Humans - Most Powerful Race in 3e?

[Seeten]

I just replied to the other racial poll, and I really wanted to bring this up as a topic of discussion.

Does everybody feel humans are balanced as a LA 0 race, or is that +skill points +feat really as powerful as it always feels it is to me? It certainly gives you a big jump at first level for effectiveness, and most other racials are so much fluff, like stonecunning, or detect secret door, or what have you. They are certainly not worth a feat, particularly in todays feat crazy world, where you can basically use them to do anything. For some characters, being human allows you to qualify for a PrC 3 levels ahead of other races, etc.

Please let me know if others have the same feeling I do, or if I am out in left field.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Humans are often the favored because they are the most veristile race.

However, they are not the best.

Take a human rogue, a halfling rogue, and an elf rogue. Heck, throw in a gnome rogue while you're at it.

Whose the best rogue? Almost certainly not the human.

Take a human barbarian and a half-orc barbarian.

Chances are, the half-orc is going to be stronger and more in with the archtypical barbarian.

 

[Steverooo]

It all depends upon what you want... If you REALLY want to play a ShadowDancer, ASAP, then being Human is probably the best way to go... You can get Dodge & Mobility out of the way, and get a jump on the Perform (Dance) ranks you need...

On the other hand, if you want to be a stealthy, perceptive Ranger, then you're probably better off being an Elf, with +2 Listen/Search/Spot, and taking either the Stealthy or Alertness Feats.

Also, you're leaving out quite a bit. Dwarves get a lot of bonuses to saves, as well as their new stability racial ability. I think the races get quite a package, at least for Dwarves, Elves, and Humans (Gnomes, Halflings, and Half-Orcs I'm not so sure about).

Besides... D&D has always been Humanocentric!

 

[TerraDave]

From a pure mechanics point of view, at least some of the others races are pretty strong (Dwarf, I am looking at you).

While their flexibility is a big plus, I think a lot of people just prefer to be human, and are not thrilled by playing another race--they don't relate to it, or think it is a little funny.

I remember back in 1st and 2nd edition days in campaigns where level limits would not be a factor, the "demihumans" basically had an absolute advantage (elf fighter/MU anyone?) and people would still play humans. They just did not want to be an elf, or halfling, or gnome, or dwarf, or half elf or half orc.

 

[Henry]

One has to remember that one extra feat, while good, is not gamebreaking because most really good feats require chains of at least one or more feats to gain. It will give a human a leg up, but the special abilities of most races will more than make up for it.

Take power attack, which is less useful until you are higher than first level , or cleave, which gains more usefulness when you actually CAN take down a creature in one hit, or dodge, whose real strength is in feats like mobility, spring attack, etc.

Compare it to halflings, who gain tons of bonuses directly relating to survivability. Compare to dwarves, which are the most ability-laden core race in the game. (And stonecunning is FAR more useful than you may realize, because STONE is probably the most common material besides wood ever encountered in a D&D game. ) Dwarves gain bonuses against giants (to which trolls and ogres and hosts of others belong) and orcs, they gain stability, they have no encumbrance effectively, bonuses to saves, etc.

Beyond this, humans SHOULD be a viable and desirable race to play in the game, unlike in previous versions of the game. Humans used to suffer from horrible ego problems in previous editions; at low level campaigns (the majority of those played), humans were the least played race in a plurality of campaigns. Now, people play humans because they want to, but also because it offers a slight incentive to play. D&D keeping the humanocentric roots desired by the creator of the game is not a bad thing, IMO.

 

[MonsterMash]

No, I don't think humans are particularly powerful, but because of the extra skill points and feats are by far the most versatile and often the easiest to fit into a PrCs pre-requisites.

 

[Illvillainy]

As others have said and probably will say; most powerful? No. Most versatile? Almost certainly.

 

[Seeten]

Take a human barbarian and a half-orc barbarian.

Chances are, the half-orc is going to be stronger and more in with the archtypical barbarian.

Well, as an example, lets take a level 2 Human Barbarian, and a level 2 Half-Orc Barbarian. The Half-Orc has a +2 str over the human, but a -2 int and a -2 cha, so he's got few skill points, he isnt a good leader, and he has 1 feat. Lets say Power Attack, just because.

Now lets take the human. He has a good deal of skill points, even if he's not that bright, he has a reasonable chance to be a leader, and he has 2 feats, which could be Power Attack + Cleave. I'd say in a fight, that Cleave is likelier to be more useful than that +2 str, and I dont pay for the str with a loss of int and cha as well.

I play a Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter in a campaign right now, and I'd trade my Half-Orc in for a Human in about 1 nanosecond. (The GM made all the PC's and let us pick, I came in late, and got the leftover).

I never liked playing a Human, and really, I still dont, but I often feel I need to be Human to maximise potential. (I guess this makes me something of a powergamer, but I dont find playing a role well, and being maximally effective to be an either/or scenario)

I generally dont find +2/-2 to stats better than 0 across the board, a +2 to a skill is generally not a big deal, it helps, but it isnt thrilling, and its takeable with the free feat if you choose, and the human can get into feat chains levels earlier than others.

In one above example, we talk about the dodge/spring/mobility chain, a human can get those prereq's much earlier than a non-human.

I didnt think Human was unbalanced originally, but with the preponderance of feats in existence today, and their general power level, I find them to be incredible powerful. Having more of them, IMO, is about as good as it gets.

I guess I'll have to take it from the replies that this is not the generally held belief though, which I assume means it is not the case. I am willing to accept that.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I disagree with most of the above posters.
The extra feat and skill versitility put them in the top 2 of most powerful races.
the other being dwarf of course.
Ther races all have disadvantages low str, low con, slow, small weapons and a whopping - 2 skillpoints per level for 1/2 orcs.
Humans have advantages nearly as goods as other races, but no disads.
IMC I tried to tone it down by forcing humans to use thier bonus feat for either (3.0) cosmopolitan or a regional skill bonus feat.
Then GH and FR put in extra powerful regional feats WTF?

IMC 5 of 9 characters were human. When we switched to a DM without this feat restriction - of 9 charaters played, 8 were human
and the one gnome decided not to comeback so he could play a more effective char.
We did start at 12th lvl and nothing makes up for the extra 15 skill points.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes, I certainly think that humans are the most powerful race in 3.X.