Humans are too Good.

[frogglesmash]

Every class handbook I've ever read has put humans as one of the best, of not the best race to choose, the reason for that is simple, bonus feats are very good. My problem with this is that you end up having a lot of players (myself included) who play nothing but humans resulting in a lack of party diversity. I propose that instead of granting humans a bonus feat, we give everyone a bonus feat (or no one of you're feeling stingy), and give humans something that's still useful, but not quite as versatile as a bonus feat. The problem is, I have no idea what they should get instead of a bonus feat.

[Zombimode]

Counterproposal: do not change anything, because what is the problem here, really?

Humans are not too good. They are just good.
For pretty much any class, Human is a good choice. But this would only be a problem if they are the best choice. But as long as there are plenty other viable choices (and there are!), everything is fine.


Also, in my experience many players tend to choose races based on preference and/or curiosity for the race. Players who want to play elves will play elves, and players who want to play humans will play humans.

[ATHATH]

Do you even Strongheart Halfling, bro?

In all seriousness, though... Maybe let them add all skills to their class list(s)?

[frogglesmash]

Counterproposal: do not change anything, because what is the problem here, really?

The problem is I want my players to play more than just humans, you might be fine with nothing but human players, but I don't like it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well...Is that a problem? Most published settings I've seen, humans are the majority race. In most DM-made settings, humans are still the dominant race. So...Is this a problem? A lot of people I know just don't like being exotic races to begin with, are you sure this also isn't an issue?

Humans being good at every class means that no matter what class you want, there's a solid pick waiting for you.

If you wanna play a non-human, what races do you have to pick from? While humans are always a good choice there are sometimes equally good or better choices in the other races. Lesser Aasimar are a solid pick, after all, especially for cleric builds.

[eggynack]

Eh, they're good, but they're not usually the best. Most classes have a reasonable number of options that are stronger, especially on relatively not feat starved builds. If you and your party are playing nearly entirely humans, maybe point them to some of the really potent alternatives. Worst case scenario, you can always point folks to strongheart halfling, but it doesn't have to come to that. I tend to think the current arrangement suits human, as they're quite good on any class or build, but not the best at any one thing (most of the time).

[TheIronGolem]

Are you sure that the problem is that humans are too good, and not that other races tend to get abilities that only matter if they play to their stereotypes?

For instance, dwarves get +1 to hit orcs and goblins. That's kinda nice if you're fighting orcs and goblins, but totally useless if you're not. Halflings get a bonus to hit with thrown weapons; how exciting is that if you want to play a melee character?

If you haven't already, I'd recommend taking a look at how Pathfinder handles races with its Alternate Racial Traits. They give you more room to build a non-human who fits a chosen class role, by trading out "standard" racial abilities. Some even get access to that bonus feat like humans get.

Also, have you considered the possibility that you and/or your players are overvaluing feats? Feats are great as a hardpoint for character customization, but most of them (particularly martial feats) are fairly tame in terms of how much power they give a character.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Well, easy solution: make an {elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, tarrasque} variant with a bonus feat at first level. It's not like any of these races are particularly high-powered.

[Honest Tiefling]

You could also switch to the feat progression of Pathfinder, which is a feat every odd level. If you feel very much like changing the game, getting rid of some feat chains might also be good. It means that people don't have to wait as long for certain feats to come online for their build, so an extra feat at level 1 doesn't matter as much. Still good and flexible, but it makes non-feat granting races tempting.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The problem is I want my players to play more than just humans, you might be fine with nothing but human players, but I don't like it.Considering it's been established that humans aren't the most optimal option and are instead the "Mario," maybe players can relate more easily to a human character than a more exotic optimal race? It may be difficult to figure out, for instance, how an anthropomorphic bat druid acts and thinks, aside from liking to hang upside down.

[eggynack]

Well, easy solution: make an {elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, tarrasque} variant with a bonus feat at first level. It's not like any of these races are particularly high-powered.
Elf and half-orc I'd at least be really wary about. The former makes for a really strong wizard, and the latter makes for a really strong druid, each by dint of substitution levels. Not sure how well the other races do along these lines. Dwarf sorcerer actually seems kinda decent, at least at high level, though the downside is clearcut in nature. Gnome illusionist is quite strong, especially on builds that really push it, and gnome ranger seems maybe alright, though I wouldn't know for sure without looking at it longer. Oh, and don't forget seeker of the misty isle for elf. Also, the whole dark chaos shuffle applied to elf feats. I'd be cautious about applying buffs to races, is my point. Sometimes races are stronger than they initially appear.

[Rhyltran]

Every class handbook I've ever read has put humans as one of the best, of not the best race to choose, the reason for that is simple, bonus feats are very good. My problem with this is that you end up having a lot of players (myself included) who play nothing but humans resulting in a lack of party diversity. I propose that instead of granting humans a bonus feat, we give everyone a bonus feat (or no one of you're feeling stingy), and give humans something that's still useful, but not quite as versatile as a bonus feat. The problem is, I have no idea what they should get instead of a bonus feat.

I usually don't worry about it. You usually got enough feats to complete any build regardless. If you don't want to be that behind? If your DM allows it take a flaw. Most flaws you can get aren't that bad so long as you pick one that doesn't hamper your class. In fact you can include it in your background. For example.. you pick vulnerable. You lose -1 AC and the descriptor is that you're not good at defending yourself. Easy explanation for why you're a wizard/etc. "I'm naturally good at using my brain to fight but I don't have very good reflexes in the heat of combat to defend myself. This is why I avoid melee confrontations." I really like flaws and in most of my non human characters I take one or two.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The biggest two reasons I go human are
A) I don't particularly like roleplaying other races. It's hard to strike a balance between "human who happens to have funny ears" and "entire personality centered around my race choice," at least for me.
B) I'm having trouble getting my concept working by start-of-game otherwise. I need the extra feat and/or skill points to get into my PrC, or to fit in all the feat taxes for archery/TWF/Dex-to-damage/whatever painfully feat-intense thing I'm trying to do.

The former doesn't seem problematic; the latter is best fixed by reducing feat taxes, I think. I like to give a big bundle of basic "Improved" stuff at BAB +1-- Precise Shot, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Shield Bash, Quick Draw, Weapon Finesse, and so on. That helps everyone get started a little faster.

[Krazzman]

I recommend a ban the humans type if game. We had some monsters as heroes games or am all Halfling or all dwarf game.

On a special note the human is only considered ok for the Kineticist while dwarves and svirfneblin make awesome ones.

[OldTrees1]

A bonus feat is nice but often not good enough for a race. For a given build, you can usually find several races whose racial features are about as valuable as 1 level's worth of class features beyond the levels lost due to LA. Currently feats are not generally valuable enough to compete.

Just looking at Warrior classes:
Warforged, Goliath, and Raptorian are 3 races that gain more valuable racial feature than an equivalently priced(Goliaths are +1LA) Human.


Humans are easy, and races weaker than Humans are weak, but Humans are not strong enough for their frequency to be due to being "too good".

If you want to decrease how often your players use humans, focus on how humans are the default lazy easy option.