Should humans be LA+1

[Invader]

Does the fact that humans are one of the first choices for just about build justify making them a +1 race or would they then be to costly to play for the extra feat. I suppose the same could be asked about the SH halfling.

[Vizzerdrix]

No. That is silly.

[ryu]

Does the fact that humans are one of the first choices for just about build justify making them a +1 race or would they then be to costly to play for the extra feat. I suppose the same could be asked about the SH halfling.

I don't think so. For most all concepts we have other LA 0 races that can compete if not actually be superior. No if I were to recommend messing with LA it would be to bring down the cost of a bunch of races that would otherwise be highly lackluster. WoTC overvalued a great many things when assigning LA to non-standard race choices.

[eggynack]

No, because human isn't the best choice for just about every build. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, human is strictly a solid second choice. A barbarian is better off as a water orc, a wizard should go gray elf, a druid would do better with everything from desert half-orc to shifter to anthropomorphic bat, clerics can lay a similar claim to the latter race, and can even run elf for seeker of the misty isle purposes, bard is generally better off with humans of the silverbrow variety, and so on and so forth. Human is never the wrong choice, and you can do well with it on any of those classes, but it's not an LA +1 race by any means.

[Psyren]

Do what PF did - build up the other races, rather than bringing down humans.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

As has been stated previously, humans are just decent choices. Their popular because their decent and because their human. Human says "Race is not going to be one of the defining features of my character" and that's a popular sentiment.

Any nerf to humans is going to flood games with obscure subraces and actually raise the overall powerlevel.

[Jeff the Green]

Yeah, as I've found writing my race guide (I'm up to elves; whoo!) humans are nice but not particularly special. Various elf subraces are better than I thought, there's a dwarf subrace for nearly everything, some of the "specialist" races (like the naturally psionic ones) kick ass, and dragonborn is awesome when applied to the right race—which certainly does not include humans. The only things humans are best at are feat-intensive builds, such as gishes, TWFers, and metamagic mages.

Plus they have very few race-exclusive options, which definitely gives the others a leg up on certain occasions.

[Eldaran]

Do what PF did - build up the other races, rather than bringing down humans.

Well, Humans are amazing in Pathfinder too, and they often have really good alternate favored class bonuses too.

[Psyren]

Well, Humans are amazing in Pathfinder too, and they often have really good alternate favored class bonuses too.

Indeed, but the gap in usefulness between, say, a Human and a Half-Elf is much smaller than in 3.5. And in many cases other races (like Aasimar and even Tieflings) are in fact better.

[Eldaran]

Well, Aasimar and Tieflings are over 10 RP, whereas normal races are 10 or less (humans are 9). So it's not surprising they're sometimes better, when they explicitly have more power.

Overall, though, I do agree that the difference between races is much less, every race is pretty good.

[Renen]

Drop humans to +1 LA, and no one will take em.

But everyone will take a certain halfing subtype that is very resistant to cardiac problems.

[Psyren]

Well, Aasimar and Tieflings are over 10 RP, whereas normal races are 10 or less (humans are 9). So it's not surprising they're sometimes better, when they explicitly have more power.

Kasatha are 20 RP and are still LA 0 as of Bestiary 4. You could therefore make a case for anything 20 and under being LA 0.

[Invader]

I guess the next question would be would humans be more in line with other races if they lost their bonus feat but did something like pathfinder?

[Invader]

Drop humans to +1 LA, and no one will take em.

But everyone will take a certain halfing subtype that is very resistant to cardiac problems.

That's why I included it along with humans ; )
Personally I'd say there's a strong enough argument for giving strong hearts a +1 because they're pretty solidly better than humans.

[eggynack]

I guess the next question would be would humans be more in line with other races if they lost their bonus feat but did something like pathfinder?
As I've mentioned, humans are already roughly in line with other races. If your alteration would make them weaker, then they would either remain as such, or would be weaker.

[ryu]

I guess the next question would be would humans be more in line with other races if they lost their bonus feat but did something like pathfinder?

Why make this game any more feat starved than it already is? An extra feat is a very versatile goodie that makes humans good in all roles. It means they aren't as great at any one role as a specialist besides feat intensive builds.

[Renen]

Yeh. Its not that the humans are strong, its that feats are strong, and humans give you a free one.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

That's why I included it along with humans ; )
Personally I'd say there's a strong enough argument for giving strong hearts a +1 because they're pretty solidly better than humans.

It's true that, as the ultimate generalists and baseline race of the game, umans are better than the majority of races for every build. This doesn't actually mean their broken though, it just means that races with less customizable bonuses are bad at things that their penalties apply to or that their bonuses don't apply to.

You're right that if you nerf humans you also need to nerf Stronghearts because they're better at everything that isn't Strngth or size based. But if humans are judged too strong rather than as the baseline you'll need to start a huge cycle of nerfs.

Since Humans are too strong it must mean that everyone that makes a better Wizard is also too strong, ditto Sorcerers, skill monkeys, divine casters, Psions/Wilders and Incarnates/Totemists. Once the cycle is done you either have players rooting through what would normaly be the garbage heap of LA +0. Either that or to paraphrase Syndrome "When everyones +1 LA, no one will be" and you'll mostly see the best +1 LA races (which will never be human). The Lowly Hobgoblin will be better for most martial builds.

If you don't do a cycle of nerfing then, as I previously stated, people will probably play the +0 LA races that are stronger than human for the build they want to play. This will result in a more powerful character that will probably not be roleplayed as well, because the race are being taken as a substitute for human and the player didn't set out to play a character that reflected the culture of the race they're playing.

I understand that the all human party can feel a bit bland sometimes, especially to the old grognard that remembers demi-humans being OP. However, if human stops being appealing the 0 human party will soon wear thin. It will start to feel strange when there are no humans in a mixed race band traveling through human lands. Exotic races will begin to lose any sense of wonder and you'll get annoyed when a level one party doesn't carry any light sources because they all have darkvision.

[Invader]

Yeh. Its not that the humans are strong, its that feats are strong, and humans give you a free one.

That's kind of my point. It feels like people play humans so often primarily because they get the free feat.

[Invader]

I'm not really advocating one way or another, I'm just bringing it up for conversation that maybe there's a better mechanic for humans.

[eggynack]

Yeh. Its not that the humans are strong, its that feats are strong, and humans give you a free one.
You can make that argument for literally anything in the game. It's not that wizards are strong. It's that magic is strong, and wizards give you a lot of it.

That's kind of my point. It feels like people play humans so often primarily because they get the free feat.
Well, yeah. It's usually not going to be for the free skill point, after all, though that's a factor in the strongheart halfling comparison. It's not an overpowered race though, and it deserves its position as an LA +0 race. Sure, some LA +1 races might be worse, but that's more of a reason to drop the LA from the bad races.

[Psyren]

You can make that argument for literally anything in the game. It's not that wizards are strong. It's that magic is strong, and wizards give you a lot of it.

That doesn't make either statement wrong though. In fact I'd say this one is accurate and so is the humans and feats one.

Having said that I don't have a problem with humans being slightly better in general than most races. There are still better races for specific concepts, even in 3.5.



Well, yeah. It's usually not going to be for the free skill point, after all, though that's a factor in the strongheart halfling comparison. It's not an overpowered race though, and it deserves its position as an LA +0 race. Sure, some LA +1 races might be worse, but that's more of a reason to drop the LA from the bad races.

Agreed.

[eggynack]

That doesn't make either statement wrong though. In fact I'd say this one is accurate and so is the humans and feats one.
They're both completely wrong. Wizards are strong, and it's because they have those things. You're not a weak human that just so happens to have a strong bonus feat. You're a strong human, cause look at that, bonus feat. If it wasn't clear, the implication here is that this would also apply to classes and races with a strong chassis, like a cleric. Cleric is just a weak class that happens to provide a strong spell list, cool domains, turning, and whatever else you want to call strong, and those things, rather than the cleric itself, are powerful. Human, as a race, is more than just a name. It means that feat, and it means that skill point, and it might mean something else on occasion. Calling it weak and the parts strong is meaningless.

[Psyren]

Calling it weak and the parts strong is meaningless.

I don't really see a distinction.

[Renen]

You can make that argument for literally anything in the game. It's not that wizards are strong. It's that magic is strong, and wizards give you a lot of it.

Well, yeah. It's usually not going to be for the free skill point, after all, though that's a factor in the strongheart halfling comparison. It's not an overpowered race though, and it deserves its position as an LA +0 race. Sure, some LA +1 races might be worse, but that's more of a reason to drop the LA from the bad races.

Actually thats exactly it. And its the same with all full casting PrCs. As long as thry give you full casting, they are already OP, and any class feature beyond "progresses spellcasting fully" is gravy. Alot of things arent broken by themselvea but because ONE feature they have gives so many things. Like ToB classes vs fighter. Sure, fighter gets the feats, but swordsage basically gets martial magic. And thats just ONE class feature

[eggynack]

I don't really see a distinction.
The point is that the parts of the object are ultimately the object itself, at least if you consider all available parts, and especially if you're considering strength, and other parts of the object aren't weakening. This distinction being drawn, where the object is weak but the parts are strong, is one that doesn't really exist. Human is a strong race. That's really all there is to it.

Actually thats exactly it. And its the same with all full casting PrCs. As long as thry give you full casting, they are already OP, and any class feature beyond "progresses spellcasting fully" is gravy. Alot of things arent broken by themselvea but because ONE feature they have gives so many things. Like ToB classes vs fighter. Sure, fighter gets the feats, but swordsage basically gets martial magic. And thats just ONE class feature
But, y'know, human isn't OP. Which is the point. It's good, and it has its moments, but it's rarely going to break anything.

[Invader]

I guess it seems hypocritical to me to say fighters are weak because they can only do one thing well and wizards are strong because they're good at so many things and then turn around and say other races are stronger because they're specialized to a build and humans are just average in every build.

It seems like there's a different metric to judge usefulness. If you say flexibility is powerful then it should stand to reason that humans being good for the majority of builds makes them a powerful race over all.

[Invader]

If a feat is good regardless of what class you're playing I think its safe to say that most people would say its a powerful feat.

Why isn't that true with humans?

[Nilehus]

:smallconfused: Humans are very versatile, and can fit into nearly any class well... But there's always at least one race that will outperform them in said class. Jack of all trades, master of none, all that. I don't really see why an extra feat would warrant a +1 LA.

Unless Fighters are massively OP, that is. :smallwink:

[eggynack]

I guess it seems hypocritical to me to say fighters are weak because they can only do one thing well and wizards are strong because they're good at so many things and then turn around and say other races are stronger because they're specialized to a build and humans are just average in every build.

It seems like there's a different metric to judge usefulness. If you say flexibility is powerful then it should stand to reason that humans being good for the majority of builds makes them a powerful race over all.
The problem with that logic is that most of that versatility gets wasted once you actually use it. Wizard versatility actually sees use in games, allowing you to alter your entire game plan every day, if you're so inclined, and allowing you to respond to a number of problems in a day. By contrast, if I'm playing a human wizard, do you think I care that my race would also be good on a fighter? Do I see any benefit because the feat I spent on extend spell could have also been used for improved initiative? The answer is, no, I do not. You put together a build, whether with human or some other race, and then you evaluate how versatile and flexible that character is. It's completely irrelevant how flexible the race itself is, at least once you're actually in a game. Ultimately, you are the one using a different metric to judge usefulness here, using in-game flexibility to judge classes, and build flexibility to judge races.

[ryu]

I guess it seems hypocritical to me to say fighters are weak because they can only do one thing well and wizards are strong because they're good at so many things and then turn around and say other races are stronger because they're specialized to a build and humans are just average in every build.

It seems like there's a different metric to judge usefulness. If you say flexibility is powerful then it should stand to reason that humans being good for the majority of builds makes them a powerful race over all.

Ah but see wizard/fighter doesn't compare to human/specialized race. You see fighter isn't better than wizard at his specialty. Fighter is objectively bad at his listed specialty. Wizard on the other hand? Better than pretty much most of everyone in the game not in his tier at the SAME TIME.

[Iwasforger03]

If a feat is good regardless of what class you're playing I think its safe to say that most people would say its a powerful feat.

Why isn't that true with humans?


Not quite what he said. The Feat IS strong. As part of Human, that strong feat is part of a Strong Human. The Feat and Human can't simply be separated. It feels that way because 3.5 humans have only two distinct features, the feat and skill pts, but those strong features mean Human is strong because it is composed of strong parts.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I guess it seems hypocritical to me to say fighters are weak because they can only do one thing well and wizards are strong because they're good at so many things and then turn around and say other races are stronger because they're specialized to a build and humans are just average in every build.

According to the developers, Fighters are versatile. The Fighter class is versatile because they can be an archer or a TWF or a charger, etc. A Fighter isn't versatile, because he already choose to be an archer.

If instead of playing a character you were playing a army made up entirely of your race, then ya human versatility would be inportant. By the same token I'd probably take an army of Fighters with Archers, Shiled Walls and Mounted units over an army of Barbarian chargers, because that's when "Fighter Versatility" would be useful.

Note: I'm aware that there are respectable Barbarian-Archer builds and that Barb infantry probably wouldn't be terrible.

[Psyren]

The point is that the parts of the object are ultimately the object itself, at least if you consider all available parts, and especially if you're considering strength, and other parts of the object aren't weakening. This distinction being drawn, where the object is weak but the parts are strong, is one that doesn't really exist. Human is a strong race. That's really all there is to it.

But, y'know, human isn't OP. Which is the point. It's good, and it has its moments, but it's rarely going to break anything.

Ah, I get you. It sounds like we agree then.