D&D 3E/3.5 Which race "got the shaft" in 3.5

[brehobit]

A friend and I had a discussion about how humans are pretty sub-optimal. He claimed that humans seem weaker than the other races. And further, that this was somewhat reflected in the Living Grayhawk RPGA games where he saw very few human full-BAB types.

Thoughts?

I left out 1/2 elves as well, they really do seem to be the worst by far.

 

[brehobit]

Humm... Was supposed to be a poll. Either I messed up, or I'm not allowed to do one.

Poll was to be between Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, Halflings, Humans and 1/2 Orcs.

 

[argo]

Humans the weakest? Bull humans are easily in the top three and may even be number one if your DM enforces favored class restrictions. Though I will admit that the demi-human stat bonuses become more valuable the lower your point-buy (often the only way to get an 18 at first level) which probably accounts for why you see so few humans in Living Greyhawk (do they use a 25 or 28 point buy, I forget? )

At any rate, I would vote half-elf. They aren't that terribly weak per-se, but they don't have a niche all to themselves (instead stradling the line between human and elf) so consequently there is little they can do that a human or elf can't do better.

Later.

 

[Gort]

Nah, humans are fine. I think the imbalances in the core races are these:

Dwarves are too strong.
Half-orcs are too weak.

The reason for these opinions are simple - the stat bonuses and penalties each race receives. It's plain as day that for pretty much any dwarven character I've seen, +2 CON is a big bonus, while -2 CHA is not exactly crippling. Add to this that CON is a stat every class needs lots of, and the various other bonuses of being a dwarf, it's clear why most people see dwarves as the most mechanically powerful. They're also the only race that gets an equal amount of mental penalty for a physical bonus. (CHA for CON)

Half-orcs get screwed the other way round. Because their +2 STR is sooo much better than +2 CON, they get to lose twice as many bonuses! (-2 CHA, -2 INT) Not cool.

---

So, my recommendation, were we to balance the races, would be to make dwarves +2 CON -2 DEX while leaving the half-orcs unchanged, possibly giving them orc weapon familiarity? That way it removes the double standard "mental stats are worth less than physical ones unless you're a dwarf" thing, while giving the half orcs a slight boost and the dwarves a bit of a tone-down.

Sounding good?

 

[drunkmoogle]

Here's my thoughts, from weakest to strongest.

IMO, the most shafted race behind Half-Elves are their full blooded brethren. -2 CON is hard to take, no matter what class you are. Their only niche seems to be the Archer, as any other role is better done by another race.

Behind the elves are the Half-Orcs. Their only niche would be the straight up Balls-to-the-Wall grunt. They do a better job of it than a human, but the human gets more versatility. In all his vanillaness, he's a great pick for newbies. A first level 20STR orc will tear through most anything with ease. All-in-all, a tough decision between him and humans.

Humans are an interesting case. While it is true that any race can do better than the human in all niches, a human would do in a pinch, with a touch of versatility. Their best role is that of a druid. While all other races lose their bonuses in Wild Shape, Mr. Human keeps his feat and skills. Not to mentoin they're the 2nd most newbie friendly.

Gnomes are small. So are halflings. Good things come in small packages, and halflings are smaller and thus are higher up in my book. These guys make great casters and rogues.

Which leaves us with the dwarf. This sucker was built to last. The stats speak for themselves.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Half-orcs are most shafted.
Then half-elves, which are minorly shafted.

Elves, humans, halflings and gnomes are all about par.

Dwarves are the new Elves.

 

[Shin Okada]

Halfling. This is the weakest race. No good for any role.

Being small race with -2 str, no-good for any melee class. This is not just because they inflict low damages. Many monsters have improved grapple and low-str melee combatant are eaten (or constricted) very easily.
Not that good as an archer either. Though has slightly better attack bonus, low damage still sucks.
As a cleric, dex bonus does not help much as they wear full-plate. And small weapon and low str still suck.
As an arcane caster, races with high con and low-light or darkvision are far much better.
As a druid, maybe not so bad. But races with high con and low-light or darkvision are still much better.
Meant to be a rogue race. But slow speed is no-good for a flanker, especially with new tumble rule (only 10 ft.!). Also, the only demi-human race which has normal vision. Races with low-light vision or Dark Vision are much better as scouts. And, Dwarf Rogues and Elven Rogues are much better as "finder".

Well, lets say some comments on other races.

Dwarves ... The strongest I say. Tons of abilities. Good for any classes which does not need CHA. Even with low speed, not so bad as a rogue thanks to their Stone Cunning ability.

Elves ... -2 Con sucks. But still make a good rogue. And not that bad as a ranger.

Gnome ... makes really good arcane caster. High Con and low-light vision. That's said.

Half-Orc ... is the only core race which has str bonus and thus good for melee types. Darkvision is still a great ability. Also, surprisingly good as a monk or a druid.

Half-Elf is ... an alternative to human. Some combination of classes can be practical only for those 2 races because of favored class rule. And Half-Elf's racial traits (especially low-light vision) are often good substitute for additional feat and skills. And, with new bonuses for CHA based skills, HE character can be a very good negotiator. Good for paladin, sorcerer, bard and such.

Human ... is often the best choice when you don't want any demi-human traits. And sometimes human and half-elf are the only choice whey you multiclass in some combination. Additional feat and skill points are always good at least. And, in most settings, human fill the majority. That is important when you need someone who can hide into clouds, or someone who can be easily trusted by people.

 

[was]

I'd definitely say half-elf. There's not really much point in taking them unless you really like them. You're better off taking a full-blooded elf if you want that package of abilities. The multi-classing penalties are pretty minor. In the two games I currently play in, we're restricted to humans only as pcs. I have to admit, the extra feat and extra-skill points are a life savers at low levels.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Before the Weapon Familiarity stupidity of 3.5, I'd have said humans were fine. But at this point the demi-humans gain so many feats and pseudo-feats that the human is getting weaker and weaker. Yes, they are still the most versatile race, since you can tailor their +1 feat and bonuses to skills to whatever you need. But if you happen to need an ability that is granted by a demi-human (say, longbow proficiency as a wizard, or dwarven waraxe proficiency as a barbarian, or a +2 to saves vs. spells as any fighter-type,) then you are far better off going with the demi-human.

Not that the human is as bad as the half-orc.

 

[Thanee]

Half-Elf by far, they get nothing of note. Their skill bonuses are nice, but hardly needed for a skill focused character and next to useless for anyone else. Still, they make good diplomats at least.

Half-Orc is also somewhat bad, but only once you start looking beyond the PHB, as they have this pretty unique and pretty powerful +2 bonus to Strength. This makes them good barbarians.

Both the Half-Elf and Half-Orc are really only useful for an incredibly limited amount of character concepts. The one more in the social sector and the other in brute force combat.

Humans are right after dwarves the second most powerful core race for sure.

Bye
Thanee