|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 5:20PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I'd be happy if humans were just given +1 strength actually. In 1e they were the race with the highest strength cap. But I think the point is that they need something beyond a stat bonus and like the other races, they should lose none of their flavour if they get no stat bonus at all.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 5:34PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
I don't think they should get a specified stat bonus. The game needs a race that's the baseline, neutral race, not geared toward any particular class (I mean you can play any class with any race just fine, but Elves are obviously naturally suited best for Rangers and Wizards, Dwarves for Clerics and Fighters, Half-Orcs for Barbarians, whether they choose to go down those paths or not). Humans are my favorite because (after they got rid of racial stat restriction) they're just the simple race that can be anything without any benefit or drawback. So if they have to get a stat boost at all it should be the player's choice.
Half-Orc should be the race with a Strength bonus. I think they are stronger than Humans, Eves are more intelligent and agile, Dwarves are tougher and wiser. Humans are just versatile and good at a little of everything. The current system tries to reflect that, but it instead makes them the best at everything.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 9:51PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
I think the races shouldn't be so oreiented to specific classes at all. The human needs features, not stat bonuses. In fact you could probably improve the game greatly if you took the stat modifiers away from the races, I think the devs are using them as a crutch to avoid actually giving the races cool interesting thematic features.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 9:54PM
#44
|
|
|
My group goes with +1 any ability, two extra skills and one extra language for humans
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 10:05PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Ok that's better than the packet, but I wouldn't write home about it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 2:57AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I think humans are clearly not underpowered.
But they are pretty boring when it comes to race flavor and abilities.
In past editions - they had their bonus feats, skills, etc (not to mention languages - they are the ony one to start with only one language in 5E).
But no one played them because they weren't good enough. [disclaimer - some played them. But they were not, based on what I saw, at all popular. WoTC has accurate numbers - we don't. But my impression based on my own group (tiny sample) and years of LFR tables at conventions (much larger sample) was - aside from myself - almost no one played them).
At least now they are getting played.
I'd prefer to change the +1 to all (another +1 to 1) to +1 to three abilities with a fourth +1 to any ability (which can but need not be one of the initial three).
And then give them some more flavorful bonuses. A second background (to reflect humans adapability) would be my first choice. And, of course, a humanoid racial language of their choice.
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 5:34AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2003
|
they are not under- or overpowered at medium levels. However, humans might be overpowered during the very first levels and underpowered once people start reaching the 20s cap. (and don't get me started on the fact that there is no point in playing a human monk if you expect your campaign to start at high levels  ) We should not disregard rolling for ability scores here since it is the "default" character creation method as presented in the rules at the moment and point buy is still optional. The experienced players might tend to favour point buy for fairness, but since races are a major design component and this game is not designed with expert players only in mind the design of a race should be balanced for all character creation systems, especially the "core" one. I do think that the current design for humans is not only unbalanced, but especially dull as well. Humans have always been a "viable" option in D&D for their versality, but they also always felt culturally lacking by saying "oh all humans from everywhere are always the same" despite there being such deep differences in background, ranging from tribal life towards refined urban attitude, and from people living in arctic climate to hot deserts. At the moment, humans do not feeel like they truely belong to the other races in D&D, they seem to be the odd man out. Which I really regret since I like playing humans and always had that odd feeling of human dullness which now got amplified in Next.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 6:17AM
#48
|
|
|
I like the flavor of human perseverance and determination that has bounced around this thread. I greatly prefer that over I any sort of culturally bias fluff. Human ability to adapt and survive has always made them the race I prefer and when that became the mechanical flavor for them in 4e it made me like them even more. I think its fits because they are not the best suited to survive in a lot of place that other races seem to be born for, but they survive through effort and determination.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 6:59AM
#49
|
|
|
they always felt culturally lacking by saying "oh all humans from everywhere are always the same" despite there being such deep differences in background, ranging from tribal life towards refined urban attitude, and from people living in arctic climate to hot deserts.
I feel, classes are the best way to define cultures. Which classes prevail in that society? What are the top four classes? Which classes comprise the leadership positions? In war, will they draft an army of Fighters or an army of Wizards? Which classes do the kids dream of becoming? Which classes define the values and archetypal ideals? The answers to these questions define the structure and mood of the culture, especially which institutions organize the peoples activities.
The defining classes will also associate with relating backgrounds and feats.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 8:22AM
#50
|
|
|
The problem with human is they either have no abilities that makes them feel cheap and too many ability scores that makes them feel overpowered.
They don't follow the same model as the other races and ultimately makes them feel 'out of place'.
Just give them +1 to two stats and some generic stuff a like skill and feat. This works perfectally fine in PF / 4E. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is my moto.
|
|
|
