|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:02AM
#1
|
|
|
I have a question about the Human Race stat bonuses. My group has not liked them for a couple of reasons.
First, it seems very good. It was combined with a series of excellent die rolls, but the +1, +2 bonus allowed several members of my party to start out with 20s in their primary category. I am not sure, mathematically, how unlikely that is, but I think out of my six player party, everyone who was human ended up with a 20 after using their +2 and class bonus. We didn't like this because it seems very strong, and also seems ridiculous that humans are regularly going to be able to be more strong than dwarves, or dextrous than halflings, or whatever you like.
Second, we thought it was way less fun than the racial bonuses that other races got. There are some traits that are just cool, and humans miss out.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:23AM
#2
|
|
|
I like it, out of all the editions racial bonuses I like these the best. Humans get a tiny raw stat advantage, but demi-humans get some pretty amazing bonuses which can't be replaced elsewhere.
If anything, I feel that humans might be a bit weak over time, with the 20 natural cap to abilities. The non-humans will eventually catch up the human's 20, but the human will never gain the special bonuses the non-humans have.
Also, another thought: your players are either cheaters or you let them use some absurd rolling method, because natural 18s and even 17s shouldn't be that common.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:28AM
#3
|
|
|
Honestly I think they were just super human. We sat down and rolled the dice together as a group, following the instructions: Roll four d6, discard the lowest, add 'em up, and repeat six times.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:48PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
First, it seems very good...
Second, we thought it was way less fun than the racial bonuses that other races got. There are some traits that are just cool, and humans miss out.
Those two thoughts seems antithetical. Players pay a premium to be a cool, unique-ish race. Are you indicating that the premium is too high, or not high enough?
Or are you saying that your players want both the high stats and cool abilities (ultimately resulting in no one being human)?
fwiw: I agree that the human racial bonuses seem pretty high, but the other races still seem to be selected more than I would've thought, while I actually want players that select non-human races to feel somewhat rare (and special). Maybe WotC is doing it exactly right here.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 4:00PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
Humans should be inferior as specialists but better as generalists. I think elves, dwarves, etc should have +2 instead of +1 and humans should have +1 to everything. Also, humans should cap out lower than other races, either 18/20 or 20/22.
In exchange, they should get a cool passive ability like +1 to saves or something like that.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 4:13PM
#6
|
|
|
I think humans are perfectly fine. They are the most bland of all the races because they have no special racial features. However because they are a sort of jack-of-all-trades race they have a small bonus to each ability (+1). I think the +2 makes sense as well because although they are a little bit better than normal at various things they still have a specialty.
If multiple players got 17 or 18 stats after rolling that got boosted to 20 then you should just tell them that you feel they are starting out too powerful and need to either reroll or accept a nerf from you (perhaps subtract from any score above 18 and add that to their lowest scores instead).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 4:25PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
In exchange, they should get a cool passive ability like +1 to saves or something like that.
That's how 4e worked, but often only experienced players (who knew how to best use such things) chose human. I see value in new players (and min/maxers) gravitating to simple humans, saving more complicated races for those that truly want it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 4:52PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
Humans should be inferior as specialists but better as generalists.
That is exactly what they are as currently written.
A human Fighter can get a solid set of ability scores, possibly even having every modifier as good or better than a dwarven fighter... but that dwarven fighter still has higher damage potential and greater hit points or armor class, which are the "big things" that a fighter is meant to have.
And the same is true when comparing a human wizard to an elf, or a human rogue to a halfling.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 5:36PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
Can you explain to me how a dwarven fighter has better damage potential than a human fighter? *Using stat arrays* A dwarf has max of 16 strength, and has either [+1 con and +1 hp / level] or [+1 wis and +1 ac] 16/15/13/12/10/8 A human has a max of 18 strength, and can get +1 con, or +1 dexterity modifier, depending on which is your "13". 18/15/14/13/11/9
The increase of weapon die size is equivalent to +1 damage on average (slightly more due to critical hits). A human will get a +1 damage bonus from having +1 strength modifier anyways. And +1 to hit is way better than +1 damage, especially since most of your damage is from martial dice anyways and eventually the flat damage bonus. +1 to hit is equivalent to another +1 damage once you get to level 5+.
Plus, having +1 ability modifer means you can succeed in skills and saving throws 5% more often.
Every player in my group acknowledges that this advantage is too strong... and also that humans are too boring as is. Thats why I would like their raw power to be turned down and for them to have utilities like everyone else.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 6:25PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
Can you explain to me how a dwarven fighter has better damage potential than a human fighter?
Two parts:
1) I was assuming all other factors being made equal, namely that ability scores are rolled rather than bought or arrayed because that reduces a number of the "problems" with the human racial modifiers that people have (note: I also advocate a ruling that specifically prevents anyone from having to play a character of significantly poor ability - such as HackMaster's shopkeeper rule, but not necessarily with the same qualifications).
2) Doing a little side-by-side comparison of a human and dwarf fighter with both being built with the array and trying to maximize their overall ability modifiers... the differences in the two boil down to the human having +1 on Con and Int saves over the dwarf, unless I am missing something.
Human: S 16, D 14, C 16, I 10, W 13, C 11
Dwarf: S 16, D 14, C 14, I 8, W 12, C 10
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
