jgbrowning
Hero
Dinkeldog said:I would like all humans to have the qualities of Open-minded, Patient with others, and Respectful.
Maybe in 4E.
joe b.
What changes to Humans would you like to see in D&D 3.5?
- Thread starter Green Knight
- Start date
Maybe in 4E.
joe b.
Li Shenron
Legend
Well, honestly I wouldn't like to see any changes in 3.5e humans. Here I'll consider your ideas as possible house-rules anyway, for example to be used as extra bonus to PCs in a higher-powered campaign.
That's a very good idea. Something that could make a PC more unique without breaking the game.
I wouldn't grant this: too easy to rise exactly the stat you need most and lower a non important stat. Although it's easy enough to arrange stat scores as you like.
Mmm... doesn't attract me much. Why only humans? They are not very much more variable in size than other animals at least.
Green Knight said:
That's a very good idea. Something that could make a PC more unique without breaking the game.
Green Knight said:
I wouldn't grant this: too easy to rise exactly the stat you need most and lower a non important stat. Although it's easy enough to arrange stat scores as you like.
Green Knight said:
Mmm... doesn't attract me much. Why only humans? They are not very much more variable in size than other animals at least.
Green Knight
First Post
Re: Re: What changes to Humans would you like to see in D&D 3.5?
No problem. Personally, I think the 3E Human is still a bit under-powered, though thankfully it IS more balanced with other PC races than it was in 2nd. To each his own, I guess.
No need to argue the point if you agree with me,
so moving on...
Personally, I like the idea of I don't know what to call it, floating stat modifiers?, cause it adds to the flexibility of humans. You can have your savage barbarian human with a Con bonus and Cha penalty, or your foppish human with a Dex bonus and Str penalty, and on and on. It also allows for Human "subraces" without getting into a whole bit about eugenics (I.E. Which group of humans ends up with the Int penalty?). Just say that certain Human cultures tend to have their stats arranged in a certain way. For instance, most Waterdhavians (Using Forgotten Realms as an example), would probably have a +2 Dex, -2 Wis. Not all, but most. Whereas most Uthgardt Barbarians would have a +2 Str, -2 Cha (Possibly -2 Int as well). Creates even more variation amongst Human cultures without creating an endless stream of human subraces, and without pigeonholing every member of a culture into a certain role (Not every Uthgardt Barbarian has to be an uncharismatic boob, after all. For every 10 Uthgardts with +2 Str, -2 Int, and -2 Cha, there's one with +2 Cha and -2 Str, who serves as the tribes' Sorcerer).
Besides, there's already a race that allows you to tailor your stats however you like. *coughELVEScough* Shouldn't humans, who're supposed to be the most flexible race in the game, be just as able to tailor themselves for certain roles?
Difference is that animals aren't PC races.
But why not take into account the really big and the really little humans, though? And I'm not saying this is an automatic ability. It'd be best to burn a Feat to change your Size. But things are pretty well balanced between Small people, Medium people, and Large People. Sure, the Large guy will get 10 ft. reach, but he'll also get a -1 to hit and a -1 to AC. The Small Guy will get +1 to hit and +1 to AC, but he'll be reduced to a 20 ft. movement rate and will be limited in the weapons he can use. So in this case we're not talking overly powerful here. But we are talking about something that makes humans more flexible.
No problem. Personally, I think the 3E Human is still a bit under-powered, though thankfully it IS more balanced with other PC races than it was in 2nd. To each his own, I guess.
No need to argue the point if you agree with me,
so moving on... Personally, I like the idea of I don't know what to call it, floating stat modifiers?, cause it adds to the flexibility of humans. You can have your savage barbarian human with a Con bonus and Cha penalty, or your foppish human with a Dex bonus and Str penalty, and on and on. It also allows for Human "subraces" without getting into a whole bit about eugenics (I.E. Which group of humans ends up with the Int penalty?). Just say that certain Human cultures tend to have their stats arranged in a certain way. For instance, most Waterdhavians (Using Forgotten Realms as an example), would probably have a +2 Dex, -2 Wis. Not all, but most. Whereas most Uthgardt Barbarians would have a +2 Str, -2 Cha (Possibly -2 Int as well). Creates even more variation amongst Human cultures without creating an endless stream of human subraces, and without pigeonholing every member of a culture into a certain role (Not every Uthgardt Barbarian has to be an uncharismatic boob, after all. For every 10 Uthgardts with +2 Str, -2 Int, and -2 Cha, there's one with +2 Cha and -2 Str, who serves as the tribes' Sorcerer).
Besides, there's already a race that allows you to tailor your stats however you like. *coughELVEScough* Shouldn't humans, who're supposed to be the most flexible race in the game, be just as able to tailor themselves for certain roles?
Difference is that animals aren't PC races.
But why not take into account the really big and the really little humans, though? And I'm not saying this is an automatic ability. It'd be best to burn a Feat to change your Size. But things are pretty well balanced between Small people, Medium people, and Large People. Sure, the Large guy will get 10 ft. reach, but he'll also get a -1 to hit and a -1 to AC. The Small Guy will get +1 to hit and +1 to AC, but he'll be reduced to a 20 ft. movement rate and will be limited in the weapons he can use. So in this case we're not talking overly powerful here. But we are talking about something that makes humans more flexible.Re: Re: Re: What changes to Humans would you like to see in D&D 3.5?
That's what the extra feat, +1 skill point/level, and no favoured class do already. Having floating stat bonuses is just an open invitation to abuse: what fighter wouldn't want +2 Str and -2 Cha, or +2 Con and -2 Int? It would be like the subability scores in 2E Skills & Powers.
Green Knight said:
That's what the extra feat, +1 skill point/level, and no favoured class do already. Having floating stat bonuses is just an open invitation to abuse: what fighter wouldn't want +2 Str and -2 Cha, or +2 Con and -2 Int? It would be like the subability scores in 2E Skills & Powers.
Last edited:
Green Knight
First Post
Like, say, by having different stat modifiers between them?
That's not what humans are supposed to be, though. Just look at the real world. How many thousands of cultures have emerged on Earth? How many different variations have we seen in people? Tall people, short people, thick people, thin people, dark people, light people, etc. From gigantic Norsemen to pygmies in Africa. While the Bonus Feat and extra Skill Points go a good way to establishing humans as a flexible race, I don't think it goes far enough. I think you also need to take into account for peoples of various sizes. Not every human, after all, is between 5'0" and 6'6". And for those humans who're 3' tall, should they really be treated mechanics-wise any differently than a halfling or gnome (I.E. How easy it is for them to hit larger people and to avoid getting hit, how they move slower, and are prevented from using weapons of certain sizes)? And for those who're 7'6", should they be treated mechanics-wise different than an ogre (Shouldn't they be easier to hit, and have a harder time hitting smaller people? But because of their size, shouldn't they have a farther reach than shorter people?)? Just my opinion, of course, but it'd be nice if 3E were to allow for more diverse human PC's which're more representative of the real world (And fantasy, too. Conan the Destroyer, as someone else pointed out, had Wilt Chamberlain's character who easily cleared 7 feet. And in that movie, Conan was a bit perturbed at that guy's height. Why would anyone in a D&D game be perturbed about their character facing off against a guy who's 7'6" unless there was a mechanics reason why behind that character?).
Gotta disagree with that, though. I don't see how Mini-Me and Andre the Giant can possibly be considered to have no visible difference between them.
Speaking of which, anyone see that commercial with that basketball player from that other Super Bowl commercial, Yeow, I think his name is? He was in a commercial with Mini-Me where they highlighted the size difference. To get into major geek territory here, imagine if they were to fight. Wouldn't that Yeow guy have a Reach advantage? Wouldn't Mini-Me, on the other hand, be hard to hit? Wouldn't Yeow be an easy target, being so big? And these are 2 humans who, as the rules stand now, have no mechanics differences between them. But in a D&D game, a fight between them would be more like a fight between a halfling and an ogre, not like a fight between a human and a human. IMO it'd be nice if the rules allowed for a fight between 2 humans be, mechanics-wise, similar to a fight between a halfling and an ogre.
niteshade6
First Post
It's worth noting that elves can only tailor their stat adjusments if you allow the elf races that were not intended for PCs, such as grey elves and wood elves. Remember these races were never play tested or necesarily intended to be PC races, even though many allow them. By the official rules only normal elves can be played.
I think humans are perfectly good as is, the extra feat and skill point can be quite strong for many characters especialy in a low-mid level campaign. Allowing them to rearrange their stats would make them much too good, that is an incredibly powerful ability. You could always get an advantage to the stat you need, and a drop in the one you don't, while still getting all the other human abilities. This would seriously knock the wind out of the half orcs sails, and would probably allow the human to trump the dwarf as well if he wanted con.
Of course in 3.5, it looks like some races are being made stronger. Dwarves for example are getting the dwarven waraxe for free, which is quite strong, and dwarves were one of the better races to begin with. So if this trend continues, humans might need to get a little something too. Maybe they should get bastard sword as a martial weapon, the same way dwarves get the waraxe.
I think humans are perfectly good as is, the extra feat and skill point can be quite strong for many characters especialy in a low-mid level campaign. Allowing them to rearrange their stats would make them much too good, that is an incredibly powerful ability. You could always get an advantage to the stat you need, and a drop in the one you don't, while still getting all the other human abilities. This would seriously knock the wind out of the half orcs sails, and would probably allow the human to trump the dwarf as well if he wanted con.
Of course in 3.5, it looks like some races are being made stronger. Dwarves for example are getting the dwarven waraxe for free, which is quite strong, and dwarves were one of the better races to begin with. So if this trend continues, humans might need to get a little something too. Maybe they should get bastard sword as a martial weapon, the same way dwarves get the waraxe.
Li Shenron
Legend
Re: Re: Re: What changes to Humans would you like to see in D&D 3.5?
I really don't think it adds more flexibility, instead it will just "stretch" the stat range for humans from 3-18 to 1-20, with the only note that a single individual would never have more than 1 single 19-20 (at level 1 at least) and 1 single 1-2.
IMHO it will have the only effect of removing the advantage, and great flavor, that OTHER races can be better than humans in some things.
Well, I was going to say "humans are not more variable in size than monsters", but I though... what if someone replies "how do you know? have you ever actually seen a monster?"... that's why I changed it into animals, fool me
BTW, I think you want those 2 extra possibilities to be able to have in your game some exceptional individuals: if you make them common rules in your games, they won't be too much exceptional from now on, and will just be frequently abused by your powergamers (actually, I can't think of someone NOT taking the +2 in his primary ability). The DM can still grant a NPC (or a PC) an exceptional bonus if he likes, no matter the rules, making him really exceptional (in the sense that it can be such only for a specific DM ruling). Also I don't see why only humans?
OTOH, you can also simply create subraces for humans as well.
Green Knight said:
I really don't think it adds more flexibility, instead it will just "stretch" the stat range for humans from 3-18 to 1-20, with the only note that a single individual would never have more than 1 single 19-20 (at level 1 at least) and 1 single 1-2.
IMHO it will have the only effect of removing the advantage, and great flavor, that OTHER races can be better than humans in some things.
Green Knight said:Difference is that animals aren't PC races.
Well, I was going to say "humans are not more variable in size than monsters", but I though... what if someone replies "how do you know? have you ever actually seen a monster?"... that's why I changed it into animals, fool me
BTW, I think you want those 2 extra possibilities to be able to have in your game some exceptional individuals: if you make them common rules in your games, they won't be too much exceptional from now on, and will just be frequently abused by your powergamers (actually, I can't think of someone NOT taking the +2 in his primary ability). The DM can still grant a NPC (or a PC) an exceptional bonus if he likes, no matter the rules, making him really exceptional (in the sense that it can be such only for a specific DM ruling). Also I don't see why only humans?
OTOH, you can also simply create subraces for humans as well.
Similar Threads
