Golorian is supposed to be human-centric, correct?
But I see a trend among players at my table that Human is rarely selected as a PC race for them. Thinking about it as a GM and a player I attribute this to the Point-buy system for generating PC attributes.
It seems that because of the graduated cost of higher stats, the +2/+2 boost and -2 penalty to attributes is a far greater investment with the point buy system than the human's simple +2. The reason obviously being is you can buy up low stats to cover the +2 for 2 CP, but get the boosts to higher stats that wouldn't be a 1 for 1 cost.
The human benefit of bonus feat and skill point doesn't seem to be enough incentive when comparring demi-humans. I mean for general purpose feats that do the same thing there is Toughness (well I can get a demi-human bump to Con and get the same impact, but a bonus to Fort saves and any other con-related check). Or I can get Dodge and get that bonus to AC that a Dex bump might get me, but also get a bonus to reflex and Dex-based skill checks.
It's really easy math to figure out why with a Point Buy system, it is handcuffing a player to choose to play a human.
DIE ROLLING STATS IS NOT AN OPTION. While it may correct the issue I've mentioned above, it brings with it issues that the culture of gaming in my group is just not likely willing to deal with.
SO, is there any suggeestions out there to make the Point Buy system be a human-centric system? Should it cost 2 CP to build a demi-human race under Point Buy?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to reduce the impact of Point Buy but have the same feel, use arrays.
The elite array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. It's equal to a 15-point buy, and is very well balanced for Pathfinder.
I'm surprised you're not seeing humans though. Extra feat + skill point is usually exactly what I want for my character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing is some groups have exactly the opposite problem for the same reason.
Extra feat, skill points, and no penalty stat? Of course we're all playing humans.
Personally, I rarely play a human because I am one. The whole point (for me) is to be something completely different.
The only time I play a human is if the rest of the build is wierd enough for me to feel like I already have plenty of wow.
Druids often change into something else to do their fighting or casting.
Dragon disciple - got to love anything that changes into a dragon.
Dual cursed oracle with abherrant eldritch heritage.
Explain to them dual talented :)
Its the bomb!
First of all, an adventuring party need not be a statistical reflection of the game world.
Second, if you're not seeing a lot of humans at the table, your players are just bad optimizers :-P
Explain to them dual talented :)
Its the bomb!
So duel-talented gives the benefits of the +2/+2 bump without the negative and takes the extra feat and skill points.
So, a -2 to a set stat = the racial traits of all the core and featured races? And a -2 to a set stat can be offset by a 2 CP cost in the Point Buy system.
Hmmmm....I guess a dwarf's racial traits are certainly worth 2 CP, but I don't if other demi-humans are.
Ha, when I read the thread title I was wondering how a point buy system would make the PCs less human (too super-heroish?), not that it would result in fewer human PCs.
Its never been an issue in our games. At least half the table or more are playing human PCs at any given point in time.
If you want to reduce the impact of Point Buy but have the same feel, use arrays.
The elite array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. It's equal to a 15-point buy, and is very well balanced for Pathfinder.
I'm surprised you're not seeing humans though. Extra feat + skill point is usually exactly what I want for my character.
While I didn't use the elite array i did use the 15 point buy method for my campaign. End result?
3 humans, 1 half-orc, 1 Elan
The newest player added in a dwarf (yay!). I almost never see other races aside from elves & humans so having a 1/2 Orc, Dwarf and Elan in the party is a huge change. Throughout 3E it seems like everyone played humans (except for those suckers who chose 1/2 Elf - gah what a terrible race in 3E that was!).
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. I'm not even convinced it is a problem - people should be allowed to play what they like. If you want to have a human-only campaign just say that right from the start. Or have only 1 or 2 non-humans and the players have to decide who plays them. I know I personally would have no problems with either method as long as it is stated right from the get go. I don't think adding even more mechanical bonuses to the human is the way to go though.
If you are looking at the races listed in the CRB or in the beginning of the ARG, humans are never a bad choice. Some of those nonhuman races may possibly be a very slightly better player choice for one or two class options (depending in part on how important skills are in a given campaign), but are definitely subpar for all others. The extra skill points humans get are huge in some campaigns and not that big a deal in others in which combat is primary.
If, on the other hand, you are looking at some of the races near the back of the ARG, well of course humans don't measure up. Neither do elves or gnomes or dwarves or halflings or halforcs. But presumably any players or GMs in games that include those races as PC choices realize upfront that they are not intended to be balanced with the rest.
I have a bit of a feat fetish, so humans are my go-to class for nearly any build. I try to not do that any more, but it's just so tempting. I'm playing a changeling right now, and while a Human would better serve the build, I don't care.
Mechanically, I don't think the human bonus feat plus skill points adds up the racial packages that the other races get.
..The thing that I find that makes the demi-humans a better pick is the low light and dark vision because of concealment...
That is the opinion of many in my group. No one wants to be the lone human making everyone else obvious because he has to have a lantern, so we can never surprise anyone ever again.
|
..The thing that I find that makes the demi-humans a better pick is the low light and dark vision because of concealment...That is the opinion of many in my group. No one wants to be the lone human making everyone else obvious because he has to have a lantern, so we can never surprise anyone ever again.
<---- Currently playing a human shadowcaster in PFS.
Seriously though, most groups I join have only the occasional half-orc with darkvision. Everybody else needs light.
At the other extreme. My tiefling just picked up See in Darkness a few weeks ago. I'm waiting for the next time a GM hits her with magical darkness.
So? The racial makeup of the PC party isn't, and never has been, indicative of the racial makeup of the campaign world. I fail to see where this is a problem.
I rather like the way one of my players puts it: "If I wanted to be a human, I'd go outside."
Explain to them dual talented :)
Its the bomb!
So duel-talented gives the benefits of the +2/+2 bump without the negative and takes the extra feat and skill points.
So, a -2 to a set stat = the racial traits of all the core and featured races? And a -2 to a set stat can be offset by a 2 CP cost in the Point Buy system.
Hmmmm....I guess a dwarf's racial traits are certainly worth 2 CP, but I don't if other demi-humans are.
dont forget its 2 stats you chose
and not all racial stuff is handy for every class +2 to two scores is good for anny class!dont forget you can crank max stats at lvl 1 alot higher in a point buy this way and each +2 is worth alot more if its in a high stat.
In the Games I run Human is by far the most common. The biggest reason is the variation in Humans in Glorian, you all kind of different Humans. And Elf is pretty much just an Elf but Human can be Ulfen, Cheliaxian, Taladan and so on which ads a lot of flavor to humans.
I find that point buy has nothing to do with racial choices. If you roll for a stat array playing a certain race is still going to happen due to maximizing your abilities at a certain class.
That being said, I find it very hard to justify a non human for my own characters. Half of the racial abilities that other races get are either super narrow (elf magic) or very randomly useful/useless (specific racial hatreds, bonus to find unusual stone work ect). Extra skill points and feat, and flexible stat bonus is 9 of 10 times more useful than whatever situational garbage that most classes get. The only game changer is dark-vision and MAYBE low-light vision. And even then that can be made up for by mid levels by spells and items.
Heck I have a couple of PFS boons that let me choose to play a kitsune, nagiji (sp?) or a wayyang (sp?), and I haven't been able to figure out what to do with them because every times I make a build with them I just feel like it would be better to just play a human.
Also, while dual talent on the human sounds good, its not really all that great unless you are building for very specific classes. Losing a skill point per level is almost like having a -2 to Int, and losing a feat is a huge deal for early game viability. So if you plan on not needing skills because you either don't need them or have a high enough int AND you don't have much use for a bonus feat, then dual talent might be a good choice. IMHO that is a pretty rare build (full disclosure, my battle cleric of gorum is a dual talent human, but that is because the character is super 1 dimensional and didn't qualify for many good battle feats at level 1)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
6 gnome adventurers walk into a bar....
And then what? Does it have a happy ending, or do the adventurers survive?
I gave a 15 point-buy for my recent campaign and the (arguably not-optimized) result was:
4 Humans (cleric, spell-less ranger, oracle, and fighter)
1 Halfling (beast rider cavalier)
1 Sylph (winter witch)
I would argue that it has more to do with the individual player personality than the point-buy. The four players who chose human in my game usually (but not always) choose humans in other campaigns we've played. The two players who choose non-human tend to (but not always) pick non-humans in other campaigns we've played. One of those two actually has never played a human, now that I think about it.
I find that basically no matter what, my group keeps is pretty straight forward. I love it. My group is (counting Cohorts) 6 humans and 2 elves. Easy-peasy. I love it. No crazy race to keep track of, no weird abilities I need to look up, no potentially game-breaking combinations I need to keep an eye out for.
The bonus feat is too good, according to my group. Everyone loves that feat. The two that picked elf - one simply loves elves cause they're elves - and the other is a rouge/wizard/arcane trickster.
I also personally like Humans, but I've had a Half-Orc before that I liked as well. I'll play an out-there race once in a while, but I enjoy races that look human as opposed to those that are...different. I don't particularly care for the way Kitsunes look, for instance.
the reason my bard was a Fetchling was because there was no "Shadow Nymph" for PCs, and the reason her oracle twin was an Angelkin was because there was no "Holy Nymph." those were the 2 most fitting equivalent races for the Sunset Sisters. i just played up the nymph blood as fluff.
I primarily play human. Anytime I go non-human it is a major struggle to get myself to do it. Usually I find the benefits of being human outweigh any vision concerns of other races. By mid-levels I can buy a Pearl of Power 2 for the party wizard to cast darkvision on me (assuming Im not already the party wizard).
However, there are rare occasions I choose a non-human. Flavor, mechanics specific to the class, or something that else outweighs the loss of not being human.
In any case, even if we do have a light source I don't usually find it a big deal. With all the noise we are creating what is a bit of light?
- Gauss
It's really just taste, not inherent to point buy. I do not recommend actively restricting other races by giving them fewer points; this will seem arbitrary and cause your players to resent you in a way that just banning something wouldn't.
If you want your groups to be mostly human, you have two better options: ask your players to play humans, or give humans some small (or large, if you want to go crazy) bonus; extra class skills might do it fine, based on their social class or background. Or go crazy and offer them a +1 to a second stat in addition to their +2 to any stat of their choice.
I find that humans are the majority here for sure.
As for myself, I dont care all that much for the human (nothing exiting about being average;)) I do, however measure just about anything up to the human. Would that treesinger be better as a human or an actual elf? does a human make a better nature oracle or does an assamar? The only reason I would not specifically look to the human is if something specifically forbids it. Mostly this is from a really cool favoured class bonus that I see. Example is that assamar I was talking about getting to increase her level by 1/2 for a single revelation. Even with these, I still tend to compare them. Does that hobgoblin make a better fell rider or that human with racial heritage? Hobgoblin gets a flat +4 and 1/2 level to intimidate... the human gets the floating bonus, going into either str or cha, an extra skill and some nice human only feats... sadly the human favoured class bonus is useless... I would probably go with the hobgoblin in this case just because of all those intimidate bonuses. Other times I end up just going with the human anyways :P
Occasionally I do chose something purely for flavour like the dwarven deep earth sorcerer just because it is so cool. That and the goblin sorcerer leader with leadership. Horde of goblins FTW!!!
Thanks for the input guys. I guess the people who have frequented my game groups over the last few years have been the exception rather than the rule.
I can't say I'm certain they choose races other than humans because of the point-buy boosts, but I can certainly say I've seen few role-play up the non-human racial aspects of their characters. I can think of 3 out of the 18 demi-humans I've seen run that played up the non-human side for flavor.
I find human PCs open a lot more story options up for NPC relationships, especially playing APs that do stay human-centric. Perhaps it's an opportunity to emphasize that they are a hodge-podge of races in a human-centric world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it certainly sounds like they're having fun and no matter what, that's really all that matters.