Are Humans race just pure garbo now

[Etagloc]

Since they unlocked the stats from each race, I think the made it all +2 and +1.

are humans just irrelevant.

Or maybe they added variant human now?.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

Originally posted by Hobocop:

There has been speculation that Monks can use any weapon they're proficient with as a monk weapon in BG3, which would be huge boon for the class.

It's just non-heavy/2hand weapons, that's not new.

Which may or may not be a thing in BG3 in Larian's efforts to touch up the class because they're kind of a meme on tabletop at the moment.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by lordgizka:

Originally posted by HozzMidnight:

It is confirmed that Humans get pole arm and light armor proficiency as well as +20 carry capacity and half elves got nothing.

Light armor? To make human pure casters and monks tankier, I suppose?

Actually light armor would be worse for monks than no armor because of their unarmored defense adding wisdom on top of their AC with Dexterity.

As for the casters it really depends on the type of magic armor that is in the game because spells like mage armor are actually on par with non-magical medium armor and generally offers a better AC than light armor does.

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

Originally posted by Hobocop:

There has been speculation that Monks can use any weapon they're proficient with as a monk weapon in BG3, which would be huge boon for the class.

It's just non-heavy/2hand weapons, that's not new.

That's how it is in tabletop, but what we've heard is that any proficient weapon works for monks in BG3. Glaive Monk sounds really, really good to me.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by lordgizka:

Originally posted by HozzMidnight:

It is confirmed that Humans get pole arm and light armor proficiency as well as +20 carry capacity and half elves got nothing.

Light armor? To make human pure casters and monks tankier, I suppose?

Supposedly they get shield proficiency too. We actually currently think they made a twist of variant human, but instead of picking a feat you get to choose a proficiency yourself since we recently saw a human with different proficiencies they shouldn't have.

Monks don't need light armor, they lose a lot of features for using armor. However, it'd be great for casters that don't multiclass or want to waste a feat on it, or classes that normally get shields.

[Grand Architect]

Originally posted by Space Hamster Family:

Originally posted by Etagloc:

Since they unlocked the stats from each race, I think the made it all +2 and +1.

are humans just irrelevant.

Or maybe they added variant human now?.

WoTC wanted to eliminate the idea of "race". The term they use now is species. The belief that one "race" had advantages over the other was inherently racist according to their wisdom. Larian was forced to adopt this. So, yes.

But one species still has advantages over another with the change due to abilities like free cantrips and darkvision. It's all BS PR speak to turn half the community against the other halve to try and force the change as good. At the end of the day they (WotC) want to control your damage, attack, saves, skills and HP down to the single +1 no matter your character build choices to balance encounters and the like without as much of the variation there was before.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

Originally posted by lordgizka:

Light armor? To make human pure casters and monks tankier, I suppose?

Actually light armor would be worse for monks than no armor because of their unarmored defense adding wisdom on top of their AC with Dexterity.

As for the casters it really depends on the type of magic armor that is in the game because spells like mage armor are actually on par with non-magical medium armor and generally offers a better AC than light armor does.

Good. That means you don't have to prepare or take mage armor, and can benefit from magical light armors along with helms, bracers/gloves, and boots which require light armor proficiency which we know will be a thing in the full game.

[lordgizka]

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

Originally posted by lordgizka:

Light armor? To make human pure casters and monks tankier, I suppose?

Actually light armor would be worse for monks than no armor because of their unarmored defense adding wisdom on top of their AC with Dexterity.

As for the casters it really depends on the type of magic armor that is in the game because spells like mage armor are actually on par with non-magical medium armor and generally offers a better AC than light armor does.

Oh, humans are completely worthless now. I see.

[Lily]

Carry capacity is going to be pretty good actually. There are a lot of consumables you'll want to have on you so that's a nice bonus. If you're in medium armor and have dumped strength this is premium.

I was having trouble with Carry Capacity in early access even with sending everything to camp because there were a lot of consumable items I wanted to have on me.

I could also see a world were its useful for speed running with characters carrying explosive kegs. Is it likely? Mmm. I don't know, human's weakness to sleep holds them back a bit.

As for Light armor, makes them a great choice for Wizards and Sorcerers. The weapon proficiency are pretty meh though. Everything I'd want to use it on already can use them.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

It's just non-heavy/2hand weapons, that's not new.

That's how it is in tabletop, but what we've heard is that any proficient weapon works for monks in BG3. Glaive Monk sounds really, really good to me.

No, what you "heard" is an excited Fextralife offhandedly make a comment he himself was unsure about and preempted with "I think" with zero proof to back up his claim from him or anyone else.

A TON of people, including other previewers, think he was mistaken, since he's technically not incorrect--IT IS whatever you're proficient with, EXLUDING weapons with the heavy/2handed tag.

Fextralife is a terrible source for any info he doesn't read off to you straight from the game while showing it, and he didn't in this case. I'm 99% sure he's wrong and so do most people, and it wouldn't be the first time. Don't just blindly drink his slop, please.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

Originally posted by lordgizka:

Light armor? To make human pure casters and monks tankier, I suppose?

Supposedly they get shield proficiency too. We actually currently think they made a twist of variant human, but instead of picking a feat you get to choose a proficiency yourself since we recently saw a human with different proficiencies they shouldn't have.

Monks don't need light armor, they lose a lot of features for using armor. However, it'd be great for casters that don't multiclass or want to waste a feat on it, or classes that normally get shields.

While that would be interesting and better than what's come out so far, it's not confirmed or even been shown by youtubers like Wolfheart of Fextralife that a shield proficiency is even an option for humans.

As of this moment, it can change but what humans get have been shown to be:

1. Light Armor proficiency.
2. Polearm proficiency.
3. +20 carrying capacity.

Which, in terms of racial traits, overall just suck.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

Supposedly they get shield proficiency too. We actually currently think they made a twist of variant human, but instead of picking a feat you get to choose a proficiency yourself since we recently saw a human with different proficiencies they shouldn't have.

Monks don't need light armor, they lose a lot of features for using armor. However, it'd be great for casters that don't multiclass or want to waste a feat on it, or classes that normally get shields.

While that would be interesting and better than what's come out so far, it's not confirmed or even been shown by youtubers like Wolfheart of Fextralife that a shield proficiency is even an option for humans.

As of this moment, it can change but what humans get have been shown to be:

1. Light Armor proficiency.
2. Polearm proficiency.
3. +20 carrying capacity.

Which, in terms of racial traits, overall just suck.

That's actually outdated information, and by quite a bit. Wolfheart doesn't make videos with every update or information people pull from interviews and coverages from other outlets like Kotaku.

Reddit has a much more recent view of human proficiencies we've pulled from multiple resources including recent coverage from other sites. You're lagging behind, mate.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Lily:

Carry capacity is going to be pretty good actually. There are a lot of consumables you'll want to have on you so that's a nice bonus. If you're in medium armor and have dumped strength this is premium.

I was having trouble with Carry Capacity in early access even with sending everything to camp because there were a lot of consumable items I wanted to have on me.

I could also see a world were its useful for speed running with characters carrying explosive kegs. Is it likely? Mmm. I don't know, human's weakness to sleep holds them back a bit.

As for Light armor, makes them a great choice for Wizards and Sorcerers. The weapon proficiency are pretty meh though. Everything I'd want to use it on already can use them.

Not really, because any and every race can just right click on an item in the inventory, send it back to camp, and there's a button on the map menu that sends you back to camp, you can retrieve whatever items you want and then leave camp and be right where you left off.

As for your point about consumables. If you have so many that it's weighing you down that much in early access that just means you are not actually using the consumables.

It kind of reminds me of this skit from viva la dirt league.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwQ84hVrMJo

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Nightmarian:

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

While that would be interesting and better than what's come out so far, it's not confirmed or even been shown by youtubers like Wolfheart of Fextralife that a shield proficiency is even an option for humans.

As of this moment, it can change but what humans get have been shown to be:

1. Light Armor proficiency.
2. Polearm proficiency.
3. +20 carrying capacity.

Which, in terms of racial traits, overall just suck.

That's actually outdated information, and by quite a bit. Wolfheart doesn't make videos with every update or information people pull from interviews and coverages from other outlets like Kotaku.

Reddit has a much more recent view of human proficiencies we've pulled from multiple resources including recent coverage from other sites. You're lagging behind, mate.

Care to provide sources that offer alternative traits humans get then?

[ahsanford]

Originally posted by HozzMidnight:

Not sure why Larian would do this...the only explanations I can come up with is that they are morons and did not realize they were gimping those races (seems unlikely) or they are deliberately steering people away from those races, which seems very on brand for them.

1) Topline, as others have said: WOTC probably made Larian do this for the thought that 'races have benefits' not being a terribly good look in 2023. Larian's hands may have been tied with this.

2) Resetting species/races like this destroys cliches of '[Race] is always a [Class]'. This is good.

3) It's not terribly realistic to offer species/racial benefits and then see all gamers literally try to game that to be more powerful/successful. Think about it: if every Dwarf is frontline melee and every Halfling is a Rogue, the system isn't terribly realistic -- it just portrays race as a vehicle for being good at a role. But are Dwarven societies all militaristic? Are Halflings all part of a society wide Thieves' Guild? Let's use our imaginations a bit, yeah?

4) For the weird 'I want to be hyperspecific character X' crowd out there, this change thoughtfully decouples species/race from their aspirations in RP. I don't think that's a bad thing.

5) In general, we stop talking about 'best' with races. That's only a win, people.

- A

[Space Hamster Family]

Originally posted by ahsanford:

Originally posted by HozzMidnight:

Not sure why Larian would do this...the only explanations I can come up with is that they are morons and did not realize they were gimping those races (seems unlikely) or they are deliberately steering people away from those races, which seems very on brand for them.

1) Topline, as others have said: WOTC probably made Larian do this for the thought that 'races have benefits' not being a terribly good look in 2023. Larian's hands may have been tied with this.

2) Resetting species/races like this destroys cliches of '[Race] is always a [Class]'. This is good.

3) It's not terribly realistic to offer species/racial benefits and then see all gamers literally try to game that to be more powerful/successful. Think about it: if every Dwarf is frontline melee and every Halfling is a Rogue, the system isn't terribly realistic -- it just portrays race as a vehicle for being good at a role. But are Dwarven societies all militaristic? Are Halflings all part of a society wide Thieves' Guild? Let's use our imaginations a bit, yeah?

4) For the weird 'I want to be hyperspecific character X' crowd out there, this change thoughtfully decouples species/race from their aspirations in RP. I don't think that's a bad thing.

5) In general, we stop talking about 'best' with races. That's only a win, people.

- A

for people who play DnD like a video game it makes sense, but for others not so much