Humans throughout editions, throughout games

[Wik]

A while back, I was thinking of humans in D&D, and whether they are "specialists" or "Generalists" in approach. By "specialist", I mean a race that encourages a character to specialize in a role (a class in class-based systems, or one game role in skill-based systems). And by generalist, I of course mean the opposite - the race encourages a bit more branching out.

For what it's worth, I'm looking at things for the individual - if a human can choose any class, but only progresses in one class (like in 1e, for example), then the species could be considered a generalist, but the individual is very much a specialist.

I took a look a few of the games on my shelf, and came up with the following:

D&D: It changes through the editions.
BECMI: Specialist. Since the "Classes" also indicate race, we can state that a fighter (who is always human) is by nature a specialist. And since a fighter progresses quicker than a dwarf (who would be a dwarven fighter in other editions), there's further claim to the specialist title.
1e/2e: I'm lumping them together for ease of use, and they're similar in approach. In both cases, human is a specialist, but less so. They are the only race that can have unlimited advancement in any class. Sure, dual-classing exists, which makes them a bit more generalist, but it comes up a lot more rarely than, say, multi-classing in non-human races.
3e: Hard time figuring this one out. Humans get a bonus feat and extra skills, which can suggest picking from outside your class role. However, the nature of the game says that cross-class skills essentially cost twice as much, so that a human that spends his skill points outside of his class is essentially diminishing their value. And the extra feat is usually better spent on improving your own role, and not branching out. I'm going with specialist, again.
4e: Humans do get an extra at-will power from their class (A specialist role, but really, a specialist power that makes the class a bit more of a generalist!). But they also get a defence boost to all defences (generalist), an extra skill (from their class list, so specialist), and an extra feat (either generalist or specialist). I'm calling this one a mixture of the two roles - the first time in D&D that humans have really become more of a generalist.

Earthdawn: Humans get the Versatility talent, which lets them take powers from other classes. Which is very powerful, of course. Humans in Earthdawn are, because of this, total generalists (as in, there's no point being a human unless you want to use the versatility talent).

Shadowrun: in 4e SR, Humans cost no build points, which can either be spent on improving your role, or in branching out. Looking at it, though, you could say that each race encourages specialization (if you're a troll, you got a strength boost, which you should probably capitulate on), so a human choice makes generalizing better. I'm gonna go with generalist, but only loosely.

Warhammer FRP, 2e: Humans get two random talents, and a wide range of ability scores, all at a rough average. They have no real limitations on class, though they progress in their class just like any other race. However, their more average ability scores suggest that humans are a bit more generalist - a human will have an easier time going from a rat-catcher to an engineer than, say, an elf.

***

So, that's my thought process, at least. What's everyone's take on it? How do other games stack up? Why do you think each game went the way it did? And, here's the fun question, in real life, overall, are humans as individuals more of a specialist or a generalist?

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I agree with everything you said about D&D up to 3E, except that your definition of "specialist" and "generalist" is exactly the opposite of the way everyone else uses it.

Generally when you say that a "race" is specialist, it means that race is good at one particular role, and when it's generalist, it means members of that race can be good at any role. You seem to be saying humans are "specialist" because each individual human picks a role to specialize in. But in BD&D, for example, it makes much more sense to me to say that humans are generalists while demihumans are specialists - humans can be anything, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard or Thief, while all dwarves are essentially fighters, so clearly dwarves specialize in fighting.

Once you hit 4E, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Using your definition of specialist, how does having an extra at-will FROM YOUR CLASS make you more of a generalist? It seems like it would make you more of a specialist, because you pick a class to specialize in and your racial bonus specifically makes you better at it. In comparison, other races are "generalists" by your definition because they get some abilities that might not fit with the class they choose to specialize in.

By my definition, it's clear - humans are generalists because no matter what class the pick, they get abilities that work with it, while most other races get abilities that work better for some classes than others, leading them to be better suited (or "specialized") for those classes. Except for Half-Elves, who are generalists of a different sort.

Now, I don't know Earthdawn, but for Shadowrun and WFRP - huh? "A human will have an easier time going from a rat-catcher to an engineer than, say, an elf," - that's MY definition! That's the OPPOSITE of how you were defining generalists and specialists for D&D!

 

[Wik]

I agree with everything you said about D&D up to 3E, except that your definition of "specialist" and "generalist" is exactly the opposite of the way everyone else uses it.

Generally when you say that a "race" is specialist, it means that race is good at one particular role, and when it's generalist, it means members of that race can be good at any role. You seem to be saying humans are "specialist" because each individual human picks a role to specialize in. But in BD&D, for example, it makes much more sense to me to say that humans are generalists while demihumans are specialists - humans can be anything, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard or Thief, while all dwarves are essentially fighters, so clearly dwarves specialize in fighting.

As a RACE, you are absolutely correct. I even said so above. But as individuals... not so much. Once you decide to be a fighter, you're a fighter. The mage, thief, and cleric choices are moot to you as an individual. Whereas, the dwarven fighter (or the halfling fighter, or the elven fighter/mage) have more options open than just FIGHTING. Your only edge over them is a higher max level and the fact that you're progressing quicker.

Once you hit 4E, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Using your definition of specialist, how does having an extra at-will FROM YOUR CLASS make you more of a generalist? It seems like it would make you more of a specialist, because you pick a class to specialize in and your racial bonus specifically makes you better at it. In comparison, other races are "generalists" by your definition because they get some abilities that might not fit with the class they choose to specialize in.

Yeah, you become more of a specialist in your role. But that increased specialization is coming from an ability that actually allows diversity. So, yeah, you're more of a specialist, but you also have more options open (which is more generalist).

And I would put forward the argument that most races in 4e are specialists. Few (besides human) have powers that make them suited for any class. But I'm not looking at them. But you can't say humans are generalists because of that fact, because once they choose their class, their powers mostly exist to make them better at their class.

What I was saying is that humans at least have racial options open to them to branch out from their role a bit. I can spend my extra feat, for example, to multi-class. And a bonus to every defence is a generalist power, not a specialist one.

By my definition, it's clear - humans are generalists because no matter what class the pick, they get abilities that work with it, while most other races get abilities that work better for some classes than others, leading them to be better suited (or "specialized") for those classes. Except for Half-Elves, who are generalists of a different sort.

Again, as a species, you are absolutley right. And that's always been the case in D&D. But as individuals, not so much. A human fighter in 1e compared to a dwarven fighter in 1e is more of a specialist - the dwarven fighter, after all, has darkvision and some construction abilities, powers that generally don't help him fight at all. That carries on into 4e, with the change that the human fighter can choose to become more of a specialist than the dwarf (by spending his feats to make himself a better fighter) or more of a specialist (by spending his feats to learn other, non-defender-like things) - the dwarf, meanwhile, will always be able to heal and be hard to move, and so on.

Now, I don't know Earthdawn, but for Shadowrun and WFRP - huh? "A human will have an easier time going from a rat-catcher to an engineer than, say, an elf," - that's MY definition! That's the OPPOSITE of how you were defining generalists and specialists for D&D!

Mechanically speaking, a human in WHFRP will have abilities ranging from, what, 21-40? Something like that? While elves will have a few that range from 11-30 and a few that range from 31-50. Or something. So, as a race, humans have an easier time going from place to place (your definition), but also, as an individual, in a system where changing class is common, it is also easier.

What's happening here is a difference in definitions. You are looking at things as a species, whereas I'm looking at things from a mechanical, by the individual, perspective. And they definitely change - in almost any system, by your definition, humans will be the generalists. But if you go by individuals, the rules don't always support this. D&D, for example, has always fostered the idea that as a species humans are generalists, but when it comes down to individuals, they are much better at one specific role. 4e is, in my experience, the only game that can really push that a bit, and even then, the human emphasizes a specialization in one specific role (the difference being, you're allowed to pick what role that is... most races kind of have it spelled out for them).

 

[pawsplay]

In AD&D, humans were the only race with the ability to dual-class, making them generalists. For instance, you could be a fighter 5/mage 6/cleric 7/thief 8.

 

[Quantarum]

In AD&D, humans were the only race with the ability to dual-class, making them generalists. For instance, you could be a fighter 5/mage 6/cleric 7/thief 8.

Only non-humans could dual or triple class if I recall correctly. If you were a fighter/wizard you had to split your exp between the two classes. Since demihumans only had unlimited advancement in thief, some sort of class/thf combo was common.
Humans could change class, becoming a 1st level character in every way except hp. You couldn't use any of your abilities from your previous class until you exceeded your old level, otherwise all exp was lost for the current adventure. -Q.

 

[drothgery]

In AD&D, humans were the only race with the ability to dual-class, making them generalists. For instance, you could be a fighter 5/mage 6/cleric 7/thief 8.

But since that was way too much work, and multi-classing was a lot more straightforward, if you wanted to dabble in multiple classes, you just played a non-human elf.

 

[nightwyrm]

In AD&D, humans were the only race with the ability to dual-class, making them generalists. For instance, you could be a fighter 5/mage 6/cleric 7/thief 8.

Don't you need like a 17 in the prime requisite of your second class(es) to dual class.

Beside, you would suck for huge stretches of time waiting for your second class to catch up to your first.

 

[Shroomy]

I would say that humans have always been a generalist race, since they're the only race that has had no mechanical incentive or disincentive to select a particular class.

 

[pawsplay]

Don't you need like a 17 in the prime requisite of your second class(es) to dual class.

Beside, you would suck for huge stretches of time waiting for your second class to catch up to your first.

Actually, it's only a 15 (previous class) and a 16 (new class). As for sucking up XP, in pre-3e editions, each class takes successively longer, as a rule, so getting from 1st to 6th level again usually just means playing in at least six or more sessions and surviving.

Only non-humans could dual or triple class if I recall correctly.

Only they could multi-class. To be a character of more than one class (1e) or a dual-class character (2e), you had to be human.

 

[Storminator]

Beside, you would suck for huge stretches of time waiting for your second class to catch up to your first.

Not really. With the exponential XP tables you reach fighter 5/magic user 6 by the time the rest of your party got to 7th level. Then you were fighter 5/M-U6/cleric 7 when they hit 8th, then you got to f5/M-U6/c7/t8 before they reached 9th...

PS