Human's are weak

[Callirgos]

There is no concrete reason to choose human. The're just a gimped version of 1/2 elf. The extra proficiency isn't enough. I'd advocate taking away the extra weapon/armor proficiency from half elves. OR just give humans a real stat bonus.

[Dude]

new wotc hates humans therefore you are discouraged from playing them

[DYNIA]

human is one of best race for mages cause you get shields

[ChuckyDontCare]

Shields!!!! Extra carry. New rules are kinda wonky, but Humans have never been awesome.

[DYNIA]

Originally posted by ChuckyDontCare:

Shields!!!! Extra carry. New rules are kinda wonky, but Humans have never been awesome.

they are also top pick for bards

[✙205🍉🐆→]

I choose Human for their looks, and everything else is a nice bonus

[Trolleur_Durden]

Humans have always been the "standard vanilla" race in D&D, which means that they tend to be either top tier or bottom tier depending of the rule setting. In 3rd edition, they were one of the best races thanks to their additional feat at lvl 1.

In BG3 they are indeed one of the worst races available, especially by comparison to half-elves. But it's far from being the worst lack of balance, half-orcs and githyankis are waay stronger than anything else.

[ahsanford]

Show me you are a max-min player without saying 'I am a max-min player':

Originally posted by Callirgos:

There is no concrete reason to choose human. The're just a gimped version of 1/2 elf. The extra proficiency isn't enough. I'd advocate taking away the extra weapon/armor proficiency from half elves. OR just give humans a real stat bonus.

[ᛈᚢᛒᚲᚱᚨᛚᚱ13]

Originally posted by ahsanford:

Show me you are a max-min player without saying 'I am a max-min player':

Originally posted by Callirgos:

There is no concrete reason to choose human. The're just a gimped version of 1/2 elf. The extra proficiency isn't enough. I'd advocate taking away the extra weapon/armor proficiency from half elves. OR just give humans a real stat bonus.

I might be in the minority here, or maybe I just don't fully understand the term, but I've never really understood the negative connotation around min-max'ing. Especially in a party-based game, where everyone fills a specific role, isn't it preferable to focus on each member's strengths and let the others fill in the gaps?

[His Divine Shadow]

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

Originally posted by ahsanford:

Show me you are a max-min player without saying 'I am a max-min player':

I might be in the minority here, or maybe I just don't fully understand the term, but I've never really understood the negative connotation around min-max'ing. Especially in a party-based game, where everyone fills a specific role, isn't it preferable to focus on each member's strengths and let the others fill in the gaps?

Min-maxing doesn’t make sense for roleplaying. If your party and gm doesn’t care about story, go for it. If your party and gm does care about story and you try to min-max, your table will hate you and you’ll bring the mood down

[ᛈᚢᛒᚲᚱᚨᛚᚱ13]

Originally posted by His Divine Shadow:

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

I might be in the minority here, or maybe I just don't fully understand the term, but I've never really understood the negative connotation around min-max'ing. Especially in a party-based game, where everyone fills a specific role, isn't it preferable to focus on each member's strengths and let the others fill in the gaps?

Min-maxing doesn’t make sense for roleplaying. If your party and gm doesn’t care about story, go for it. If your party and gm does care about story and you try to min-max, your table will hate you and you’ll bring the mood down

That makes sense, and like I said, I might just not fully understand what it means, because I always play games my own way. My understanding was always that it means focusing on one particular skill at the expense of all the rest.

[ahsanford]

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

I might be in the minority here, or maybe I just don't fully understand the term, but I've never really understood the negative connotation around min-max'ing. Especially in a party-based game, where everyone fills a specific role, isn't it preferable to focus on each member's strengths and let the others fill in the gaps?

Be good at your job, yes, but not everything about chargen needs to be vetted as the best possible decision. Taking a magnifying glass to each race *and then bemoaning the developers for fairness reasons about racial differences* is a line too far for me. It implies the OP cannot find the single 'best' way to play the game and that is, in some way, a fault of the developers. It's a notion that runs counter to what role-playing is to me.

In particular, *racial* min-max-ing just seems petty to me. If the whole world saw things like min-maxing: Every Race X would be Class Y because they uniquely would be best suited for it. It's bland, reductive, and unimaginative. Do it if you want, it's just not for me.

One positive note here: a loooooot of max-min-ers on this forum are living two button 'impossible choice' memes IRL right now: they have to choose between the 'human hero they always prefer see themselves as' vs. 'the best race for my build'. Slow clap to Larian on that one.

- A

[Fluffykeith]

There’s a human variant in 5e that gets to pick a feat at lvl 1, I wish they’d used that variant in bg3

[ᛈᚢᛒᚲᚱᚨᛚᚱ13]

Originally posted by ahsanford:

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

I might be in the minority here, or maybe I just don't fully understand the term, but I've never really understood the negative connotation around min-max'ing. Especially in a party-based game, where everyone fills a specific role, isn't it preferable to focus on each member's strengths and let the others fill in the gaps?

Be good at your job, yes, but not everything about chargen needs to be vetted as the best possible decision. Taking a magnifying glass to each race *and then bemoaning the developers for fairness reasons about racial differences* is a line too far for me. It implies the OP cannot find the single 'best' way to play the game and that is, in some way, a fault of the developers. It's a notion that runs counter to what role-playing is to me.

In particular, *racial* min-max-ing just seems petty to me. If the whole world saw things like min-maxing: Every Race X would be Class Y because they uniquely would be best suited for it. It's bland, reductive, and unimaginative. Do it if you want, it's just not for me.

One positive note here: a loooooot of max-min-ers on this forum are living two button 'impossible choice' memes IRL right now: they have to choose between the 'human hero they always prefer see themselves as' vs. 'the best race for my build'. Slow clap to Larian on that one.

- A

I see what you mean - so it's essentially taking what I originally said to a ridiculous, exclusionary degree. In that sense, it makes a lot more sense, and I agree. Appreciate the explanation!

[Pyromaiden]

humans are boring

i care more about aesthetics than racial bonuses or w/e (though i do try to go for a class that compliments them sometimes)

why play human when you can be a tiefling with black sclera that makes your eyes look cool? or horns, which are awesome? and you get a swishy tail, too? you literally look like a stereotypical european demon and that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cool dude

[His Divine Shadow]

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

Originally posted by His Divine Shadow:

Min-maxing doesn’t make sense for roleplaying. If your party and gm doesn’t care about story, go for it. If your party and gm does care about story and you try to min-max, your table will hate you and you’ll bring the mood down

That makes sense, and like I said, I might just not fully understand what it means, because I always play games my own way. My understanding was always that it means focusing on one particular skill at the expense of all the rest.

its more than just one skill. It’s making the most optimal character for a specific role which generally requires you picking stats and abilities that don’t make any sense from a roleplay perspective