| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Human Barbarian with Superstition and the favored class bonus will outstrip the Dwarf on Saves against everything that actually matters.
umm... a human barbarian with superstition won't even tie a dwarf's racial +5 to saves (including glory of old and steel soul) until 8th level, and even then they only get that bonus when raging (while dwarves always get it) and they're prevented from being willing recipients of beneficial spells (while dwarves suffer no such restriction). then- a dwarf barbarian is in no way prevented from also taking superstition! the human favored class bonus won't catch up to the dwarven bonus in that case until 15th level, and at 20th is only +1 higher (which the dwarven +2 Wisdom cancels out).
i'm not trying to say the human/superstition build isn't a great option (possibly even the best option for that type of character), but if we're being honest its not nearly the clear-cut case you want to make it (and 'outstrip' is obviously far too strong a word given that they end up with the same bonus on will saves, just at different costs).
Perhaps, I was over strong in my wording. Still, the dwarf must spend a feat an extra feat to keep in their favor. And having it all the time versus while raging isn't really an issue either. Outside of being surprised the barbarian has enough rounds of rage to always be in rage to get the bonus.
I redact my outstrips. Ultimately the dwarve's save bonus with the feat versus the human with superstition and favored class bonus is a case where there is not a clear winner.
Even if human was unquestionably the best choice every time, why not pick something else to branch out?
Gary Gygax actually stated in the Player's Handbook for AD&D that the human was hands down the best race. So, basically its been that way since the begining.And your point? The setting is reflected and supported by the general mechanics.Yes, I believe Paizo designed humans to be an excellent choice in all circumstances. They may not the very best, but they're always a strong choice. And this was on purpose. Golarion is dominated by humans, and its supposed to be. The abilities of humans reflects their strength over other races.Except Golarion is not Pathfinder, Pathfinder is not Golarion. Golarion is a setting that happens to use the Pathfinder rules.Actually that's a pretty horrible way to build your game. "Hey dudes, this one race totally dominates everything and should be your go to, but I guess you can play one of those lesser races... I guess... I mean it won't be as good, but you know, you'll get to be a midget with hair problems."
I don't think that's how it was built. Has a lot to do with the way 3rd edition is. Humans being built for versatility really makes them a strong choice for everything, and the lack of flexibility and versatility in other races makes them not so hot choices.
I'm sorry I am not familiar with early editions, but wasn't that because humans were the only ones with classes beyond being their race as well as the ones that could level up all the way? That was more a question of poor game balance (and let's be honest here: everything I've heard of first edition makes it sound downright brutal; every forerunner faces its kinks)
Overall, I find that humans are usually the best if you go for a power build, but if you do not have any particular plans, other races are often better due to various resistances and senses, which are useful tools for a broad band of situations. You'll find more people swearing up and down that humans are the best on this board because...well...the people that hang around the advice board a lot are those that like to theorycraft. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but you must admit that the demographics are skewed.
Also, humans are freakishly boring. I try not to play them usually. I am a human, why would I want to pretend to be one when I have the option to play a gnome or an elf?
I actually don't like being an elf or any of the smaller races. Some people don't like to stray far from home, while others like being the half-nymph Ophidian or other crazy combination. One of my friends loves dwarves for just about anything. Everyone's different.
You'll find more people swearing up and down that humans are the best on this board because...well...the people that hang around the advice board a lot are those that like to theorycraft. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but you must admit that the demographics are skewed.
How dare people on the advice board give good advice based on mechanics and math! Yeah, tends to be skewed.
I'm very much in the minority because when I look at the core races on a mechanical level I'd never play a human. A bonus feat and extra skill points are very nice but the racial packages of the other races are far better in my mind. Now, I often do play human characters because I enjoy doing so.
You'll find more people swearing up and down that humans are the best on this board because...well...the people that hang around the advice board a lot are those that like to theorycraft. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but you must admit that the demographics are skewed.How dare people on the advice board give good advice based on mechanics and math! Yeah, tends to be skewed.
I'm simply saying that on every build thread you see that one guy that suggests a three class multiclass and a half dozen long feat tree, none of which involves the original class/build that was discussed. Heck, I've been that guy before. This is a melting pot to explore ideas. Still, can we say that we are an accurate swath of pathfinder players? While we might drool over the bonus feat and skill point, how many other players are psyched about free weapon proficiencies or SLAs?
Anyway, the ability to see in the dark or walk through fire without much trouble seems more immediately satisfying as bonuses than the long distant thought that you got further in a feat tree that would allow you to dominate. You more immediately notice that you could not have done something without those traits.
|
I'm very much in the minority because when I look at the core races on a mechanical level I'd never play a human. A bonus feat and extra skill points are very nice but the racial packages of the other races are far better in my mind. Now, I often do play human characters because I enjoy doing so.
I take the opposite look at it; being able to complete a feat tree for some awesome bonuses abilities anywhere from 1-5 levels sooner than anybody else is a big deal in my mind. That Human Fighter who can use Thunder and Fang at level 2 letting him TWF while keeping his shield bonus and using a 2d6 X3 crit weapon in one hand... Big deal. Being able to shoot accurately into melee with more attacks at lower levels... Big deal again. Being able to play a Cleric who can use Guided Hand and use Wisdom to hit with their melee attacks from level 1.... again, pretty big deal.
It comes down to build and background for me. I made a natural lycanthrope and that resolved to be an exiled ulfen (human) given their background. Another is a half-elf witch that can use paragon surge which can only target half-elves. I made a ratfolk witch because their racial favored bonus allows you to extend the range of hexes. I also set out to make a paladin that ended up being an aasimar because aasimar paladins are common among followers of Ragathiel, the Empyreal Lord.
It just depends.
Even from a power perspective... humans aren't always the clear cut choice. Half elves can get exotic weapon proficiency... which is very nice for some classes that start with a +0 bab (ewp requires +1) and if you are going that route anyway, you get some nice boosts for your trouble.
Dwarves are awesome all around... and perfect for clerics and inquisitors.
And really, most pure casters can handle not having the extra feat... so elves are a great choice for wizard. Aasimars make great oracles.
Really there aren't any core races that feel underpowered or unusable. I am playing a half orc right now, and I gotta say that it isn't the strongest choice but its not U.P.
Humans are just really well rounded.. there is no class that they are bad in... and that is kind of great. I actually like that human has become the most common race... because they are usually the most common in the game world
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans are overrated.
Sure, it's a great race, and usually among the top 3 best choices for any particular class... But the best all the time? Nope. Not even close, IMO.
Elves, Ratfolk and Tieflings often make better Wizards, Witches, Magi and Alchemists too.
If you plan on taking Iron Will at any point, half-elf is the superior choice, thanks to the Dual-Minded alternate racial trait and elven immunities/resistance, unless you need Iron Will as a prerequisite for something. So unless your really want that extra skill point, you're better off being a half-elf.
Dwarf is also a freaking good race. Lacking a bonus to Str may hurt a bit, but they more than make up for that with great saves and equally useful racial abilities... Darkvision is not to be underestimated.
Half-Orcs can get a +1 to all saves and Endurance as bonus feat. They also get Darkvision, access to a bite attack, proficiency with Falchions (quite possibly the best 2-handed weapon in the game!) and the possibility of getting Scent with a feat.
Halflings are pretty great if you don't mind the Str penalty. Especially now that they have access to 30ft movement speed. That +1 to all saves is amazing, and being small is often an advantage.
And of course, we have Aasimars... Who get all sorts of racial traits and no negative ability modifier.
And these are just the races I can remember of the top of my head...
Humans are far from being "always the superior choice". They are always a good choice, and that's great, but they are not even close to being always the best possible race. There are a few cases where they are the best choice, usually classes that are feat-starved and have few skill points per level, such as Paladins and Clerics.
Humans are a solid race choice, but they are fairly balanced with other races, especially Half-Orcs and Half-Elves..
Some races have great favored bonuses, others have access to great feats, and sometimes players want to roleplay another race. I'd say that a lot of classes do better as other races than human as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my home group, my hatred of 3.0/3.5/pathfinder/4e humans is a well documented fact. I understand the desire of a flexible race, I understand many people prefer humans. I just feel that humans have been designed to be a tad to flexible. Floating stat adjustment, bonus feat, bonus skill point. They can be pretty much whatever a person wants. Also the most hated statement in all RPGs for me is "Guess I'll go human for that bonus feat."
People have their preferences, and that's fine. But as a GM I'm far more lenient with the non-human races when it comes to making rules modifications to try something, including moving stat bonuses around to accommodate a player. I'd rather have a party of a Tiefling, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome and Catfolk then Four humans and the token demihuman.
Of course I've long since learned that seems to be the minority (from my experiences at least) and generally don't bring it up unless asked. Or threads like this.
Yeah I'm a major, major, major hater of humans in rpgs and most fantasy/ sci-fi books. Not the 'characters' mind you, just the overarching sense of superiority humans have over other races.
The are the 'balanced' choice but they are the boring flavorless choice.
I've said it before, I'm a human 24/7 in the real world, I'm also a very JADED human. To see the human race always having success against everything BUT other humans annoys me. And I'd rather be a catfolk. Cause catfolk are cool.
Truthfully if I could in the real world, switch my race to catfolk I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Anyways humans stink, and all the other races are cooler. Bottom line.
The are the 'balanced' choice but they are the boring flavorless choice.
Depends a lot on your author. Sometimes its deep into the idea that a human is a gnat in the universe or even the whole race means nothing, and others play up the humans are special approach, and others just see humans as a base and every other race as a demi-human. You won't see many were humans are the proud warrior race I'll bet though for example.
Remove spellcasting prerequisites from prestige classes and certain feats, and adopt the "use any race's favored class bonus" house rule mentioned above, and I'd wager you'd see a lot fewer aasimar.
Or just say, "That racial spell-like ability is not a second level spell. You get it at first level, so it can't be."
Until the blood of dragons trait came out I actually thought that human was among the worst races because of the lack of low-light or dark vision.
Now, with a trait that gets you a better vision human has indeed become a strong choice.
|
Depends a lot on your author. Sometimes its deep into the idea that a human is a gnat in the universe or even the whole race means nothing, and others play up the humans are special approach, and others just see humans as a base and every other race as a demi-human. You won't see many were humans are the proud warrior race I'll bet though for example.
Well, the primary feature of humans is typically adaptability. A human character has few preexisting connotations, whereas, say, a dwarf is assumed to be grumpy/greedy/stout/etc.
Basically everyone but humans lives on a planet of hats.
Depends a lot on your author. Sometimes its deep into the idea that a human is a gnat in the universe or even the whole race means nothing, and others play up the humans are special approach, and others just see humans as a base and every other race as a demi-human. You won't see many were humans are the proud warrior race I'll bet though for example.Well, the primary feature of humans is typically adaptability. A human character has few preexisting connotations, whereas, say, a dwarf is assumed to be grumpy/greedy/stout/etc.
Basically everyone but humans lives on a planet of hats.
Well, many races are built around the idea that they are a short hand for real world problems, tensions and dramas.
Half-orcs and tieflings carry with them the inescapable racial tensions and place as outsiders, for example. I also like Paizo's treatment of lizardfolk (although they are only vaguely a playable race within the rules) since it acts as a microcosm for a postcolonial perspective on the effects of Western Imperialism on...anywhere that isn't Europe really. For better or worse, many of the playable races bare the marks of real life human societies, cultures, and subcultures. This is because anything made by man carries the marks of mankind.
But I suppose that some people think this short hand is simply a crutch. And it may be...but they are for dealing with controversial issues within our own real lives. The small degree of separation from reality makes people more comfortable when exploring the topics, for both players and GM. I mean, it is much easier for the GM to have a racist NPC when it is against the person with daggers for teeth, rather than another human with a slightly darker skin color.
in 2E I ALWAYS played a 'demihuman'. My philosophy was that I'm always a human in all the OTHER games I play... in this one I want to be DIFFERENT.
For some reason I am 90% human in pathfinder...
I THINK it's based on where I want my character 'focus' to be....
If he's an 'elf-paladin'... then at least half of his backstory is on the elvish part and the powers inherent with the elf... when I really want the 'paladin' part to shine through....
Same with Time Oracle or Archaelogist... or pretty much most of my characers lately. I want the focus on the 'class' and not on the 'race'... I just find it diluting.
When I picked a gnome Archaelogist... I went full on playing the 'gnome' aspect with little real focus on the class...
So really, for me it's what makes the best 'character image' in my mind. I really want to try a dhampir at some point, and I'm itching to try pathfinder dwarf... But again... it's the race. I have no idea what class will be attached to them.
For some reason I am 90% human in pathfinder...I THINK it's based on where I want my character 'focus' to be....
If he's an 'elf-paladin'... then at least half of his backstory is on the elvish part and the powers inherent with the elf... when I really want the 'paladin' part to shine through....
Same with Time Oracle or Archaelogist... or pretty much most of my characers lately. I want the focus on the 'class' and not on the 'race'... I just find it diluting.
Yeah. One of my favorite characters is a Magus first, a Tian second, neutral good Cha 7 third. Being a beastmaster half-orc is really just a rules hack for the character.
Dwarves are better fighters/barbians; you can overcome the minor strength difference, but their saves and HP are the best come mid-level.I just have to respond to this because it's not true.
Human Barbarian with Superstition and the favored class bonus will outstrip the Dwarf on Saves against everything that actually matters.
Yeah, even saves vs their own parties buffing and healing. Superstition is a trap.