Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What's the appeal of humans?

Is the Polearm master the only Feat humans get as a default or do we get to choose?

It isn't confirmed as far as I know, but what's been going around is, not even that. That would've been pretty cool, though.
It's Polearm Proficiency. So, if you're running a rogue or wizard human - you can pick up a polearm.

Wich (is worth mentioning) may not be as bad as it sounds ...
Since as we know from Fextralife items video, there are certain items that adds bonuses depending on what race holds them.

Not really sure if those bonuses will be worth our character tho ... but its not ultimately hopeless.

What do you reckon the chances Larian gave the sweet racial specific bonuses to humans are? Maybe there'll be a nice halberd for humans that sets your dex to 12 and con to 4 or something.

Well ...
Concidering that Githyanki gets a Longsword (i think) that gives +1d4 Psychic damage ...
And Drow gets a Shortsword (i think?) that gives +1d4 Poison damage ...

It feels quite safe to presume that if Humans gets a Halberd, it will give +1d4 something damage.
Personaly i would give them Thunder ... bcs they are so damn loud. :P

That's likely the case, yes.

But what human characters who aren't interested in using polearms?

If they'd at least make it that humans get one weapon proficiency of their their choice...

Then this adds one more item on huge pile of others, that are not desirable by your character ...
I see no problem here.

Then they wouldnt be able to make weapon for them ...

Larian said Elves, Half-elves and Tieflings were most popular races in EA. All of them have (had) a good variety of subraces to suit various classes, along with pleasing aesthetics. Swen also emphasizes choice as being core to BG3.

I'm going to hazard a guess that humans get a range of features to pick and choose.

Polearms, light armour and carry weight are weak global options, but could be fine specific choices for say BG3 monks. I can see Larian simply implementing the monk weapons feature to apply to any weapon your monk is proficient in; so these picks allow a human monk to start with a d10 monk weapon, able to wear light armour boots/helmets/gloves, and can carry/shove/throw an extra 50 lbs (20kg). Light armour would be good for a high strength build with ok Wis at low levels. That's a pretty fair upgrade for a specific build.

Coupling the human race with using polearms is ridiculous. Elves + bows makes some sense at least. All humans learning to fight with halberds and using leather armor does not. This idea clearly comes from gameplay devs because it doesn't make any narrative sense. You can tell Larian's development is very "systems run the show", i.e. systems team probably doesn't need to run things by the writing team because haphazard ideas like this tend to end up in a build. Writers to the rescue, please.

Not to mention Halberds and Light Armor are a dead racial ability to a lot of classes. The classes that might use them, get them from their class anyway. It's just a terrible design.

The human cultures are the most varied out of all races so choice makes sense. A proficiency choice, or a feat choice. I would prefer a feat choice over getting extra skills or proficiencies, because a feat can also be used for skills or proficiencies.

edit: Perhaps they did make a feat that gives you Light Armor and Polearm proficiencies? And the PC was a Monk who picked that because it's actually useful? That would be cool.
edit2: Ok I checked the video and humans do have a racial ability icon where you can clearly see a Spear and Armor. So no. All humans are Spartan I guess. They really have to change that nonsense before release.

I don't really see this. I mean, Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master is awesome, but for warriors and they get this proficiency anyway. Any other class can already pick up a quarterstaff and wouldn't pick those feats ever. I think, maybe getting the reach of a halberd on a monk would be fun, but now he has to be strong to use it properly.

Also, I think the items he named aren't necesarily weapons; there;s probably something good for everyone. Think of the amulet that sets your INT to a flat out 17. This allows you to start dipping into wizard, or respeccing and dumping all your int points.

Now, in earlier versions of D&D, you had to allocate the weapon type you go for, either profiency points or weapon focus/ specialisation etc. In 5E, if you find Crom Faeyr, you can use it properly on any warrior.

Local militia. That'd be the narrative reason for global polearm and light armour proficiency. I recently prepped a PnP adventure set in Elturel and each of the city districts maintains its own militia independent to Hellriders and Companion knights.

I'm guessing if I read up in detail about Waterdeep or BG that they'll have militias too.

My main reason for sometimes (and even often) playing human is due to background/personality concerns. There are many humans in the city and not too many elves I would imagine. So sometimes human becomes the natural choice. And if you want to play a paladin for instance, human may also be the natural choice, since a human would be more likely to go on holy crusades than say elves or halflings.

I understand the appeal of more exotic races, well, simply because they are more exotic. But if you are going to play your elf like if he was a human then you may as well play human. I also often wonder about halfelves: In Tolkiens Middle Earth there are only 3 documented cases of human + elf having children if I am not mistaken. Now d&d is not LOTR but still? Seems to me you often think of your new character completely out of context, which is natural, I do it too, but spending some time learning about the world you are going to be a part of in the game you will often be able to create a much more interesting character than otherwise. People you meet may better relate to you, and you will be drawn into the world and its cultures in a much more meaningful way. Depending on the GM or, in this case, the game developers. You may then find that your carefully created human character suddenly becomes just as exotic as any other member of any other race.

That's far too narrow. A human PC could be anyone from anywhere. All humans are not militia. That was my entire point.

Militia could be a Background that would give you those Proficiencies.

They need to solve the overlap with martial classes, who would actually use those weapons and armor in the first place. I can't really see Wizards or Rogues using Glaives just because they can.

While i think that having a free feat to select as a Human would be OP in 5E, a Human should be all about skills and adaptability.

Choose 1 skill you’re proficient with, maybe have Expertise in it. Also maybe Con save bonus, humans are very resilient.

I just made that up in 2 seconds, I’m sure a dev. team can come up with something better, bcos polearms indeed make no sense.

Feats are not the only thing that is interesting on weapons ...

We dont really know what kind of items will Larian do.

There are items with Lightning charges, Momentum, or Wrath effects ...
There are also items that allows you to deal additional damage, or gain other bonuses ...
And we cant really forget about weapons skills ...

I mean, all people see is just dices ... just ask around what weapon in EA is strongest.
- Many people will tell you its Everburning Blade ...
- Those who dont despite Dip ... will claim its either Blade of Justice, or Sussur Greatsword ...
- People with Wrath build ... will claim its either Githyanki Greatsword, or Blooded Greataxe ...
- While in fact, its Light of Creation.

I dont see how is this relevant.

Has they tho?
Thats the question we dont know answer to ...

I mean, in PnP its clearly stated that no Heavy or Two-Handed weapon can be used as Monk Weapon ... but will Larian respect this?

Well, obviously.
But as we speculate about usages of proficiencies to certain weapons, it seems quite logical to concider weapons.
Specificly ... those weapons.

Its a crown.
But yes, there are certainly other items.

Because the lore behind humans is easy to guess without having extensive knowledge of a setting, so they are much easier to roleplay a character as. Character creators just can't easily explain enough lore about a race for me to understand how they would mostly behave in the setting and I would end up playing them the same as a "human" in the end.

I want to go a layer deeper since everybody are just talking about stats, skills and proficiencies.

In fairy tales the exotic races represents aspects of humanity being enhanced. Elves are the more gracious ones (Tolkien) or enchanting ones (folk tales). Halflings like peace and coziness, goblins are evil tribal mobs, dwarves are stubborn and like like shiny things of the earth, etc. What does humans represent then: Exactly what they are: Humans. Like human beings in real life they can be good or evil, strong or weak, etc. or a little bit of everything. Instead of looking into what makes a human special you should be looking into what makes a human normal. The +1 you get in EA is not a bad representation of the multi-capacity of humans, but perhaps even better would be to allow humans to distribute points as they like (up to 20 in a stat), while other races would have some limitations and extensions (min/max) to their stats. Imo though all this with the stats, skills and proficiencies are minor issues compared to the legend surrounding races and the roleplay of your character.

How were elves, half elves, and tieflings most popular races when Laruan made an issue of everyone choose white human male warrior...

Besides, either way, if you have options, something us going to be most popular and something is going to ne least popular. It's simple math and science.

Might be a slight correction, but wasn't the human male a Cleric judging from the outfit?

Maybe. I just went with that because Larian made the case players were picking the most 'vanilla' of characters to play so it could be cleric. I didn't play the EA, but even if I did, not my fault, since I'd have played a dwarf.