Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4996800" data-attributes="member: 40177">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?</blockquote>

Verification