Human bonuses

[ecliptic]

There doesn't seam to be much support for it here indeed some people seem realy against it but a lot of the arguments are that humans are slightly weaker in a fight a game is usualy not just a hackfest but a balance of combat and social interaction where i give humans the advantage.

You also should never use a roleplaying aspect to balance a game mechanic aspect, ever.

Next unless you only play hackfests a game should contain a balance of social and non social actions. Indead one of the best games i have ever played in had no combat at all. Otherwise why pick a roque or bard.

A rogue has sneak attack, alot of other special abilites and alot of skills? A bard has nice illusion magic, bard knowledge comes in handy, and the only arcane caster that can heal.

As for balancing 101 not everything is balanced in the books so why should humans be.

Everything is pretty damned balance, I have yet to find something in the core rulebooks that is overly unbalancing to the game.

OK again you seam to totaly have missed the point about humans being the dominant culture fine an elf can wonder around in an elven forest but humans can go almost anywhere.

Exactly what is so special about this 'almost anywhere' place that results in humans becoming weaker then everyone else? I can run an entire campaign in just the elven lands and the neighboring enemy territories as easily as I can run an entire campaign in a humans kingdom and its neighboring enemy territories.

I was not trying to start an argument it works fine in my games and i was trying to find out if anybody else had tried to do something similar maybe in a slightly different way.

So you are trying to convince yourself what you are doing is right and justified.

But i was also interested to see if anybody had an argument for the humans having the bonuses that i had not heard and that might change my mind. Unfortunatly on that score i am just hearing same arguments i have heard before.

Your mind is so set on it, that it was even pointless to make this thread.

Ok again i dont force them to play humans they choose characters based on a background thay have made up and a character they want to play which is more important to them than having a feat or some skill points. One made up a background of a former brecht mage guild member, another a highlander of mhoried etc. Why are my players stupid to choose character over power.

You can advertently or inadverently make them feel like they have to. If all your campaigns take place in human lands for example.
You pretty much cheat your players by taking away the race balance of humans and basically force them to play the humans.

Humans being the dominant race does have a big enough benefit to remove the other benefits in my opinion so long as you are not playing a hackfest

Again, a roleplaying aspect should never balance a mechanical aspect.

I have no problem with elves and dwarves geting a few bonuses above and beyond as they are elder races that live longer and in the case of the elves are more intelligent.

Ever actually ask your players if they do have a problem? or are you the type of DM that is so arrogant and stubborn of your ways that its 'your way or no way'?

The sidhe dont detect secret doors and the balance is between combat and social interaction.

No they just have other things like immunity to disease, not having to sleep, and nature stride.

Kobold can be player characters like goblins who also get a bum stear look at unearthed arcana, savage species , races of faerun and there are plobably others i am missing. In my games no race is a monster they may have primitive and brutal cultures but they are not monster just to be killed. Just look at troll they are a real menace in vosgard and have thier own tongue and culture.

So are you going to just let anyone play a regular troll in your campaign? No balancing? or do you simply think that the fact that trolls are hated everywhere is enough balance?

Well i wasn't trying to rile people up although i seam to have done a good job of it.
There doesn't seam to be much support for it here indeed some people seem realy against it but a lot of the arguments are that humans are slightly weaker in a fight a game is usualy not just a hackfest but a balance of combat and social interaction where i give humans the advantage.

How social interaction works out is up to the DM and players, not the rule mechanics of races.

I do use a low level, low magic setting and wizards also might be considered slightly weaker in my games but but they gain more fear and respect in game to compensate, people dont realy know what a wizard can do.

So you get your players jumping say 'oOoOo look I am a mighty wizard, fear me!'? Unless they are generically wearing a wizards robe or pointy hat, exactly how are they going to ever know?

Its up to the players wether we play a hackfest or a social game i dont force them into either and we usually end up in the middle between the two.

Just from the actions of removing humans balance you are trying to force them in one type of game over the other.

The power gamers in my games are the ones that want the human benefits but not having them doesn't make them change to an elf.

Wanting the human benefits ISN'T power gaming. How many times does one have to explain to you on what power gaming is? If they were power gamers they would have played an elf. So obviously they aren't powergamers.

You simply cheat them out of what the human should have. You probably hurt their overall morale in the process.

Again not all races balance out read the books.

Your right, they don't gnomes need a little boost, aswell as half-orcs and half-elves.

its just that they seam obsesed with how tough you are in a fight and to me that is the least important thing.

It just sounds to me like it annoys you that we want a balanced system. Sorry but D&D is a system based on specific mechanics, not a guide to how to roleplay. Roleplaying is seperate, its up to the DM and players to do it.

I get it, you want mechanical change that fixes something you as a DM can't do. In the process you hamper your players ability to customize their character. Wether they wanted to dedicate their advantages in a socialistic skills such as Diplomacy or a more typical adventuring skills such as Hide. You take it away from them in a attempt to force them to do something you want them to do.

[graham anderson]

Another reply to ecliptic

Is english your first language you seam to have some trouble understanding.

I refer you to my previous answers as you are just saying the same things try reading my answers again and maybe thinking this time.

I am not trying to convince my self its justified i believe in a birthright setting it is and as for who's mind is set i would look at your self before looking at others as i said before.

I do ask my players what they think how would i know who likes human benefits and who doesn't try reading the posts. Although its 50/50 on the human issue all people in my games are quite happy to have elves be a little more powerfull.

As for trolls i dont use the big powerfull regenerating trolls from the monster manual if you had read my other post you would know this. If someone came with a good character idea and background i would let them be a troll but if someone came and said i want to be a troll cos they are big and hard the answer will be no.

Try thinking its when a wizard cats a spell.

I am not trying to force them into a social or non social game its the same whatever system we play.

I am sorry it just sounds like you are a power gamer and the worst sort you are someone that will quote pages and lines in a book and argue with the dm when he disagrees with you or says its a house rule.

I think we should just agree that we have no common ground.

[graham anderson]

How about elves not necesarily being monsters but having a higher starting level and more bonuses .

So that you give them some more bonuses but no elf is lower than 3rd level a bit more like the drow only not.

[ecliptic]

I refer you to my previous answers as you are just saying the same things try reading my answers again and maybe thinking this time.

Obvious if you can't tell, I am not satisified with lame answers you gave and the sidestepping you seemed to enjoy doing.

I do ask my players what they think how would i know who likes human benefits and who doesn't try reading the posts. Although its 50/50 on the human issue all people in my games are quite happy to have elves be a little more powerfull.

If half of your gamers disagree with it, they obviously aren't too happy.

I am sorry it just sounds like you are a power gamer and the worst sort you are someone that will quote pages and lines in a book and argue with the dm when he disagrees with you or says its a house rule.

How can I be powergamer when I AM the DM? I don't actually ever play.

[geeman]

At 06:24 AM 2/27/2004 +0100, ecliptic wrote:



>Obvious if you can`t tell, I am not satisified with lame answers you gave

>and the sidestepping you seemed to enjoy doing.



While we all appreciate a good argument around here (some more than others)

let`s try to at least have SOME substantive comments in posts, shall

we? When posts are entirely dedicated to deriding other posters they are

pretty easily recognized as being off topic. Essentially that means one

should present an argument to counter a "lame answer" rather than just

describe it as one.



Gary

Birthright-l Moderator

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Feb 26 2004, 04:26 PM
I just don't like the idea of humans getting extra skill points or class skills a feat is more acceptable to me as it is a one of bonus.

This seems tobe counter to the stance you make concerning humans interacting ability.

Most skills are not combat oriented ones. Many of them are definitely social interation ones. If you wished you could even force the humans to use their starting bonus skills on interaction skills. Then define what an interaction skill is - the list sould include Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and the like. This puuts a focus on what you want to do - you would still apply circumstance bonuses/penalties to specific interactions and humans get something instead of the specifically vague interaction ones.

Again many people have pointed out that not all humans get along with each other, not all humans get along with goblins (you can't convince me that in the heartlands goblins aren't hated and feared by humans due to the presence of the Spiderfell). So in effect these are all things that must be put into play to balance the interaction between races/cultures.

For instance in Cwmb Bheinn (in Vosgaard) it is the one elven province that has good relations with humans.

In Tuarhievel the guilds are run by humans. Specifically the Stonecrown Coster guild, run by a FA.

If using the PS of Tuarhievel, there is a human sitting on the throne as guardian of her yet to be born child.

All in all there are far more political ramifications regarding the races than can be handled by a simple statement that humans can go anywhere without danger of being killed and hence get a tremendous inherent interaction bonus because of this.

All in all, even though you asked for opinions you do seem to have already set your mind on a path that you aren't really willing to consider to be flawed. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

[graham anderson]

The fact that I use this should tell poeple that I think it is apropriate in birthright and elsewhere I wanted to find out what the people here thought but its the same arguments i have heard before over and over if i didn't agree with them to begin with why would i agree with them if people say them lots of times.

The only thing's that have realy come out of this is that i might look at a higher starting level elf but with additional bonuses and the humans might get a limited feat in my next game. Also that other people use racial weapon proficiencys.

People seem happy to play in my games and keep coming back so i have no reason to change what i see as a valid house rule that if you include me more than 50% of the people involved agree with.

I just don't see when the races aren't balanced that a human should be as good as an elf or dwarf it fundamentaly doesn't make any sense to me if you want to argue for it then you should balance all the races and not just humans by improoving the weaker races.

I don't think that a lot of people are understanding what i am trying to get at but as i said before we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Mark_Aurel]

Graham, you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat in order to defend your house rule.

Previously, you stated that you thought humans were balanced because they could 'go anywhere' and they were good at interaction - and that giving them their standard bonus feat and skill points would overpower them.

Now, you're stating you think elves and dwarves should be better than humans, because they're immortals and totally awesome and cool.

So, do you think

1) Humans are balanced by taking away their normal bonuses, and overpowered otherwise, or

2) Humans are weaker than the other races by taking away their normal bonuses?

Next, you seem to entirely disregard the arguments of those that disagree with you. 'I've heard it before,' you say. That you may have, but when people take the time to address your points, you should give somewhat more consideration than that. You also have a somewhat condescending tone going - you seem pretty much set on referring to anyone that disagrees with you as a 'power gamer.' I'm pretty sure that people that simply want the most basic standard bonuses given to humans by the book shouldn't possibly be called 'power gamers' just because their grinch DM is trying to take away one of the defining features of humans...

You seem to be quite content with a 50% approval rating from your players. I wonder - would the 50% that agrees with you be dissatisfied if humans got their normal bonuses? Would they object loudly and threaten to walk out of the game because their human characters got a bonus? Somehow, I doubt it. The overall satisfaction among your players might be higher if they got what they should have. And - you said your group had a single player of a non-human character - he wouldn't happen to be in the 50% that agrees with you, would he? If he is, that would mean that most of the people that are affected by your ruling disagrees with it.

Perhaps the most important question is: Does it make the game more fun for your players to take away their bonuses?

[graham anderson]

I said we would just have to agree to dis agree but if you don't want to then here we go

a reply to mark auril

I am not contradicting my self

when i mention the weaker races being powered up it is because a few of you have tried to claim that all races are equal and i am replying to that again

I think that humans are more balanced and more realistic because of the way i do it

Also i think humans are overpowered compared to most races

I say they are saying the same things again and again because some people have more than one post with the same argument almost word for word

No i just refer to ecliptic as a power gamer or a tyrant gm if he prefers or if you mean in my games some of the players are self confessed power gamers thats what they like to do.

People in my games don't object loudly or threaten to walk out when i first implemented this i sat every one down and we talked about this and other house rules for an entire night before we began the first game.

People are very satisfied why do you think they keep asking me to dm

All that those who think humans should get bonuses said was that they liked the basic rules and would rather humans had the bonuses its not like we are at each others throats and the issue has never come up again. Note the fact it didn't stop people picking human characters.

The elf character was only in one of the games and yes he was one of the players that agreed with me so look at it another way no one who thought that humans should have the bonuses picked another race because they didn't get them.

I think it does make the game more fun and the success of the games should speak for its self.

As for a condesending tone i would try reading your own posts you might learn what condescending is.

[RaspK_FOG]

I think we all have a measure of guilt in the matter of ruining the thread; it seems we forgot to take off our gloves and snap them at each other... Rather, we took out our BFGs, shot at any manners regarding threads, then jumped at each other side's throats; and that does include most of us.

In any case, Graham (I hope it does not insult you, my use of your first name), it seems the Birthright community in general does not angry with the idea you have, even if some people do want Sidhelien to be more powerful, including myself. Yet most of us do (some others don't) want elves to receive a level adjustment that fits their abilities. That's another matter however, since your suggestion was to remove the standard PHB human racial traits of 4 additional skill points at 1st level plus 1 additional skill point at all other levels plus 1 feat as a bonus feat at 1st level; raising the Sidhelien stats and lowering the humane stats are two different things. To the rest of us, let the matter be as it is.

My point of view in life is that, if I cannot change one's mind, so be it.
One last note, however, on my part: I do use reaction modifiers a lot, but this is still a matter of role-playing, not rules-keeping. If there is a human who becomes famous for saving a three-digit number of elves for whatever reason, he would never receive a penalty from most elves; there still are, however, many people (and, please, do not go on with your apotheosis of elves; it is unrealistic...) do hate others for what they were born! A disgusting but existent attitude: racism.