Humans


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Why are they SO underpowered... I know they were always underpowered, but I really hoped it would change now... Is there a reason why they are still so lousy? And please, tell me if I'm wrong.


Humm one +2 to any ability score , 1 extra skill point every single level and a free feat ...Not under powered

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

But why was the "Weapon Proficiency" cut? :/


All that was ever done is whine on it. But it's useless to my fighter...No one ever b+~+#es about elves bows and swords being useless to a fighter but the endless whining over it ugh

It really was abused alot and not worth it. Every village had commoners with twohanded swords and glavies and what have you. It was meant to be pure flavor and was more trouble then anything else

They gain a free feat feel free to blow that one your glave packing wizards or what ever. As it stands Humans are not weak and really are one of the most common if not the most common played race for the feat alone

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
But why was the "Weapon Proficiency" cut? :/

Because it made no sense at all? Why is Joe the Farmer proficient in the longsword? The other races we accept it more easily as the stereotype of which weapon they use is so ingrained that it makes sense. Doesn't work that way with humans.

All the other free weapon proficiencies are given to weapons that are clearly associated with the races historically. What weapon is associated with humans? The battleaxe (Viking)? The Bastard sword (Samurai Katana)? The longbow (English archers were famed)? The handaxe (tomahawk)? So they gave out "Any Martial weapon" but that was just too broad.

Or at least that's my interpretation.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Humm one +2 to any ability score , 1 extra skill point every single level and a free feat ...Not under powered

+2 everyone gets for free.

+1 Skill point won't do u MUCH good.
And the Extra feat everyone gets something like it anyway, the only difference is that the Human can choose it. (the others get it as weapon prof, stackable skill focus and the like) Besides with the new feat progression that +1 feat is no really THAT good anymore...

And they should have all their classes favored, as before, any word on that? Why is the Half-elf more versatily than the Human in that?


Xum wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Humm one +2 to any ability score , 1 extra skill point every single level and a free feat ...Not under powered

+2 everyone gets for free.

+1 Skill point won't do u MUCH good.
And the Extra feat everyone gets something like it anyway, the only difference is that the Human can choose it. (the others get it as weapon prof, stackable skill focus and the like) Besides with the new feat progression that +1 feat is no really THAT good anymore...

And they should have all their classes favored, as before, any word on that? Why is the Half-elf more versatily than the Human in that?

Half elves always where. It is just taking them back to the 3e days. And you tell them poor skill staved classes 1 extra skill is useless just tell em that.

The feat, the +2 and the skill point are plenty. Just what do you think humans should have? Night vision, the power of flight?

Joking aside Humans gain a good deal unlike pre 3e in which they got nada


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

I'm sorry, but how are humans underpowered? For me, it takes a real good reason like a special character concept to even consider another race. The bonus feat is essential, none of the other base races' abilities beats that.


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

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

+1 feat - already had that in previous editions

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

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

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


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xum wrote:
Why are they SO underpowered... I know they were always underpowered, but I really hoped it would change now... Is there a reason why they are still so lousy? And please, tell me if I'm wrong.

Humans have always been my favorite race. If you feel they are under powered there are several others to choose from. In most of the games I run about half of my players willing chose to play humans.


Lord Fyre wrote:
But why was the "Weapon Proficiency" cut? :/

Beta testing.

It's not like it was removed between release versions.


through all the years of 3e maybe 15% of PC's made in the 3 groups I play in where non-human.
3e humans where so much more powerfull with the extra feat and no multiclass restriction that the other races needed something extra in PFRPG.
One of my groups played beta and there was the first halfling and halfelf PC's since 2e


The advantage of humans is versatility. Yes all races get bonuses to stats and yes all races get powers that may or may not be as good as a free feat. But humans are the only one that can choose what skills to improve, what stats to improve, and what feat to take to be perfect for their class.

Also, if you go beyond what is on the paper and look at the in-game benefits humans also usually come out ahead. A lot of races come with "baggage" that the humans just don't have. It is common to come across NPC's that HATE half-orcs, dwarves, elves, etc. It is rare for a human to be singled out in a campaign due to race. Plus smart humans also get to choose any language as a bonus. In some game worlds this will also be a pretty good advantage.

In short - Humans are more flexible then any other race IMHO.


In the games I've played in since 3.0 the only races anyone played where Elves (For lowlight vision and bows), Halflings (+1 to all saves, incredible bonuses to Stealth, and a better base AC then most classes), and mostly Humans. Sure people would rarely play the other races but Human gave you the bonus feats and skills, so they usually made up 75% of the PCs we saw.


Thazar wrote:

Also, if you go beyond what is on the paper and look at the in-game benefits humans also usually come out ahead. A lot of races come with "baggage" that the humans just don't have. It is common to come across NPC's that HATE half-orcs, dwarves, elves, etc. It is rare for a human to be singled out in a campaign due to race. Plus smart humans also get to choose any language as a bonus. In some game worlds this will also be a pretty good advantage.

Well, as has been stated on most RPG boards many times, roleplaying-only benefits and disadvantages are not really valid when it comes to balance because of the differences in campaign settings. I'm not sure when the last time was I ever played in a group that we suffered from someone being a half-orc/elf/dwarf/etc. other than a little back-talk, derogotory comments, etc. Nothing like additional service/equipment costs, isnta-attack, blah...blah...blah.

As for the flexibility, humans aren't the only ones to choose which stat to improve (both Half-orc and Half-elf now have this). I'll concede skills and feat, but that is it and honestly I can find an ability in almost every class that equals a feat (even if it is a mediocre feat like Skill Focus :) ).

Somehow I must also be playing a different game than a lot who think the Human was the catch-all race in 3.0/3.5 because we've always had players that picked elves, dwarves, halflings, heck even half-orcs....
The only class that was pretty reliably human was Wizard and even that class has had a couple elves over the years...

Sovereign Court

Brett Blackwell wrote:

Somehow I must also be playing a different game than a lot who think the Human was the catch-all race in 3.0/3.5 because we've always had players that picked elves, dwarves, halflings, heck even half-orcs....

The only class that was pretty reliably human was Wizard and even that class has had a couple elves over the years...

All I can say is yes, you seem to have a very different game going on than I've seen with my groups. In all my groups, I have played: 1 halfling, one half drow, and a couple of changelings. I have seen played: 1 half orc, 1 dwarf, 1 elf, 1 changeling, 1 warforged. Every other character I have played or seen played in 3.5 was human. And I've played in over 20 games with a few different groups over the course of 7 years.

Since we started test the alpha version of PRPG, I've seen lots of gnomes for flavor, a half elf for the first time ever, and still alot of humans. I think it's in general a pretty good design.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

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

Sovereign Court

That bonus feat may not seem like much, but the fact that you get to choose what that benefit IS (as opposed to having a feat-equivalent racial mod) means you can tailor your human down any path, and they will be 1 step closer (2-3 levels closer) to meeting that PrC's entrance requirements (especially good for those old PrCs that had a throw-away feat requirement like "Skill Focus: Basketweaving) or that cool endcap to a feat chain.


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!


All I know is good luck finding a Wizard or Rogue who isn't elf these days. :)

How about a house rule that allows Humans to make one PrC a favored class?

Scarab Sages

I think in my game I'll let Humans count all base classes as favored. That should level the field, as they will always get +1 additional HP or the +1 additional SP which really makes them versatile, and I don't think 20hp or skill points is going to upset balance.

Humans make excellent 1st level unbalanced feat chain users.

1st level fighter can have mounted combat, ride by attack and spirited charge, that's a pretty powerful combination for 1st level, (most other feat chains have a capper that has a restriction...Sprited charge should have one at least a +4 I think.)


Humans rock.

Sure, it is "just" one +2, but it you can choose where to put it (so you will get the right bonus for your concept, no matter what that concept will be). And you don't get a penalty, either.

In a lot of cases, that combination (+2 to any one) will be better than the various +2/+2/-2 combos.

Free skill points can really mean something. Sure, it won't make you the unstoppable juggernaut of destruction, but it can still be useful.

And sure, everyone gets feats. But you get more. That means you'll often qualify for more powerful feats sooner, or have an easier time of qualifying for feats and PrCs.

Say you want to be an archer using ranger. The elf might have +2 dex, but so does the human. He doesn't have the +2 int, but so what? Free skill point to even it out. And you don't have to boost your con as much. And then, when your elf archer friend misses because he has to fire into melee, you hit because you got precise shot at first level!

A lot of the time, by the time someone else gets a feat, you will already have used it for a level or two (provided you go for the same stuff).

I know it's anecdotal, but most characters in our campaings are already humans, and it was like that even in 3.5.

The race doesn't need anything else.


Humans are anything but underpowering. Theres a reason why they're the common racial choice. I mean, actually look at any of the "Tell us you [X campaign] party" threads, every 2nd character is human (I ain't exagerrting by the way). Would such an underpowering race be played so much?


If you think Humans are underpowered, I suggest trying an experiment. Offer to run a game and give the players two choices:

1) A game where you can only play a Human.

2) Offer to run a game where Humans don't exist or died.

This was tried by one of my GMs in 3.5. We had one person who was so adament against option 2, he said he wouldn't show up for that game. On the other hand we've gone with option #1 a number of times without any problems from players. Sure you still might feel the same way about them, but I bet it will show that more people are willing to give up on all their racial options then loose humans.


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

Thanks for the reply :) I completely agree with the loss of the free weapon proficiency... it just never made sense to me anyways :) However, I've never seen the Human as being the "must have" race that so many others seem to think it was. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree though :p

Twowlves wrote:

That bonus feat may not seem like much, but the fact that you get to choose what that benefit IS (as opposed to having a feat-equivalent racial mod) means you can tailor your human down any path, and they will be 1 step closer (2-3 levels closer) to meeting that PrC's entrance requirements (especially good for those old PrCs that had a throw-away feat requirement like "Skill Focus: Basketweaving) or that cool endcap to a feat chain.

Well, the basket-weaving option is null and void becuase the half-elf gets that feat free too :p I won't argue with the rest, because it is one of the reasons I like to play humans, and also because it completely depends on the PRC. If even one required feat is Skill Focus, the half-elf wins out.

KaeYoss wrote:
Sure, it is "just" one +2, but it you can choose where to put it (so you will get the right bonus for your concept, no matter what that concept will be). And you don't get a penalty, either.

As mentioned, no different than Half-orc or Half-elf... so yawn....

KaeYoss wrote:
Say you want to be an archer using ranger. The elf might have +2 dex, but so does the human. He doesn't have the +2 int, but so what? Free skill point to even it out. And you don't have to boost your con as much. And then, when your elf archer friend misses because he has to fire into melee, you hit because you got precise shot at first level!

OK, I'll play that game :) Say you want to be a wizard. The human gets +2 to INT, so does the Elf. The Elf also gets a decent ranged weapon, a +2 DEX (for better AC and better hit with ranged touch and his bow), basically a free Spell Penetration feat (which stacks with Spell Penetration if he wants).. and I can't say I've ever seen a wizard that didn't take at least Spell Penetration at some point in his advancement. The elf does suffer from -1 hp per level and -1 to Fort. Then the bonuses to Perception and saves and low-light vision are just icing on the cake.

Xaaon wrote:

I think in my game I'll let Humans count all base classes as favored. That should level the field, as they will always get +1 additional HP or the +1 additional SP which really makes them versatile, and I don't think 20hp or skill points is going to upset balance.

My only problem with this is it takes away the half-elf's one special benefit... getting more than one favored class. That seems to knock them back down to the "low man on the totem pole" status of previous editions...

Frogboy wrote:

How about a house rule that allows Humans to make one PrC a favored class?

I think this is the nicest option. It gives the Human something to strive for (since they are already slightly better at attaining PRCs due to the extra feat. However, it seems to fly in the face of Paizo's concept of making it a viable option to stay with the base classes....

Unfortunately, I don't have a good idea for a solution, but I still feel that something is slightly off when our group of 6 has 4 players seriously considering half-orc characters :p

Sovereign Court

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.

Um, I can only assume you mean that it was nerfed from the BETA to the final and not that it was nerfed from 3.5 where it is actually better.

This is something I hate and am getting tired of, people saying that something was nerfed when it was something they didn't have in 3.5.

The BETA wasn't a ruleset it was an experiment board. powers got changed from the BETA but that was the whole point. No class with the exception of possibly the Bard depending on your opinion of the rounds per day and lack of lingering, got nerfed.

As for the whole why are humans weak, they aren't weak, just because they didn't get any significant change. My current group has a halfling and 3 humans. Humans are just fine as they are, they didn't need anything added to them to make them a good PC choice. and just out of curiosity what did elves gain that they didn't have in 3.5 or the BETA? other than the +2 to int, which according to you doesn't count because all the classes gained a +2?

Sovereign Court

Frogboy wrote:

All I know is good luck finding a Wizard or Rogue who isn't elf these days. :)

How about a house rule that allows Humans to make one PrC a favored class?

I have a halfling rogue in my game right now and a human wizard.


Personally I think the favored classes for non-humans should not have been eliminated. It gave the human a certain unique flavor. Other than that humans get an extra skill point each level. Say a pc wishes to take skill point in his favored class rather than hit point he will get 2 extra. A human rogue i.e would get 10+Int modifier for his abilities so on average the human has more skills than the non-human.


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. :)


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. :)

True the elf wizard has a certain advantage as an arcane spell caster, but the human wizard can also match him with the one extra feat and skill point he gets.


lastknightleft wrote:
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.

Um, I can only assume you mean that it was nerfed from the BETA to the final and not that it was nerfed from 3.5 where it is actually better.

This is something I hate and am getting tired of, people saying that something was nerfed when it was something they didn't have in 3.5.

The BETA wasn't a ruleset it was an experiment board. powers got changed from the BETA but that was the whole point. No class with the exception of possibly the Bard depending on your opinion of the rounds per day and lack of lingering, got nerfed.

As for the whole why are humans weak, they aren't weak, just because they didn't get any significant change. My current group has a halfling and 3 humans. Humans are just fine as they are, they didn't need anything added to them to make them a good PC choice. and just out of curiosity what did elves gain that they didn't have in 3.5 or the BETA? other than the +2 to int, which according to you doesn't count because all the classes gained a +2?

Sorry mate, but just to be clear they were nerfed, they were the only race that could pick their favored class. And have 2 classes without XP penalty. That's in 3.5 Core. It may not seem like much, but it is a flavor in their versatility that's good.

And I am not saying it's unplayable in ANY way, I just think it could be better.


Nope not nerfed. No longer is an xp penalty so that is gone from everyone. They gained a +2 to any one stat which is a very useful thing.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Nope not nerfed. No longer is an xp penalty so that is gone from everyone. They gained a +2 to any one stat which is a very useful thing.

Again, if EVERYONE got it it's not a real bonus, is it? And I am aware there is no XP penalty anymore, but there is a bonus for playing a favored class, so, it's easy to see what I am saying, is it not?


No not really. They gained a +2 and lost nothing.


I think humans just need a little tweak. (Just as half-elves need a little nerf'ing)

Take multi-talented away from half-elves and give it to humans. Presto. Fixed. Now the race that specializes in being multi-talented, actually has the appropriate ability.


Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

I think humans just need a little tweak. (Just as half-elves need a little nerf'ing)

Take multi-talented away from half-elves and give it to humans. Presto. Fixed. Now the race that specializes in being multi-talented, actually has the appropriate ability.

Oddly pre 3e half elves were king of multi classing. I have no issue with them having this back


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I agree with Kor. Humans lost a bit of their versatility when Jason got rid of Racial favored classed, I could live with the feat thing but the favored class advantage has kind of been with humans since, well, technically before third edition. Now they lose that and half elves are now easily more powerful. I say either take Multitalented from humans or give it to them as well. Honestly I'm surprised this wasn't done in the first place.

Scarab Sages

If humans are so underpowered, then why do my players keep making them?

During Pathfinder Beta...
Rise of the Runelords: 2 Humans, 1 Half-Elf, 1 Elf
Curse of the Crimson Throne: 3 Humans, 1 Elf, 1 Half-Orc
Second Darkness: 4 Humans, 1 Tiefling
Work Group: 2 Humans, 2 Half-Elves
Overall: 11 Humans out of 18 Characters

Mechanically speaking, that one bonus feat is incredibly popular. As a DM I know that a more 'optimized' character can feasibly be built using the other races, but everyone just loves Humans. :)

Edit: I would actually agree that, flavor-wise, the Humans should have the Multi-Talented ability. For balance sake though I think half-elves should keep it. And I can kind of understand, they are the race most looked at for being immersed in two different worlds. Half-orcs kind of get tossed away from the orc side, wheras half-elves may have a lot of experience in both elf and human worlds. That's where their +2 to Diplomacy used to come from back in 3.5 at least.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Humans were commonly played in my 2nd edition games, not because they were powerful but because they were familiar, and their flexibility with classes was pretty much the only edge that made them worthwhile which is now commonly shared.


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

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

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


Devil of Roses wrote:
Humans were commonly played in my 2nd edition games, not because they were powerful but because they were familiar, and their flexibility with classes was pretty much the only edge that made them worthwhile which is now commonly shared.

Though they also didn't have a level cap and they could dual class, rather then multi class which, in my experience was better from what I remember.


Skaorn wrote:
Devil of Roses wrote:
Humans were commonly played in my 2nd edition games, not because they were powerful but because they were familiar, and their flexibility with classes was pretty much the only edge that made them worthwhile which is now commonly shared.
Though they also didn't have a level cap and they could dual class, rather then multi class which, in my experience was better from what I remember.

You are correct


I'm actually looking at a small tweak that will make humans what I'm looking for. As suggested by a few, they will get Multi-Talented (I'm letting half-elves keep it as well). This will replace the +1 Skill point per level. This approach reinforces the role I want humans to play in my world--versatile and no over-specialized in any area. They end up with roughly the same thing, +20 skill points if they want it, but can go +20 HP instead or any mix thereof.


Xum wrote:
Why are they SO underpowered... I know they were always underpowered, but I really hoped it would change now... Is there a reason why they are still so lousy? And please, tell me if I'm wrong.

Houserule humans martial weapon's prof with the bastard sword and that should bring them up to par. They need a little more omph but not much.


erian_7 wrote:
I'm actually looking at a small tweak that will make humans what I'm looking for. As suggested by a few, they will get Multi-Talented (I'm letting half-elves keep it as well). This will replace the +1 Skill point per level. This approach reinforces the role I want humans to play in my world--versatile and no over-specialized in any area. They end up with roughly the same thing, +20 skill points if they want it, but can go +20 HP instead or any mix thereof.

My only problem with this is, what if I want to play a Human and only plan on playing one class?

Editted Quote, Stupid buttons!


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

I think humans just need a little tweak. (Just as half-elves need a little nerf'ing)

Take multi-talented away from half-elves and give it to humans. Presto. Fixed. Now the race that specializes in being multi-talented, actually has the appropriate ability.

Oddly pre 3e half elves were king of multi classing. I have no issue with them having this back

Agreed...On those occassions I didn't play a human in 1st or 2nd adnd, I played a half elf because they were awesome multiclassed, and very few of th egames I played did the level caps ever come to be an issue for them.

As for humans...eh...even with the other races getting a boost, I'm fairly certain that the game I'm starting in a couple of weeks will be mostly human. In my group, it will be because roleplaying a human isn't hard, and I'm fortunate enough that almost the whole groups actually enjoys rp. And even the crunch folks in the group tend to go human, because the extra feat and extra skill point make PrC's easier to get (although I have a feeling that with this being the first time we've played Pathfinder, a friend might make an elf to give a much better looking arcane archer a spin).

Ultimately...whether its roleplaying or crunch you want...humans pack a punch...many, if not all, of the racial abilities can be made up at some point by a magic item or feat or class ability...and its easy to think like a human, much harder to think like a 150 year old elf...


Thinking about a house rule +10% experience bonus for Humans, +5% Bonus for Half Elfs and Half Orcs because they are half Human.


why would humans gain more xp?


Charles Evans 25 wrote:

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

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

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


After darkvision, the best racial ability, the bonus feat was the second best racial ability. It goes a good ways towards making the character more powerful and survivable at 1st level.

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

Quote:
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.

Indeed. I was statting out some beggars for a home game--diseased homeless folk who might jump some PCs en masse--and since they were all human, they all got a free martial weapon proficiency. I gave them short sword proficiency, assuming some sort of basic military training in the setting... but even Improved Unarmed Strike would have made more sense.

1 to 50 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.