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.

[ahsanford]

* References to a master race, use of 'irony' to bemoan that race isn't human = check

* OP using the work 'weak', casual misuse of apostrophes --> implying that delivering the troll > the argument of the troll = check

* Folks trying to be objective and insightful about the topic of superiority of races, in that 'the lens of the argument is what matters', not that we're going to that argument at all = check

* The use of the word inferior in the context of race = all. the. checks.

I feel like we're just one tiiiiiny chain of logic away from a BG3 forums sort of Godwin's Law but this one always ends up with '...and THIS is why all I mods I truly need are blocked at Nexus'

- A

[id795078477]

Races don't make any sense in DnD even if we stretch the "it's fantasy" argument beyond its limits.

Elves & any long-living races cannot be on par with short-living races like humans. Elves don't read 10 times slower than humans. Elves don't process information 10 times slower than humans. Elves don't have reaction time 10 times slower than humans. And so on. So basically, if elves perceive everything at the same speed in real time as humans, then elves will not need 120 years to "reach maturity". They will reach it just as humans, at roughly 16..18 y.o. depending on the individual. That's the first huge blunder.

The second blunder is even more egregious: if you take an "average" young elf and "average" even "older" human, you'll be comparing one being with 300 years of experience versus a being with maybe 40 years of experience (at most). The elf would have the chance to learn 7 times the number of professions and/or master them to a multiple times better level than that human. It would not be even a comparison, it would be like a toddler versus an adult. And it only gets worse as that elves ages. A 600 y.o. elf would be like a god to any human.

Yeah "it's fantasy", but there are limits to where it's possible to stretch this fig leaf. Unless elves are severely impaired mentally and really perceive the world at a very slow rate in real time, the compound experience will spiral out of control and fast. And it's impossible for them to have "slower perception" because if that was the case, then races with "faster perception" like humans would just wipe them out evolution-wise and in every conflict they'd lose their ground.

To be honest, it's not only DnD issue, it's the issue of any universe that tries to have races with multiples of times different longevity alongside one another. That simply makes no sense and never works.

[Ol'Chum]

The fault with your argument is that if you care about racial bonuses so much you will always play halfling. Free Lucky and free Stealth advantage is beyond disgusting, nothing comes close maybe except deep gnome

[SlicerDicer]

DnD is mechanically unsound. We all played it because it has tons of lore and content. Thankfully Hasbro has cured the content creators from just doing DnD

[kbiz]

Originally posted by JustSmile:

Originally posted by ChuckyDontCare:

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

In 3.5 they get an extra feat, which automatically makes them the best for everything, if boring.

Good point.

That's the problem with balance. No race can be better. There has be equal trade-offs that. Or near equal. So it comes down to preference. It's not surprising that humans are ho-hum.

[mike_hanna211]

Humans have been gimped since 3rd edition when racial level limits and class restrictions were removed. All humans got were more skill points and an extra feat at level 1.

Since 3rd edition, there's almost no reason to play humans other than for personal preferences. There's no power-gaming reason to ever take human. Their only benefit is all their ability scores improve by 1.

[Sentient_Toaster]

Originally posted by yahboi1988:

Originally posted by ChuckyDontCare:

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

In table top humans are actually busted in 5E. You can start with a whole feat at level 1.

Variant, only. Vanilla is... practically always a terrible, D-tier choice, especially if the group is sticking to standard array where four of your ability scores start as even and thus the +1 tends not to matter at all.

Variant human is strong, although custom lineage has an edge over it I think (e.g. being able to start with an 18 in a primary ability score if there's an appropriate half-feat).

[votadc]

Originally posted by mike_hanna211:

Humans have been gimped since 3rd edition when racial level limits and class restrictions were removed. All humans got were more skill points and an extra feat at level 1.

Since 3rd edition, there's almost no reason to play humans other than for personal preferences. There's no power-gaming reason to ever take human. Their only benefit is all their ability scores improve by 1.

They are boring but at least they are human.....in Bg3 they are.....mules with carry capacity bonus.

[ULTRA]

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.

This is an RPG, you don't just magically gain the ability to play every instrument after killing a gnoll or ignore resistances with fire after convincing some ogres to join you because "well that's the vibe I'm getting from my character." Everyone is making tactical decisions to some degree.

[id795078477]

Originally posted by mike_hanna211:

Humans have been gimped since 3rd edition when racial level limits and class restrictions were removed. All humans got were more skill points and an extra feat at level 1.

Since 3rd edition, there's almost no reason to play humans other than for personal preferences. There's no power-gaming reason to ever take human. Their only benefit is all their ability scores improve by 1.

Wait.. you're seriously placing "just an extra feat" and extra SP as a "not enough power"? If so then there's nothing anyone with 3e/3.5e builds knowledge can tell you to convince you how wrong that is..

[Govi]

When there were plus and minus to skills and caps they were good for their neutralness

But yeah I play for tie bonuses and end up a gnome more often than not now

[DrZann]

The way we handle this in our tabletop games is to limit players to just human characters.

[Govi]

Originally posted by DrZann:

The way we handle this in our tabletop games is to limit players to just human characters.

that sucks

why not make people roll for race, or roll for race option (say die 20, get over 10 to make it available to that player)

[DrZann]

Originally posted by Govi:

Originally posted by DrZann:

The way we handle this in our tabletop games is to limit players to just human characters.

that sucks

why not make people roll for race, or roll for race option (say die 20, get over 10 to make it available to that player)

Just removing the ability to see in the dark is an immense improvement that adds tension to exploration in our games.

[Shadow]

In 5e, ability scores matter much more than in earlier editions, because proficiency bonus raises so much slower than bab in previous editions, and there are no skill points. Additionally, each feat is more like 3 3.x feats rolled into one.