Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 6193768" data-attributes="member: 9952">I get you don't like the +1 implementation, but "absurd" and "nonsense" points more to emotional dislike.Reading the Human entry, I do not think the +1 applies to all Humans. Individually, Humans are not the most superior beings. They shouldn't have any significant racial powers. PC stat generation has nothing to do with it if all characters use the same method. For game reasons an adventuring Human needs to be a cut well above their average to be roughly on par with the otherwise superior demi-humans. How this is modelled is open to interpretation, but other suggestions I have heard so far basically bog down in complexity.For me I'd accept something that models Humans' ability to be both culturally advanced, a relatively more prolific race, and a default standard that other races are measured by.The +1 plays upon the greater numbers and diversity or the race producing exceptional members more often than the less numerous demi-Human races. That's one approach.I'd personally like the racial feature to model the swiftness of generations, i.e. raising families. Basically I'd give Humans a bonus in the downtime rules for generating heirs, aka decent replacement characters for in a high mortality game. But I admit this approach wouldn't suit most campaigns.</blockquote>