D&D General What are humans?

[James Gasik]

My group is the opposite. None of them see any reason not to use the racial ASIs, which just make sense to us.

At least in my friends PH only 5e game that's what we do. Our other game is Level Up, and they attach ASI to background, so it's a moot point.

I mean, that works too. If your players think Strong Orcs is best Orcs, no need to change a thing!

 

[Shardstone]

In my setting, Scavenger, I designed humans to focus on being innovators of tools and different skills. I think what makes us special as a species is our ability to use tools of all kinds, to quickly pick up skills and to become proficient in them, and our high endurance. Thus humans get bonus tool profs, a 1d4 to skill checks (usable only until it succeeds), and a bonus to Intelligence and con.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

One potential thing to make both groups happier could be what they're doing with certain features in 5.5e For example in backgrounds it says things like "Take the skilled feat or a 1st level feat of your choice". Same with weapon and spell selections for classes.

If applied to species ASI, this could say something like "take +1 in con and -1 in wisdom, or take a +1 and a -1 in two ability scores of your choice."

That way it shows what is 'typical' for that species, while still allowing PC's to step away from the expectations of that species.

 

[Umbran]

What about humans is unique to our species and what's just a function of our intelligence?

So, this is a general sci-fi kind of question really. One that is hard to answer solidly, because we only have the one example of technologically advanced species to go on.

I note that D&D is a fantasy game. It isn't really there to ask the speculative question, "What if...?" Heck, in D&D, even the concept of "species" is a bit weakened by having so many things able to interbreed. And in D&D, what species you have are not necessarily results of evolution, but are instead created by gods, and there are gods guiding our interactions with, and development of, technology.

D&D might be better positioned to look at the questions of the influence of higher powers, than the limits of biology.

What would other intelligent humanoids not share with us? Compared to other animals on Earth, physically we have high endurance, we sweat, and we can throw things. But what functions of our intelligence could be unique and not shared by other intelligent lineages?

Why limit yourself to functions of intelligence?

Author Alan Dean Foster (in "The Damned Trilogy") turned the "humans are the generic" trope on its head, by envisioning a galaxy in which there were other intelligent alien races... but humans were the ones who appeared to be hyper-specialized for fighting. Every other species was more technologically advanced than humans, but also softer, squishier, and more psychologically disinclined to violence than humans. So, like, even an accountant who goes to the gym a couple times a week looked like Conan the Barbarian to the aliens.

Would all intelligent humanoid species end up with the same technologies, or are some things uniquely human? What if the propensity to personify animals was uniquely human, and thus animal domestication was uniquely human? Or are D&D humanoid species just too similar to end up drastically different?

I was watching an episode of The Muppet Show last night, and was struck by the realization that birds (indeed, no creature without human-like lips) can play the trumpet, or really any of the wind instruments humans have invented. And thus how art is inexorably linked to biology.

Animal domestication isn't really a function of our propensity to personify animals - it is mostly a function of not wanting to have to run after cows and pigs and goats to be able to eat them, and the propensity for a few animals to not mind being told where to go quite so much.

 

[Willie the Duck]

What about humans is unique to our species and what's just a function of our intelligence? What would other intelligent humanoids not share with us? Compared to other animals on Earth, physically we have high endurance, we sweat, and we can throw things. But what functions of our intelligence could be unique and not shared by other intelligent lineages?
Would all intelligent humanoid species end up with the same technologies, or are some things uniquely human? What if the propensity to personify animals was uniquely human, and thus animal domestication was uniquely human? Or are D&D humanoid species just too similar to end up drastically different?

Mental differences: We know there are certain types of mental acuities where one can have a deficit*, yet be wholly capable in most other ways. Particularly surrounding language and ability to form abstract constructs.
*because of the IRL minefield of discussing individuals, I'm mostly going to frame this related to intelligent animals like crows and pre-human ancestors, etc.

• Perhaps Elves have human tool use and superior senses and physical ability, but their beautiful intricate language is really closer to bird songs -- able to impart incredible nuance into identifying individuals and imparting the concepts "my territory," "go away," and "come closer (and mate);" but unable to be employed to say "I want to buy your arrowheads, and will pay a copper piece per dozen." Thus every trade interaction requires each side taking turns laying out what they want on one side of a table and what they are willing to give on the other, or other extremely inefficient method.
• Perhaps gnomes have an intricate language system which can name items and discuss complex actions. However, their economy is constrained to the level of writing depictions of piles of grain under depictions of individuals because abstract concepts a number (divorced from what the number of things is-'five stacks of grain' makes sense, 'five' does not) is beyond their comprehension.
• Perhaps dwarves have a functional economy, and their language is nuanced and complex and can handle numbers and the like. Yet they can't discuss that Joe went over the hill to look for deer tracks and will be back tomorrow because Joe isn't present in the discussion, and tomorrow isn't here and so forth.

Social/Behavioral differences: Humans have a number of qualities we take for granted about what we do. We form societies, sure. We also care about individuals (particularly our selves). We also have a specific relationship to threats and risks. Things like wildebeests or the like will go to the watering hole where the lion lurks, and make sure the lion is far enough away from them and their offspring that they do not feel in danger (here, now), but do nothing further. Obviously they don't have a lot of options, but if they had hands and bows/swords, would they hunt down the lion and make sure it couldn't kill and eat them (or the rest of the herd) tomorrow? There are plenty of options.

• Perhaps individual goblins want to be the dominant family of all the goblins they know, and to survive, but the overall dominance of goblins in the world is something they don't have a though about.
• Perhaps thri-kreen want their species to have as much territory as possible (and their gene line to be well-represented within it). But this only happens by slow territorial creeping around the edges because they don't care about their individual success and thus kingdoms and such do not form (and whatever organizational benefits those create don't happen).
• Perhaps goliaths are mentally utilitarian measured on an across-society level. Adventuring might be a net negative utility on that scale (99 aspiring PCs die so that one can flourish, bringing back 2-99 goliath lifetime-utilities of benefit).

Physical differences: endurance, sweating, and throwing are obvious ones. Perhaps so obvious as to be overlooked are that we are land-based (thus allowing fire) and have a many-season lifespan -- two reasons why octopi do not fill our niche. Others include things like sensory generalism -- our eyesight is not great, but we have decent near- and far-sightedness, as well as peripheral vision while also able to focus in on things. We see in many colors, if not all of them. We aren't missing a swath of senses many other creatures have in exchange for a specialized sense (akin to snakes who can see Infrared, but are missing a bunch of hearing, or the like). Also, our diet is pretty forgiving -- sure we can be vitamin or mineral limited (like most everything else), but we can get by on 'the plant and animal content' of most areas of the planet (no 'bamboo shoots only' or the like). We also can vary fat/carb/protein pretty well and store nutrients pretty well internally (and the kinds of food we can eat generally store pretty well, particularly after we discover pottery and fire). All of these things can be toggles and dials that other non-human human analogs can vary with regards to.

 

[Clint_L]

If that's what happens, I'd be happy with that. And you know, maybe we'll see more Tiefling and Gnome Barbarians and the like from here on out. I can only comment on what I've seen in actual games.

On the other hand, I know some races are played more for reasons that have nothing to do with their stat lines (though people do still tend to play the classes those races are good at), like say Elves.

But on the gripping hand, historically, Elves have had a subrace for anything you'd want to play, so maybe that's a bad example. Who remembers 2e Sylvan Elves running around with 19 Strength?

Another thing I'm thinking about is that my school campaign is mostly kids with few or no preconceptions about which species "should" play which class. So they probably feel more free to mix and match than a grognard like me does. On the other hand, some matches are sort of obvious, like the goliath fighter one boy chose - if you want to be a big beefy boi who smashes faces, then that's a kind of obvious match. But overall, I'm always impressed by how free the kids seem to be about conceptualizing their characters.

Compared to my friends and I, back in the day, my new players are also much more open to playing different genders, sexualities, characters with physical challenges, skin tones, etc. Just tons more diversity than we ever had (I mean, my first character was a human ranger named something like "Thorandar", so it's not like I was really pushing my imagination).

 

[Minigiant]

Right, which is why I can't get behind it because it's an informed trait from my perspective. To me PCs and NPCs are not different types of creatures, so anything possessed by the whole species should be possessed by both. It's like saying that all Drow are good heroes yearning to throw off the bad reputation of their evil kin, if the example was something other than alignment.

It's just Halflings

Halflings mentally think adventuring or leaving home for long periods is weird. You have to force a normal Halfling to do it.

 

[Staffan]

Humans die.

Well, we die rather rapidly compared to "superior" species like elves and dwarves. That means that a human who wants to have a legacy in the world needs to build something that will outlast them: a business, an order, a school, a community, or a family. And those communities keep growing long after the original creator dies, so the work goes ever on.

And at the same time, individuals don't get to acquire power and hoard it forever. Sooner or later they die, and the power passes to someone else, who may have new ideas. Or maybe the new person's grasp on power isn't as strong as the old person's, and someone else can rise in their stead.

 

[Hriston]

Compared to the other major peoples of the Material Plane, humans are...

Short-lived. Their lifespans are slightly shorter than those of halflings, much shorter than those of dwarves, and like the blink of an eye when compared to the (near) immortality of elves, which is related to...

Ascendant. Whether due to their faster breeding cycle, a natural inclination towards expansiveness, or the workings of some divine plan, humankind are in the process of achieving dominion over the world, while the other peoples are in decline or will be imminently.

 

[Clint_L]

So, this is a general sci-fi kind of question really. One that is hard to answer solidly, because we only have the one example of technologically advanced species to go on.

I note that D&D is a fantasy game. It isn't really there to ask the speculative question, "What if...?" Heck, in D&D, even the concept of "species" is a bit weakened by having so many things able to interbreed. And in D&D, what species you have are not necessarily results of evolution, but are instead created by gods, and there are gods guiding our interactions with, and development of, technology.

Agreed. I find it difficult to think in evolutionary terms because the D&D biome is so completely unhinged that it is impossible to realistically speculate about the sorts of evolutionary pressures that a specific species would have faced. On top of which, it is a trope for D&D settings to have faced massive, cataclysmic upheavals in the recent past that, realistically, would have wiped out most species and created the sort of evolutionary bottleneck that life on earth took millions of years to recover from. And then you've got other worlds, planes of existence, powerful entities all interfering.

On Earth, only one species that we know of has gained full sapience (us), and current thinking suggests we wiped out or assimilated all of our close rivals along the way. The Monster Manual alone includes hundreds of distinct sapient species. How does that evolve, especially in just the few thousand years that a lot of D&D timelines suggest?

D&D might be better positioned to look at the questions of the influence of higher powers, than the limits of biology.

Yeah, this certainly seems like a case study for unnatural selection. Supernatural selection?

I basically play all of my creatures as people, which means more or less like humans, because it's what I know. I try to take into account how their long life and great power might affect a dragon's perspective, or how the typical appetites plus lack of human empathy of a demon might affect theirs, or the warlike culture of duergar, etc., but ultimately I am largely confined to my human point of view.