Humans as default

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Or you think that because you can have eg occasional jolly, duplicitous dwarves that it's arrogant to say "Most dwarves are dour and honest"? In that case you're confusing the typical with the possible.

Other direction: I think it's arrogant to assume that another creature cannot have the range of possibilities that a human can without a good explanation.

Plus I don't believe that humans are as diverse and adaptable as we believe ourselves. I find humans to actually be very similar across cultural lines and frequently stubborn in the face of change. I think we view ourselves as diverse and adaptable because we have nothing to compare ourselves to.

 

[pawsplay]

I wrote this review of Races of Destiny, which I think captures the essential frustration (and also reams the D&D design team, maybe I was a bit harsh):

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11261.phtml

 

[CountPopeula]

Common misconception. In OD&D & 1E, races & classes were separate. Elves in OD&D automatically got to be multiclassed fighter/magic-users. (Only in Basic D&D were races & classes collapsed.)

Hmmm... My book was the blue one with the dragon on the cover, the chits, and the copy of keep on the borderlands. I always thought that was 1e. I never really learned the difference between the various pre-2e variations, though, since i started with 2e.

 

[jdrakeh]

Elves in OD&D automatically got to be multiclassed fighter/magic-users. (Only in Basic D&D were races & classes collapsed.)

Actually, Elves in the Holmes (1977) Basic D&D booklet also automatically multiclass as fighters/magic-users.

 

[CountPopeula]

Actually, Elves in the Holmes (1977) Basic D&D booklet also automatically multiclass as fighters/magic-users.

Maybe I'm just on the pipe, then?

 

[hamishspence]

Basic AD&D set

Specifically, the yellow box, with Book of lairs, and Freedale. Starting elf chracter was, I think, multiclass fighter/wizard. Looks like it has a long history.

 

[Trickstergod]

No, this doesn't bother me in the slightest.

While I might take issue with a stupid, clumsy elf - or at least, feel that the elf "just wasn't right" - I wouldn't do this with a human. Or, by that same token, wouldn't take issue with a clever, nimble human.

I don't think humans are defined by cunning - we're just as likely to be dim and stupid. I don't think we're defined by strength - we're just as likely to be weak and feeble. And so on. And so forth.

The other races have definitive stereotypes to them and I'm absolutely fine with this. As we're humans and not dwarves or elves or halflings, I think humans should be used as the baseline. Either something is usually more cunning than us, usually less cunning, or usually as cunning.

And while I'm perfectly dandy with pigeonholing other races into certain roles, at least a little, I don't want to be at a disadvantage for playing a human wizard rather than an elven one. Or a human warlord rather than a tiefling one. All because the game puts humans at a distinct advantage for, say, the rogue over the warlord and wizard - or whatever.

Humans should start as the baseline. And when a group starts at the baseline, but still needs something to set them apart, giving them "options" is a good way to do this. It keeps them at the baseline rather than pushing them into any particular niche.

 

[Nifft]

And while I'm perfectly dandy with pigeonholing other races into certain roles, at least a little, I don't want to be at a disadvantage for playing a human wizard rather than an elven one. Or a human warlord rather than a tiefling one. All because the game puts humans at a distinct advantage for, say, the rogue over the warlord and wizard - or whatever.

Ironically, you've chosen classes that aren't bad for a Human.

If you want to see a Human suffer by comparison, try making a Cleric or Paladin.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Trickstergod]

Ironically, you've chosen classes that aren't bad for a Human.

If you want to see a Human suffer by comparison, try making a Cleric or Paladin.

Cheers, -- N

The classes I mentioned aren't bad for a human now - which is the point.

But if they were put into a niche, they could be.

As for the human Cleric or Paladin? Well, perhaps. Only getting one ability at +2 does seem a bit of a burden, at least when it comes to classes that benefit from a few high ability scores. But I'd rather humans favor versatility over niches any day.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

IMO they've taken a giant step backwards with Humans. Pre 3E, once I realized that the odds of ever having a non-human capping his multiclassed levels in the games we played was mighty low, I rarely bother playing Humans. With 3E I started playing them again as often as anything else. From what I've seen of 4E Humans, I expect that I'll go back to playing mostly non-humans again. (Assuming that I ever actually get to play.) Why? Because while the extras they get are nice, the -2 to an attribute is just too big a hit. I'm sure that many (most?) disagree, but that's my take on it.

As for their vanillaness? Someone has to be the baseline race, and who else should it be?