Why play a human vs half-elf?

Remove all ads!

Exept for role-play or to be a paladin, I was wondering if there were any positives at playing a Human rather than a half-elf.
Neither gets bonuses, but half-elves get some resistance.

 

It's a choice between multiclass and dualclass. I rarely play humans, since I like multiclasses.
I don't know for sure wether the sleep resistance for ½ elfes are implemented.

 

You can be any class. You can dual class.
You are open to more romances etc etc.

 

Half-elves don't get a racial bonus.
Only the little races get noteworthy bonusses.

 

You cannot be either a paladin or a monk unless you play a human.

Humans dual class -- they completely give up one class to concentrate on a second class. The first class becomes active again once the level of the second class exceeds the level of the first class (they can never gain experience in the first class after dualling). Humans will only gain HLA's in the class they are levelling in. The first class can be a kit.

Half-elves multiclass. They gain skills in both classes simultaneously -- this includes HLA's. Neither class can be a kit.

Half-elf thieves get +10% to pickpockets, +5% to hide in shadows. Humans get no thieving bonuses.

Half-elves have infravision. This is not much of a bonus given you can turn on part infravision. Half-elves are suppose to have a 30% resistance to sleep and charm (I do not believe this is implemented in the game).

Both races can romance any of the original romancable NPC's (gender permitting).

Half-elf is a reasonable character to play if you want to multiclass or want to play a single classed character.

 

The only reason to be human is to play a paladin or monk, or to dual-class. If you're not going to do those, half-elf has them beat.

 

The racial bonuses are also implemented if you use the fixpack or the component from rogue rebalancing that adds it.

 

Humans use cooler sprites.

 

I always play a half-elf. I have tried to play a paladin but get bored. I haven't tried a monk yet. I don't like the way the dual-class is handled. I don't mind not advancing in the first class but simply see no reason why someone would 'forget' how to use the abilities of the first class until the second class passes it.

Sure I understand your character is concentrating on learning the new skills but totally forget how to use the other skills? Taint natural.

 

As stated - dual class for humans.

 

You don't forget. But "class" has a very different meaning in 2e than it does in 3e. In 3e it's only a set of skills to learn; in 2e it's an entire philosophy, a way of doing things. If you use old methods, you're slipping back into old thought patterns, old ways of doing things, which hinders your understanding of the new philosophy you're trying to acquire. In PnP, this is handled by giving no experience for the encounter and half experience for the adventure (or quest). But coding that would have been ridiculously difficult, so they just had everything cut out when you switched and magically reappear when you had gotten far enough.

After a certain amount of time learning this new philosophy, you can adequately meld the two philosophies and begin using your old abilities as part of your new melded way of thinking. This amount of time would naturally be dependent on the amount of time you previously spent entrenching yourself into the other philosophy.

I almost wish this place had a signature area so I could enlighten everyone at once.

 

It's neat logic, but it doesn't really work that way in real life. The 3e implementation is more logical than the 2e implementation in this regard (and don't even get me started on that stupid rule about suffering an experience penalty due to your alignment switching...). When a martial artist decides to learn accounting, he doesn't forget the martial arts. In fact, he is perfectly able to balance both skills and improve both of them steadilly in perpetuity. There are, after all, 24 hours in a day.

 

That's like comparing casting a Fireball and building a campfire, except at least those both involve a common element/goal. There's a reason that there are Non-Weapon Proficiencies; some things aren't as difficult. Let's try comparing them instead to a fighter. While a martial artist fights with bare hands or small martial weapons and light armor, fighters typically fight in full armor with large, imposing weapons. It's a completely different way to handle combat, and fighting in the style of a martial artist doesn't help you learn anything about fighting in a suit of armor.

Look across the classes, and see how things differ. Picking a lock doesn't help your spellcasting ability (Knock), and calling down a Blessing from your patron deity does not make you better able to inspire your comrades through song. And if you're going to compare a Fighter and a Ranger, don't; you can't dual inside a class group.

Again we have differing philosphies, and a bit more obviously a different way of thinking, this time (that's almost exactly what it is, in fact). For that matter, if we have bonuses for good RPing, what's so wrong with penalties for bad RPing? And of course, there are always DM fiats if someone just didn't understand the alignment system and picked the wrong one.

 

I tend to agree with Drew. If I had to make a choice, the 3e method seems to make more logical sense (as each level goes by, it becomes harder and harder to gain a new level in something else - maybe because your ideas about your first class are so entrenched etc) and is more fun to play, but the 2e method is what it is, and I can live with it if I have to.

 

Depends on the martial art actually. A friend of mine is nuts about kung fu and he learned to handle a spear quite well (quite a big imposing one in fact). But I agree about the armour thing.

I think Fel and Drew consider this issue from two different angles. I'm convinced by both.

D&D is based on a class system in which your class defines who you are and what you do (incidentally in the original D&D elf and dwarf were actual classes).

A more logical set of rules wouldn't stress that much this class thing but allow you to develop different skills at the same time. To a certain extent that's what 3E does (I remember skills and powers for 2E, that was a nice system).

What is strange about dual classing is the inactive class thing which doesn't make much sense (unless you accept the different philosophies approach). IMO a better option would have been to gradually lose levels in the original class due to lack of practice while advancing in the other class.

It's rather silly to be a Fighter level 9 for instance and begin a new life as a Mage hence forgetting everything about swords until you become a mage level 10 which means you haven't wielded a sword for ages...

In the same way I don't think MC are handled that well in 2E either. But it's part of this feeling of nostalgia you get playing 2E...

I like the Mage Elf avatar better than the Human one.

 

I agree human sprites look mre intimading, the mage avatar is cool despite that ugly beard. I mean, should all human mages have a beard? A beardless human mage avatar woul be a change. Elven one looks like a wimp. They did not implement the beard for half-elf avatar, they can have facial hair after all. (Tanis!)

As for 2e vs 3e, well I personally prefer 2e rules like Fel, but if you so insist on 3e is better and makes more sense to YOU, I can only say OK. IWD2 uses those spiffy rules, and I love that game nevertheless.

As for human vs half-elf, don't forget that half elves have infravision! Not a notable bonus, but still a bonus. I don't think other bonuses are properly implemented, and sleep resistance is rather useless, I do not remember many occasions my PC was put to magical sleep in BG2, in BG1 it might be a different story. Charm resistance is always neat though, till you get Helmet of Charm Protection, at the very least.

 

Hé, hé, the Elf avatar may look like a "wimp", in the end he is far from being a wimp...

I like to play a really powerful PC who would look quite innocuous. :

 

3e makes much more sense than 2e. 2e is just better for power gaming.

 

So unless you play with some sort of MOD the resistances of Half-Elves aren't implemented? That kind of sucks, since it says they have resistances in the race kit descriptions when you creat a character..
How about the resistances of other races? Are they not implemented, as well?

 

You've got that backwards. Though if the cRPGs are the only experience you've had with 2e, I can see why you would think that. BG2 has many things to answer for...

The smaller races' saving throw bonuses are implemented, but resistances aren't implemented in the vanilla game.