How should humans be human?

[Ratskinner]

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 believe that its a good case, as well. If the default method of ability generation is "4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to suit" or some kind of point buy...there really isn't any point to racial ability mods. It makes the red-headed stepchild characters easier, as well. If you want to be the charismatic dwarf, sturdy elf, or mighty halfling...just arrange your scores to reflect it.

 

[am181d]

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.

I don't understand. You keep arguing for simplicity ("human should be something someone new to teh game can pick up and understand incredibly quickly") but you keep rejecting the simple solution (a few ability score bonuses) and suggest more complicated alternatives (action surges, mulligans, differentiated classes by race).

You need to let go of one of these two ideas. They do not match.

 

[kerleth]

I raised an issue on the wizards site that it just felt wrong for a human to be able to be better at a races iconic stat than that race. The +1 to all ability scores I love. The potential to be as tough as a dwarf, as agile as a halfling, etc. seems right to me. Just not better than. After thinking about it wizards could solve that problem very easily. Just have an optional rule sidebar in the phb similar to this.

ICONIC RACIAL ABILITIES:
In some campaigns it may not be appropriate for humans to out constitution a dwarf or out strength a half-orc. If that is the case, simply adopt the rule that humans cannot place there "floating" ability bonus in their highest stat.

A rule like that would help those with fluff issues similar to mine without being too intrusive, would keep humans simple, and if presented with reasons in the core players would be less likely to feel like their toys were being taken away. And for those campaigns where players want to be able to say their human character is JUST THAT GOOD, go for it.

 

[Mattachine]

I like the idea of humans getting the benefit of an additional background--matches the human adaptability angle. Throw in a floating +1 bonus, and we're done.

 

[dangerous jack]

I don't understand. You keep arguing for simplicity ("human should be something someone new to teh game can pick up and understand incredibly quickly") but you keep rejecting the simple solution (a few ability score bonuses) and suggest more complicated alternatives (action surges, mulligans, differentiated classes by race).

You need to let go of one of these two ideas. They do not match.

They are competing ideas, but not mutually exclusive. Ability score bonuses are indeed downright simple, but I just think they are a lazy approach and one that messes with my personal simulationist side. Another way to say it is that it seems like its reactive (to their design work with other races), rather than a proactive solution like giving a simple to explain power like action surge or a mulligan.

I can explain an action surge & a mulligan to a non-gamer in ~10 seconds. It would probably take longer for me to explain to my "non-gamer friend that has seen LotR" why his new human PC has a higher Dexterity than the elf.

 

[Green Knight]

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

I agree with variant. There shouldn't be "Adventurer Humans" and "Regular Humans". That'd just be silly. Humans are Humans are Humans. For instance, whenever I used Commoners in 3E, they always got the racial human bonuses. I saw no good reason to deny them those. Only thing is that they used the bonus feat and skill for things that would be helpful to peasants. If humans had a floating stat bonus at the time then it'd probably go into Con for my peasants. They all have potential. Only with the commoners it manifested in being exceptionally good at being mediocre.

 

[mlund]

There shouldn't be "Adventurer Humans" and "Regular Humans". That'd just be silly.

The fundamental premises of heroic ability scores in most editions of D&D rests on the idea that there should be "Adventurer [Insert Race Here]" and "Regular [Insert Race Here]" with vastly different stats.

If you want to call that "silly" it's your prerogative, I guess.

Humans are Humans are Humans.

They call it the "Heroic Array" and "Human Average" for a reason. The human average for any given stat is 10. Your typical peasant has a 10 in any given stat. 10-10-10-10-10-10 if the default for an unexceptional NPC Human.

The typical "Adventurer Human" is running with a base of 15-14-13-12-10-8 nowhere near "Humans are Humans are Humans." The same can be said for "Elves are Elves are Elves" and "Dwarves are Dwarves are Dwarves." When you get right down to it the 15-14-13-12-10-8 vs. 10x6 is such a huge gulf that the adventurer getting to specialize at +1 to a stat or two is negligible.

What kind of horrible violation of verisimilitude is inflicted by a human adventurer being
15,14,13,12,10,8 +1 to any 2 vs. human peasant being 10,10,10,10,10,10 while an elf adventurer is 15,14,13,12,10,8 +1 to Dex vs. elf peasant being 10,10,11,10,10,10? If nothing else this reflects that while the average elf may be more graceful and swift than the average human a human that grows up to be a hero is typically just a small cut above his elf counter-part in something other than Dexterity, but then we start factoring en Keen Senses, Free Spirit, etc and it all comes out in the wash.

The game already clearly bears out that "Adventurer Human" and "Regular Human" are playing in two completely different ballparks when it comes to stats, so I think you're arguing a moot point.

- Marty Lund

 

[Green Knight]

The fundamental premises of heroic ability scores in most editions of D&D rests on the idea that there should be "Adventurer [Insert Race Here]" and "Regular [Insert Race Here]" with vastly different stats.

If you want to call that "silly" it's your prerogative, I guess.

There's no parallel between different stats and members of the same race losing their racial abilities. Elf commoners don't lose low-light vision just because they're commoners. That's not an ability solely restricted to "Adventurer Elves." Why should human racials only be restricted to a subset of humans?

They call it the "Heroic Array" and "Human Average" for a reason. The human average for any given stat is 10. Your typical peasant has a 10 in any given stat. 10-10-10-10-10-10 if the default for an unexceptional NPC Human.

You're conflating stat arrays with racial abilities. The average stats for dwarf commoners in 3E was 10-10-11-10-10-9, but that doesn't mean that those dwarf commoners lost all their dwarf racial abilities, or didn't benefit from dwarf racial stat bonuses. Likewise, human commoners shouldn't lose out on bonus feats, bonus skills points, or even stat bonuses just because they're commoners. What separates them from adventurers, aside from having generally poorer stats, is that they don't use those bonus feats, skills, or whatever for things that'll make them better adventurers. They use them for things that'll make them better farmers, or basket weavers, or blacksmiths.

 

[mlund]

There's no parallel between different stats and members of the same race losing their racial abilities.

There's no reason "better stats for the exceptional" can't be human's racial niche, though.

Elf commoners don't lose low-light vision just because they're commoners. That's not an ability solely restricted to "Adventurer Elves."

So what? Are you saying there's some pressing need for racial balance between commoners? If anything that goes against the general conceits of the genre. Common humans, as they are in their day-to-day lives, are inferior to elves. They are less graceful. They lack Keen Senses, Free Spirit, etc. They have the relative lifespan of a gnat. We're not balancing "Serfs and Servants" here.

Why should human racials only be restricted to a subset of humans?

Because the human racial is about dynamic potential and not everyone lives up to their potential?

Likewise, human commoners shouldn't lose out on bonus feats, bonus skills points, or even stat bonuses just because they're commoners.

They are level 0 nobodies. They don't get character sheets. They don't get codified mechanical skills. They don't get feats. They get a circumstance bonus to something related to their career or station in life if the DM is feeling generous. That's it.

Reavers of Harkenwold, Book 1, page 15: Harkenwold Bystanders have 4 10s, an 11, and an 8 - even worse than average! They have 1 HP, no feats and no skills and all is right with the world. Either that or someone's been going around replacing human commoners with pod-people.

On top of that, 5E presents options for removing all the baggage of Feats and Skills from the game and going old-school. Now what's the Human Player Character (the only ones that count in a balance discussion) got to make up for not having racial-abilities outside of Skills and Feats? There's no racial level caps anymore.

Stats are a nice space to work in because they are simple and ubiquitous.

What separates them from adventurers, aside from having generally poorer stats, is that they don't use those bonus feats, skills, or whatever for things that'll make them better adventurers. They use them for things that'll make them better farmers, or basket weavers, or blacksmiths.

What separates commoners from exceptional humans (be they adventurers, aristocrats, artisans, or warriors) is that they are mundane. Their human capacity for greatness has been otherwise expended on things that aren't even worth the a footnote in the DMG.

- Marty Lund

 

[YRUSirius]

This is how I'd handle humans in D&D Next...

Give them two additional skills. One ability gets +1 (your choice which). And they get the "human resolve" racial feature:

Human resolve: Humans can get advantage on a check, be it an ability check, skill check, an attack, a saving throw, or any other d20 check. Humans can use this ability two times per day.



This reminds you of something? Yup. It's the halfling's luck feature. Give them their 4E racial feature instead and everything's well (I like my halflings dodgy instead of lucky).

-YRUSirius