D&D 4E Are humans balanced in 4e?

[Elder-Basilisk]

In 3E, human was the default race - unless you had a specific reason to play some other race, you would generally play a human.

In 4E, this is no longer so. Humans are now one race among many equal options - some builds work well with humans, but far from all.

Depending on the campaign, this might be a good or bad idea. if you want a human-dominated campaign, its probably a good idea to improve humans somewhat - like I did for my Greyhawk game.

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

In 3rd edition, human was a good default race. That is not necessarily the same as saying that they were overpowered, however. Every character had their niche in 3rd edition and level adjustments kept the use of odd monster races to a minimum. Thus, humans were flexible enough to fill nearly every build, for most builds, other races offered a tradeoff rather than a straightforward improvement (a grey-elf wizard, for instance would have slightly more spells and higher DCs but would have to live with a con penalty; a half-orc could manage a higher strength than a human, but had a lot more trouble coming up with the Int for Combat Expertise and Improved Trip and could run into trouble getting the skills to qualify for prestige classes or with multiclassing xp penalties). Most importantly, however, there was a very limited player market for monster races since most of them came with level adjustments that made them difficult to exploit mechanically. Therefore, there were many niches where humans were still the best choice available.

In third edition, with limited racial options, the flexibility to fill any role acceptably was valuable.


In 4th edition on the other hand, the old saying that second place is the first loser comes to mind.

With a new race coming out every month (if not more often) offering a targeted +2/+2 to whatever pair of stats you want and a racial encounter ability that will usually see more use than the third best at-will for your build, nearly every mechanical character concept has a race that is simply better, mechanically speaking than human. Humans may make good balanced clerics, but longtooth shifters are better. Humans may make good brutal scoundrel rogues but elves (and drow) are better. Humans may make good strength/con fighters, but warforged, orcs, and minotaurs are better.

The only niche that humans arguably fill as well as any other race is that of wizard focused on control through status effects, and the only reason that humans have managed to claw a hold on that niche is that there is not yet any race that offers a bonus to both Int and Wisdom. When that race comes out, the only thing humans will have going for them is that they will usually have non-AC defenses one to two points (total of all three) higher than those enjoyed by other races and they provide access to Action Surge for characters who do not like the half-elf racial bonuses.

Humans do need powering up in any setting where humans are supposed to be a dominant race. However, the only option that fourth edition has for doing so is overpowered human racial feats or paragon paths. Given the rest of the 4th edition design philosophy, humans will necessarily be, at best, first loser for any mechanical concept, and, in some cases, they will be the third or fourth loser.

 

[Ahglock]

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

In 3rd edition, human was a good default race. That is not necessarily the same as saying that they were overpowered, however. Every character had their niche in 3rd edition and level adjustments kept the use of odd monster races to a minimum. Thus, humans were flexible enough to fill nearly every build, for most builds, other races offered a tradeoff rather than a straightforward improvement (a grey-elf wizard, for instance would have slightly more spells and higher DCs but would have to live with a con penalty; a half-orc could manage a higher strength than a human, but had a lot more trouble coming up with the Int for Combat Expertise and Improved Trip and could run into trouble getting the skills to qualify for prestige classes or with multiclassing xp penalties). Most importantly, however, there was a very limited player market for monster races since most of them came with level adjustments that made them difficult to exploit mechanically. Therefore, there were many niches where humans were still the best choice available.

In third edition, with limited racial options, the flexibility to fill any role acceptably was valuable.


In 4th edition on the other hand, the old saying that second place is the first loser comes to mind.

With a new race coming out every month (if not more often) offering a targeted +2/+2 to whatever pair of stats you want and a racial encounter ability that will usually see more use than the third best at-will for your build, nearly every mechanical character concept has a race that is simply better, mechanically speaking than human. Humans may make good balanced clerics, but longtooth shifters are better. Humans may make good brutal scoundrel rogues but elves (and drow) are better. Humans may make good strength/con fighters, but warforged, orcs, and minotaurs are better.

The only niche that humans arguably fill as well as any other race is that of wizard focused on control through status effects, and the only reason that humans have managed to claw a hold on that niche is that there is not yet any race that offers a bonus to both Int and Wisdom. When that race comes out, the only thing humans will have going for them is that they will usually have non-AC defenses one to two points (total of all three) higher than those enjoyed by other races and they provide access to Action Surge for characters who do not like the half-elf racial bonuses.

Humans do need powering up in any setting where humans are supposed to be a dominant race. However, the only option that fourth edition has for doing so is overpowered human racial feats or paragon paths. Given the rest of the 4th edition design philosophy, humans will necessarily be, at best, first loser for any mechanical concept, and, in some cases, they will be the third or fourth loser.

Well said. I basically agree, though IMO the human is a really close 1st loser in most cases. The level of imbalance in the races I am aware of is small enough that I feel I can safely ignore it. Time my tell a different story though, I do miss things form time to time.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Paladins--The Class most dependant on multiple stats in the entire game. Avoid like the Plague.

I would think a Defender would get a lot of mileage out of boosts to the defense, and concentrating on Cha seems viable. Is it that bad?

 

[Eldorian]

I would think a Defender would get a lot of mileage out of boosts to the defense, and concentrating on Cha seems viable. Is it that bad?

Get an 18 Str or 18 Cha and you can be a paladin as a human. The 3rd at will kinda sucks, but the defenses are good.

In fact, humans can be any class, and "optimal" choices are no where near as optimal as they were in 3e.

 

[Cadfan]

With a new race coming out every month (if not more often) offering a targeted +2/+2 to whatever pair of stats you want and a racial encounter ability that will usually see more use than the third best at-will for your build, nearly every mechanical character concept has a race that is simply better, mechanically speaking than human. Humans may make good balanced clerics, but longtooth shifters are better. Humans may make good brutal scoundrel rogues but elves (and drow) are better. Humans may make good strength/con fighters, but warforged, orcs, and minotaurs are better.

I have to disagree with this. The point buy difference between the 18/16 you're probably going to get with a perfectly targeted +2/+2 and the 18/14 that you are going to get with the perfectly targeted +2 from being human is 4 points.

That means you either suffer a -1 to your secondary stat bonus, or, you loot 4 point buy points from your other statistics. Neither is a remotely major penalty. Both can easily be overcome by other considerations, most typically by the extra at will.

For a perfectly targeted +2/+2 race, a typical stat blocks tend to be near to this, from highest to lowest: 18/16/14/12/10/8. For a human, that changes to 18/14/14/12/10/8. Or possibly 18/16/13/10/10/8.

This is not a crisis for the human. Its not even a very big disadvantage. It doesn't take much to overcome it.

The only classes with a "no humans need apply" sign out front are those with only two good at wills for a particular build. Cleric and paladin, I'm looking at you.

 

[Eldorian]

The only classes with a "no humans need apply" sign out front are those with only two good at wills for a particular build. Cleric and paladin, I'm looking at you.

In my opinion, since a str cleric wants wis for secondary stat anyways, humans make a decent str cleric that can mix up ranged and melee powers. His ranged powers don't have the healing secondary effect power of a straight up wis/cha cleric, but they only have -1 to hit compared to a wis cleric. A human that looks like 18 12 10 8 16 12 can do fine as melee cleric.

Human can also do paladin, but you lose out on a decent 3rd at will until divine power comes out, unless you convince your DM to let you swap a cha at will for str. Hell, Str human paladins miss out on powers at several levels.

 

[Jhaelen]

I kinda like the humans' racial abilities and their racial feats. I think they're quite balanced even though they don't get a bonus to two abilities.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

In my opinion, since a str cleric wants wis for secondary stat anyways, humans make a decent str cleric that can mix up ranged and melee powers. His ranged powers don't have the healing secondary effect power of a straight up wis/cha cleric, but they only have -1 to hit compared to a wis cleric. A human that looks like 18 12 10 8 16 12 can do fine as melee cleric.

Yeah, I've always thought that Humans could do okay as a Melee Cleric. If you focus on STR and WIS, you can pick up Lance of Faith as your 3rd At-Will and have a ranged attack for enemies beyond your reach, or for when you're banged up. Plus, it gives you two different ways to grant someone else a to-hit bonus against the enemy.

 

[Mengu]

I won't comment on whether humans are balanced or not. But just for a quick comparison of Human vs Dragonborn, when I think about "what class Dragonborn would be exciting to play?" my list is something like:

-Barbarian (probably charisma based eventhough we haven't seen it)
-Cleric (strength based)
-Fighter (any)
-Paladin (any)
-Ranger (melee)
-Rogue (any)
-Warlock (charisma based)
-Warlord (charisma based)

When I think about "what class Human would be exciting to play?" my list is something like:

-Druid
-Invoker
-Wizard

I guess I like human controllers. I don't know if humans and dragonborns are well balanced against each other or not. They may be fine when you look at the math, but are they well designed to be equally desirable? I think that's questionable since I'm liking more than twice as many classes for the dragonborn. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment as a player.

 

[Cadfan]

Mengu- why not human rogues, fighters, warlords, or barbarians? All of those classes have a wide variety of high quality at will attacks (I'm assuming the inclusion of martial power for the fighter).

Maybe the problem is a lack of "excitement factor?" To me, that isn't a problem, because I'm a nuts and bolts kind of player, but I can see where it could become one for others.