Half-Elves: Underpowered

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Yeah, okay, I concede my point, they're not that bad. But look at dwarves! They've got so many benefits, I've always thought it odd that they're so discriminated against.

 

[Apok]

So the question is... does this:

Equal a feat and a skill point per level?

I would say so.

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, no, I still think Half-Elves are weak, but for the same reason Bards are weak. They don't excel at any area. They're somewhere in between Human and Elf. The stronger characters, I think, have at least one specialty.

 

[Darkness]

Yeah, okay, I concede my point, they're not that bad. But look at dwarves! They've got so many benefits, I've always thought it odd that they're so discriminated against.

Dwarves are powermongers. Their size envy necessitates that they overcompensate in other areas.

 

[Particle_Man]

Half-elfs are mechanically weak. You are better off taking either an elf or a human, almost every time. There is one exception, not available in 3.0. In 3.5 they threw the half-elf a bone with some "face" skill bonuses. So if you really want to cheese out with diplomacy (getting all those synergies, etc.) you could try a half-elf bard.

If one really wants an Arcane Archer (why?) then one could use a half-elf instead of an elf to get one sorceror level instead of one wizard level. This would give you one more spell per day.

But usually a human is better. There are many feats better than low-light vision, and the +1 skill point per level really adds up to more than the rest of the half-elf bonuses. Unless one is a spot/listen min-maxer, but then you are better off with a "pure" elf.

 

[Shin Okada]

Having Low-Light Vision is great for spell casters or archers. When you want that but don't want Con penalty, Half-Elf is much better than Elf. Of course, Gnomes are great. But small size is problematic sometimes. Also, that bonuses to social skills work well when one play not-so-short-tempered Paladin or Cleric.

I wonder why people complain about Half-Orc and Half-Elf again and again. When Halfling is obviously getting the shaft.

 

[hero4hire]

Half-elves also don't seem to have the plethora of options as some other races do.
(such as racial feats, prestige classes), they have some now with the last couple of books...

I dunno, general consensus in my group is that "half-elves suck" for mechanical purpouses.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Just let them be bad. The half-race concept is poor any way if I have one more coss gendared rape story or my dad was a no good wander.... bleh.
yes the both races suck. and they should. If someone really wants to play a mixed race concept, great! come up with a good story and run with it, but dont do it just for mechanical advantage (speaking to two of my powergamers) the third will write 3 pages of background on why he is so optimized, leaving pleanty of plot hooks for me to play with.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I wonder why people complain about Half-Orc and Half-Elf again and again. When Halfling is obviously getting the shaft.

??

A half orc gets darkvision and +2 strength. He loses int and chr.

A halfling gets a huge amount of stealth augmentation, -2 strength and a slow speed.

I'm not really seeing how the halfling is worse off.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But usually a human is better. There are many feats better than low-light vision, and the +1 skill point per level really adds up to more than the rest of the half-elf bonuses. Unless one is a spot/listen min-maxer, but then you are better off with a "pure" elf.

If Lowlight vision were a feat, some PCs would certainly take it -- mostly PCs who put a premium on stealth or fighting at range. Carrying a light source around is like painting a bullseye on your chest. It costs a valuable action(s) to put light on your enemy.

The pure Elf has a Con penalty. That may be acceptable for certain hyperspecialized characters in a party with enough meatshields. That may be acceptable if you happen to have very good stats. But it is the worst choice possible for most generalist characters.