• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

6-5 Rule of Three

KidSnide

Adventurer
I LOVE the bad reaction to the Human bonuses here and like every other forum.

Does anyone like it? :p

I really like the idea of making human a race that is "top tier" for every class. 4e generated far too much "cantina effect" because the two-primary-stat system made humans a second best choice for most classes.

That having been said, I'm not sure where I fall on the +1 to all attributes topic. It doesn't strike me as unbalanced (the other racial abilities are quite good), and it has a certain "jack of all trades" aspect to it. But it is a little odd to think of humans as smarter than dwarves, more charismatic than elves and wiser than halflings.

-KS
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Boarstorm

First Post
It sort of makes me feel as if all other races are inherently inferior when it comes to abilities.

Put demihumans where they belong -- in the monster manual!

I kid, I kid...

More seriously, I like the +1 across the board for humans as a way of reflecting their more traditional +1 to saving throws. But maybe that bonus should be limited to saving throws.
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
Now that they've gone with flatter math, they could always do an unholy mix of Basic, AD&D, and Dragon Quest, with a twist:
  • Make non-humans generally better than humans (elves, dwarves, etc.). Make a few generally worse than humans (e.g. orcs).
  • Have different XP tables, but instead of by class, make it solely by race. Races with advantages advance slower--the better the advantage the slower the advancement. Then vice versa for the weaker races.
  • Now knock yourself out giving each race whatever makes sense. Ability scores can be included or not for flavor, as desired.
I'm only mostly joking on that one. :D It does provide a way to handle balance outside the class structure, while also giving each race a different feel throughout the life of the character.
 


mlund

First Post
I really like the idea of making human a race that is "top tier" for every class. 4e generated far too much "cantina effect" because the two-primary-stat system made humans a second best choice for most classes.

THIS. A thousand times THIS.

I'm not saying I want to see a lack of non-humans. I just don't want to look at a Human Paladin and think, "Man, this guy would do everything he does right now, only better, if I'd only made him a Dragonborn."

I'm much happier with the selling points of other races being things like Poison Immunity and improved Hammer / Ax damage dice than relevantly super-human ability scores.

- Marty Lund
 

Modifiers allow them to hit higher DCs or restrict them to lower DCs. I am sure that's why advantage/disadvantage was added to begin with.
I have no problem hitting a higher DC if you have tons of advantages.

The main factor for rerolling is that you can remember bonuses even after you have picked up the dice.
And if you reroll with a penalty, that in most cases still gives a significant advantage. If you normally hit on 11+ , rerolling with a -2 modifier still gives you another 40% chance to hit (that is still a net +4 bonus) You could even have a slight advantage that adds a reroll with a -4 modifier and it is still very good in many cases!

But it is derailing the thread
 

fenriswolf456

First Post
THIS. A thousand times THIS.

I'm not saying I want to see a lack of non-humans. I just don't want to look at a Human Paladin and think, "Man, this guy would do everything he does right now, only better, if I'd only made him a Dragonborn."

I'm much happier with the selling points of other races being things like Poison Immunity and improved Hammer / Ax damage dice than relevantly super-human ability scores.

I'm not liking the idea. I'm all for humans being the gold-standard, as it were, and the jack-of-all-trades. But I don't like the superior race feel. Now humans are just as intelligent as high elves, while generally being stronger, hardier, more dextrous(!), more charismatic, and wiser. I don't think races being pigeonholed into weapon types is quite on par, especially with classes and concepts that don't end up using those weapons.

If the point is to make the other races just as average, why bother with ability bonuses at all? In a point-buy system for character generation, you're looking at effectively 3-4 extra buy points for a human's main stats. So now the humans are best at whatever class they choose, with better saving throws and being more skilled, while the other races all fall behind (even assuming humans get the +1 for class). Just seems to me that it's flipping the scenerio of say playing a dwarven rogue and thinking "I could do all this better as a human".

How human-centric a world is should be determined by the setting, not the generic core rules. And unless the setting dictates, at the very least the main races will be fairly well inter-mingled, much like the real world is with the various human ethnicities.

I certainly don't mind having incentives to playing a human, but hoping that it can be found in a different way.
 


FreeTheSlaves

Adventurer
Having thought on it, I could be fine with humans getting +1 all & +1 to one, if the game world rationale goes something along the lines of "humans possess diverse strengths, and adventuring humans are a cut above the rest of humanity".

I.e. all humans get a +1, adventuring humans get a blanket +1

Problem here is the expectation that say the most dextrous Elf should shade the most dextrous human...
 

mlund

First Post
I'm not liking the idea. I'm all for humans being the gold-standard as it were, and the jack-of-all-trades. But I don't like the superior race feel.

Humans as jack-of-all-trades isn't a sufficient theme or consistent with most portrayals of humans in the fantasy setting. If anything the unique characteristic of humans is their ability to pick anything from a huge diverse universe and fixate on that one thing and exploit it.

They shouldn't be better at everything all at once (as across the board +1 bonuses plus a floating +1 would be), but I'd like to avoid the 4E model where a human was always an also-ran statistically to a non-human race that had paired stat bonuses to make the best Warlock / Paladin / Sorcerer / etc.

Now humans are just as intelligent as high elves, while generally being stronger, hardier, more dextrous(!), more charismatic, and wiser.

That's the problem with moving to the "11 Standard" for humans (+1 to everything). With two floating +1's to different stats you'll see a specialist human who is as intelligent as a high-elf and slightly hardier (+1 INT, +1 CON) but lacks Free Spirit, Keen Senses, and Low-Light Vision.

I don't think races being pigeonholed into weapon types is quite on par, especially with classes and concepts that don't end up using those weapons.

It's a cookie reflecting their cultural stereotypes. Not everyone is going to fit that mold. It does mean that the average high elf guard might is handier with a long bow than his human counter-part.

Just seems to me that it's flipping the scenerio of say playing a dwarven rogue and thinking "I could do all this better as a human".

That was already the scenario based on raw stats in every prior edition. Dwarf characters never got a bonus to Dexterity so things could get rough. Heck, in OD&D Dwarf was a class, basically just a fighter. In later editions it was what came outside of ability scores that really helped out. Apparently low-light vision is so useful to being a good thief that they needed to give an analog to the Rogue just so Halflings and Humans could keep up.

I'm not really sure where that leaves the Dwarven Rogue, though. He's slow and he's wasting almost all his racial benefits (weapon dice, low-light vision, stat bonus) in that class. I guess complete immunity to poison would come in awfully handy if you were that sort of a rogue, though.

(Note to self, stop accepting drinks from dwarves. They can drink several gallons of paint thinner and live.)

How human-centric a world is should be determined by the setting, not the generic core rules.

There have to be cultural defaults for races, or they are meaningless. Part of the human cultural assumption is that their race is naturally or socially inclined to produce a disproportionately large population of adventurers (as well as super-villains).

And unless the setting dictates, at the very least the main races will be fairly well inter-mingled, much like the real world is with the various human ethnicities.

Actually, I think human ethnicities are terrible example because humans are biologically compatible with one another - ethnicity / "race" is almost entirely superficial outside of a few genetic conditions.

The lack of a viable mix-race family among demi-humans to produce cultural evolution over generations is a huge social hurdle, though - especially among the common folk. Lack of marriage avenues is a major political hurdle too - devastating among the noble folk. (Only those wacky Tieflings and Elves/Half-Elves provide avenues for families and political marriages, and both of those have severe draw-backs.)

Intermingling is going to be limited to the extent of common interest (trade), common cause (struggle), and common enemies (war). Cultural Balkanization will generally be even more severe.

In fact, most "mingled communities" in D&D's history and fantasy literature are culturally human at the core, because the adaptable nature of humans is the grease in the wheels of such communities. Elves don't generally move their families to Dwarfton, nor do Halflings lay down roots in the Elfhame, and Dwarves don't hitch their clans to a Halfling caravan. Humans are traditionally unique among the races because their ambitious nature encourages them see diversity as a form of opportunity.

- Marty Lund
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top