D&D 5E The Human Problem Pt 1

[Zardnaar]

The title of the thread is a bit misleading, FWIW.

Anyway, I ran a campaign I developed where 90% of all humans disappeared suddenly. The effect was catastrophic for the other "good folk" races as humans were by far the most abundant race which kept the "evil folk" at bay. The players who wanted to play humans had to roll to see if their "character" survived the purge so could in fact be played. Otherwise, they had to play other races.

In the end, the PCs reversed the purge to bring back the humans to the world. It was a very dark campaign which ran for over two years until the players finished it.

So, having a game setting where humans are non-dominant can work of course if you develop the scenario why. Good luck!

Well our mere existence could be a problem to other races and we might actually be the Orcs or whatever.

Resource consumption and war tendencies come to mind. The Human Problem might just be us.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The Human Problem might just be us.

Not a problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know this is going to sound like a broken record coming from me, but I genuinely believe the dragonborn present by far the clearest, most significant "threat" (in a socio-political/socio-economic sense). I've said a ton about all this already, but in brief...

Spoiler: Side thing

Dragonborn pros (relative to humanity):

• Faster development time but similar lifespan (so more productive lifespan)
• Laying eggs lets mothers skip most of the difficulties (and illness) of pregnancy
• Highly charismatic and gregarious despite their stereotypical pride (at least as pro-social as humans)
• Physically strong and hardy (and, at least in 4e, noticeably better at healing from wounds)
• More rapid generational turnover (and thus faster base population growth)

Dragonborn cons (ditto):

• More dependent on dietary protein, making nutrition a serious concern
• Faster development time means any issues or problems that occur in childhood are much more dangerous
• Elemental breath means anti-social behavior can be significantly more dangerous
• Caring for eggs is a huge weak spot--it saves labor but incubation sites are at major risk of attack

Unlike most other races which plausibly could be "more powerful" than humans, such as elves or dwarves, dragonborn actually develop faster than humans, and yet they live on the same overall lifespan clock. Where elves and dwarves have stupidly, unrealistically long childhoods (which is an incredible risk in medieval contexts), dragonborn have borderline unrealistically short childhoods, which is very useful in a world that is extremely dangerous to infant children. With a significant reduction in infant mortality purely because dragonborn children can walk within hours of hatching and can talk within months of hatching, on top of all the above stuff, dragonborn pioneers should be a scary, scary prospect for humans. So long as they can get a sufficient source of protein (meaning they almost certainly must be pastoralists or herders), they can set up a foothold, have twice the total population of a human society in less than a century, and their physical prowess and elemental breath make them better-equipped for resisting the main ways of trying to prevent them from doing this (that is, warfare.)

If you want a race that took over the Earth but doesn't really begrudge humanity having its own territory, especially if that territory isn't super ideal for the kinds of things that race needs for its ordinary diet and such? Dragonborn are pretty much ideal.

Edit: Even better, because they are pretty clearly physiologically different from humans, even if their reasoning capacity and moral-ethical reasoning are largely equivalent, it's also entirely possible that dragonborn would be resistant or completely immune to the kinds of pathogens that normally infect humans....as well as livestock. As a result, dragonborn might be significantly less likely to suffer from plagues than humans, because if they keep mammalian livestock (and actually use good sanitation...), they could skip some of the greatest killers of humanity in the Medieval Period: diphtheria, smallpox, cholera, mumps, measels, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

I know this is going to sound like a broken record coming from me, but I genuinely believe the dragonborn present by far the clearest, most significant "threat" (in a socio-political/socio-economic sense). I've said a ton about all this already, but in brief...

Spoiler: Side thing

Dragonborn pros (relative to humanity):

• Faster development time but similar lifespan (so more productive lifespan)
• Laying eggs lets mothers skip most of the difficulties (and illness) of pregnancy
• Highly charismatic and gregarious despite their stereotypical pride (at least as pro-social as humans)
• Physically strong and hardy (and, at least in 4e, noticeably better at healing from wounds)
• More rapid generational turnover (and thus faster base population growth)

Dragonborn cons (ditto):

• More dependent on dietary protein, making nutrition a serious concern
• Faster development time means any issues or problems that occur in childhood are much more dangerous
• Elemental breath means anti-social behavior can be significantly more dangerous
• Caring for eggs is a huge weak spot--it saves labor but incubation sites are at major risk of attack

Unlike most other races which plausibly could be "more powerful" than humans, such as elves or dwarves, dragonborn actually develop faster than humans, and yet they live on the same overall lifespan clock. Where elves and dwarves have stupidly, unrealistically long childhoods (which is an incredible risk in medieval contexts), dragonborn have borderline unrealistically short childhoods, which is very useful in a world that is extremely dangerous to infant children. With a significant reduction in infant mortality purely because dragonborn children can walk within hours of hatching and can talk within months of hatching, on top of all the above stuff, dragonborn pioneers should be a scary, scary prospect for humans. So long as they can get a sufficient source of protein (meaning they almost certainly must be pastoralists or herders), they can set up a foothold, have twice the total population of a human society in less than a century, and their physical prowess and elemental breath make them better-equipped for resisting the main ways of trying to prevent them from doing this (that is, warfare.)

If you want a race that took over the Earth but doesn't really begrudge humanity having its own territory, especially if that territory isn't super ideal for the kinds of things that race needs for its ordinary diet and such? Dragonborn are pretty much ideal.

I was thinking of your DB propaganda earlier but yes could be anything. Dragonborn are kinda OP in universe in game not so much.

Personally I think of Dragonborn as the best or worst traits of the classical world depending on their society alignment. Basically Romans.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah. Balancewise, a 50e human is fine as follows:

Ability Scores: +1 to any three
Feat: Prodigy (or DMs and players choice of feat)
Halffeat: some kind of choice weapon or armor proficiency (actually relating to the darkvision or cantrip of other races)

But again, I am unsure how to best to define this halffeat for the weapon/armor proficiency.



Also, notice. Xanathars Prodigy is one skill, one tool, and one language. But this future version of Prodigy allows any combination, such as three tools, three skills, or two tools and one language, or whatever.

I have my variant of human,
I revolves around variant human with must have skilled feat and little extra:

+2 to one ability, +1 to any other or +1 to three abilities:
languages: common
Skilled: +2 skill proficiencies
Tools of the trade: 4 proficiencies combined from tools, languages or weapons
Hidden talent: Expertise in one skill or tool that you are proficient.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was thinking of your DB propaganda earlier but yes could be anything.

Personally I think of Dragonborn as the best or worst traits of the classical world depending on their society alignment. Basically Romans.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I see them as well. They dream big, shoot for the moon. Sometimes that means they make it. Sometimes, that means they land amongst the stars. And sometimes it means they crash-land and set an entire forest on fire by accident....or even on purpose.

Mostly I present it here as an alternative to the more typical choice of elves as the "better than humans" option. Because elves have a LOT of weaknesses that their long lifespans have to make up for. Being a teensy bit magical and having good eyesight don't make up for their reproductive sensitivity. Elves are ludicrously over-specialized as what biologists might call "K-strategists."* Basically, in the logistic map for population growth, you have two constants that matter: r, the maximum potential growth rate, and K, the maximum carrying capacity of a region. Species that display more r-strategist reproduction produce lots and lots and lots of offspring, but any individual child is unlikely to survive. Collectively they will almost certainly produce several healthy adults by the end, but a large number (or even a majority) of the offspring will die. Rats are an example of a mostly r-strategist species, as they tend to have large litters of babies; crocodiles, frogs, and many other species use this strategy. Their focus is to maximize the maximum reproductive rate, thereby increasing the maximum population that will exist at any given time.

By comparison, K-strategist types favor having a few offspring that are carefully cared-for and nurtured by their parents. Each individual child has a much higher chance to survive, but there are fewer of them. Humans, elephants, and indeed many (though not all) apex predators lean in a K-strategist direction. Such species maximize K, the maximum population that their environment can support. As a general rule, this strategy is usually (though not always) found in species where their population generally hugs close to the maximum it can be to begin with, so increasing K is more useful than increasing r. An r-strategist species, by comparison, is generally in the low to middle part of their logistic curve most of the time, so having a larger maximum r value is much more useful.

Elves, then, are ludicrously overspecialized to K-strategist methods. Their children take a full century to reach maturity! That means every childhood death is literally multiple decades of effort lost and every adult death is at least a century before you can replace them. That's just...not a viable long-term strategy for survival. Humans can very, very easily win a war of attrition against that development time: in the time it takes elves to grow just one generation (so, in theory, doubling their population), humans can complete five generations, having 32 times the population. I just don't buy that elves could consistently kill off more than 32 humans for every elf killed in warfare or by disease or whatever. It's just not plausible. Dwarves aren't quite in as bad a situation, as they apparently reach physical maturity at the same age humans do (so around 18-20), but they aren't really considered "adults" proper until age 50. Again, human generational turnover is just going to mean they outcompete dwarves and elves purely in terms of claiming territory--humanity will grow fast enough to fill all the other spaces before the elves can even get people out to found a colony, let alone grow one!

So...yeah. I won't at all hide that a portion of it is simply that I love dragonborn. But if you really take seriously the implications of dragonborn physiology and development, they actually are VERY scary. IRL humans would have either had to make peace with them and integrate into their societies (collaborating since humans aren't as dependent on high-protein diets) in order to secure a peaceful future, or they would have to treat the arrival of dragonborn wanderers as a clear existential threat to be exterminated or driven off immediately before they can put down roots and spread.

*It's worth noting, this overall theory is no longer used in biology today. It has been superseded by much more complicated theories, though not in a pure "disproof" sort of way, more in a "r/K theory was incomplete, and has been absorbed into a grander, more complete theory" sort of way. This means it's still useful as a heuristic but shouldn't be held as absolute objective fact.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I see them as well. They dream big, shoot for the moon. Sometimes that means they make it. Sometimes, that means they land amongst the stars. And sometimes it means they crash-land and set an entire forest on fire by accident....or even on purpose.

Mostly I present it here as an alternative to the more typical choice of elves as the "better than humans" option. Because elves have a LOT of weaknesses that their long lifespans have to make up for. Being a teensy bit magical and having good eyesight don't make up for their reproductive sensitivity. Elves are ludicrously over-specialized as what biologists might call "K-strategists."* Basically, in the logistic map for population growth, you have two constants that matter: r, the maximum potential growth rate, and K, the maximum carrying capacity of a region. Species that display more r-strategist reproduction produce lots and lots and lots of offspring, but any individual child is unlikely to survive. Collectively they will almost certainly produce several healthy adults by the end, but a large number (or even a majority) of the offspring will die. Rats are an example of a mostly r-strategist species, as they tend to have large litters of babies; crocodiles, frogs, and many other species use this strategy. Their focus is to maximize the maximum reproductive rate, thereby increasing the maximum population that will exist at any given time.

By comparison, K-strategist types favor having a few offspring that are carefully cared-for and nurtured by their parents. Each individual child has a much higher chance to survive, but there are fewer of them. Humans, elephants, and indeed many (though not all) apex predators lean in a K-strategist direction. Such species maximize K, the maximum population that their environment can support. As a general rule, this strategy is usually (though not always) found in species where their population generally hugs close to the maximum it can be to begin with, so increasing K is more useful than increasing r. An r-strategist species, by comparison, is generally in the low to middle part of their logistic curve most of the time, so having a larger maximum r value is much more useful.

Elves, then, are ludicrously overspecialized to K-strategist methods. Their children take a full century to reach maturity! That means every childhood death is literally multiple decades of effort lost and every adult death is at least a century before you can replace them. That's just...not a viable long-term strategy for survival. Humans can very, very easily win a war of attrition against that development time: in the time it takes elves to grow just one generation (so, in theory, doubling their population), humans can complete five generations, having 32 times the population. I just don't buy that elves could consistently kill off more than 32 humans for every elf killed in warfare or by disease or whatever. It's just not plausible. Dwarves aren't quite in as bad a situation, as they apparently reach physical maturity at the same age humans do (so around 18-20), but they aren't really considered "adults" proper until age 50. Again, human generational turnover is just going to mean they outcompete dwarves and elves purely in terms of claiming territory--humanity will grow fast enough to fill all the other spaces before the elves can even get people out to found a colony, let alone grow one!

So...yeah. I won't at all hide that a portion of it is simply that I love dragonborn. But if you really take seriously the implications of dragonborn physiology and development, they actually are VERY scary. IRL humans would have either had to make peace with them and integrate into their societies (collaborating since humans aren't as dependent on high-protein diets) in order to secure a peaceful future, or they would have to treat the arrival of dragonborn wanderers as a clear existential threat to be exterminated or driven off immediately before they can put down roots and spread.

*It's worth noting, this overall theory is no longer used in biology today. It has been superseded by much more complicated theories, though not in a pure "disproof" sort of way, more in a "r/K theory was incomplete, and has been absorbed into a grander, more complete theory" sort of way. This means it's still useful as a heuristic but shouldn't be held as absolute objective fact.

Well elves theoretically can reproduce like humans traditionally they don't.

Drow don't have the same problem.

I've had evil elves use humans as breeding stock as elf+half elf makes full elf. Those elves were more like Melinbonians.

 

[Yaarel]

@Zardnaar, can we use this thread to speculate what the 50e human will look like, or should we split it into a new thread? Its relevance is how powerful the human statblock will be compared to other races.



Judging by the design space of the new races:

Ability scores: either +2 one and +1 other; or +1 to any three
Speed: 30 feet
Size: Medium or Small, choose any human body type (implying other if DM and player agree)
Languages: Common (= human) plus choice of language (that DM and player agree on)
Age: typically humanlike, adult around 20 and lifespan around 100; but nonhuman can differ

Race Features ≈ 1½ feats


Note. A halffeat is worth about 4 proficiencies (but the value of specific skills, tools, etcetera, can vary). A feat is worth about 8 proficiencies. At-will flight is worth more than a feat, but also using up the extra halffeat for it might help balance it. Flight is weird, being superpowerful but where designers seem to want to mainstream it.



Thus a 50e human:

Human
Ability scores: +1 to any three
Speed: 30 feet
Size: Typically Medium
Languages: Common plus choice of one language
Age: adult around 20, lifespan around 100
Feat: Prodigy (but any three proficiencies, plus one expertise)
Halffeat: ?

 

[Zardnaar]

@Zardnaar, can we use this thread to speculate what the 50e human will look like, or should we split it into a new thread? Its relevance is how powerful the human statblock will be compared to other races.



Judging by the design space of the new races:

Ability scores: either +2 one and +1 other; or +1 to any three
Speed: 30 feet
Size: Medium or Small, choose any human body type (implying other if DM and player agree)
Languages: Common (= human) plus choice of language (that DM and player agree on)
Age: typically humanlike, adult around 20 and lifespan around 100; but nonhuman can differ

Race Features ≈ 1½ feats


Note. A halffeat is worth about 4 proficiencies (but the value of specific skills, tools, etcetera, can vary). A feat is worth about 8 proficiencies. At-will flight is worth more than a feat, but also using up the extra halffeat for it might help balance it. Flight is weird, being superpowerful but where designers seem to want to mainstream it.



Thus a 50e human:

Human
Ability scores: +1 to any three
Speed: 30 feet
Size: Typically Medium
Languages: Common plus choice of one language
Age: adult around 20, lifespan around 100
Feat: Prodigy (but any three proficiencies, plus one expertise)
Halffeat: ?

I don't mind/care.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I see them as well. They dream big, shoot for the moon. Sometimes that means they make it. Sometimes, that means they land amongst the stars. And sometimes it means they crash-land and set an entire forest on fire by accident....or even on purpose.

Mostly I present it here as an alternative to the more typical choice of elves as the "better than humans" option. Because elves have a LOT of weaknesses that their long lifespans have to make up for. Being a teensy bit magical and having good eyesight don't make up for their reproductive sensitivity. Elves are ludicrously over-specialized as what biologists might call "K-strategists."* Basically, in the logistic map for population growth, you have two constants that matter: r, the maximum potential growth rate, and K, the maximum carrying capacity of a region. Species that display more r-strategist reproduction produce lots and lots and lots of offspring, but any individual child is unlikely to survive. Collectively they will almost certainly produce several healthy adults by the end, but a large number (or even a majority) of the offspring will die. Rats are an example of a mostly r-strategist species, as they tend to have large litters of babies; crocodiles, frogs, and many other species use this strategy. Their focus is to maximize the maximum reproductive rate, thereby increasing the maximum population that will exist at any given time.

By comparison, K-strategist types favor having a few offspring that are carefully cared-for and nurtured by their parents. Each individual child has a much higher chance to survive, but there are fewer of them. Humans, elephants, and indeed many (though not all) apex predators lean in a K-strategist direction. Such species maximize K, the maximum population that their environment can support. As a general rule, this strategy is usually (though not always) found in species where their population generally hugs close to the maximum it can be to begin with, so increasing K is more useful than increasing r. An r-strategist species, by comparison, is generally in the low to middle part of their logistic curve most of the time, so having a larger maximum r value is much more useful.

Elves, then, are ludicrously overspecialized to K-strategist methods. Their children take a full century to reach maturity! That means every childhood death is literally multiple decades of effort lost and every adult death is at least a century before you can replace them. That's just...not a viable long-term strategy for survival. Humans can very, very easily win a war of attrition against that development time: in the time it takes elves to grow just one generation (so, in theory, doubling their population), humans can complete five generations, having 32 times the population. I just don't buy that elves could consistently kill off more than 32 humans for every elf killed in warfare or by disease or whatever. It's just not plausible. Dwarves aren't quite in as bad a situation, as they apparently reach physical maturity at the same age humans do (so around 18-20), but they aren't really considered "adults" proper until age 50. Again, human generational turnover is just going to mean they outcompete dwarves and elves purely in terms of claiming territory--humanity will grow fast enough to fill all the other spaces before the elves can even get people out to found a colony, let alone grow one!

So...yeah. I won't at all hide that a portion of it is simply that I love dragonborn. But if you really take seriously the implications of dragonborn physiology and development, they actually are VERY scary. IRL humans would have either had to make peace with them and integrate into their societies (collaborating since humans aren't as dependent on high-protein diets) in order to secure a peaceful future, or they would have to treat the arrival of dragonborn wanderers as a clear existential threat to be exterminated or driven off immediately before they can put down roots and spread.

*It's worth noting, this overall theory is no longer used in biology today. It has been superseded by much more complicated theories, though not in a pure "disproof" sort of way, more in a "r/K theory was incomplete, and has been absorbed into a grander, more complete theory" sort of way. This means it's still useful as a heuristic but shouldn't be held as absolute objective fact.

so either dragon-born should be the most common or they have a hidden weakness stopping them from ruling the world?