PDA

View Full Version : Is there any class human is a bad choice with?



deuxhero
2009-10-13, 10:44 PM
Question is in the topic title.

Tavar
2009-10-13, 10:47 PM
Edition?
Assuming 3.5, human's never a bad choice, though sometimes it can be a weaker one, especially for things like fighter that have alot of feats.

Alteran
2009-10-13, 10:49 PM
Edition?
Assuming 3.5, human's never a bad choice, though sometimes it can be a weaker one, especially for things like fighter that have alot of feats.

Humans are never a bad choice in 4e either, but they're often not the best choice. Their features are very general and very good, but some races have features that just perfectly fit with a class. Getting two stat boosts in the right places can also be very nice, especially in classes that are a bit more MAD.

Atcote
2009-10-13, 10:49 PM
Similar to Fourth Edition; humans are made to be versatile, with little in the way of drawbacks, but they don't function as well (in a straight out sense) as an Eldarin will as a wizard, or a Dwarf for a fighter.

Grynning
2009-10-13, 10:49 PM
In 3.0 onward, no, not really. That's sorta their whole schtick in the D&D 'verse.

Eldariel
2009-10-13, 10:52 PM
In 3.5, they're almost always the best choice out of the core races, and a good choice regardless of what you're working with. Feats are just ridiculously good, especially as more materials are added.

Core Fighter admittedly isn't very good as a Human (outside early levels, where he can put the important combos in place faster) simply because Fighter already gets more feats than he actually can make profittable use of; the extras don't really do anything - but pretty much anything else is a great candidate for Humanhood.

gdiddy
2009-10-13, 10:52 PM
Dwarven Defender?
:smalltongue:

tyckspoon
2009-10-13, 10:52 PM
Nope. Everything can use more feats and more skill points, even if it's just to grab Improved Initiative. Sometimes you go for a human variant instead if it fits the specific goal better (Strongheart Halfling for things that do well with being Small, Azurin for Incarnum builds.)

RandomLunatic
2009-10-13, 10:52 PM
3.5? Monk, CW Samurai, Truenamer, Soulknife...

Though to be fair, this is more a failure of the classes than it is the race. Humans can be pretty effectively plugged into any class.

Akal Saris
2009-10-13, 10:57 PM
1E AD&D: Only if you want to go past ~8th level in most cases! :smallbiggrin:

Berserk Monk
2009-10-13, 10:59 PM
Humans have no disadvantages, only little advantages so no, a human anything would be at the very least a decent build.

infinitypanda
2009-10-13, 11:15 PM
Little? A bonus feat is quite a large bonus.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-13, 11:15 PM
Well, I think a Human is a great choice for Fighter. Not only is there that precious extra feat, but the extra skill points make up for a Fighter's pathetic skill set. This is especially true in Pathfinder, where they still have on 2+INT skill points per level, & extra feats are more valuable than in Core. In Core, Human is a great choice; in Pathfinder, it is an awesome choice.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 11:38 PM
The only thing I can think of is the Incarnate and Totemist, but they're still a good option (just slightly less useful than the Azurin, the default meldshaper race).


Of course, an optimized meldshaper has a good reason to be a different race, such as Skarn or Dragonborn.

Zaq
2009-10-13, 11:47 PM
They're a bad idea for certain major build archetypes for certain classes, if that counts. Specifically, I'm thinking of Paladin-style classes that rely heavily on a mount. You don't want a Medium creature with a Large mount if you can help it.

...Yeeeeeeah, I'm reaching. Humans are good at everything.

Eloel
2009-10-13, 11:51 PM
Bad? No. Non-Optimal? Heck yes. A DFA is better off being a Dragonborn Mongrelfolk (+6 Con. Yes please), or even a Gnome/Dwarf (Dragonborn or not), because the + to Con matters. Alot.

Also, unless you're going for a melee fighter, Strongheart Halfling >> Human, and Azurin can be on either side of the equation, depending on your use of MoI.

dspeyer
2009-10-14, 12:03 AM
There are racial substitution levels and race-only classes. I don't know any that are super-powerful (elven generalist wizard maybe?). I don't recall any human-only classes, though there are some nice feats (like able learner).

If you want to get a cool mount (especially a dragon) at a reasonable level, it helps to be small.

Yeah, that's all I can think of.

Eldariel
2009-10-14, 12:10 AM
Also, unless you're going for a melee fighter, Strongheart Halfling >> Human, and Azurin can be on either side of the equation, depending on your use of MoI.

Speed penalty is a huge penalty for Strongheart Halfling with many classes. Silverbrow Human should also be on that list, but again, if not utilizing Dragonblood or if building anything skillmonkeyish, the +1 skills strikes again. And Azurin...yeah, if you go MoI, go Azurin.

Eloel
2009-10-14, 01:03 AM
Strongheart Halfling is a better sneak, a better caster (+ AC, + Attack, + Sneak, and you Fly after a while anyway.), a better mounted fighter (with the medium mounts), and generally puts Human into shame.

oxinabox
2009-10-14, 01:03 AM
I don't recall any human-only classes, though there are some nice feats (like able learner)..

Chameleon is basically a huiman only PrC, the other options are Dopplegragger (Large LA is IIRC) or Changling (wich is setting dependent).

Curmudgeon
2009-10-14, 01:08 AM
Bad? Not really. But not the best choice for some.

A Rogue at low levels is better off, skill-wise, as an Elf. The Human skill bonus is 4 points at 1st level, whereas the racial bonuses are worth +6. Also the automatic Search check when passing a secret door is a nice bit of race-class synergy. But of course the big bonus is the +2 to DEX, which benefits the most of the class's abilities. Low-light vision is better for much of what a Rogue is trained to handle. And the free Martial Weapon Proficiency bonus feats for longsword and longbow are nice, if not as good as free choice of any one feat. A +2 boost to some Will saves helps the Rogue where they're weak. And finally, by reducing the rest requirements for the character the Rogue has extra time for late-night wealth acquisition. :smallsmile:

Eldariel
2009-10-14, 01:57 AM
Strongheart Halfling is a better sneak, a better caster (+ AC, + Attack, + Sneak, and you Fly after a while anyway.), a better mounted fighter (with the medium mounts), and generally puts Human into shame.

As a sneak, while +4 Hide is great, 30' movement speed is clutch too (up until the time when you'll be flying all the time, which for non-casters is a long while), and there's the whole +1 skill/level (most sneaks tend to be monkeys too and everyone knows you can never have too many skillpoints) and I'd frankly take Human over Strongheart Halfling there. Now, arcane casters and Druids I'll give you, but again in many Cleric-shells, Human is probably better (mostly 'cause Str is actually relevant to them as are weapon sizes esp. with Giant Size & al. and they usually move on their own and with stuff like Air Walk, when not expending slots for teleportation anyways). Mounted Fighter, sure, but how many have you honestly played?

Normal martial types are usually quite superior as Humans and many Archer-types too, especially since again, weapon size increases can be a relevant source of bonus damage (+2 categories is within basically any character's reach around 7-8). And let's not forget the Str penalty that sucks for characters with Str-based damage.


Both are very relevant character building options in most concepts; neither is strictly better than the other.

Count Dravda
2009-10-14, 02:11 AM
Yeah, they only have advantages, which is good. The extra feat and skills are helpful. Sure, there are times when something else is better, but Human works good all-around.

As a point of interest, my brother refuses to play Humans despite these things. He says he's a human in real life: he'd rather be a halfling. :smalltongue:

-Count Dravda

Eldariel
2009-10-14, 02:17 AM
As a point of interest, my brother refuses to play Humans despite these things. He says he's a human in real life: he'd rather be a halfling. :smalltongue:

I can sign that. I frankly don't understand why we even have Humans in fantasy games. That said, they're crunch-wise so good that I often end up playing one anyways.

Next time I'm DMing a high fantasy world, Humans will either be extinct or almost extinct and unavailable as a PC race though. I mean, why does the game need a "Standard" race of some sort? I don't think it does.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 02:47 AM
Yes, all of them.

(in Call of Cthulhu, that is :smallbiggrin: )

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:49 AM
Human is not an optimal choice for Shadowcraft Mage.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-14, 02:49 AM
I don't recall any human-only classes, though there are some nice feats (like able learner).


Paladins used to be human only.

Dixieboy
2009-10-14, 05:15 AM
1E AD&D: Only if you want to go past ~8th level in most cases! :smallbiggrin:

Explain this one to me.

Dhavaer
2009-10-14, 05:18 AM
Explain this one to me.

In older editions humans had no racial abilities, but non-humans had maximum levels and humans didn't.

riddles
2009-10-14, 05:18 AM
it can be suboptimal in psionic builds as it gets no bonus pp. but it's still not a bad choice

Zeta Kai
2009-10-14, 05:19 AM
Paladins used to be human only.

Yes, yes they were. And that was dumb. Dum-da-dum-dum dumb. :smalltongue:

Also, Elf used to be a class. Dumb. :smallsigh:

Racial classes could not go up as high as Human-classed characters. Dumb. :smalleek:

Dixieboy
2009-10-14, 05:24 AM
In older editions humans had no racial abilities, but non-humans had maximum levels and humans didn't.

d'oh. :smallredface:

Thajocoth
2009-10-14, 10:23 AM
As a point of interest, my brother refuses to play Humans despite these things. He says he's a human in real life: he'd rather be a halfling. :smalltongue:

-Count Dravda

I do that too. I try to go for as non-human as possible. Elf, Dwarf, Half-Elf, Eladrin, and Halfling are all almost-human... So I go further, to, like, Warforged, Half-Minotaur Gnome, Changeling, Bugbear, Gnoll, Kobold, ect... I want to play something from the Far Realm at some point... Some sort of aberration...

Cyrion
2009-10-14, 10:25 AM
Non-humans were also the only ones who could multi-class effectively in 1E (and 2E I think). You could do a two class character as a human, but you could never advance in the first class once you started the second. I think the shift from the simultaneous model of multiclassing in 1E to the linear model in 3.5 was the most jarring shift for me when I changed editions.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 10:26 AM
In older editions humans had no racial abilities, but non-humans had maximum levels and humans didn't.Of course you more often than not died long before then, but that's neither here nor there.

There was also the seldom used dual-classing.

satorian
2009-10-14, 11:20 AM
Dual classing would have been used more had people thought in terms of "builds" in the AD&D period. Indeed, the whole builds mindset was the most jarring thing for me in the switch. Really, though, if we had thought in builds, every single magic user would have started out as a fighter or ranger for a level or two.

Now, I'm going to +1 the silverbrow human. Great choice if you are using their book. because of certain heritage feats you can take as a dragonblood, they are even great for knowledge skill monkeys, even without the bonus skill points. Add in dragon prophecy feats from eberron (certainly thematic for a silverbrow) and you have a superknowledge auto-empowering sorceror, who has knowledge bonuses and all knowledges as class skills.

I wish WoTC had put out material for the other heritages like they did with dragons. So muchsynergizes with dragon heritage, and little for any of the others.

Optimystik
2009-10-14, 11:26 AM
I can sign that. I frankly don't understand why we even have Humans in fantasy games. That said, they're crunch-wise so good that I often end up playing one anyways.

I'm the opposite. I always play humans (or a human variant, like Illumian or Azurin) whenever I can. I just love rubbing elves' oh-so superior noses in it.

The one non-human race I absolutely adore are Warforged. I usually pass on all the rest.

lesser_minion
2009-10-14, 11:27 AM
Also, Elf used to be a class. Dumb. :smallsigh:


Actually less so than you might think - I don't think character class was really a meaningful concept at the time, and the end result was just poorly explained, rather than being inherently strange and counter-intuitive.

IIUC, the basic idea was that you were describing the capabilities of the character's race - in some cases, there might be different possible members of a race.

A 'Fighting Man' was basically a "human", while a 'Cleric' was really a "human holy man" and a 'Magic User' was really a "human student of the art of magic(k)."

If you wanted to play a non-human, they might have totally different abilities and study totally different things.

The end result was more "Elf characters usually have the following abilities, although the player and the DM may agree to give the character the capabilities of a fighting-man (typical human) or a magic user". than "Elves have access to an exclusive character class, also called 'Elf'".

Steward
2009-10-14, 11:52 AM
I'm confused. So could you play as a human (race) and take class levels in Elf? If you multiclassed into Hobbit would you get shorter? What if you multiclassed out to an Elf again? Could you exploit that to change size and shape (as per Enlarge Person and Reduce Person spells?) by deliberately accruing and removing negative levels?

Saph
2009-10-14, 11:57 AM
Re: the OP, it does depend a bit on how many good feats are available. In a core-only game, there often aren't many really excellent feats to take. So a nonhuman race is often better. That doesn't make humans a bad choice, though.

lesser_minion
2009-10-14, 11:59 AM
I'm confused. So could you play as a human (race) and take class levels in Elf? If you multiclassed into Hobbit would you get shorter? What if you multiclassed out to an Elf again? Could you exploit that to change size and shape (as per Enlarge Person and Reduce Person spells?) by deliberately accruing and removing negative levels?

None of the above. While it was expressed differently (it actually used phrases like 'character class'), the rules boiled down to:

Roll Ability Scores Choose character race. If human, choose whether you wish to be a Fighting-Man, a Magic User, or a Cleric Discuss character with DM and agree on any modifications. If you can cast spells, determine which ones you know and pick which ones you have memorised at the start of the game. Work out saving throws and other numbers Work out equipment and starting gold.


If you played as an Elf, then that is what you were. Your DM might let you swap some of your elven powers for those of a particular kind of human.

Hobbits and Dwarves, IIUC, had similar level-based abilities to a human fighting man.

I don't think the 70s really spawned many multiclass characters, and even then, you wouldn't be able to multiclass from one thing to another. Multiclassing meant that you had the abilities of several different classes, all at the same time. You would have to meet the requirements of every class you wanted to combine like that, but that was the only real limit on their power.

Steward
2009-10-14, 12:04 PM
That's unfortunate. That would have been such a cool ability for a poorly optimized adventurer. Whenever an evil necromancer slaps on a negative level, he changes shape! It's like Polymorph, except stupid.

Tar Palantir
2009-10-14, 01:27 PM
As far as core races, human is the go-to race for anything you can't play as a dwarf (seriously, dwarves are insane compared to the other core races). So if you aren't wearing heavy armor, or you need Charisma, or you're a feat-intensive build, go human. Outside of core, the bonus feat is important for some builds, but I typically go Warforged or some type of undead for the laundry list of immunities. Still, human's never a terrible choice.

tyckspoon
2009-10-14, 06:44 PM
Dual classing would have been used more had people thought in terms of "builds" in the AD&D period. Indeed, the whole builds mindset was the most jarring thing for me in the switch. Really, though, if we had thought in builds, every single magic user would have started out as a fighter or ranger for a level or two.


Also if it didn't have completely absurd requirements to do it. 3d6 in order was almost never going to give you dual-classable stats, especially if you wanted to use a high-requirements class like Ranger. More generous and/or controllable stat generation methods would still make it very rare; you need something like 3.x's 32 pointbuy to reliably get dual-classable stats.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-14, 06:58 PM
I'm the opposite. I always play humans (or a human variant, like Illumian or Azurin) whenever I can. I just love rubbing elves' oh-so superior noses in it.

The one non-human race I absolutely adore are Warforged. I usually pass on all the rest.

I'm with you for the most part (I add Skarn, Rilkan, and a few other races, but exclude every single elf breed except Xen'Dirk Drow and Wild Elves).

Haughty bastards think they're so much better than everyone else? Got news for you: Every feat that doesn't have a racial requirement is support for the Human races. And Strongheart Halfling, but they're different. This means that every splat book has printed support for Humans. Hows that for mechanically superior?

Oh, and Elves cannot be efficient meldshapers. So :smalltongue: