Humans throughout editions, throughout games

[nightwyrm]

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...

But you'd still be playing a MU from lv 1 to lv 6 while the rest of your party is lv 6. Then you'd be playing a cleric from lv 1 to 7 while the rest of your party is lv 7. Then you'd be playing a thief from lv 1 to 8 while the rest of your party is lv 8. The only exception is that your hp accumulates.

Feels like dying and restarting a character at lv 1 everytime your new class catches up with your old class. And how many tries do you have to take into order to have a 15 in str and 16 in int, wis and dex from rolling 3d6 down the line.

 

[pawsplay]

AD&D traditionally uses 4d6, drop the lowest.

 

[nightwyrm]

AD&D traditionally uses 4d6, drop the lowest.

Hmm...interesting. Didn't know 1ed's rolling methods were so...lenient. But then 4d6 drop lowest is just another method listed as one of four alternatives to 3d6.

Of course, in 2ed, 3d6 in a row is the standard and 4d6 drop lowest is alternate method V.

 

[kaomera]

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.

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.

I know I saw groups where no player would ever bother playing a "switch-class" Human, but there where also others where it was pretty common, and generally considered superior to multi-classing as a demi-human. The groups I primarily played with mostly had individual human characters as single-classes specialists and demi-humans as multiclasses (except for Dwarven & Half-Orc Fighters), but overall I'd still rate humans as generalists, simply because they had access to any class!

AD&D traditionally uses 4d6, drop the lowest.

"Method I", as per the DMG. IIRC, however, only 3d6 was explicitly mentioned in the PHB. I'm not at all certain about that, however. We came over from blue-box Basic and rolled 3d6 in order (3 characters per player at 1st level, characters could be swapped between players) for quite a while.

Also, Method I allowed the player to arrange the ability scores as desired, and I think the PHB recommended at least two ability scores of 14+ as a "playable" character... Which made it even easier to qualify for "switch-class"ing.

 

[pawsplay]

Hmm...interesting. Didn't know 1ed's rolling methods were so...lenient. But then 4d6 drop lowest is just another method listed as one of four alternatives to 3d6.

Of course, in 2ed, 3d6 in a row is the standard and 4d6 drop lowest is alternate method V.

Of course, it suggests you beg the DM for candy anyway... Some of the alternate methods are very, very generous indeed.

In several places in DMG and elsewhere, the controversy of average-heroic-by-vocation versus abover-average-heroic-by-ability is alluded to by EGG. Basic D&D suggested 3d6, six times, in a row, with optional exchanging of points, although the Expert set suggested more generous methods, especially for generating adventurers above 1st level.

 

[pawsplay]

"Method I", as per the DMG. IIRC, however, only 3d6 was explicitly mentioned in the PHB. I'm not at all certain about that, however. We came over from blue-box Basic and rolled 3d6 in order (3 characters per player at 1st level, characters could be swapped between players) for quite a while.

Incidentally, the chance of rolling a legal paladin under the method is not even one in a hundred, and because it requires several high specific scores in a row, rangers are even more rare.

 

[Wik]

I know I saw groups where no player would ever bother playing a "switch-class" Human, but there where also others where it was pretty common, and generally considered superior to multi-classing as a demi-human. The groups I primarily played with mostly had individual human characters as single-classes specialists and demi-humans as multiclasses (except for Dwarven & Half-Orc Fighters), but overall I'd still rate humans as generalists, simply because they had access to any class!

Except, once a human says "I'm going to be a fighter", his options are limited. Unless he has super high stats, he may have only one other class to dual-class into, if that. So, he's not really much of a generalist. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

As an example, let's say we have a human with stats of Str 17, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 13. Those are pretty good stats. And let's compare him to an elf of the same level, with the same stats.

At the start of the game, the human has two big options - Fighter, or Thief. He decides to be a thief. After a few levels, he can dual-class into, um, Fighter.

The Elf, on the other hand, has MANY more options open available to him at start. He can be a fighter/mage/thief, a fighter/cleric/mage, a fighter/thief, a fighter/mage, and so on, and so forth.

So, yeah, the human has all those options open to him... until he makes a choice at character creation, and then he's set. And he can only pick one class (and possibly branch out into most likely one more class later on). In comparison, most other races have wider options.

So, I say humans are specialists, in 1e/2e.

 

[kaomera]

Incidentally, the chance of rolling a legal paladin under the method is not even one in a hundred, and because it requires several high specific scores in a row, rangers are even more rare.

lol... We certainly didn't see tons of sub-class characters, so that makes sense.

 

[WalterKovacs]

For 3e/3.5, humans had the "any favored class" tag, which allowed for multiclassing any two classes together (outside of something crazy like barbarian and paladin) without XP penalty, while other classes always had a favored class thrust upon them. In that way an individual human could be a generalist with a couple of classes. In later books (specifically the Racial book that dealt with humans and the like) introduced a feat that enabled cross class skills to be purchased at normal cost (albeit still with normal caps, but multiclassing could address that) and there was also a race specfic prestige class (only humans or doppelgangers who have very high level adjustment could take) the chameleon which is probably the most generalist prestige class available, a specialist at being a generalist if you will.

In 4e, the Half-elf (especially a half-elf bard) is probably the 'best' generalist, with the dilletante power, the access to three races worth of feats (not counting the feats which are tied to racial powers like elven accuracy) and the feat which not only makes the dilletante power at-will, but makes a paragon multiclassed half-elf even more versatile. Conversely, humans are also versatile, but within their own class by having extra options that come from their own class list.

An extra note on humans. With only a single stat bump, they are less likely to benefit as greatly from a secondary stat class feature as a race with the 'correct' stat pair. As such, a hybrid classed human, which 'starts' with no secondary class features, wouldn't be at as much of a disadvantage, not to mention the additional racial bonuses (like an extra at-will, skill and feat) would all add to the versatility of the hybrid classes.

 

[AllisterH]

You know something....

With regard to the traditional rolling methods (3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest) in previous editions and ability scores, how does that work in conjunction with the following statement from the 1st edition PHB.

"The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no FEWER than two ability characteristics"