Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Humans don't get special skills or abilities like dark vision, but humans get something no other race get. A +1 to every single attribute so they can be really, really good as any class.
Drow getting stuff like Faerie Fire is usually counterbalanced by them also getting Sunlight Sensitivity, which makes them have disadvantage on attacks while in sunlight, but they don't have that weakness in BG3 since it would make them super weak in a large chunk of the game's area.
and unless you go for fighter, the extra weapon skills are really cool... especially the drow weapon skills that allow you to use finesse reducing the MAD (MIscelaneous ability distribution) to practically 2 stats for most classes. Tbh the high elf or dwarven weapon skills are not nearly that usefull. I can make a drow wizard and give him dex, int and con and be as good at melee as he is at ranged and in par with a fighter (... which seems kind of imbalanced. on top I can dump str fto get extra stats without affecting melee damage ... Well i am kind of new in 5th edition but drows do seem to have clear advantage to me. Yeah yadda yadda light sensitivity nice and all if its not in this game is not so it definetely is not balancing factor...
also if I am not mistaken in 5e getting a feat is as important as a +2 in stats... you should really balance all those extra skills as at least 2 feats in a balancing equation.
Generally speaking humans suck. In the tabletop version there is a variant human which is arguably the best race across the board, but it currently doesn't exist in BG3.
Humans are terrible. All forms of half elf are better.
In the earlier editions humans got extra feats and skills, those allowed humans to match specialized races. It's not really jack of all trades, it's flexible specialization. They couldn't match the raw power however.
In this Humans are just worse. Unless humans get skills or feats on later levels I'm unaware of, I don't know 5th edition for crap. I stopped playing tabletop in 4th edition.
Omg I totally forgot that stuff, you could do such broken stuff and all within the poorly defined rules.
You could also make a Gith wizard and pump str. and wear heavy armor and a greatsword - and be as good a fighter with as much armor... He also gets free teleport and invis mage hand and stuff... You could also make a high elf wizard and it would be better than a drow because he gets bonus int.. However for other classes dwarf seem very superior in many ways, except beying ugly.... I dont find Drow any more imbalanced than the other races. Wood elf moves faster and make excelent rangers...
I think fighter classes get an extra attack at level 5 - so the fact that EA goes to exactly lvl 4 kinda makes casters a bit superior right now - but i dont think it will stay that way....
Another problem with fearie-fire, is that it requires concentration - so it competes with spells like hex, hunters mark, BLESS .... even shield of faith is kinda good if stacked ontop of AC...
Also later on multiclass will be available and that will change everything..
But i dunno
Having a guaranteed 16 for your main stat in the point-buy system, no matter what class you play if you pick a human, really makes a big deal.
If I want to be a drow wizard, I can but I'll have 1 less to my intelligence modifier than I would as a tiefling or a human. Strongheart Halfling warlock? Same thing. Dwarf Ranger?
Humans can be good at any class, whereas other races can be those classes but have to wait until level 4 to get the ability boost so they can get to as good as a human is naturally if that race isn't already good at that attribute.
Half elves get to choose 2 stats to have +1 in, so they get that and a secondary stat on top of a truck load of bonus features. Also a +2 chr for giggles. So again, Half elves, all of them > Humans.
So Half elves get 16 in primary/secondary or 17 if it's chr. So they match or exceed Humans just in stats.
Unless you are gonna argue dump stats are worth more then the like 8 bonuses Half elves get.
Humans suck. Half elves are more flexible and powerful, they do it better.
Not arguing that half-elves are awesome. Just making the argument that humans don't suck as much as you make them out to.
On what scale are you measuring them then? They aren't the best at anything and they aren't even the best generalist. The best generalist, Half elves, can compete and be closely compared to the most optimal race/class combos.
If you insist on measuring them against screwed up sub optimal race/class builds then you are comparing them to the weakest worst choices. If you need to set the bar that low to get a favourable comparison then what does that mean? They aren't the most terrible?
5th edition seems to be the weakest version of Humans that existed in any D&D ever. 3.5th and 4th there were valid arguments that Human is the best choice for specialized build that were feat heavy. No one will ever say that in 5th edition.
This is entirely about optimization here. If people wanna play a Human, w/e go for it, just don't lie to yourself and pretend that it was a good choice mechanically or optimal in any way.