Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Seeten" data-source="post: 1999142" data-attributes="member: 27186">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.</blockquote>

Verification