Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CountPopeula" data-source="post: 4298023" data-attributes="member: 27250">Does it bug anyone else that the only description D&amp;D ever seems to give of humans is they're &quot;diverse&quot;? This is not something inherent to 4e (it goes back to 1e, but at least Gary Gygax made it seem like it had a reason).Now, I know humans are the default race for most players. But i'm sort of dismayed by the idea of human abilities all being along the lines of (pick one extra this, and get a smaller bonus to this, but you can choose it yourself). Now, I realize in 2e humans basically got nothing but the ability to be any class (which was pretty powerful in and of itself in the system) and in 1e the demi-human races WERE classes.But it seems to me the design choice comes from &quot;well, we're humans, so they can be anything&quot; and not from looking at humans as a general whole the way we look at Warforged or halflings. This is fine, I think, if you wish to have a campaign world where humans are the predominant race. I know this was Gary Gygax's intent with 1e; it's a human world, and there are a few members of other races.But with 3e and 4e, humans feel much more like one race out of many, and in that case, i don't think it's versatility that sets them apart in the world at large. If I had to pick a defining trait to pin on humans, I'd say it's cunning, but that's unimportant.I guess what I'm asking is does this bother anyone else? Do you like the humans as the default baseline from which the other races differ, or would you prefer to see humans with the same construction as other races, +2 bonuses to two fixed stats, bonuses to specific skills, and a unique racial power all their own?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CountPopeula, post: 4298023, member: 27250"] Does it bug anyone else that the only description D&D ever seems to give of humans is they're "diverse"? This is not something inherent to 4e (it goes back to 1e, but at least Gary Gygax made it seem like it had a reason). Now, I know humans are the default race for most players. But i'm sort of dismayed by the idea of human abilities all being along the lines of (pick one extra this, and get a smaller bonus to this, but you can choose it yourself). Now, I realize in 2e humans basically got nothing but the ability to be any class (which was pretty powerful in and of itself in the system) and in 1e the demi-human races WERE classes. But it seems to me the design choice comes from "well, we're humans, so they can be anything" and not from looking at humans as a general whole the way we look at Warforged or halflings. This is fine, I think, if you wish to have a campaign world where humans are the predominant race. I know this was Gary Gygax's intent with 1e; it's a human world, and there are a few members of other races. But with 3e and 4e, humans feel much more like one race out of many, and in that case, i don't think it's versatility that sets them apart in the world at large. If I had to pick a defining trait to pin on humans, I'd say it's cunning, but that's unimportant. I guess what I'm asking is does this bother anyone else? Do you like the humans as the default baseline from which the other races differ, or would you prefer to see humans with the same construction as other races, +2 bonuses to two fixed stats, bonuses to specific skills, and a unique racial power all their own? [/QUOTE]

Verification