerful than traits.

After looking over the traits again, I noticed that Elven Immunities is actually with 3 traits.

So the total actually should be 4-4.5 feats.

So even counting the human bonus feat as 1.5 feats, and the bonus skill points as 1.5 feats, your still lacking 1-1.5 feats in power in comparison.

Well by 20th level yo got 20 bonus skill points.

There is a feat that gives you 5 skill points.

By your logic humans just got 5 free feats (4 of which were chosen for them).

Now human abilities expand over the course of the game while Elven abilities are more front loaded.


Ughbash wrote:
Human makes the best wizard, and IMHO the best rogue.

Human in your opinion makes the best wizard and best rogue. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state it as a fact when I would hold that you are almost certainly wrong.

Ughbash wrote:
Elf gets spell penetration (whic stacks with spell penetration) and +2 int for wizard. Human gets +2 int and ANY extra feat + 1 extra skill. Also Human comes out ahead slightly on the +2 dex, -2 Con vs +0 dex -0 con (I never like giving up HP).

Elves get spell penetration which stacks with spell penetration. Effectively it's a free feat, but better because it stacks with the feat is SR is a major problem for you. It's also a feat I expect most wizards will take. Elves also get low light vision, which cannot be underestimated - seeing people twice as far away as the humans is very powerful for a wizard when you keep in perspective the amount of light provided by most light sources - usually 20-40ft - not an optimal distance for the wizard.

Lets go ahead and call low light vision and free spell penetration the equal of the free feat. I think the human is getting a deal on it, but that's ok, the elf has plenty to offer.

The elf now has 4 martial weapon proficiencies, +2 perception, +2 vs. enchantment, immunity to sleep, +2 spellcraft to identify items, and an extra language... against a skill point a level.

Ughbash wrote:
As for Rogues, elf gets nightvision, Human gets an extra feat and an extra skill. Since Rogues are the skill class, I consider them to need the skills more then most classes so again waited towards the Human.

With rogue you might be correct, though again I'd say that low light vision cannot be underestimated here.


Peter Stewart wrote:

[

That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state it as a fact when I would hold that you are almost certainly wrong.

Not to pick on you but that is everybody in this thread


Ughbash wrote:
Elf gets spell penetration (whic stacks with spell penetration) and +2 int for wizard. Human gets +2 int and ANY extra feat + 1 extra skill. Also Human comes out ahead slightly on the +2 dex, -2 Con vs +0 dex -0 con (I never like giving up HP).

I'll start by saying that your personal preference is completely valid. Mine don't coencide though. Chances are, if I'm playing a Wizard, I'll take spell penetration somewhere down the line. It's almost essential in my group once you get near level 10 unless you want spells to fail a lot. The second a human takes spell penetration, he just blew his dominant racial perk. From that moment on, you might as well compare +1 SkP per level to everything an elf gets beyond Spell Penetration. The elf Wizard really steps on the humans toes in this department and humans don't really get anything else where you can go, "Yeah, but I get this and this and those are more useful to me then all the other stuff an elf gets." Even if it was little stupid stuff, at least it would've been something.

Of course if I'm playing a Lore Master type guy and I want to get my hands on as many SkP as I can, then yeah, human all the way there. Chances are that SkP is going to go on Knowledge (engineering) or something fairly stupid though. That's part of the character concept.

Ughbash wrote:
As for Rogues, elf gets nightvision, Human gets an extra feat and an extra skill. Since Rogues are the skill class, I consider them to need the skills more then most classes so again waited towards the Human.

I don't feel that the extra SkP is as big a deal as it once was. You used to come up short on things like Escape Artist, Disguise, Sleight of Hand or Use Magic Device. No matter how much INT you had, you couldn't take all 7 Rogue skills and get too many extras. Now with a 10 INT, any Rogue can take:

1. Acrobatics
2. Bluff
3. Disable Device
4. Disguise
5. Escape Artist
6. Perception
7. Sleight of Hand
8. Stealth
9. Use Magic Device

This covers everything a general Rogue typically would go for. With a couple of extra points, you can be the party diplomat. With a high INT, you could take just about every skill that a Rogue could ever want. Add in that last human +1 SkP and you're probably going to end up using it on something fairly useless.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
Human makes the best wizard, and IMHO the best rogue.

Human in your opinion makes the best wizard and best rogue. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state it as a fact when I would hold that you are almost certainly wrong.

Ughbash wrote:
Elf gets spell penetration (whic stacks with spell penetration) and +2 int for wizard. Human gets +2 int and ANY extra feat + 1 extra skill. Also Human comes out ahead slightly on the +2 dex, -2 Con vs +0 dex -0 con (I never like giving up HP).

Elves get spell penetration which stacks with spell penetration. Effectively it's a free feat, but better because it stacks with the feat is SR is a major problem for you. It's also a feat I expect most wizards will take. Elves also get low light vision, which cannot be underestimated - seeing people twice as far away as the humans is very powerful for a wizard when you keep in perspective the amount of light provided by most light sources - usually 20-40ft - not an optimal distance for the wizard.

Lets go ahead and call low light vision and free spell penetration the equal of the free feat. I think the human is getting a deal on it, but that's ok, the elf has plenty to offer.

The elf now has 4 martial weapon proficiencies, +2 perception, +2 vs. enchantment, immunity to sleep, +2 spellcraft to identify items, and an extra language... against a skill point a level.

Ughbash wrote:
As for Rogues, elf gets nightvision, Human gets an extra feat and an extra skill. Since Rogues are the skill class, I consider them to need the skills more then most classes so again waited towards the Human.

With rogue you might be correct, though again I'd say that low light vision cannot be underestimated here.

The spell penetration evens out the bonus feat. I'll grant the elf that. Low Light Vision, sure, its handy until 5th level, when an elf and human both can cast darkvision and gran tthemselves the btter form. Martial weapon proficiencies....um, sure, if your wizard is needed in melee, I can maybe see it...as it is, at low levels, a crossbow is just as as a bow. At higher levels, if the wizards non spell offense is saving the party...something is wrong. The big string of fixed bonuses...um, I'd say the humans skill points equal up there, easily, with change left over. While the bonus versus enchantments is nice, Will is a wizards favored save, most enchantments target Will...so hard to see how thats a huge draw. Sleep immunity...um...2 spells...in the whole book, both of which are negatable by a Will save, and both of which you eventually become immune to...and how often to bad guys (or even PC's, sadly) toss a sleep spell? Stat wise, yes, the human wins. A human wizard with +2 int still has better HP (that con penalty affects you your entire life...) and will have a 1 point better AC then an identicaslly statted human.

So I really down't see how elves make better wizards than humans. Equal at best, a half step behind at worst (which is a damn sight better than we've had for a while) but I'd still have to give the nod to the human wizard.


Ughbash wrote:
As for Rogues, elf gets nightvision, Human gets an extra feat and an extra skill. Since Rogues are the skill class, I consider them to need the skills more then most classes so again waited towards the Human.

Being able to get Improved Fient at 1st level is a big draw for me!


U guys really think a Human Wizard is better than an Elf? Well, that's a streatch at least.

Everyone already did the math on this already, I am not gonna do it again, just to start an agument all over again.

The fact is that if a combat situation is the one in question the Elf would get the upperhand, just cause of the +1 Dex mod, the enchantment save and the "Spell penetration" alone. Skills would hardly come into play in a combat, so the bonus skill is moot. Sure the humans get 1+ HP hooray! That's not even close to the + 1 Dex mod the Elf gets wich increases his AC, initiative, Ranged TOUCH, Reflex save and some skills to boot, all of those dex things VERY important to a wizard... now, can you REALLY tell me the Human is equal or better?


Frogboy wrote:

I don't feel that the extra SkP is as big a deal as it once was. You used to come up short on things like Escape Artist, Disguise, Sleight of Hand or Use Magic Device. No matter how much INT you had, you couldn't take all 7 Rogue skills and get too many extras. Now with a 10 INT, any Rogue can take:

1. Acrobatics
2. Bluff
3. Disable Device
4. Disguise
5. Escape Artist
6. Perception
7. Sleight of Hand
8. Stealth
9. Use Magic Device

This covers everything a general Rogue typically would go for. With a couple of extra points, you can be the party diplomat. With a high INT, you could take just about every skill that a Rogue could ever want. Add in that last human +1 SkP and you're probably going to end up using it on something fairly useless.

Considering that theres no cross class loss anymore...I love the extra SkP even more. Knowledge skills are full of win, especially if, like in my group, metagaming out loud (or getting caught writing notes) is grounds for an xp loss (and when I say metagaming, I mean the serious kind, quoting of abilities and vulnerabilities of not well known monsters, or even a tropical character talking about artic monsters when its his first trip ect), those knowledge checks come in handy. The new craft system for magic items...with a couple feats, and some extra skill, my rogue can make his own magic stuff...sweet...ditto for fighters or several other classes.

Don't knock the extra skill point so much, you make it sound like theres only 3 or 4 skills per class they can use or need.


cpt_machine wrote:
Why are people so quick to house rule this, my advice is give the books to the players and see what they pick, for most groups your going to see a big take up in the "underpowered race", people need to learn to try the rules before they give them stick, the games not been out long enough for this discussion to carry any merit.

The problem is that, when most people think something is under/overpowered and try to play it anyways, they will set off to prove they are right. For some this is active, for others its subconcious.

I, for one, don't like the DR system. I want to play PFRPG as is for now, at least, but I get the feeling that when our party starts carrying the golfbag of DR busting or someone is ineffective against a monster because they can't do the damage I'll believe my point is valid. I feel that DR contributed to the need to do something special every round that was a selling point for 4th Ed and I believe it strongly enough to believe that it will color my perception even though I'm trying to give it a fair break.

At this point I don't think Steven Hawkins showing up and championing one side with MATH!!! will change the otherside's mind.


Xum wrote:

U guys really think a Human Wizard is better than an Elf? Well, that's a streatch at least.

Everyone already did the math on this already, I am not gonna do it again, just to start an agument all over again.

The fact is that if a combat situation is the one in question the Elf would get the upperhand, just cause of the +1 Dex mod, the enchantment save and the "Spell penetration" alone. Skills would hardly come into play in a combat, so the bonus skill is moot. Sure the humans get 1+ HP hooray! That's not even close to the + 1 Dex mod the Elf gets wich increases his AC, initiative, Ranged TOUCH, Reflex save and some skills to boot, all of those dex things VERY important to a wizard... now, can you REALLY tell me the Human is equal or better?

Elves are good spellcasters because of their bonus to caster level. So what's that do for the Elf Fighter?


Xum wrote:

U guys really think a Human Wizard is better than an Elf? Well, that's a streatch at least.

Everyone already did the math on this already, I am not gonna do it again, just to start an agument all over again.

The fact is that if a combat situation is the one in question the Elf would get the upperhand, just cause of the +1 Dex mod, the enchantment save and the "Spell penetration" alone. Skills would hardly come into play in a combat, so the bonus skill is moot. Sure the humans get 1+ HP hooray! That's not even close to the + 1 Dex mod the Elf gets wich increases his AC, initiative, Ranged TOUCH, Reflex save and some skills to boot, all of those dex things VERY important to a wizard... now, can you REALLY tell me the Human is equal or better?

Yes. Your talking 1 point. Which matters until, what, level 3 or 4? Whats one point on Ac at level 10? Init? Ranged Attacks (especially against touch AC, which tends to run fairly low), A wizards reflex saves aren't spectacular, so I suppose an elfs reflex save is slightly less worse, but then they are down on HP, which means their ability to suffer failing is less, and...since your talking +1's...the Elfs Fort save is one point lower...making an already bad situation worse for the poor wizard.

Like I said...I'll grant the +1 spell DC equaling out the Human Feat, but the rest...no.


Do as I usually do with my group, Arena Playtest... if u want to be COMPLETELY fair, use 10 for all rolls, see how it goes ;)


Xum wrote:
Do as I usually do with my group, Arena Playtest... if u want to be COMPLETELY fair, use 10 for all rolls, see how it goes ;)

What type of playtest do you propose? I hope it is not PvP. Beating someone in a fight does not prove your value to team.


Ughbash wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Half Elves

Low-Light Vision
1/2 a feat

Adaptability
1 Feat

Elf Blood
1/2 a feat

Elven Immunities
1/2 a feat(debatable as 1 feat)

Keen Senses
1/2 a feat

Multitalented
1/2 a feat

Total feat worth: 3.5-4 feats

Probably 4 sense most of these 1/2 feats are probably more powerful than traits.

After looking over the traits again, I noticed that Elven Immunities is actually with 3 traits.

So the total actually should be 4-4.5 feats.

So even counting the human bonus feat as 1.5 feats, and the bonus skill points as 1.5 feats, your still lacking 1-1.5 feats in power in comparison.

Well by 20th level yo got 20 bonus skill points.

There is a feat that gives you 5 skill points.

By your logic humans just got 5 free feats (4 of which were chosen for them).

Now human abilities expand over the course of the game while Elven abilities are more front loaded.

That feat was a horrible feat, just like toughness from the PHB. I maybe missing this, but Toughness got increased to better than improved toughness, and that skill point feat isn't in the PFRPG core book.

The feat you chose was also a bad choice for compairson as the racial ability is more restricted as you would get 4 skill points all at once. So this makes for a bad comparison.

There is however a better version called nymph's kiss which is in the exulted book, which gave you 1 skill point per level, however it came with a condition that you had to be good aligned to keep it's effects.

So the racial ability is worth more than that feat, but it is a feat not of choice so that brings it to about 1.5 feat worth, max 2. Even with that being worth 2 feats your still faced with 1/2 to 1 feat in power difference, which is debatable.

So I will stick with my original count of 1 to 1.5 feat power difference.


Skaorn wrote:


Elves are good spellcasters because of their bonus to caster level. So what's that do for the Elf Fighter?

I never said the elven fighter was better than the Human, but I can cope. He can see twice as far in the dark, for a fighter that is GREAT, let's not forget they are good at ranged attacks too.

They can use Elven Curved blade without a feat, and that is a very good weapon. They are imune to some spells and better at some saves that would hinder the fighter useless. They get 1 more AC, the skill point evens out, 1 more ranged attack bonus and Reflex save.

Sure, the Human gets a free feat, as it's always pointed out and he could get 2 more on fort save and hp per level, wich is great. But I can't see him being sooo far off as u guys always claim the humans are.

One other thing, Dex is much more used in skills than con expecially for a fighter ;)


On a further note that normally does not matter, but it is there, humans are the only ones that start with only one Language. ;)


"ever notice this has became a lot like two guys in a corner with a rulers seeing who's is bigger? Not that I mind just saying"


Quote:
The spell penetration evens out the bonus feat. I'll grant the elf that. Low Light Vision, sure, its handy until 5th level, when an elf and human both can cast darkvision and grant themselves the better form. While the bonus versus enchantments is nice, Will is a wizards favored save, most enchantments target Will...so hard to see how thats a huge draw. Sleep immunity...um...2 spells...in the whole book, both of which are negotiable by a Will save, and both of which you eventually become immune to...and how often to bad guys (or even PC's, sadly) toss a sleep spell? Stat wise, yes, the human wins. A human wizard with +2 int still has better HP (that con penalty affects you your entire life...) and will have a 1 point better AC then an identicaslly statted human.

+2 on saves - regardless of the save - is not negligible, especially since a wizard who wants con, dex, and int is not likely to have room left over for a high wisdom. At lower levels you're talking about the difference between a +2 bonus on a save or a +4. It's very noticeable. Even at 10th level it's still a 10% increase in saves. The people you really don't want to hit with will saves are the clerics.

Spell immunity is huge at low levels. I don't know who you play with, but sleep is an iconic low level spell, and one that nearly always see's extensive play in my games at low levels. Against monsters it's effectively a low level save or die, and not being susceptible to it is a nice perk. At high levels it isn't much (anything) - but at high levels for the int pumping wizard neither is another skill. When I have a 30 Int and a +6 headband you get 15 maxed skills. That isn't enough for the wizard?

Calling a spell with a duration measured in minutes (darkvision) the equal of an ability that is always active is laughable. Tell me, where are you getting all the spell slots to keep it active, or are you casting it at every fight (thus giving up your first action in combat)?

Finally, the +2 to a skill rather than ranks is exceptionally useful, because it increases the maximum bonus you can achieve with the skill - especially something that is often used in opposed checks like perception. It's an added 10% chance of success. That isn't to say the extra skill point isn't useful, but don't write off +2 perception (arguably the most used skill in the game - or second behind diplomacy).


I get the feeling that most people (or DMs) don't take low light conditions into account. I personally see these extraordinarily useful at all levels and chances are, you aren't finding an item that grants both for a long time. It's much easier to cover one or the other. But I guess if you don't use it then it's not going to be important.


Xum wrote:
Skaorn wrote:


Elves are good spellcasters because of their bonus to caster level. So what's that do for the Elf Fighter?

I never said the elven fighter was better than the Human, but I can cope. He can see twice as far in the dark, for a fighter that is GREAT, let's not forget they are good at ranged attacks too.

They can use Elven Curved blade without a feat, and that is a very good weapon. They are imune to some spells and better at some saves that would hinder the fighter useless. They get 1 more AC, the skill point evens out, 1 more ranged attack bonus and Reflex save.

Sure, the Human gets a free feat, as it's always pointed out and he could get 2 more on fort save and hp per level, wich is great. But I can't see him being sooo far off as u guys always claim the humans are.

One other thing, Dex is much more used in skills than con expecially for a fighter ;)

Lets dissect the Elf for a moment (or, in my case vivisect the pointy eared freaks):

Low Light Vision: Situationally good, unless there is no light and no total darkness in you game world. No complaints here.

Keen Senses: Good.

Elven Immunities: Good if you have a poor will save, not as good if you've got a good will save. Edit: this is referring to a classes Will progression, not good Wis.

Weapon Proficiencies: Favors classes with Simple weapons then the ones with Martial, as bows are great weapons. I'd also be fine being stuck with a Falchion as you've got the same critical threat and your averaging 5 points of damage (2d4) as opposed to 5.5 (1d10). Sure you don't get the bonus to Sunder or the Weapon Finese but it's no longbow.

Now with your comparison, I think you left something out. Elves loose -1 on HP and Fort saves as compared to humans. Now the Elf can use its favored class to gain that +1 to HP, but in the end the Human is ahead by either +1 SP or HP.

Now, assuming that this is a player trying the pro and cons of both races for their character which (s)he wants to be an archer. Assuming that (s)he puts the bonus into Dex we have two characters hitting at the same bonus and have the same Ref. Both take Point Blank and Precise Shot, and the Human takes Rapid Shot or Weapon Focus too. To counter this the Elf gets the Curved Blade (which can be nice with Weapon Finese for this build, but that'll at least be 2nd level and could be used for an archery feat), Low Light Vision, and a +2 to Perception and Save vs Enchantment.

In the end, at 1st Level, you have the choice between:
a)+1 HP or SP, a better Fort, and a better chance to hit or more potential for damage output.
b)either fewer SP or HP, worse Fort, less of a chance to hit or damage output, but you have a bit better backup weapon (at this level), Seeing in Low Light, and +2 Bonus to Will saves vs Enchantment, Immunity to sleep (hoo. ray.), and +2 Bonus to Perception.

All in all I'd call it a tough call, but I think the Human will win most of the time. My point is that Elves are going to have things that are trade offs depending on their class and situation. The bonuses a Human gets are always valid.

201 to 250 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.