| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
PaladinTodd |
Nothing But Humans [3.5] |
Lead | |
|
My players play only humans. They're of the opinion that the extra feat is just too good to pass up. Is this just my group of wanks or are others seeing
this behavior?
|
|||
phindar |
|||
|
I think that humans became more popular in 3e and 3.5. In my group, it went from having maybe one human in the party in 2e to usually having about half the
party be human in the later edition. (FWIW, in 4e, we seem to be back down to the maybe 1 human per party.) The extra feat and extra skill point is tempting,
although if you use the point-buy method, the +2 to stats is pretty tempting as well.
At lower levels, throwing out a lot of darkness modifiers can make the non-humans more attractive. If the baddies use darkness and deeper darkness to cancel out the PC's magical light sources (which most groups have), you're left with natural darkness and most baddies have darkvision. Likewise, having opponents with low-light fighting in their shadowy conditions, they'll be pitting a 20% miss chance against the PC's blind-fighting. Humans get an extra feat, but unless they all spent it on Blind-Fighting they'll be getting the short stick. |
|||
Eldric IV |
|||
|
I think 90% of the characters I have seen are humans or elves and the other 10% are dwarves.
**Final Words, before the battle with Demogorgon: My life does not matter. It was given to me to better the lives of my people. Please give the Pureblade to my
son so that he may finish what I start here today.**
|
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
|
I'm the opposite; I haven't seen anyone play a human in a looooong time.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
In 3.5, I really need a reason *not* to go human...except when I'm gonna build a fighter. That's the only base class where the extra feat isn't
hugely useful, IMO.
|
|||
galderon |
|||
I'm the opposite; I haven't seen anyone play a human in a looooong time.That's been my experience as well. They usually respond with "I play a human in real life all the time, why would I want to be one in a fantasy game?" From a strictly rules perspective, humans are generally the best choice, IMO. The additional skill point eventually becomes more valuable than the bonus to skills that non-human races get, and the bonus feat is useful even for a fighter, since he'll be one feat ahead in the feat chain than non-human fighters. A lot of games throw out the favored class/multi-class rules, which might skew the game towards non-humans. |
|||
Neutronium Dragon |
|||
|
People generally throw out favored class rules because it was a tacked-on bit for fluff rather than something significant to balance. (This was admitted by
3E's writers; it was there to push characters towards older-E multiclassing combinations.)
I've seen a mix of styles in 3E. Some groups who are mostly human/elf, and some with little/no human presence (but still elves). I think it's something that varies from group to group, and the genre as a whole tends to swing back and forth a bit too. I know that I'm currently in the mood of being tired of playing humans and humans-with-minor-facial-prosthetics races (elves, dwarves, halflings, etc), so I tend towards distinctly nonhuman looking ones even if the mechanics aren't ideal. |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
I heard a comment that the playtesters actually wanted some of the class restrictions, but I don't recall offhand whether it was the paladin/monk "you
can't go back to this class" rule, or the whole favored classes aspect. But, I think the major point is about retaining Old-E aspects. As time passed,
this faded. 3E has its own balancing aspects, and PrCs did supplant many, probably most, multi-classing combinations. So, the rule became pretty much a
non-starter; it added very little, and became rather annoying when it did come into play.
|
|||
phindar |
|||
|
The only thing I recall about the paladin multiclassing restriction was that it was added back in after fan outcry. Not sure about Monk. I like favored
classes from a flavor aspect (elves are more likely to have a level or two of wizard, even if they're not primary casters), but it's not something
I'd enforce on players.
|
|||
PaladinTodd |
|||
|
It would seem that there are two types of people: Those who make characters with an eye to optimizing them and those who make them with an eye towards the
"story" of them. I'm the later, my players would seem to be the former.
The reason this came up: I had a player making a new character and all of the fluff for the character pointed firmly towards him being an elf. He incessantly tried to cram a square human peg into that round elf hole. When I wouldn't allow the human version (he wanted non-core stuff), he gave up the whole idea and made a different character that was human. His reasoning being that humans are just too good to play anything else. The current campaign has six humans. The previous campaign was 4 humans, 2 non-standard humans. Previous, previous was 5 humans, 1 dwarf. Next campaign, I'll be tweaking the races a bit to see if the others can be more appealing or maybe I'll nerf the humans. |
|||
Eldric IV |
|||
|
I regularly divorce flavor text from mechanics. He could have played an "elf" that gets a bonus feat and skill points. For some reason, some people
have serious issues with this. If there are no half-orcs in your world because you decide that humans and orcs cannot mate, then what is the problem with a
strong, stupid, and ugly human who ate his carrots as a kid?
Edit: The "serious issues" bit is not directed at anyone here; it comes from a game I played in years ago. For this thread: Is the problem that people are playing humans (fluff) or that people are choosing a bonus feat and skill points over other racial packages (mechanics)? Calling a bonus feat and skill points an "elf" solves the first problem.
**Final Words, before the battle with Demogorgon: My life does not matter. It was given to me to better the lives of my people. Please give the Pureblade to my
son so that he may finish what I start here today.**
Last Edited By: Eldric IV
10/30/09 12:55:53.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Very true, Eldric. And yes, I detest the half-races.
PT, I'd get really pissed if you did that, because what you did was cram your notion of 'elfishness' and 'humanness' down HIS throat. You have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS, as the DM, intervening in that area, IMO. I've had players who've tried to say "my (1st level) PC has killed dragons." I say No there because there's no bloody way in heck that it's plausible. But as long as the background being built, doesn't violate suspension of disbelief or is an attempt to maneuver some advantage, I'm wildly unlikely to say no. Now I *will* support your decision to give non-core stuff generally...but not necessarily the reasoning behind it. Umm...take that back. I have exceptions. I'll at least strongly discourage, and sometimes reject, concepts that will be too much of a PITA for the group, like, say, a mute character. I'm real jaded in this area; seen too many times when it's been a variation of "look at me, look at me"...the player forcing the entire group to play up to something like this. Similarly, I dislike fighter-types trying to go with 4 Int or Wis, or caster-types a 4 Str. THAT'S also being munchkin, as a rule...both trying to steal every point you can for the important stuff, and figuring that you're a PC, you can ignore the downsides. Sorry, that's all building a character sheet, not a character. Of course, this is perhaps cramming my idea of "what is a character" onto players. Fair enough. But I think I have rather narrow limitations that have solid foundation in either real-world logic (if we say a 4 Int is like someone with a 50 IQ, that is not functional enough to be an adventurer) or in experience with the group dynamics. But the story...god, the story's fluff. Total, absolute fluff. I DO make detailed backgrounds, I often make them complex *but consistent*. And...that has not 1 damn thing to do with optimization, *except* perhaps in skills selection. The two parts are just totally separate to me. I think the difference is...and I may be wrong, but this is what it sounds like...you start with the character story, and figure out the stats to fit the story. I start with the character, and reverse engineer the background. There's only a few points where I have to make the background fit the character, as a rule; I think you have many nuances in your head, about what the character is and does, based on the background, and therefore you make the rules fit as many of those nuances as you can. |
|||
phindar |
|||
It would seem that there are two types of people: Those who make characters with an eye to optimizing them and those who make them with an eye towards the "story" of them. I'm the later, my players would seem to be the former. My only caution against this line of thinking is it's very easy as a GM to see your own characters in great detail (because you made them), and the players characters a collection of stats and figures (because that's how they are brought to you). Likely, the players see their own characters with a great deal of detail, but this doesn't always get translated at the table. That is to say, it's natural for people to look at their own creations a lot less critically than the creations of others. |
|||
Amphetryon |
|||
|
PT, your comment about 2 types of people is reminiscent of what the WotC CO board calls 'Stormwind Fallacy', the notion that it's somehow
impossible to be a good roleplayer if you've made a mechanically sound character. Is it your intent to claim the two cannot coexist for the same character
and player?
Personal isn't the same as important. -Terry Pratchett
|
|||
PaladinTodd |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:First of all, it had nothing to do with the player's idea of what an elf or human is. It was strictly, "I want the free feat". As you said, it was all about the character sheet and had nothing to do with the character. And secondly, I totally disagree. I want a game world with some internal consistency. If the players are inventing stuff that just doesn't make much sense to the game world, the DM should outlaw it. |
|||
PaladinTodd |
|||
Amphetryon wrote:No, didn't mean that and I knew when I typed it I was in flame-bait territory. I was suggesting, from the posts, that people seem to start at one end or the other. Either is a valid starting point, as long as you end up with a decent character at the end (which would involve both parts to some degree). That is the one and only true, correct way to play D&D (kidding). It just seems that my players start at the rules-end of the process and that precludes anything but human for them. |
|||
durendal |
|||
|
On the playing humans side of things - myself and another person in my gaming group almost always play humans. The reason isn't mechanics, but that we can
relate most to a human; the other side to the "But I'm always a human in real life" coin. Similarly, I think some of my players think more about
their actions when faced with opposing humans than with other fantasy races (i.e. "do we negotiate with these people, or have them die by our swords?).
Notably Unstable,
|
|||
SolissVL |
|||
|
In my group, we don't have a single human at the moment. Part of this I believe stems from using BOXM feat/level rules so the extra feat is nice, but not
AS nice to really push people that direction. Part of it is we don't get to play much and they are much more a hack'n'slash group so extra skill
points aren't as big a concern either.
I haven't really played with any min/maxer or munchkin types anyway, so some of the things that seem to draw others to human haven't really come up. The only time i said "no" to a character concept was a guy in my Eberron campaign who wanted to run a Drow wizard. For those of you who don't know Eberron, Drow are pretty much relegated to one continent at pretty much "savage tribe" level of sophistication. We weren't on that continent so I felt happily justified to say nope, sorry, you'll have to choose a different race. Which was good as I don't really care for the evil "mirror" races anyway. -8 modifier to crunch-fu |
|||
turpentine |
|||
|
Allow the Flaws from Unearthed Arcana. Now that one starting feat isn't that useful.
In any case, make sure you know the difference between players picking human because of the feat or players whose concept doesn't involve race at all and simply defaulted to human. To illustrate the second example, "I want to play a blasty mage" doesn't lean significantly toward any race whatsoever. Nothing is wrong if he picks human. There's nothing inherently wrong with an all-human party. To think otherwise would be like thinking friends is racist because it has no black main characters. Of course, if they're fitting a square peg into a round hole just cause it's mechanically better, then yeah, maybe put a stop to it. Of course, there's nothing wrong with allowing it, especially if that feat is needed to complete the character's concept. An artificer character may be best suited to be a gnome (though I disagree 'bout that), but if it's a low level campaign and he really needs that feat so he can craft all those cool construct guardians for him, then sure. Let him. Oh, and someone mentioned using Darkness spells to make characters with darkvision more useful. That doesn't work. Darkvision doesn't bypass magical darkness, except the for cantrip No Light. Forcing them into tunnels works though, especially underground bases for races with darkvision with light triggered traps. |
|||
DerekDyer |
|||
|
Four humans wearing mithral chain armor... pretty much describes 50% of the games I played in.
I have a friend who is slightly racist IRL, and very racist in-game. Though racist isn't the ideal word, it's just that he doesn't really get into a character with too alien of a mindset and life experience. He has no desire to play an Elf, or a Half-Orc (Dwarf is right out), so he's pretty much been Human since AD&D. The mechanics involved wouldn't even matter. I have a fondness for Elves. There agility, beauty, and especially the immortality (or 1,000 years same diff), that is *so* how I want to feel when I get wrapped up in a character. Whats more is that I strongly prefer playing multiclassed characters to a straight classed one (even with the mechanical drawbacks in 3e). Back in the AD&D days I played alot of elves, and truly the build that feels the most right is a Fighter/Mage. It can also be said (and I would agree) that a multi-class character in 2e was probably a more powerful character. I mean when you can choose between a Fighter 15, Magic-User 15, or a Fighter/Mage 13/13... further I felt that pretty much every race was better than Human in AD&D, as the human pretty much didn't get any racial features, while all other races got cool stuff, *especially* a +2 to a stat! Now I can be as "theatre" with my roleplaying as anyone, it all depends on how deep the other players go, or I can be as Hack-n-Slash as anyone. Even not meaning to uber-build or powergame, when I'm alone and get to thinking about characters and builds I'm a full on powergamer. It's the fun of building this chess piece to do exactly what I want it to do and be the best at what it does, whatever that is. So I have to admit that in 3e it's *very* hard for me to not be Human. There is really no compulsive reason mechanically to choose anything else (unless it has a LA or racial HD which isn't allowed in alot of campaigns). Races happen to be one of my most *favoritist* things about 4e. Not only can I sit down and flip through books envisioning cool builds for each race, but whats even cooler is that I can work on a build and really be torn over what race to go with. I find it funny and a little strange that the 4e Human has pretty much fallen to the bottom of the list for me. I mean I think it's perfectly fine mechanically (maybe slightly inferior), and would certainly be a good fit with certain builds, but it's benefits are mostly boring. They do have some cool racial feats that I'd love to have, but not at the cost of a cool racial power. Breath Weapon, Fey Step, a Reroll... that stuff is awesome. I'm not running a game currently, but I'm toying with a houserule (4e) that you can take any race's racial package, but reskin it and call it whatever race you want. Mechanically you are your racial package, but I think the flavortext could make for some really cool characters. There may be a few issues that wouldn't work, like you can't take the halfling racial package and then call yourself a 7' tall Goliath... but I don't think it would cause too many problems and any that arose would be worked out by the time the game is underway. |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
It just seems that my players start at the rules-end of the process and that precludes anything but human for them.I usually do start at the rules end, because that's the part that is restricted. Backgrounds are totally unrestricted; I can create a plausible back-story for any mechanical implementation. I think one of the major turn-offs with all the non-human races, to me, is the ability score penalty. One of my central character-build paradigms is, I design to lack of weakness, or at least minimized weaknesses. For example, if I build a fighter, it's almost never going to be the plate-armor, 2HW type with a 10 Dex, because that leaves a *gaping* hole in Reflex saves, and you commonly act very late in the round. My preference would be an AE Unfettered, or (building along similar lines) D&D fighter/rogue. With 3E's racial penalty, you're either forced to invest *serious* resources to get a decent score, or you have a big weakness. There are other factors, too. Dwarves don't do it for me; they're hard to break out of their stereotype. I like elves for the same reasons DD mentioned; the idea that you could live 500 or 1000 years, robustly, is very appealing. BUT: -2 Con. OUCH. SERIOUS pain. There's no build that doesn't get hurt by this, IMO, and perhaps only rangers don't get badly hurt. I like halflings...quite possibly because their racial ability reduction, tends to be less damaging, but they also have an easy starting point: be friendly. I like skills. I like characters that really look like Real People, with Real Interests...not those who spend 24/7 adventuring. The only place that can really show up, is skills. That means, for many character builds where I can't invest in Int too much (monk, sorcerer) or get hosed on the skill points every level (cleric, sorcerer)...that 1 skill point per level is really valuable, both from a mechanical standpoint AND from a roleplaying standpoint. So among the standard races, what's left? I hate the halfbreeds, but as was noted, you can reskin. Half-elf is just BORING. Half-orc has gross mechanical penalties that seriously limit where you can go with one. I toyed with the idea of a half-orc druid for Living City for a while...that is actually workable, as the racial features blend nicely with a wilderness role. Gnomes....(GAG). Sorry, just too many bad memories, too much ridiculousness with them. They're not a serious race as presented. Genasi...too much "oh, look I'm so cool" aspect to them. Tiefling...great for villains, but I have too much problem suspending disbelief with this race. It's KNOWN that they had dealings with demons, they pacted with them. Their appearance directly reflects that. Hey, to me that says, *at least* a serious initial reaction penalty...Joe Average can't be comfortable dealing with one of em. Prejudice and fear *should* follow them. But it doesn't. Sorry, just does not work for me. |
|||