Talk:Humanblood (3.5e Template)
Ratings[edit]
|
Spanambula likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I dig it. As Sulacu said, I feel this template helps reward build creativity and allows for more flexible characters in the game. For those bugbear gourmet chefs and those half-orc librarians and suchlike. |
|
|
Sulacu likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| The biggest disadvantage of racial ability bonuses and penalties is that they punish you for defying stereotype. This is a nice little idea that might actually encourage people to play against type, instead of sticking to the boring old lineup of elf wizard/half-orc barbarian/dwarven fighter what have you. God forbid it might actually cause people to roleplay and play what seems interesting instead of what is convenient or what gives the best combat bonuses.
That said, I don't really agree with the flavour. Why do you have to be half or part human to take this? Doesn't a nurturing and diverse cultural environment like a big city encourage the average person to adapt and learn skills that more regular members of his race that may very well live in exclusive upper-class vistas or at the fringes of civilized society rarely need? Humans as a whole represent this cultural diversity at its peak, and as such they gain their extra feat and skill points as a result of it. Wouldn't it be better to call this 'Cosmopolitan' or something? Anyway that's just my 10 cents. |
- While it may make people play against type more often, it's not going to have the sort of difference compared to usual games since you can only bring ability scores towards 0, rather than giving them positive scores. This means that the star elf will still be the best sorcerer, since dwarf, while not taking a penalty to Charisma, won't ever be as good as the star elf as a sorcerer.
- That would imply no one plays human rogues because halflings are better, or half-orc archers because elves are better. Clearly, these races have other traits that make them attractive rogues or archers or whatever. Since human's lack of ability scores is the baseline, having a non-bonus is "normal", you'll do just fine. The baseline does not start at the optimal choice, a race with a bonus. The template is intended not to give a bonus, but remove a penalty, if you will.
- I think the flavor makes sense from the standpoint of nature vs nurture for physical stats. Dwarves are born tougher than elves, halflings have weaker muscles than humans due to size, etc. Mental stats are a bit fuzzier, but I'm sure you could come up with fluff for it (e.g, orc brains have evolved to process sensory input more efficiently and accelerate motor control at the cost of cognitive development, so they're strong but socially inept and less intelligent). My point is that stat adjustments can feasibly come from birth and not from growing up in a multiracial setting. I think it would make more sense to have the template incorporate both interbreeding AND atypical upbringing. Spanambula (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. |
|---|---|
| When would you NOT take this, if just for the skill buff? This shows even further the problems of giving ability score modifiers to races. |
Ghostwheel, if I'm making a whisper gnome sneaky rogue, I am most certainly not going to give up +12 worth of racial sneaky skill bonuses for an extra skill point. Though if I was playing a social rogue or beguiler, it might be worth it to not have the hit to Cha. I suggest that inflexibility is a much larger problem in D&D rules than ability modifiers, and this template helps reward creativity. Spanambula (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Losing Bonuses[edit]
What sort of build would use a Humanblood? --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- "I really want to make a dwarven sorcerer, but that Cha penalty hurts. But dwarven traits would work so well for this earth-focused caster. If only there wasn't a dwarf with a cha pena- wait a minute!"
