What's NOT being fixed in 3.5?
Particle_Man
Explorer
yes and no
Again, some fair comments, deserving of a fair reply. I agree with most of the facts you have stated, but disagree as to their evaluative weight.
"Arcane Archer and Bladesinger combos are the most obvious niches for the half-elf. Ftr 4/Sor 2 Arcane Archer or Bladesinger. Better be a half-elf or you'll have xp penalties. Ftr 4/Wiz 1/Rgr 1 (or Bbn 1) Arcane Archer or Bladesinger. You want to be a half-elf. Ftr 2/Bbn 1/Rgr 1/Bard 4 Arcane Archer is another half-elf only class combo.
Most of the benefits to being a half-elf instead of an elf or human will probably involve heavily
multi-classed prestige classes (or prestige class combos) requiring elf blood."
I agree , but think that "prestige classes that have elven blood as a prerequisite and which one wants to combine with core classes that are non-equivalent in level (with the exception of Wizard)" is a very narrow niche indeed. Kind of like a life form that can only exist on the part of the beach that is covered by water exactly half of the time. (I think something like this exists but can't remember it. Is there a biologist in the house?). And this niche is especially unstable since it is up to each DM whether to even allow such prestige classes in her game.
"An argument could also be made for rangers or rogues since half-elf's favored class lets them
multiclass like humans but they still get low-light vision and are able to function better at night. However, that's not something that comes up in most games."
Correct. But, as you say, situations in which Low-light vision gives a mechanical advantage over normal vision are usually not focused on in campaigns that I (and apparantly you) have encountered. Darkvision, yes. Lowlight vision, no. The feat and skill points that a human would get would almost certainly trump the "elf-lite" abilities in most games.
In addition, now that the Ranger is being corrected so as to not be so front-loaded, there is less incentive to be a Ranger 1/Rogue X. Thus more Ranger/Rogues could have equivalent levels (so an elf would be better if you really like lowlight vision, and that Dex bonus would be Rogue-a-rific!). So 3.5 is actually giving one LESS reason to play the half-elf.
In the half-elf's defence, one might argue that when new core classes are added to the game, the multi-classing ability of the half-elf makes it more attractive. But again, which core classes are allowed is up to the DM. Also, in most cases the human would also become more attractive, and the extra feat and skill points would trump the "elf-lite" abilities in most cases. There are exceptions, but such exceptions occupy narrow niches, as I have said above.
That some DMs have taken the step of house-ruling the half-elf to give it some more power indicates that I am not a lone voice howling in the wilderness. Others also agree that the half-elf could use some improvement.
Again, some fair comments, deserving of a fair reply. I agree with most of the facts you have stated, but disagree as to their evaluative weight.
"Arcane Archer and Bladesinger combos are the most obvious niches for the half-elf. Ftr 4/Sor 2 Arcane Archer or Bladesinger. Better be a half-elf or you'll have xp penalties. Ftr 4/Wiz 1/Rgr 1 (or Bbn 1) Arcane Archer or Bladesinger. You want to be a half-elf. Ftr 2/Bbn 1/Rgr 1/Bard 4 Arcane Archer is another half-elf only class combo.
Most of the benefits to being a half-elf instead of an elf or human will probably involve heavily
multi-classed prestige classes (or prestige class combos) requiring elf blood."
I agree , but think that "prestige classes that have elven blood as a prerequisite and which one wants to combine with core classes that are non-equivalent in level (with the exception of Wizard)" is a very narrow niche indeed. Kind of like a life form that can only exist on the part of the beach that is covered by water exactly half of the time. (I think something like this exists but can't remember it. Is there a biologist in the house?). And this niche is especially unstable since it is up to each DM whether to even allow such prestige classes in her game.
"An argument could also be made for rangers or rogues since half-elf's favored class lets them
multiclass like humans but they still get low-light vision and are able to function better at night. However, that's not something that comes up in most games."
Correct. But, as you say, situations in which Low-light vision gives a mechanical advantage over normal vision are usually not focused on in campaigns that I (and apparantly you) have encountered. Darkvision, yes. Lowlight vision, no. The feat and skill points that a human would get would almost certainly trump the "elf-lite" abilities in most games.
In addition, now that the Ranger is being corrected so as to not be so front-loaded, there is less incentive to be a Ranger 1/Rogue X. Thus more Ranger/Rogues could have equivalent levels (so an elf would be better if you really like lowlight vision, and that Dex bonus would be Rogue-a-rific!). So 3.5 is actually giving one LESS reason to play the half-elf.
In the half-elf's defence, one might argue that when new core classes are added to the game, the multi-classing ability of the half-elf makes it more attractive. But again, which core classes are allowed is up to the DM. Also, in most cases the human would also become more attractive, and the extra feat and skill points would trump the "elf-lite" abilities in most cases. There are exceptions, but such exceptions occupy narrow niches, as I have said above.
That some DMs have taken the step of house-ruling the half-elf to give it some more power indicates that I am not a lone voice howling in the wilderness. Others also agree that the half-elf could use some improvement.
Similar Threads
