Author Topic: Best "Human" Race?  (Read 6807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kevin_video

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4833
    • Email
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2010, 06:51:26 PM »
Favored classes, even when enforced, are a minor thing anyway.  Though you can build around them, being a human is slightly convenient in that regard.

As it stands, a Pathfinder human with +2 to a stat, +1 feat, and, at each level, an extra skill point is well worth the race.  Why?  Sucky prerequisites.
Half-elf has +2 to any stat, the feat is Skill Focus, and at each level can choose either an extra skill point or an extra hit point. Plus the low-light vision, the bonus to spot and listen (now perception), elven immunities, and count as elves for exotic elven gear (as well as bad things too).
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God.

Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one.

Jopustopin

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2010, 06:53:56 PM »
So, back to my earlier question. Why is it that we have three bases Human races, and not just one?

We just have one base human race in my campaign.  But then we play 3.5 and not warcraft or pathfinder.
Why can't the 3.5 human just have +2 to any stat and not lose the 3 additional skill points at 1st? There's no "any favoured" anymore so the human loses that point right there. So in the point based system, it loses 2 points, but gains back 1 for the +2 to any stat. Making it worth 5 points instead of 6. The Warcraft human has lots of additives, including the half-elf skill bonuses, and a bonus save against fear. Not to mention the bonus against orcs.

Because the people who made 3.5 didn't think it was balanced to give a race +2 without also giving them a -2.  Further, in real life, we're humans.  We like to imagine that being human means being the most 'average.'  All the other races are defined in relation to the human. Elves are more graceful (than humans) but they are pansies (compared to humans).  +2 dex, -2 con.  To conclude: the reasons are two fold. 1) no +2 without a -2 (Level adjusted races are exceptions).  2)Humans have 'average' stats because we arbitrarily chose humans in this way.  If we had chosen elves it becomes clear humans would have had +2 con -2 dex (man are humans clumsy!).

Now, would it be too powerful a race to also give them the +2 to any stat? Is that +1 against orcs really necessary?
Simple answer? No it wouldn't be too powerful.  More likely no one would even notice it.  I have friends who play with a 45 point buy system and love playing the 'hero' type.  I slightly lean towards having lower stats, but I like to run my campaigns as rags to riches style; although I have heard several really convincing arguments that low stats generation favor SAD tier 1 classes thus giving them another edge over their already handicapped lower tier comrades.  I honestly don't think you'll ever notice +2 to any stat.  Go for it; do what feels right and provides the most fun for you and your friends.  Why even listen to anything we have to say. 

Furthermore Mongrelfolk are fucking awesome.  Think about a Mongrelfolk Warblade.  Concentration to all saves?   d12 hit points +con modifier hit points.... how would you kill this guy? 

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2010, 07:08:43 PM »

Furthermore Mongrelfolk are fucking awesome.  Think about a Mongrelfolk Warblade.  Concentration to all saves?   d12 hit points +con modifier hit points.... how would you kill this guy?  
Dragonborn lesser ooze paragenasi.  Duh.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Maat_Mons

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2010, 07:13:58 PM »
Why can't the 3.5 human just have +2 to any stat and not lose the 3 additional skill points at 1st?

In 3.5, having 4 extra skill points at 1st level means being able to have a modifier of 4 + ability for 1 extra skill.  In Pathfinder, having 4 extra skill points at 1st level means being able to have a modifier of 4 + ability for 4 extra skills.  In Pathfinder, having 1 extra skill point at 1st level means being able to have a modifier of 4 + ability for 1 extra skill.  So, 1 extra skill point at 1st level in Pathfinder is about as good as 4 extra skill points at 1st level in 3.5, and 4 extra skill points at 1st level in Pathfinder would be a significant low level boost that humans don't need. 

kevin_video

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4833
    • Email
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2010, 07:27:49 PM »
Why even listen to anything we have to say. 
Because balance is moderately important, and it was at this site that I learned of the rebalanced compendium for all the srd classes?
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God.

Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2010, 03:11:42 PM »
+1 to hit against orcs and goblins is just as good as +2 strength? So +2 Strength doesn't give you +1 to hit in melee against everything? Same goes with skill points, would you count having +2 intelligence as worse than +4 skills points at start-up and +1 skill point each level? Neither would I, since it's basically better. System is IMO flawed.

Also, I hope we can all agree that con is probably a lot more useful than cha, or anything similar. So the dwarf would not mind losing cha as much as he likes getting con.

Also getting an extra feat makes it a lot more customisable, which is good, since you want to customise as much as possible in order to min/max.

You could argue that since you get more feats in Pathfinder one more feat wouldn't be worth as much, but fluid +2 to a stat is very customisable.

I don't see any need to buff the human.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

kevin_video

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4833
    • Email
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2010, 03:16:59 PM »
What buffing? There's no buffing. There's just three humans to choose from. I'm asking if you were in a game that had Pathfinder races, and didn't have to take the PF human, which would you consider the most fair?
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God.

Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2010, 05:27:08 PM »
My answer is no buffing, IE the basic Pathfinder Human.
That would mean this:
    * +2 to One Ability Score:  Human characters get a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice at creation to represent their varied nature.
    * Medium: Humans are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
    * Normal Speed: Humans have a base speed of 30 feet.
    * Bonus Feat: Humans select one extra feat at 1st level.
    * Skilled: Humans gain an additional skill rank at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level.
    * Languages: Humans begin play speaking Common. Humans with high Intelligence scores can choose any languages they want (except secret languages, such as Druidic).
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

kevin_video

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4833
    • Email
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2010, 05:32:39 PM »
Fair enough.
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God.

Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one.

lans

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
    • Email
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2010, 06:53:19 PM »
There is also Azurin to consider, but its only usefull if your using incarnum.
Skill prodigy from Kingdoms of Kalamar

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Best "Human" Race?
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2010, 08:39:28 PM »
Why can't the 3.5 human just have +2 to any stat and not lose the 3 additional skill points at 1st?

In 3.5, having 4 extra skill points at 1st level means being able to have a modifier of 4 + ability for 1 extra skill.  In Pathfinder, having 4 extra skill points at 1st level means being able to have a modifier of 4 + ability for 4 extra skills.  In Pathfinder, having 1 extra skill point at 1st level means being able to have a modifier of 4 + ability for 1 extra skill.  So, 1 extra skill point at 1st level in Pathfinder is about as good as 4 extra skill points at 1st level in 3.5, and 4 extra skill points at 1st level in Pathfinder would be a significant low level boost that humans don't need. 
I'd much rather use the +4 skill points at level 1, and use the 3.5 system as opposed to Pathfinder.

Sometimes it's better to have +1 (plus ability score bonuses) to 4 skills than +4 to one skill. See factotum for details.
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]