| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since human is so popular and then they take Dual Talent usually as well
If in your games they are taking it unilaterally how it is a raw deal?
Don't misunderstand me, I would never take it myself. But it seems like you are just having a problem in your home games of people being weird to anything that's not human. Also, what you completely miss is two fold. Number one, the race builder is terrible. Number two, flexible means you can create a race with +2 to any score when created. Humans can pick where to put their bonuses. Even in combinations other races don't have.
Honestly, if it a problem just treat dual-talented as not replacing skilled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you pick to play human in Pathfinder with the Dual Talent variant you get and incredibly raw deal. According to Creating New Races guidelines then Dual Talent humans get an RP score equivalent of only RP2. I'm not counting the 1RP from Linguistics trait as it's totally worthless unless you start the game with an int bonus higher than +7. If you don't then standard language quality will have the exact same effect.
This is in contrast to Dwarf which has RP11. Hell, every other class has at least RP9.
I've toyed around with letting players have free reign with Create-a-race rules able to go up to RP10 with human (No advanced nor monster traits) but half couldn't be bothered, the other half just came up with nonsense.
First of all, the 1RP Linguistics trait allows you to pick any language you want as your bonus language during character creation. A dwarf player must choose between the seven languages a dwarf is allowed to know. So there is a difference between the two if you got atleast +1 Mod Int.
For example, A dwarf with Int 12 couldn't choose Draconic as his extra language, but a human could.
And could you give us an example of the "nonsense" your players came up with? Did they design a race around their concept, maximizing their RP? Because that is exactly what usually happens.
Since human is so popular and then they take Dual Talent usually as well I'd like to give them a bit more while still being in the flavour of being a Human and not particularly like a Dwarf or Elf or any other distinct race. I would really like something that is a good balance between the all the main races so not too much like Orc, but a great role for any direction they may want to go unless they REALLY want to specialize.
This is more of a problem with your players than the human race if they're taking Dual Talent Human. The reason humans are popular is because of their bonus feat, so if you plan on switching it out then you are better off with another race.
Seriously. I have never played with anyone taking dual talent human.
So that's my Human Homebrew, a little bit of everything. Is this too much? Too good? I wouldn't actually mind it being the obvious choice, people assume every character is human anyway, and when it turns out they aren't I'm rather fed up of the "quirky zany racism lol" that happens every damn time.
Yes. This is too much. This is too good. I didn't even realize at first that you meant that the Human should get ALL of those traits in place of their usual ones. There are some traits that are strong, but you have implemented some that are just thematically hard to justify. Like Climb and Swim. A Climb/Swim speed implies that the creature has a natural affinity for Climbing/Swimming. I doubt a human has the same affinity for swimming as a fish, and climbing as a monkey.
I could deconstruct the rest of your traits and racial ability modifiers, but there is one major thing you have missed.
The creator are supposed to make the choices now, as the person who made the race. Not your players, who will play the race.
Flexible (2 RP)
The creator must choose the two ability scores to be modified. The only time it is the player's choice is when you're playing a human/half-breed.
Language Quality: Standard (0 RP)
The creator must pick out the seven languages they can choose from if they have high Intelligence. This is a restriction compared to the Linguist quality.
Skill Training (1 RP)
The creator must pick out the two skills which the race gains as class skills. If a player chooses a class which has both as class skills already, then this racial trait becomes worthless.
Spell Like Ability, Lesser (1 RP)
The creator must pick out the spell. This is also not a choice for the player.
Weapon Familiarity (1RP)
Yes. The creator must make the choice. Can you justify granting proficiency in a weapon to all humans? Are all human babies trained in the use of a bastard sword, regardless if they're raised by fishermen or hunters?
*****
And most importantly. RP is no good indication of how strong a race is. Everyone could come up with a disgustingly strong race with a 10 RP buy, even more so if they're designing the race around their character. But it is also possible to make a completely worthless race with a 20 RP buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the race builder was a mistake. RP values don't reflect power, so neither do RP budgets. The restrictions on who can take what seem extremely arbitrary. I couldn't recommend using it for any reason, least of all judging the relative power of races that weren't built with it, which isn't even it's intended purpose.
Almost every experienced GM, and all good ones, trash race points, generally with better systems. It might be interesting to get other GM systems posted and justified via peer review.
First off, I agree with the others that the race points sytem introduced in the ARG is terrible. Just don't use it.
I also agree with Wonderstell that your suggestion is too good. In addition, its all over the place.
For my own two cents, I feel that Dual Talented is fine (though I'd rather have the feat). I realize that isn't helpful for you though... I also feel that your description of 'zany racism' is a problem with your players and/or game and/or you. I might even be offended by it, depending on info I do not possess.
In a similar vein, I see quite a few odd notions in your posts. Dipping for a single spell, avoiding water and scaling walls, the idea that fighters should have stealth and monks heal etc. all seem weird to me. As if we're playing very different games.
In addition you're willing to basically hand any character any weapon they want from the get-go and apparently see no issue with it whatsoever while at the same time acknowledging that they should have a cost seems contradictory to me, not to mention will entirely defeat the point of weapon proficiencies tied to classes.
I would seriously suggest taking a closer look at your games. Then again, I've no right to say you're having fun wrong, so if you're enjoying what you're doing by all means continue!
If you and/or your players are really that bothered by it its probably easier to change all the races into human subcultures instead i.e. using Elf mechanics but still be Human etc. That way you circumvent the 'quirky racism', your players have all the options available, and you don't have to do anything because they're all relatively well balanced already.
The race builder can be a useful tool, but it's not a substitute for good design skill.
And I honestly can't say that it's a good design to give a racial swim speed to a race that exclusively lives on land and isn't physically evolved to be a swimmer. Humans are adaptable, but they can't mutate themselves to adapt to their environment like a Golarion elf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wonderstell
"Flexible (2 RP)
The creator must choose the two ability scores to be modified. The only time it is the player's choice is when you're playing a human/half-breed."I don't think it actually says that anywhere in the rules. It's quite clear from wording relating to other example classes that the player can pick where those ability scores go.
Modifiers: Members of this race gain a +2 to any single ability score of your choice during character creation.
Modifiers: Members of this race gain a +2 bonus to any two ability scores.
Compare the description of these two existing racial modifiers. Only the Human Heritage racial modifier mentions a choice. This is not open to interpretation.
Humans (and half-breeds) are the only races who can choose where to place their ability score bonus. The "Standard" Racial Ability Score Modifier which Dwarfs use has the same language as "Flexible", but you know that Dwarfs does not have a choice of where their ability score modifications are placed.
*****
"Language Quality: Standard (0 RP)
The creator must pick out the seven languages they can choose from if they have high Intelligence. This is a restriction compared to the Linguist quality."Oh wait, that's even better, so as a GM if every PC in the campaign is Human then I know if it isn't any of the 7 languages on my list I know they cannot know this language. Handy as sometimes I just want things to be said that they can't easily understand. I think being able to know any languages except secret languages is a bit much, you should be able to know the 7 most proximal languages other than common.
That is your choice to make, just make sure everyone knows that you nerfed the standard Human language ability. But they can still learn new languages through investing skill ranks into the Linguistics skill.
*****
"Skill Training (1 RP)
The creator must pick out the two skills which the race gains as class skills. If a player chooses a class which has both as class skills already, then this racial trait becomes worthless."I see that as pretty open to interpretation. My reasons still stand as to why to let it be open.
Same as above. This is not open to interpretation. My reasons still stand as to why to not let it be open.
Disproving example: Kobolds have the "Skill Training" racial trait, granting them Craft: Trapmaking and Stealth as class skills. The player does not make a choice.
*****
"Are all human babies trained in the use of a bastard sword, regardless if they're raised by fishermen or hunters?"
The racial stats are obviously for adults. Humans are obviously not born as medium sized creatures with 30ft of movement speed.
This is the compromise, Dwarves get to be proficient with about 11 weapons because of their race, Humans get only two but it could be any two.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have specified "babies". I meant just humans. Babies were unneccesary to that sentence.
And yes, Dwarves get to be proficient with 3 (pre-set) weapons because of their race. There is no "compromise" to be made when humans already have their own racial qualities.
I'd say it's part of the human condition that even a fisherman's daughter may become proficient with a duelling sword because that's what took her fancy and since she was little she practised with wooden swords in the style of a Duelling sword.
This implies that every human is trained in two weapons, regardless of gender/sickness/social status.
And what you are picturing here is feats. Feats representing someone's backstory. Are you going to force everyone who plays a human to have been brought up with martial training? Because that is the implication of this racial trait.
*****
And that point is? No, that point is still served, best weapons for fighter are still Martial weapons but offers way more flexibility for secondary options. Like their could never main as a Lassoo build, but it's a great flavour to have when the need arises. It's not going to change much, a rogue can more easily chose a longbow, things like that.
It's not like it isn't pretty common for races OTHER than human to subvert class proficiencies with racial proficiencies.
"In addition you're willing to basically hand any character any weapon they want from the get-go and apparently see no issue with it whatsoever"
What issue do YOU see with it?
Dude. Exotic weapons are waaaaay stronger that martial weapons.
Most are crap, some are... exotic. But the few great ones are basically a free Improved Critical. Falcata/Estoc being examples of such weapons.
*****
And humans are actually relatively good swimmers and climbers anyway.
...Yes. With training. You don't throw a 5-year old into a lake and expect him to have a NATURAL SWIMMING SPEED.
*****
"If you and/or your players are really that bothered by it its probably easier to change all the races into human subcultures instead i.e. using Elf mechanics but still be Human etc."
I don't have the time. Too many races.
Arcane Addict means that you simply allow your players to pick any race they want, but still say that they are humans. To avoid the "Zany Racism".
I second this. Much easier then trying to create a new race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If humans get a swim speed, then there's not really any reason why almost ANY race wouldn't get a swim speed. The same principle applies to climb speed. You're suggesting that a race should get movement speeds that are reserved for races that are physically evolved for it. It's ridiculous.
Humans already have alternate racial traits for getting Climb bonuses, Swim bonuses, and spell-like abilities. And those traits do a WAY better job of representing the fluff you claim you're trying to accomplish.
IF you want to give humans weapon familiarity, then you need to change the weapon prof rules.
Basically, creatures of other races get prof in weapons directly affiliated with those races. Humans have no such weapons...they use everything.
If you restyle Weapon Profs to cost SKILL POINTS, now you can throw in Weapon Familiarity. They get to pick any two weapons they are proficient in, like bonus skill points.
i.e. Martial Weapon Prof lets you spend skill points to become proficient in martial weapons. EWP lets you spend them to pick Exotics instead.
Give fighters and paladins all martials as normal, and barbs and rangers pick them equal to their starting skill points.
Other classes just pick from their weapon prof list equal to their starting skill points. If they want more, spend more skill points!
or, great idea, it actually makes proficiency in a lot of weapons valuable.
You get a few weapons at character creation, if you want more, pay for them.
makes skill points more valuable, too.
The fact it's blatantly easy to be proficient in a lot of weapons is another one of the things that devalues martial characters.
Human is actually the best race by a wide margin and you want to improve it further?
That said it's your game but if everyone is taking human MAYBE it's because it's already good, and has fewer limitations than other races. By improving it more you will only marginalize other races more.
P.S.
As everyone said don't use the amount of RP attributed to Humans as proof they are underpowered. Being able to choose which ability you want to improve with no negative counter is generally far more valuable than having two fixed ability improvements and one negative (good luck making a good dwarven paladin or oracle for example). Being able to choose ANY feat is one of the most powerful and useful racial traits around if not the most powerful and so on (to understand how good this is consider how dual talented, as good as it is isn't taken that often because you have to give up flexible feat...)
"Yes. With training. You don't throw a 5-year old into a lake and expect him to have a NATURAL SWIMMING SPEED."
I'm going to stop reading your comments if you keep bringing up obviously irrelevant examples. The racial stats obviously only apply to adults, it's explicit in the rules on ageing.
The "first time" was you reading far into my choice of vocabulary. I explained this earlier, so it is unfair to hold that against me.
Well, since you already came to the conclusion that granting Swim speed to humans is thematically bad, I don't really have to argue here. But I still feel as if I have to defend myself.
Humans have to learn how to swim. They do not have a natural affinity. (don't mention baby-pooling, not relevant) Swim speed on humans is completely illogical.
*****
"But the few great ones are basically a free Improved Critical. Falcata/Estoc being examples of such weapons."
Estoc has damn near identical stats to the Falchion, it's only really special for small-sized characters as 2d3 is pretty good. Falcata's 19-20/x3 is interesting but I can handle that. Crit range can't be made that huge and building on 1d8 has it starting from behind. That's just the sort of thing would make it EVER WORTH caring about Exotic Weapons. Anything less than that and what is there on offer other than what martial weapons have?
True, it seems as if I were misremembering the value of Exotic Weapons.
Other than that, as stated, you are cheapening the class restrictions on weapons by granting them proficiency in whatever they choose. This is very valuable for all those who AREN'T playing Fighters (which I often hear you mention in your posts, correct?).
*****
Flexible: Player gets to pick any two ability scores to get +2 each
Standard Language: GM presents 7 languages they could possibly know if they were very high intelligence relevant for the area of the campaign.
Skill Training: Player can pick any ONE skill to be treated as a class skill.
Weapon Familiarity: They can pick ONE weapon to be added to their list of proficiencies.
Climb: Have a 10ft climb speed
Flexible does still not do that. If you want to give them a new racial score modifier, fine. But don't call it Flexible.
*****
The final Option:
Spell Like Ability, Lesser: They can pick any one non-offensive Level 1 spell they can cast once per day
OR
A Bonus feat of their choice.
Now I can't accept the argument that spells are that much better than feats. It's not like wizard is strapped for feats, and gets way more spells. A single spell per day of their choice, wizards get spells too.
I don't believe anyone has mentioned anything about spells being better than feats?
*****
If you pick to play human in Pathfinder with the Dual Talent variant you get and incredibly raw deal. According to Creating New Races guidelines then Dual Talent humans get an RP score equivalent of only RP2. I'm not counting the 1RP from Linguistics trait as it's totally worthless unless you start the game with an int bonus higher than +7. If you don't then standard language quality will have the exact same effect.
The idea that urged you to give humans an undeserved buff is wrong.
This is still not what the Racial Score Modifier Flexible does, and you are basing your whole conjecture that "Humans must be underpowered" on the belief that everyone is taking the Dual Talent human. This is wrong on both accounts.
Why does your players all play humans? Is it maybe because the bonus feat often is stronger than what all other races has to offer? Why would you buff the race everyone is playing?
So what is it that you really want to change? Do you want to give extra options to your players through bonus proficiency/Class skills? Do you want to make climbing/swimming easier for the Heavy armor-wearing fighters? Do you want to rip off some of the caster's magic and grant it to everyone through spell-like abilites?
Whatever it is, I don't believe you have to change the Human race. You can just as easily just give everyone these extra qualities, regardless of their race.
Stock adventurers are too bad at basic climb checks, humans are remarkably good at climbing, not as good as a chimpanzee but better than almost all other animals. Climbing comes up too often in adventures and unless the adventurers have spent a lot of ranks they aren't very... adventurous. It's just not so great to have the final hour of a session be spent trying to get the group up a simple climb obstacle as moderate bad luck repeatedly sets back progress. Hence why I propose the absolute minimal climb speed of 10ft so we don't have the tedium of a high-dex character being able to leap off walls and over heads yet repeatedly fail the check to pull themselves up from a ledge.
You are aware your players are supposed to Take 10 on checks if they aren't in danger or risk failing with a 10, right? "moderate bad luck" shouldn't be a factor at all. Of course your players are failing climb checks if you're forcing unneccesary climb checks every 5 feet.
I mean, a guy with Climb bonus +5 would have a 16% chance to make every check to climb a 30ft DC 15 wall if you force all these checks on them. Normally, he wouldn't fail any check.
And have you tried climbing? 10ft climb speed is VERY fast. And all those high-dex characters shouldn't be able to heave themselves up ledges so easily. Climbing is based on strength for a reason.
Seriously. Invest one skill rank if it's a class skill. Buy a climber's kit for the whole party. Take off your armor to avoid ACP and either pull it up through throwing a rope to the ones already up, or just carry it on you.
*****
Heirloom weapon has been nerfed. I belive you are looking at the previous version. The new version only gives proficiency in that specific weapon (meaning, if you lose it then you're screwed).
*****
There are traits people can take to gain skills as class skills with extra bonuses as well. I think this should be an option baked into being a human.
Yeah, sure. A buff to the human. Nothing big, just something to represent their ability to adapt. It works.
The dynamic between "+2 to any two ability scores" with Bonus feat vs SLA: The "+2 to any two ability scores" is so invaluable not only for all the different possible classes but also the styles within each classes. Because people generally pick class first and race second and I think that's reasonable.
Humans does not need a buff.
The +2 to any one ability score is already what makes the human good for every class. This change would only make the humans better. Which they don't need. They are already the best race.
You should just forget about this idea. Your whole reasoning was based on misinterpreting the race creator.
I think the choice should be between bonus-feat and spell-casting, that is an interesting choice. Combative classes may still choose a feat as it's something they can usually use multiple times per day while a caster may still choose a SLA as it allows them to always have a backup spell avoiding verbal, somatic and material components. Like for example obscuring mist, they could cast that even if paralysed, something that would be way too costly to consider otherwise.
I don't know how you haven't come across this earlier. But the bonus feat is what makes the human race attractive.
Yes. The martials may still choose a feat as it's very valuable to them.
But yeah, casters will probably also choose the feat. Feats are a very valuable resource regardless of what class you are playing, and for some reason I get the feeling you think casters don't need them as much?
I mean, even if you implement this choice between Feat and SLA, only the class which bathes in extra feats (namely fighter) would consider taking the SLA. So do it. It's harmless as long as your players have a choice between the normal benefit and the SLA.
I very much want to break the casters' monopoly on spells, especially after I have seen how most have used that monopoly to make games quite unpleasant, i.e. arbitrarily withholding casting ability from other PCs. I want to definitely diversify options on spellcasting. It's not like casters don't already have an incredible lead on things like this will leave casters without their other incredibly powerful capabilities.
This isn't the game's fault. This is a problem with your players, same thing as the "Zany Racism". Pathfinder is about teamwork, and if your group is too immature to accept the fact that they are in this together, then maybe you should try to explain this to them. The "Lone Wolf" character doesn't belong in a group, so why would they ever join one?
And have you considered the Casters' side on this? Was it really just "I have spells and I'm a jerk", or was it "No, I won't heal you since you robbed that old man and burned down an orphanage"? If the other players disrespected the caster (in-game) then I don't see why the casters would gladly use their spells on the martials.
And spells are a finite resource. You can't expect the wizard to use all his spell slots on buffs, since he may want to be something more than the "Party Buffing Machine". Forcing a playstyle on your players is never cool.
*****
To summarize:
Your players should take 10 instead of rolling for every climb/swim check. This is the reason climbing/swimming has been hard for your group. Because you're making it hard.
HUMANS DOES NOT NEED A BUFF.
Normally can't take a ten in initiative, and you can't end initiative if enemies are still around doing stuff. I mean it's precisely when I want to have interesting climb obstacles which is when there is time pressure. Otherwise it's not a very interesting challenge to have a cliff with any sort of time critical element being ruled out.
Then this is a problem which is caused by your choices as a GM. Granting everyone a +8 to climb/swim makes less sense than simply lowering the DC of your combat-climbing.
*****
"The +2 to any one ability score is already what makes the human good for every class. This change would only make the humans better. Which they don't need. They are already the best race."
Your opinion is duly noted.
I disagree. So unless we can get beyond opinion vs opinion...
"You should just forget about this idea. Your whole reasoning was based on misinterpreting the race creator."
Which I'm not using any more and I thought humans were weak even before seeing the racial points scores.
Now, there are many people who can tell you that the human race does not need a buff, but I have a feeling you'll disregard the majority as a minority.
But why do you feel the need to buff humans if everyone is playing them? Why humans specifically? Why not simply say: "Hey, yeah. So in addition to your traits when making a character, you can also choose a class skill and one weapon to be proficient in. Regardless of race."
It's your choice to make if you want to grant everyone a buff, but why make it human exclusive? If you don't want your players to choose any other race than human, just tell them that. Don't grant your players a false choice by making humans the obvious choice.
Your problem here is that you have some general mechanics issues- Exotic Weapons, Climb/Swim, Casting vs Martials- and you are trying to fix them by buffing the race that is GENERALLY considered to be the best race in the game. This is not the best way to fix those problems, and is confusing the issue.
Because even of just the core races humans are obviously lacking
No they aren't? Humans are one of the strongest and most ubiquitously effective races in the game and are completely competitive with elves and even with higher RP races like aasimar and fetchlings. Better than quite a few of them even.
"but I have a feeling you'll disregard the majority as a minority. "
As the minority has a right to do, the majority isn't a license to tyranny. Democracy is a bit more subtle than decreeing who is the majority from a small sample and acquiescing to it. That is... if you were channelling democratic fervour. And my table isn't exactly feeling that humans are showing much of that flexibility with just +2 to any 2 ability scores or a bonus feat. If there's any democracy it's my party voting for something more interesting and to deal with the problems we've encountered.
You mean that the ability to choose where you'll place your ability score increase, your bonus feat, and your skill ranks isn't proof of the human's flexibiilty?
All three basic racial traits can be applied exactly as the player want. All three basic racial traits are actually screaming of flexibility.
The human race is only weak IF YOU'RE PLAYING DUAL TALENT HUMAN.
But to add yet more reasons, it makes sense to buff the class people are using, it's not going to pressure them to change to another class when they are choosing human for reasons such as they have a much better idea of what humans are and want to focus on class and cultural elements.
Race. Not class. The word you're looking for is race.
...What? Pressure them to change to another race?
I'm worried about your players being FORCED to play humans, simply because you're giving humans so much free abilities. You're basically planning to give humans two extra feats, one extra trait, and climb speed? You are restricting your player's choices by making one of them the obvious one.
Because even of just the core races humans are obviously lacking.
No. Just no.
You are not Galileo Galilei. You are not presenting some kind of paradigm shift that the rest of the world won't accept because of their inability to understand. You are simply wrong.
Could you please ask your players how many of them are playing humans, and how many of them are playing Dual Talent human?
The human race is only weak IF YOU'RE PLAYING DUAL TALENT HUMAN.
Actually, not even then.
Let's say I need an unusual stat adjustment. There's an obvious example (especially given where I lurk the most on these boards) in the Kineticist. Kineticist live off of Con + Dex. So, let's look at the races considered absolutely best for Kineticist and compare to dual-talented human.
Hobgoblin: You lack Darkvision and Sneaky, but gain all the human feats and the extra wild talent FCB.
Caligni: No see in darkness, but you aren't allergic to light and have, again, the human benefits. As an added bonus you basically have Skilled since you have no int. drawback. One of the absolute best Kineticist races, and you beat it out on anything except void.
Merfolk: You are giving up a lot here, but can walk.
Two of extra racial traits are watered down mundane traits, really you must realise the Skill Training is just a single skill of their choice only without any bonus. Also weapon familiarity is only one weapon and again like several traits. Climb speed of 10ft without a +8 racial modifier only increases reliability of climbs and speed a little bit.
Weapon Familiarity isn't what you are giving away. You are giving away a weapon proficiency feat.
And are you refering to "mundane" traits or racial traits the second time you use the word "traits"? Because there is no trait which simply grants you proficiency in any weapon you choose. And certainly not several.
*****
"You're basically planning to give humans two extra feats, one extra trait, and climb speed?"
No, there is no way you can get three feats with this proposed homebrew.
THEN they can chose a bonus-feat OR a spell like ability. How you count that as "two extra feats" on top of regular human, I don't know.
Let's count them then.
+2 in one ability score
Skilled
Bonus Feat
Switched for
+2 in two ability scores.
That's one feat counted for.
Weapon Proficiency.
That's the second.
Bonus feat (or SLA)
That's the third.
*****
Lets start again from the top. Dual Talent sucks, I know I'm not alone in that so lets just make that the baseline for human and adds some more. At best it is as good as other races who have a whole load of other stuff. So lets give them some other stuff, things my party have found lacking.
I thought the whole basis for your post was that you assumed everyone took Dual Talent human. That you thought Dual Talent human was the best option for humans, and therefore thought humans were weaker than other races.
Are you now saying that you knowingly compared a weaker version of the human with other races and deemed it in need of a buff because of that reason?
That is madness.
As people keep telling you, your premise is completely wrong: HUMANS ARE NOT A WEAK RACE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY ONE OF THE STRONGEST IF NOT THE STRONGEST IN THE WHOLE OF PATHFINDER.
Yet, you insist they need a buff (no, several buffs, some of them pretty huge too). Fact is they don't need a buff and you somehow sound jealous other races in PF get something useful for themselves too. Want a human to have extra weapon proficencies? Choose "Adoptive Parentage" and give away your extra feat (a terrible trade, but if your realy want this you have the option for it). Want humans to be better at swimming? Invest in Heart of the Sea but give away skilled, and so on.
Human race has more options than other races but AS EVERYONE ELSE DOES has to trade away something in order to get something else. This is perfectly fine BECAUSE:
A) Everyone else does so.
B) As said time and time again Human is the best core race and it's on part (or even better) with powerful races such as Aasimar and Tiefling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
honestly, this isnt even really worth discussing. the OP has an opinion that they came in here with, is not going to change it, despite reasonable arguements to the alternative. its just going to devolve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but you really want to BUFF humans? Honestly, I know people who flat out refuse to play any other race simply because of how powerful that +2 to any stat and that extra feat are.
.
Some points I'll mention about what I've seen in the thread:
1) As stated above, you seem to have weapon familiarity and weapon proficiency confused. Earlier you used an example of every dwarf having proficiency in dwarven weapons... except that it's not true. A Dwarf's weapon familiarity makes them treat exotic dwarven weapons as martial weapons - meaning that any dwarf that's spent enough time training to learn martial weapons would have also encountered those weapons related to their race, whereas other races wouldn't have common access/training with such weapons. A Dwarf wizard by comparison still can't wield any of the Dwarven weapons because he hasn't been training in weapons (no martial weapon proficiency).
What you are proposing for humans is to say that every human is automatically skilled in the use of whatever weapon they happened to fancy, regardless if they're a fighter who trains with weapons daily or a bookworm wizard that, well, doesn't. I can understand being frustrated with the difficulty of Exotic weapons (I share it & my homebrew pantheon specifically has more exotic favored weapons to encourage their use). But at this point, you'd be better off just removing weapon proficiency entirely from your game as a house rule. As it is, you're giving humans a proficiency that doesn't make sense thematically & unfairly boosts them (even more) ahead of other races if it's limited to them.
Otherwise... with your current rule - every human, even if they're a simple merchant, bureaucrat, or petty laborer, should be pulling out crazy exotic weapons left and right because, "it looked interesting when I was a kid, so I instantly became proficient at using it."
2) Regarding climb speed, so far your only real example to support this was "how good our hands are at grasping." However, this is true of nearly all humanoid races within the Pathfinder system. There is no reason to suggest that a human would be innately more skilled in this when compared to something like an Elf (typically grow up in forest area with more climbing opportunities than an average human village) or an Orc (same hands, better strength to lift themselves up).
Honestly, humans aren't even that great at climbing compared to other animals (just think of something like a spider or a squirrel) and are certainly not amazing at doing so while being threatened, which seems to be what you're aiming for in your campaigns. A climb speed suggests that climbing is so natural to the creature that it can easily do it while focused on other tasks (like we can with walking). However an average human (especially without experience/skill points in climbing) simply can't do that. It's not (too) hard when we have proper time to focus on it (take 10), but again, that's not what is happening when you're trying to climb with dangerous things happening around you. And as for the Unchained Climb that you're looking at, that only gets unlocked after having 10 ranks in climb, meaning someone who has spent a significant amount of time and effort developing that skill not an average person.
3) Regarding Linguistics. Right off the bat it seems suspicious that you say it's, "totally worthless unless you start the game with an int bonus higher than +7." Well yes, as are all the other language options that can be selected. Honestly, I thought two things when I saw this; that you're expecting your average PC to have dumped INT (which may be telling of your group) and that you're trying to drop the race points used so you can cram in more features (bad design).
The idea behind humans being able to learn a wider variety of languages is simply pointing towards how common humans are in most settings. They're multicultural, can fit in with a lot of groups/roles, and as a result it makes sense for them to have a wider variety of available languages when compared to races that typically only live in certain regions/environments.
While you showed some excitement for being able to limit what languages humans started with as being common to the region - it's much easier to just tell players what languages are common in the setting before session one. For example, before the campaign I'm running now, I sent out a document to all players regarding character creation. In that document I specifically stated what the common races+languages were in the region to help any players that wanted to be linguists, have favored enemies, etc. And unsurprisingly, the player that wanted to be especially social took languages from the list I gave them so that'd they'd have more opportunities to actually use them.
4) Regarding ability scores. Humans are already incredibly good due to their flexibility of getting a +2 to a stat with no drawbacks. While dual talent is considered subpar as a result of giving up a feat, without that loss it's significantly better than any other race. Most of the common PC races give +2 physical ability score, +2 mental ability score, and -2 ability score. So comparatively, you just want to give humans +2 to any two stats they like (even if both physical/both mental) without the -2 drawback or any other drawback...
5) Regarding the spell-like ability. This makes little sense thematically, as it implies that humans as a race are not only innately magical, but even more innately magical than most of the other races (considering they get to pick from such a wide variety of spells). Your arguments for this have been that some spells are useful for maritals (which is why we have a variety of martial/magic hybrid classes and most spells can be used by teamwork from the mage + the martial), and that you want to give non-casters some limited magic (which can already be done via traits without re-theming an entire race).
However, if you really want to make a setting where humans are just an innately magical species (though I personally wouldn't see them as very human anymore) - the very least you could do is to make a small, set list of spells that humans would be able to use rather than just saying they pick whatever.
6) Why did you get rid of the human's skilled trait? Additional skill ranks every level may not be flashy, but it's both good + suits the theme of humans being the skilled/flexible race.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand you, Alex Trebek's Stunt Double, and I think that is mutual. Thats acceptable. What I do have issue with is you asking for our opinions only to turn defensive and dismissive when we give you those opinions. You haven't shown much if any willingness to consider our insight, advice and suggestions at all, rather you chose to spend your energy and time defending your own ideas. If you really wanted our advice, you have now wasted it. If you were actually looking for our approval, you must see by now you're just not going to get it. You've wasted our time and yours.
I'm not trying to be a dick here, though I've likely failed, I'm actually still trying to help you, even though it doesn't concern Pathfinder anymore. I've told you all of this, with all the clarity I could muster, hoping you'll realize that you can re-examine your approach and achieve better results in the future.
Best of luck to you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
honestly, this isnt even really worth discussing. the OP has an opinion that they came in here with, is not going to change it, despite reasonable arguements to the alternative. its just going to devolve.
You are probably right but that doesn't change the fact his opinion is wrong and presented poorly besides.
-He claims humans need a buff because they are weak. This is patently false as humans are acknowleged as the strongest all around core race by a wide margin.
-He wants to give humans stuff like +2 in TWO different ability scores of their choice since he thinks dual talented (as an alternative racial trait) is weak. First of all that's an OPTION and it's by no means mandatory. Second it's only weak because you have to give away the best human racial feature (an extra feat) but it's actually great to have on certain builds. So he's wrong again.
-He claims he wants to give humans magical powers in order to reduce the gap between martials and casters. But that doesn't even make sense. A human might be a wizard as well as a fighter, so by buffing humans with magical abilities he would end potentially buffing casters even more. Besides a dwarven barbarian or an elven rogue would not get any benefits from this human only buff despite neither being casters. So even this opinion doesn't hold water.
-He wants to give humans proficency with one weapon of their choice. This actually buffs casters more than martials because they don't have access to many weapon proficencies. He also overstimates the effects of racial proficencies with their own set of weapons a great deal and downplays the ability to choose a weapon. As most of us know in PF you specialize in ONE weapon (possibly 2 if you want to build a switch hitter, but it will be les effective in one field because splitting feats among different weapons is not a good idea in PF), so getting a proficency in one weapon of your choice is all you really need. Also it's not clear why humans would "need" this improvement considering they can simply take Adoptive Parentage if the player thinks he needs some exotic racial proficencies.
-He keeps mentioning how other races get a lot of stuff. But he never mentions what this stuff is, and as most of us know most of that "stuff" is situational at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
honestly, this isnt even really worth discussing. the OP has an opinion that they came in here with, is not going to change it, despite reasonable arguements to the alternative. its just going to devolve.You are probably right but that doesn't change the fact his opinion is wrong and presented poorly besides.
Very true, but you're not going to change is mind. and no one else is agreeing with him. its pretty obvious that he's the only one who thinks this way, and if you cant change his mind, why bother arguing? Like i said, it'll just devolve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giants aren't that situational. Darkvision is technically situational
You wut mate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I normally don't contribute much to these threads, but I do read through them a lot. This one seems to have gotten rather... tense.
I would just like to communicate my experience. I normally GM, and most of the time, out of the 4 players, 3 or 4 of them are humans. I asked about this trend to understand exactly why.
One said that he has trouble RPing something that is not human. *shrug* OK, I get that, I don't think it matters much, but it is his character. The other three said it is definitely for the feat, skill, and +2 to any stat. Purely mechanical point of view. My inner engineer finds that answer satisfactory.
That said, I think that adding anything to the human's list of racial traits is completely unneeded.
Changing the bonuses to their stat array seems a little off as the defining trait of humans and half human races is that +2 to any stat.
The extra skill points they get is already good, and adding any extra skills to their list of class skills is already easily accomplished with traits. Heck, if the class has enough points to take advantage of all of this, the extra +3's can start to add up like take the Additional Traits Feat or Skill Focus.
The extra weapon proficiency just seems like a bad idea. It would definitely make it very easy for anyone to carry Repeating Crossbows, Composite Longbows, Falcatas, or any other powerful weapon.
Honestly the rest doesn't make any sense. I really don't mean to sound harsh. The tone I want to have is someone trying to calmly convince you that you are mistaken.
I understand the Dual Talent thing seems a little off, but for a character that isn't trying to use feats to get an idea online as fast as possible, this could help shore up a build that benefits from two high stats.
Best wishes fellow forum goers.
You are probably right but that doesn't change the fact his opinion is wrong and presented poorly besides.What?
Half of what you said is poorly presented as you don't give a reason why I am wrong, you just say I am wrong. And I don't think I can remember anyone ever saying an opinion is factually wrong without being deeply ironic. Opinions cannot be wrong. The factual basis to opinions can be wrong and you could undermine that if you like.
"humans are acknowleged as the strongest"
By who? Weasel Words.
"He wants to give humans stuff like +2 in TWO different ability scores of their choice"
And a -2 to any ability score. Also the further limitation that one has to be a mental stat, the other to a physical stat. So in that capacity, a nerf. If they want a +2 in any two ability scored now they cannot both be physical or both mental and they have to take a -2 somewhere.
You've talked me into a nerf.
"A human might be a wizard as well as a fighter, so by buffing humans with magical abilities he would end potentially buffing casters even more."
Okay this is actually getting towards a reason and I'm happy to discuss this. I think I may be able to dissuade you.
How much better is it, really, for a caster to have ONE more spell that is ONLY self-targeting? Not much at all really. But just one spell can make a huge difference for any other non-caster class such as a Rogue always being able to fall back on Vanish. Spell Like Ability doesn't buff casters where they DON'T need buffs, i.e. at higher levels where they cast world ending spells but gives them a little help at early levels.
Just one spell that they can always reply on goes so much further for a non-caster as for a caster.
"He wants to give humans proficency with one weapon of their choice. This actually buffs casters more than martials because they don't have access to many weapon proficencies."
It's almost as if the "HE HATE'S CASTERS!" jibe DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
Why does it not...
Ok last post in this... "thread".
Your "opinion" is on factual matters here and it's simply wrong, period. I tried to explain why, and I'll try once more.
-Humans are aknowledge to be the strongest core race by a lot of people: basically everyone who posted here for example, but that may be just a grand demi human conspiracy out to get you so, go on, try checking with the boards, ask around a bit more, maybe try to browse some online guides to classes... you'll discover how human is rated with pratically every pathfinder class (flash hint: the best race or one of the best races for each class... but don't believe me, check it out please).
-First of all you started this thread by mentioning your "oh so ballanced house rule about giving humans +2 +2 to any stat of their choice. Recently you added a -2 to another stat of their choice. Now you claim it's a nerf. Well, it's not: depending on class there will always be "dump stats". A fighter dumps cha most of the time, a wizard dumps str. Fact is demi humans can't choose where to put their +2. So a dwarf certainly makes a great druid, depending on how you want to play him he makes a good cleric (note how that -2 to cha limits one of the class features?), a dwarf certainly makes a good melee fighter and a good barbarian. Want to play a dwarf as a wizard? Not so good. Want him to be a paladin? He'll be subpar.
Now humans? Humans don't have that problem, they can always choose what's best and tailor their build on the class they want to play. That's a huge advantage. And you want to improve it further. Do you understand why you are wrong? I doubt it.
-One more spell might make little difference for a caster, it doesn't give a huge advantage to a martial. Vanish is something a rogue can get on its own (by level 4), if you give it to everyone you actually cheapen it. And besides that you haven't explained why this sort of buff would need to be limited to humans, if you want this change to improve the martial lot then why human only?
-Now casters need help at low levels... what about... NO? Casters are vulnerable at low levels but only if badly played. Having stuff like color spray is a game changer at level 1. Also note that I never said you hate casters, I actually believe you hate all races not human... and I think this hate to be based on wrongful assumptions and a bad understanding of the game.
-You might have missed the part where you have to forego the extra feat for Adoptive Parentage. It's a bad trade but if you really want it you have the option for it. fact is you don't want to trade something, you want humans to have straight buffs and again they are unneeded (see above for the reason). The fact that a repeater xbow is nice for a wizard means nothing. So what? A wizard doesn't need that proficency. And if your rationale is that "it would be nice for x class to have access to x stuff" (only if human, of course) then a lot of classes would like to have access to a lot of stuff (stuff they don't need btw).
-The last part is just hilarious.
Statwise a dwarf gets: +2 to con and wis -2 to cha. Several people here already explained why this is worse than +2 to a single ability score.
Then Dwarves get:
Defensive Training: Dwarves gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype.
Hardy: Dwarves gain a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison, spells, and spell-like abilities.
Stability: Dwarves gain a +4 racial bonus to their Combat Maneuver Defense when resisting a bull rush or trip attempt while standing on the ground.
Greed: Dwarves gain a +2 racial bonus on Appraise checks made to determine the price of non-magical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones.
Slow and Steady Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.
Stonecunning: Dwarves gain a +2 bonus on Perception checks to notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking.
Darkvision: Dwarves can see perfectly in the dark up to 60 feet.
Hatred: Dwarves gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes.
Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves are proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers, and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon.
Of these: defensive training is hugely situational (despite what they might have told you giants are not the most common type of enemy you might enconter... unless you are playing a campaign tailored against giants, so this is the very definition of "situational ability" since you might very well play a campaign without a single giant in it)
Hardy is a great ability to have, hands down the best racial ability dwarves get. No discussion here.
Slow and steady: actually a non situational penalty. Mobility is very important in PF, and dwarves are slower than most other races. The fact they don't get slowed down further is small consolation, as no matter what you play moving will always be an important part of your character's actions.
Stability: situational, bull rush isn't a maneuver that happens all that often.
Greed: basically a non entity. +2 to appraise and only precious metals and gemstones is something that doesn't really matter. At all.
Stonecunning: A decent ability to have but nothing fancy. And situational.
Darkvision: Now, this is NOT situational. Sooner or later you'll have to fight in the dark, and having darkvision makes a huge difference on how well you can do it. Of course depending on your GM and his willingness to implement lighting rules this might be an important ability to have or not, but it's noce to have.
-Hatred: see "defensive training" situational again.
-Weapon familiartity: so all dwarves can use an waraxes, warhammers and heavy picks! Incredible! I wonder what good this will be for a dwarven wizard! Martials get proficency with a bunch of useful weapons too (only classes with access to martial weapons though) but as explained previously they won't be using all of them, just a one. And btw dwarven weapons are mostly melee weapons, and they are not that better compared with normal martial weapons. So good to have but nothing awesome and certainly not something every class might want to have.
So to summarize Dwarves get one great ability (hardy) and another pretty decent one (darkvision), along with a major penalty to movement and a bunch of very situational if flavourful abilities.
By contrast humans get to adapt their choices to teh class they want to play in a much more efficent way: they can put their +2 to stats where it matters, they can choose an extra feat to complement their build better than dwarves choosing what they like. They don't have a penalty to movement, they get more skills per level and therefore if they want they can even dump int with less repercussions than other races. Above all they are NEVER situational unless their player makes situational choices.
Using Dwarves as an example of situational racial benefits:
In the Runelords AP, a dwarf would be very useful. Goblins and Giants occur, the latter repeatedly. You dungeon dive a few times, too.
Second Darkness? No goblins. No giants.
The desert AP? One or two giants, maybe? no goblins, no orcs...gnolls.
Serpent Skull? No goblins, no giants, no orcs.
Curse of Crimson Throne? No giants to speak of (1-2?), no goblins, no orcs.
Council of Theives? No goblins, no orcs, maybe a giant or two?
Jade Regent: Goblins all the way until the end. A few giants. No orcs.
Carrion Crown: No goblins, no orcs, no giants.
Giant Slayer: Well, how de do...orcs AND Giants. Imagine that.
Shattered Star: I don't remember orcs or goblins, but giants do pop up. Runelord AP.
Wrath of Righteous: No goblins or orcs, might be some demonic ogres/giants.
..and so forth and so on. Unless the AP is built specifically for it, dwarven combat racial benefits are hugely situational, and just don't come up often except in AP's built specifically to take on a specific kind of foe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To try to move this tread along I will try to interpret your above message in my own words.
1. You want humans to be a more interesting choice, which is why you are changing their racial features.
2. Choosing one class skills at character creation in exchange for +1 skill point a level is a nerf in your opinion.
3. You want more variation in weapons in your campaign, and believe that while this is a buff, it is inconsequential to the power level of the campaign, and serves more to add flexibility to characters.
4. You are confused as to the reactions of other posters in this tread, but are open to further commentary.
> END OF TRANSLATION <
Please excuse any thumb typos from my phone
Hopefully everyone had a good weekend.
But I will say it IS needed to make human a more interesting choice.
OK, I think I understand your mentality about this whole thing a bit better. Would it be incorrect to say that it isn't so much 'better' traits you were wanting but perhaps more 'interesting' or perhaps 'diverse'?
It might take a bit of work, but if I had to redo racial traits for humans I would probably create some traits that every human had then have some traits that varied based on what region/nation/etc. that they were born/raised in. That would diversify humans from all other races as well as humans from other areas without just giving them a blank slate of feats and stat bonuses to pick.
It's a substitution. Instead of +1 EVERY LEVEL it's INSTEAD only an extra class skill at level. Because that's what my players complain about. They want to be creative in their classes and are tripped up at the last hurdle by lack of a critical class skill to help them get started off.
Ah. Hmm, if they were looking for just that one more class skill inclusion to make some ideas mesh, would it be easier to just give everyone a freebie? Heck, maybe even slightly modify the background skills section from Unchained.
Good. I want it to be easy for them to carry those weapons.
Sounds cool to me then. My normal games are definitely a little in the high power end, so this sounds good to me. Ever thought of using weapon group proficiency to enable the use of not only the exotic weapons but also a larger variety of weapons?
Could you possibly explain the flaw in my reasoning?
Not so much of a flaw but to me it just seems like our ideas of a human in this fantasy world are probably a little different. To me the spell like abilities of races are tied to something inherently different from the baseline human. Inclusion of the option of a spell like ability seems much more in line with a non-standard race or class ability.
Black Tentacles is game changing. It's the high level spells that worry me about game balance.
Not sure if you have tried it, but Spheres of Power has done a fairly good job of this.