I attended my first Pathfinder Society gathering a few months back and had a fantastic time. One thing that caught my attention was that I think over half the players were playing human characters. Interestingly, 3 out 5 of my players have chosen human characters in the AP I am running at the moment. Now there are 7 races and it strikes me as both odd and a little dull that so many people choose to play humans.
I have some theories as to why this is the case. I believe the most compelling reason is the bonus feat humans get at 1st level. This is very handy but I don't think it's overpowering. However, the problem arises when a player gets a really cool character build concept in their head and then realizes that to get x ability or feat by x level to make their concept work, they have to get feat prerequisites along the way - what I like to call a feat tax. Now even with the extra feats we get compared to 3.x D&D, players will sometimes come up short if they don't select human. Don't get me wrong. I think feats are reasonably well balanced and I like the concept of feat prerequisites before getting more powerful feats but I think it definitely contributes to the human overpopulation problem in adventures.
The next contributing factor is the flexible ability score bonus of humans. Again this appears balanced compared to the other races but again to a lesser degree contributes to the dearth of human characters. You see when trying to get that cool concept build to work, there's often 2 ability scores you'd like to see not penalised. This means as a human your primary ability score can get boosted by +2 and your secondary score is safe from being penalized. This flexibility combined with the free feat will again steer players towards human. This probably doesn't impact quite as much given that half elves and half orcs have this option as well.
Finally, the extra skill point also contributes to this problem but I feel to a lesser degree yet again for 2 reasons. First, it means that for many (but not all) builds, less ability points need to be assigned to Int and secondly, some Prestige classes have skill rank requirements which makes it easier for humans to qualify.
I don't think humans need to be made weaker but do the other races need to be made stronger? I honestly don't know. When I look at a particular race's traits on its own, they all seem ok to me yet my experience tells me that a clear majority of players are picking human. So what do you all think? Are the races balanced properly and have you also seen a majority of players picking human in the games you play in?
My group used to be all about the elves, but in recent years has become increasingly pro-human in their character choices. I don't think it's a gaming thing, it's a question of taste. Our interests have shifted/matured: from LotR to Black Company, from Driz'zt to Erevis Cale, etc. Non-human characters do not help nail down the fantastic realism flavor we're craving.
|
It's certainly tempting to go for that extra feat. On the other hand, the last two parties I played in were:
Human Paladin
Dwarf Druid
Elf Monk
Gnome Rogue
And:
Human Fighter
Half-Elf Rogue
Elf Mystic Theurge
Gnome Inquisitor
Githzerai(!) Wizard
The first group I DM'ed, The second group I deliberately made a very vanilla character (the human fighter) since it was a new group and I didn't want to risk a conflict (Not many campaigns don't have room for a True Neutral Human Sword and Boarder.)
I don't think there's much of a problem. RP folks will pick a race based on character anyway. It's somehow fitting to me that the mechanically optimal choice is also the most common race in the assumed setting.
I am sure mechanics of the game play a part in player choices. Setting of the campaign matters too and shouldn't be ignored.
Good point. Campaign settings do matter and is not something I'd originally considered. In Golarion there does seem to be an abundance of human subspecies if that's the right way to put it.
Playing a human is not cool? Where did you get that idea?
I didn't get that idea from anywhere. There's nothing uncool about humans. My point is that it seems a bit dull if nearly everyone plays one rather than trying something different. I'm also trying to find out that if that's even the case - a predominance of players choosing human characters.
Our group was usually mostly half elves in second edition (FR setting). Elves and dwarves in third (FR and homebrew). Strangely, I mostly played humans. Now that we are playing Pathfinder (Golarion setting) most of the group playes humans and I find I am experimenting with other races. *shrugs*
As with other posters, I think it is more character concept choices as opposed to a "mechanic" choice. I am pretty certain maturity of play has nothing to do with it. My friends and I have been immature for about 40+ years each. :P
Greg
Humans seem to fit for every role, every background, every kind of personnality. They're basically the simplest path to any character concept and, as the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Core Book made me realize : "You should have no trouble roleplaying these."
|
Well I have been roleplaying for 30+ years and until I started Pathfinder about 6 months ago I rarely ever saw people playing humans as there was no in game advantage with doing so.It was usually cooler to play the elf or dwarf. But now that I have been playing Pathfinder and been reading about it it seems that the trend is to take the best mechanical advantage over the best roleplay option.
And I think it is also more appropriate for there to be more humans in the average party than demihumans. It seems that the world of golarion is definitely more human centric than say elf or dwarf.
And to be honest I want my players to play human type characters as the world I am creating is say 90% human and 10% the other races. Players will get a higher point buy if they choose humans in my next campaign.
in 2e there was NO reason to be a human. ever. don't get me started on the over powered multi-classing available only to non humans...
I think its the effect of either a younger audience (who have trouble role playing something different than themselves) or the low level: at level 1 the extra feat is completely awsome. at level 10 its meh.
I almost always play a human, regardless of the edition or mechanics involved, though I play half-elves occasionally too. My reason for this is because it's easier for me to make a complete human character than a non-human. I know what motivates a human, particularly how our lifespans influence our actions and perceptions of time and the world around us.
I have no idea how to do this for an elf or dwarf, or even halfling. What would motivate someone to risk 2-6 or so centuries of life traveling with a group and worrying about wealth of all things. What is it like to have nearly a century long maturation process, or to know that the great grandchildren of the people you see and travel with will be dead and gone long before you are gone, barring some violent death. Or for halflings, what is it like to see the world from the view of someone 3ft tall, when the world is created and run by those in the 5 and a half foot and up range, and to also live a few decades longer than the humans you know?
What I found when I played non-humans, particularly elves or halflings, all I did was play them as humans with better abilities and funny physical features, rather than taking into account the massive differences in the way they think and see the world compared to humans. Since then I've mostly played human characters, with an occasional half-elf, and focused on the individual character's motivations since I don't need to worry about complete mindset and outlook changes other races should have.
My party has 2 humans, the rest are a gnome, an elf, and a dwarf. Usually we only have 1 human. He likes the extra feat, and he is always a fighter... but the rest of us mix it up ;)
|
|
I think it's because elves and dwarves and whatnots have stereotypes. When a character concept comes to you, (they usually come to you, not the other way around) you find that a human fits better because the concept of the character doesn't fit the stereotype of a dwarf or an elf or a whatnot.
Personally, I think dwarves and elves are dull and overused. I'd like to see some other races in a campaign setting.
I have definately seen more humans at my table since switching to PFRPG, but I am pretty certain that is an intentional impact the devs wanted to make. Golarian is Human centric, so the game is too. I dont think they are overpowered compared to the other races, but they definately have more going for them most of the time.
Well I have been roleplaying for 30+ years and until I started Pathfinder about 6 months ago I rarely ever saw people playing humans as there was no in game advantage with doing so.It was usually cooler to play the elf or dwarf. But now that I have been playing Pathfinder and been reading about it it seems that the trend is to take the best mechanical advantage over the best roleplay option.
My experience has been similar. In AD&D 2nd edition, I saw more elves than any other race. They simply had the best game mechanics. (Good multi-class options, special equipment, lower sleep requirements, attribute bonuses, etc.)Across many game systems, some D&D like and some radically different, players choose a race based on a combination of mechanical and roleplaying reasons. The more balanced the races are with one another, the more influence RP has. When races are less balanced, mechanics gain influence.
Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Human are also very similar. Half-Elf, at least, still has the niche of being an excellent multi-classer. Half-Orcs, on the other hand, have been robbed of flavor, and are just weaker humans. Half-Orc with +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Charisma would be good choice for fighting types, and fairly balanced with Humans. (Assume that the human would have +2 Str, you're left with +2 Con and darkvision against a bonus feat and a bonus skill.
The Dwarven Fighter is a fantasy trope that just isn't supported. By giving three races access to +2 Str, the Dwarf is 4th on the list for beat-downs. Dwarves mostly show up as Dlerics & Druids now, which just feels odd!
There are 11 core classes:
- Humans are good at all of them. (11/11)
- Half-Orcs are worse at all of them. (0/11)
- Half-Elves are worse at all of them, but might catch up by about half if you're mixing. (0/11)
- Elves are good at Wizard & Rogue. (2/11)
- Dwarves are good at Cleric & Druid. (2/11)
- Halflings are good at Rogue and Sorcerer. (2/11)
- Gnomes are good at being Sorcerers. (1/11)
Is it any wonder that Humans are the most popular race?
There are 11 core classes:...
- Humans are good at all of them. (11/11)
- Half-Orcs are worse at all of
I disagree vehemently with most of your findings. 1/2 orcs make GREAT rogues, 30' move, darkvision, and if they get schwacked by a trap, they can at least pull themselves clear before the go unconscious. Sure, they lose a feat, but by 8-9th level, one feat isn't that big a deal. Plus a rogue with a great axe is just a lot of fun to roleplay :)
I do agree that halflings and gnomes need more differentiation, but as they stand, they are fairly distinct (ie magic-y versus stealth-y) mechanically. I just hate having 2 pint sized races.
I wasn't going to mention this but Blueluck just struck a chord. I'll spoiler this as an enormous aside. (Most of this is purely mechanics matching my preferred flavor; I've mostly come to terms with the +1s from racial mods not being that big a deal in the end)
My group complete rejiggered the stat bonuses, and the first one was, of course, gnomes getting INT instead of CHA. While I like the Pathfinder flavor for gnomes I, uh, just don't like it for gnomes, if you get what I'm saying. (I've always subscribed to the 'gnomes are dwarves without the fuddy-duddyness and with dangerous curiosity' trope).
Our half-orcs are +2 STR, +2 WIS, -2 INT (carried forward from the beta). Depending on who's DMing, Elves are +WIS instead of +INT (playing up the nature end rather than the arcane mastery end). Dwarves either switch their penalty to DEX or, more recently, get a floating +2 (mostly because the dwarves are less stereotypical in that homebrew and are as prominent as humans). Dwarf Fighters being so far down the list was just so horrific it nauseated me. Nauseated.
I've also seriously considered throwing out racial stat penalties. With the way humans have a distinct bonus in versatility, getting a 'free' +1 modifier to an extra score isn't exactly going to break the bank and might make other races a little more mechanically intriguing. It's also nice that some quirky/atypical options (dwarven bard and sorcerer, I am looking at you) aren't hit twice for not having a +2 and having a -2.
Also, I'd like to say, between the human bonus feat and Point Blank Shot, playing ranged non-human characters at level 1 is annoying. That feat enrages me to no end. (Point Blank Shot, not the bonus feat).
Anyway! In my main group's experience, we have a lot of humans, and those that aren't human are bastards. I've never been a fan of elves (half or not), but we've got a good percentage of them, and I myself have wound up playing more than a few half-orcs (in fact, basically anytime my background calls for 'tragic bastard/orphan'). I'd wager this is more a roleplaying thing than a mechanical thing, unless the build is particularly feat-starved/heavy.
It's actually amusing that an enemy ranger with Favored Enemy (human) can typically just fire blindly at one of our parties and he's got something a 75-80% chance of getting his bonus. (Unsurprisingly, any NPC suspected of being a ranger is usually one of our first targets).
I also play a lot of dwarves. They're my favorite fantasy race, bar none.
Well I have been roleplaying for 30+ years and until I started Pathfinder about 6 months ago I rarely ever saw people playing humans as there was no in game advantage with doing so.It was usually cooler to play the elf or dwarf.
Huh. I've usually seen other races played not for mechanical advantage, but for character concept. I like to play humans, but I also love to play half-orcs and full-blooded orcs. Dwarves are up there, too.
In Glorian I tend to play Humans. The reason is the setting makes humans so interesting to play. Elves are just elves, dwarves are just dwarves but a Human they could of any cultural from Chelaxian to Tien. That gives me so much more to work with.
1/2 orcs make GREAT rogues, 30' move, darkvision, and if they get schwacked by a trap, they can at least pull themselves clear before the go unconscious. Sure, they lose a feat, but by 8-9th level, one feat isn't that big a deal. Plus a rogue with a great axe is just a lot of fun to roleplay :)
- 30' move is the standard.
- Very few traps do anything to you after the initial damage, and Orc Ferocity is unlikely to save you from those.
- One feat at 1st level is huge for a rogue. Although I agree that it's importance will decease over time, that effect will be felt only in the second half of a typical campaign.
- Rogues may have 8 skill points per level, but they also have many of the best class skills and much call to use them, so +1 skill point is nothing to sneeze at.
- First, "fun to play" is purely a matter of opinion. Second, my argument is that the mechanics are unbalanced, not the roleplaying.
- Darkvision is a nice bonus, and likely more so for a rogue.
All of that aside, I don't disagree that Half-Orcs can be perfectly decent Rogues. For that matter, just about any race/class combination can be decent.
I would prefer that, if there is going to be bias written into the races, the bias was a diversified so that a wider variety of races showed in the top builds, and that certain classic fantasy tropes were supported better.
1/2 orcs make GREAT rogues, 30' move, darkvision, and if they get schwacked by a trap, they can at least pull themselves clear before the go unconscious. Sure, they lose a feat, but by 8-9th level, one feat isn't that big a deal. Plus a rogue with a great axe is just a lot of fun to roleplay :)
- 30' move is the standard.
- Very few traps do anything to you after the initial damage, and Orc Ferocity is unlikely to save you from those.
- One feat at 1st level is huge for a rogue. Although I agree that it's importance will decease over time, that effect will be felt only in the second half of a typical campaign.
- Rogues may have 8 skill points per level, but they also have many of the best class skills and much call to use them, so +1 skill point is nothing to sneeze at.
- First, "fun to play" is purely a matter of opinion. Second, my argument is that the mechanics are unbalanced, not the roleplaying.
- Darkvision is a nice bonus, and likely more so for a rogue.
All of that aside, I don't disagree that Half-Orcs can be perfectly decent Rogues. For that matter, just about any race/class combination can be decent.
I would prefer that, if there is going to be bias written into the races, the bias was a diversified so that a wider variety of races showed in the top builds, and that certain classic fantasy tropes were supported better.
Half Orcs make great Inquisitors. That +2 Intimidate is nice and the favored Class bonus +1/2 to Intimidate just makes Half Orcs insanely intimidating Inquisitors.
...
I would prefer that, if there is going to be bias written into the races, the bias was a diversified so that a wider variety of races showed in the top builds, and that certain classic fantasy tropes were supported better.
Define "top builds"? I play this game with friends around a table. Not one of the "top builds" I have seen around here have made an appearance, because while a fascinating expression of the creativity and mindset of the rules lawyers, they are boring as hell to play. "I one shot the dragon!!" "Great, see you all next week".
And what classic tropes do you feel are unsupported? If anything, I find the racial mods to either strongly pigeonhole (dwarf clerics, gnome sorcs) or leave almost too much room (1/2 races especially) with no obviou specialization. But then again, it comes down to your play style.
I usually play ABDs (Anything But Dwarves). Out of my currently (or recently) active characters, I've had 3 humans, 3 half-elves (! I never played one before Pathfinder...), an elf and a half-giant.
I agree with the original poster: it's the bonuses (+2 to any stat, extra feat and skills) that are attractive, along with the opportunity to play something a race that I have a lot of real-life familiarity with.
Define "top builds"? I play this game with friends around a table. Not one of the "top builds" I have seen around here have made an appearance, because while a fascinating expression of the creativity and mindset of the rules lawyers, they are boring as hell to play. "I one shot the dragon!!" "Great, see you all next week".
The post we're discussing was, "I attended my first Pathfinder Society gathering a few months back and had a fantastic time. One thing that caught my attention was that I think over half the players were playing human characters."
I'm addressing the issue of more human characters than non-human characters. If you're not having trouble with that where you play, then I congratulate you. It seems that you're also not having trouble with optimized vs. non-optimized characters, spell scaling vs. melee scaling, or Monk vs. Fighter effectiveness. That's great, but it doesn't mean other people don't run across these issues.
And what classic tropes do you feel are unsupported? If anything, I find the racial mods to either strongly pigeonhole (dwarf clerics, gnome sorcs) or leave almost too much room (1/2 races especially) with no obvious specialization. But then again, it comes down to your play style.
I agree that some races are too strongly pigeonholed, and the Dwarf Cleric we both mentioned is an excellent example. Can you name a classic fantasy book or movie with a Dwarven Cleric or Druid?
As to tropes supported, I would like to see Half-Orcs and Dwarves as great warriors, and Gnomes as clever.
The post we're discussing was, "I attended my first Pathfinder Society gathering a few months back and had a fantastic time. One thing that caught my attention was that I think over half the players were playing human characters."
And to be totally open, most of my group usually plays humans too. I am generally the odd Demihuman :)
As to tropes supported, I would like to see Half-Orcs and Dwarves as great warriors, and Gnomes as clever.
Clever is roleplay, not something you can back up with mechanics. And wars do not make anyone great :)
But seriously, 1/2 orcs and dwarves, IMO, give up nothing compared to human fighters. MAYBE dwarves with the slow movement, but the +2 CON and free "=2 cloak of resistance" for being a dwarf way trump a measly bonus feat. I think we see more humans due to a lack of imagination, not a lack of power from non-humans. I know that to be the case in some of my group.
Clever is roleplay, not something you can back up with mechanics.
I'll speak more plainly then. I would prefer that gnomes get +2 Intelligence instead of +2 Charisma.
But seriously, 1/2 orcs and dwarves, IMO, give up nothing compared to human fighters. MAYBE dwarves with the slow movement, but the +2 CON and free "=2 cloak of resistance" for being a dwarf way trump a measly bonus feat.
Don't ignore +2 Strength.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My 'fix' for half orcs.
Ahem more on topic,
As to society, yeah, a human character is the 'most friendly' Some people might be afraid in a new group of playing a non human ("That's not how an elf would act!" says the fat guy with cheetoes stains and no GF) or maybe *gasp* are more interested in faction then race. ("I want to play a fighter like the Rock in the Scorpion King! I'll take Osiron." "I want to play a noble scion, I'll play Taldor!" "I want to play an angsty devil worshiping goth chick, I'll play Cheliax!" etc.) ;-)
I'll speak more plainly then. I would prefer that gnomes get +2 Intelligence instead of +2 Charisma.
Elves get +2 INT, but are generally deadly dull and unimaginative, IME.
Don't ignore +2 Strength.
I'm not, I'm saying that a 1/2 orc can have that, plus all the fun stuff from being a 1/2 orc. Likewise, a dwarf can re-assign points to STR knowing that his Will save and HP won;t suffer for it.
The big deal with darkvision on rogue is it lets you sneak attack in shadows. Usually a rogue in dim light has a victim in dim light: meaning that the 20% miss chance prevents the sneak attack.
The flexibility of having a bonus feat at 1st level, +2 to any stat and the ability to dump intelligence to 7 and still get 2 skill points per level on fighter types is very compelling to the average min/maxer.
Personally I think the negative to a stat is poor design choice and think that the 4e/Essentials model is probably where Pathfinder should go in a future edition.
I also like the recent trend in Essentials of supporting multiple builds. For instance the Dwarf automatically has a +2 in Con but has a choice of +2 to Strength (good for martial classes, one of the classical dwarf roles) or +2 to Wisdom (which supports divine casters, another of the critical dwarf roles).
The flexibility of having a bonus feat at 1st level, +2 to any stat and the ability to dump intelligence to 7 and still get 2 skill points per level on fighter types is very compelling to the average min/maxer.
Ah, see, I outlaw any stat below an 8 to avoid such silliness when I DM :) And like you are saying, to some the flexibility of the feat trumps dark vision or the bonus to saves for offensive minded players. For defensive minded players, fighters get plenty of feats, but no one is immune to magic.
Ah, see, I outlaw any stat below an 8 to avoid such silliness when I DM :) And like you are saying, to some the flexibility of the feat trumps dark vision or the bonus to saves for offensive minded players. For defensive minded players, fighters get plenty of feats, but no one is immune to magic.The flexibility of having a bonus feat at 1st level, +2 to any stat and the ability to dump intelligence to 7 and still get 2 skill points per level on fighter types is very compelling to the average min/maxer.
Well this is about human dominance in PFS play and dumping stats is a perfectly acceptable practice there (even though I also tend to discourage it).
Oh, I get it, and like I said, my own table groups tend to be human dominant, I just don;t agree that it is because human builds are inherently superior, but that they require less creativity to come up with a character concept, IMO only of course.
Oh, I get it, and like I said, my own table groups tend to be human dominant, I just don;t agree that it is because human builds are inherently superior, but that they require less creativity to come up with a character concept, IMO only of course.
Oh they are definitely easier to roleplay as well.
Dwarf players have a tendency of falling into Axebeard McBeardyaxe stereotypes.
Elves players tend to play around with Elves are better or Elves are racist. Many settings support this.
Halfling players tend to play them as slightly reskinned kender D:<
Half-orcs often get played as Gronk smash, etc.
Tropes are good but after seeing the same slight variation on the theme time after time they get frustrating to see in a game. Peer pressure no matter how subtle often kicks in and rather than try something different they'll look at the nice mechanical benefits of the human and go "I'll just play me in heavy armor".
|
I find the prevalence of humans in PFS a lot less egrecious than with other settings. The Inner Sea as a specific setting has, as already mentioned, such a large number of ethinicities in play that I've never felt that people were going for what is most powerful.
Let's see, our local(recently deceased) PFS lodge housed what I think were a Osiriani human paladin, a Garundi half orc druid, a human Taldan ranger(mine), a human barbarian and Cleric from Cheliax, a human Taldan rogue/sorc, an Elven monk, an Andoran Elvish druid and what I think was one more Chelaxian human, probably fighter/monk. So yeah, most of them were human, with a smattering of more fantastic races, but the only stereotypes we had in play were the Chelaxian cleric of Asmodeus, who was played like he was the frontman for Electric Wizard or mr Crowly and the rogue/sorc who was a total fop.
What I did find out though was that the human choices were affected both by the relative power of the floating ability bonus and a free feat and the setting flavor, which was a total relief.
In our Adventure Path group, we've so far had a very human-centric adventuring party as our ROtRL roster consisted of three(!) humans and two elves. And one deceased dwarf. The bastard.
This next roster, however, hell yeah: We'll get a half-orc half-Bekyar shapeshifter barbarian/ranger, a Chelaxian halfling sorcerer with a serpentine bloodline, a Varisian human rogue/alchemist and two half-elves, one a fighter from Korvosa and another a dishonored noble from what I think is one of the colonies due to practising Juju, She's an oracle. I'm glad we got more variety, but I fear I'm the only one whose considerations for a particular race or build have so far included "power". Instead, when asked, most of my group had an idea for a character after reading setting guides and player manuals and just ran with it, glad with the particulars of a race, but not too worried over the particulars synergy between race and class(hah, what a pun!).
I too fear that the smaller races beg to be played almost solely as rogues and sorcerers, they have so good synergies with those classes it's silly. Having a decrease to strength is also pretty significant a malus to stomach for those character types that are based on throwing around a lot of damage. Except for the halfling cavalier. Man, I want to play a halfling cavalier one day.
However, I don't find the small size with all it entails or having a slower speed matter much in my considerations. Weapon size doesn't matter at all and the stat boni apply to a variety of characters, it's the strength malus I have a problem with. Think about playing a barbarian for instance, or any character class that doesn't get too many bonuses to hit: Point bus of 15 and 20 y will always leave you wanting. Want a decent starting ability of 16 or 15? Well, throw that 13 or 10 in there and you're set! Wait, you want to have a cake? Well, it's about time to eat it too, since you'll have 5-10 points to play around with and at least 2 other stats to cover. At least gnomes have a constitution bonus, but when you are done, you'll have one good stat, a probable dumb stat just to have some leeway and not look like a one trick pony and likely two decent enough stats. Then you realise you really want that Weapon Focus feat, heh. And of course, start to figure out how to fit Heirloom Weapon into your character background and there, you have a slippery slope.
Finally, I can only speak for myself, or write, rather, but dwarves are awesome for PFS play. You have a decent bonus vs. magic or even a good resistance via traits. Then there's a reliable chance to have a very good score to constitution, for those times there's a lack for hit points(always). Finally, always being proficient with battleaxes is nice for most 3/4 bab and 8 hd classes. Except monks, perhaps, but Dwarven monks have other assets, especially high wisdom.
Naturally, dwarven cleric have everything going for them, but fighters get a lot out of one of the best weapons in the game - Waraxe and the sheer perseverance dwarves display through their abilities. Then there's the synergy with the monk class, rogues and rangers liking the racial weapons, dwarven inquisitors being a great combo and a rather nice variety of APG traits, most of which I really want to try. Yes, even the oracle one.