[Playtest 2] Races: Humans too good?

Looking it over, one thing I think I would change isn't something to the human. I'd give each race a +1 bonus to two attributes, one as a general racial benefit and one as a subrace benefit. For instance, I'd give all dwarves a +1 to con, and hill dwarves a +1 to strength, and mountain dwarves a +1 to wisdom. Elves a +1 to Dex, and high elves a +1 to Int with wood elves getting a +1 to strength (they've historically gotten a bonus to strength going all the way back to 1e, go fig). And etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well the +1 to all stats but one that gets +2 it's elegant, simple and acomplish what they wanted, but somehow it feels awfully wrong. Humans are the baseline, they shouldn't have attribute adjustments, the only reason I acepted the +2 to a single ability score in 4e and PF was because those two did away with racial penalties (another thing I didn't like at all) and it was a necessary evil to keep the balance between demi-humans and humans (because otherwise they'd became a -2 to all stats in practice). However this is ridiculous, Next could be the first D&D where I don't play humans (And this comes from a player that loves to play humans)

Perhaps it would be better if humans got:
- A floating +1 to a single ability of choice
- A +1 bonus on raw ability checks
- The first time they multiclass they get the full benefits of the new class as if they were taking it at first level.
 

I was apprehensive at first about it too; however, the more I think about it, the more I like it... Everyone caps at 20 anyway--if both a high elf and a human started with an Int 18 base wizard, neither outshines the other as the pinnacle in their field. Sure, if they start out with lower base, humans can hit it slightly faster, but that just exemplifies their ability to adapt and succeed, and the bonus to non-prime stats just highlights their knack for being wellrounded.
 

I would feel better about it with a couple other changes. One, increase racial bonuses to +2, and vary the racial maximums. For example, humans might get a bunch of ability score increases, but all of their scores are capped at 18, while a race with +2 strength would actually be capped at 20 for that ability score.

Even then, though, I still wouldn't be happy. Just less discontent.
 

Honestly if they just got rid of the +2 I would approve a lot more. +1 to all ability scores (while it doesn't feel right to me) would at least still cap all race/class combos at the same max stat for starting a game with point buy since humans would no longer be able to acquire a +3 to a certain stat.
 



Because of the optional nature of several of the rules, previous methods of adding versatility to humans, like skill trainings and feats won't work. So you're pretty much left with giving them a leg up in an area that they know will be used at every table...attributes checks. I guess they could bring back level limits, but I doubt that would be popular.

Now, because you can't use feats or skill training to express these things (because a portion of your base may not use those modules), what's left that lets a human be whatever they want to be, have skills outside their profession, multiclass easily, and hard to take down because of good saves?

...

+2 to one ability score, +1 to the other five. It's actually the simplest, most basic, and elegant way to mechanically represent the narrative fluff of the D&D human throughout every edition of the game.

As I mentioned in my previous post, ability scores is not the only thing that's left.

What would be more acceptable for D&D gamers between humans being genetically better than all other common races (the effective +1 to all stats) and being faster at progressing through levels (an XP bonus)?

For me the XP bonus is more acceptable, and personally I would find it quite a lot in tune with at least the older editions and 3ed!

Because in old D&D Elves are Elves true... and practically they are Fighters and Wizards at once, which sounds straight better than humans. But... they have a slower advancement rate (not in the form of XP bonuses but the other way around, higher XP required to level up).

And in 3ed demihumans (except Half-Orcs) get a +2 and -2, which mathematically cancel out but every player knows that the +2 weights more because you are going to put it where you need it while you can mitigate the effect of -2 and that +2 can take you up to 20 when humans can never be more than 18 (at 1st level of course). Multiclassing for humans is easier so theoretically a demihuman would more easily get an XP penalty from a non-optimal multiclassing combination, but practically this is a non-issue since almost nobody ever makes such choice in 3ed.

Still, overall at least in those editions I'm more familiar with, the feeling for me has always been "elves, dwarves etc. are genetically better than humans" (perhaps some relic of Tolkien ideas) but can be sometimes slower at advancing... which actually matches with their longer lifespans.
 

For me the XP bonus is more acceptable, and personally I would find it quite a lot in tune with at least the older editions and 3ed!
I wouldn't find it acceptable at all... I prefer to ad-hoc level gains and XP. Even if I were using XP as-is, I would like to keep characters leveling at similar rates.

-O
 

another problem with the bonus xp is, depending on the day, it either is no bonus or a huge one, and even the huge bonus is of very limited duration.

Unless the amount of bonus xp was very large, it would essentially mean the human character levels 1 session before the other characters. It would be nice, for that one session, then they would be back to mediocrity.

It also would provide no bonus in all those campaigns where the DM just leveled everyone at the appropriate time in the story, rather than awarding XP.
 

Remove ads

Top