How should humans be human?

[deadwor1d]

I don't think the Humans necessarily must, or should, be the baseline by which everything else is calculated. By definition, that means that Humans are not in any fashion distinct.

There should be a hypothetical 'baseline' humanoid to which all PC humanoid races, including Humans, are automatically superior. It has an average of 10.5 in each of its ability scores and gains no racial abilities that are not intrinsic to the humanoid type.

I very much like the idea that Humans are +1 to everything, thus having an average of 11.5 in everything, with the other races averaging 12.5 in two scores and 10.5 in the others. (Growing less and less fond of racial penalties.) This makes Humans theoretically superior-- albeit less focused-- and better capable of mixing diverse class types.

Do we need to distinguish humans by their ability scores? I mean, we have to start somewhere. Why not humans? Humans as a baseline feels more solid than a nebulous non-entity serving as baseline. Giving them an across the board increase feels like unnecessary bloat to me. Dwarves are tougher than humans. Elves are more (intelligent|dexterous) than humans (depending on the camp you side with). Halflings are more resilient of spirit than humans. These are fantasy tropes from various sources. Why change that? There are ways to distinguish humans without resorting to granting them a bonus to every ability score. This, in my opinion, is poor design, regardless of who enjoys it at face value.

Remember: the new system focuses on ability scores. While many scores will seem close to average, at the high end, through optimization, humans will come out on top every single time.

This may be a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other, though. If you have to give one race a bonus in every ability, something just feels off. It's over-complicating, maybe? Just reduce the bonus the other races receive by a point and the same effect is achieved. You still have the human as baseline, but everyone feels better about option one because the human is bolstered all the way around? It's just weird to me on a psychological level.

A case could be made for removing ability modifiers based on race altogether, rather instead rewarding each race, humans included, an ability that reflects the strengths of the race. In a way, this has already been done. Dwarven immunity to poison. Elven immunity to charm and sleep effects. And so on.

I'm probably rambling on and on and I will pay for it tomorrow, but I hope I made a valid point in there somewhere.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Do we need to distinguish humans by their ability scores? I mean, we have to start somewhere.

No, but you do realize that any racial ability we grant to Humans is-- again by definition-- a departure from the baseline? If Humans get a bonus feat and a bonus skill, that means that all of the non-Humans technically have a 1 feat/skill penalty when compared to the 'baseline'. If Humans get more action points, or refresh them more often, that means that non-humans are simply penalized in action points.

The only fashion for which Human can be a 'baseline' against which all other humanoids are measured is for Humans to have absolutely no discernible features whatsoever. While one can argue that it worked well enough for the first twenty-five years of D&D... I would still say that we can, and have, done better in the last thirteen years. Humanty as a real race with its own identity, rather than as the absence of racial characteristics, is more powerful and more interesting-- and thus more attractive to players, resulting in the Human-dominant adventuring parties that most people want to see in standard D&D games.

I'm probably rambling on and on and I will pay for it tomorrow, but I hope I made a valid point in there somewhere.

You've got a valid point, as far as ability scores are concerned-- but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Any argument that can be applied to Human ability scores can be applied to any other Human racial feature; using Human as the 'baseline' means that every other race is operating at a penalty, as in d20 Modern.

I think it's just more elegant, mechanically, for each race to have its own distinct bonuses.

 

[deadwor1d]

No, but you do realize that any racial ability we grant to Humans is-- again by definition-- a departure from the baseline? If Humans get a bonus feat and a bonus skill, that means that all of the non-Humans technically have a 1 feat/skill penalty when compared to the 'baseline'. If Humans get more action points, or refresh them more often, that means that non-humans are simply penalized in action points.

Good point. In order to commit to the baseline concept, humans would have to be vanilla in all regards.

 

[dangerous jack]

I don't think having humans as a baseline means they have to be vanilla in all ways. I think they should periodically take a look at the game if there were no races, and figure out if they'd make the same choices for humans. So if every character was human, would we give them all...
* ... +1 to all abilities? My guess is probably not.
* ... +1 to the ability of their choice? Maybe.
* ... 2 feats at first level (i.e. 3e style)? Maybe the answer is yes because it lets you define your character better.
* ... 3 at-will abilities (i.e. 4e style)? Maybe not because actually 2 is found to be the best balance between flexibility and distinguishing different characters and the 3rd doesn't add much.

My personal belief is also that human should be something someone completely new to the game can pick up and understand incredibly quickly. It should be the simplest race to create and play (although certainly allow for complexity later). Examples of powers that are probably the most easy to explain to a new player are:
* action surge: once per encounter, take an extra action
* mulligan: once per encounter, reroll any roll (including my 5d6 fireball that just totalled 5 points of damage)

My third design goal would be that humans should be a desirable race to play for any class. There may be some benefits to playing an elven wizard, but there should also be some benefit that a human wizard gets that an elven wizard doesn't.

 

[mlund]

I do not want 'adventurer human' separated from 'regular human'. They get their racial bonuses because they are human, not because they are 'adventurer human'.

I do want 'adventurer human' (or at least 'exceptional' human) separated from 'regular human." They get their racial bonuses because they developed their human potential, not because they were born into success.

Humans are unique because they produce a higher volume of exceptional outliers - not because their dirt-grubbing peasants are all stronger / better / faster than everyone else's. Humans are the race of limitless potential, but it goes to waste unless it is tested in the fires of challenge and adversity.

- Marty Lund

 

[steeldragons]

Humans are the race of limitless potential, but it goes to waste unless it is tested in the fires of challenge and adversity.

- Marty Lund

I agree with everything you said, even the snipped parts.

But consider this...

Since racial class restrictions, racial level restrictions/limits, minimum ability scores to be a certain PC race or class have been taken out of the game, how are the humans any more "the race of unlimited potential"?

They are the baseline. They are WHY an elf gets + to this and dwarf gets + to that. Because those races are [supposed to be, in game terms] inherently mo' bettuh in those areas than humans.

Just a question we all seem interesting in answering...but without the restrictions that used to be in the game...there doesn't seem to be an answer.
--SD

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

That's why I like Humans as the race that can be any class, and the race that's best at multiclassing-- it isn't that they have greater potential within any particular field, it's that they have greater potential to advance in any field and to pursue more than one.

Like the basis behind the Chameleon PrC in Races of Destiny.

And the stat bonus thing does that very nicely, except I think they didn't give the other races enough to make up for it.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

If the humans are the base race, then no need to add anything at all.

This was my thought too, but if you instead give all non-humans a -1 to everything, people will get mad that they're getting penalized for playing a non-human. It's the exact same result, of course, but people just think like that.

 

[Thalain]

I liked the 3E/Pathfinder system most - having the extra skill and feat for humans was a simple advantage. It wasn't perfect as some builds benefited much more than others, but it did the job of allowing interesting human characters specifically where one would expect humans to be strong in fantasy worlds. 2E overpowered humans at higher levels and the new system seems to overpower them again - while a +1 to all attributes would be perfectly good and fun in 3E's big number ranges, in a low-spread system such as 5E promises to be, initial stats are already too important before adding such an across the board bonus.

 

[Ratskinner]

To me, the real issue is the lack of drawbacks. It used to be that when you wanted to be an Elf (or whatever) that you could expect some resultant troubles. People are just too averse to penalties nowadays. So, give humans a +1 to everything....why not give the other races a -1 to everything but their strong suits? While its simpler to make humans "one better" at everything, I think it misses the point and smacks a bit giving up. If you're gonna give up on making humans interesting...just do it. I'd love to see a human racial block that looked like this:

Human Humans are the default race. They receive no additional benefits or penalties due to their race. In spite of that, they are the most populous and widespread sentient species in the multiverse.

The other racial descriptions would detail each race's advantages...and disadvantages, which would, in theory, "add up to zero". To be clear, this isn't a huge issue for me. I'm not gonna refuse to buy the game if humans aren't "vanilla".