Rethinking humans...

[Norfleet]

The reason that humans are a baseline for everything in RPGs is that humans are a baseline for comparing ANY species, for one very simple reason: All players are humans. Well, most of them, anyway. There are a few aliens, which nod quietly and pretend to know what you're talking about to avoid blowing their cover, and a few computers, which were programmed by humans, with the exception of those programmed by aliens to act like they were programmed by humans, and those all compare other critters to humans also, because they were set up by humans or people pretending to be humans.

Just think for a moment: How would you evaluate the strength, speed, toughness, or intelligence of a lion? Probably relative to a human, yes? I mean, I suppose you could decide that everything in D&D would henceforth be evaluated relative to dwarves. Therefore, humans would become +2 Chr, -2 Con, move faster than the baseline race, etc., etc.

Of course, the game was written by humans, so humans are used as the baseline. Even if your game became "human only", you'd still be evaluating the different races of human by some hypothetical "baseline" human, which may or may not exist as an actual playable race.

Really, it doesn't matter which race you decide to make the "average".

In fact, the "baseline" for D&D isn't technically a "human", so to speak. The baseline D&D race is no stat adjustments, 1 feat at first level. Humans have their own bonusses: No stat adjustments, +1 feat at first level, +4 SPs@L1, +1 SP/lvl.

Of course, you can't PLAY this baseline race with absolutely NO bonusses....not that you'd want to, since it's devoid of anything interesting or useful.

 

[Anabstercorian]

I, for one, think this is an interesting idea. You could use this to play a campaign during the rise of humanity - No one can play a human. They're the enemy, and you, the elves, dwarves, gnomes, and whatnot, are struggling to contain their seemingly unstoppable expansion.

 

[Norfleet]

I, for one, think this is an interesting idea. You could use this to play a campaign during the rise of humanity - No one can play a human. They're the enemy, and you, the elves, dwarves, gnomes, and whatnot, are struggling to contain their seemingly unstoppable expansion.

Well, there's always the "monster" campaign, where the tables are turned, and instead of the players being characters out to pillage the lairs of monsters and steal their treasure, the players are monsters trying to stop adventurers from pillaging their homes and stealing their treasure, all while occasionally pillaging a village of their own.

I've done this before....it's rather interesting how shockingly similar the "monster" campaign is to the "standard" campaign. It's just that now you're on the other side.....and it's not all that different.

 

[Xeriar]

That sounds actuall maladaptive to cold climates the way you describe it. Really, the biggest reason I don't buy pale = cold is that the Inuit are adapted to cold climates (thick, robust trunk, shorter limbs, etc.) and don't have pale skin, while Northern Europeans, which supposedly grew white during the Ice Age are completely the opposite physical type -- tall, fairly thin, and in other words completely maladapted to cold weather. The reason they do fine there is behavioral adaptations rather than physical ones.

It is a benifit. There also may be a lack of vitamin D in Scandanaivian diets - don't know, should check that

In cold weather, you want to conserve heat as best you can - you have any number of ways of getting warm - it's conserving that energy of warmth that is important. During the winter months, one recieves far, far less energy from the sun - it is no longer a source of heat for the human body.

Europeans and Inuit both are less than 30,000 years old as a group. That's not a lot of time, evolutionarily...

 

[Xeriar]

Just think for a moment: How would you evaluate the strength, speed, toughness, or intelligence of a lion? Probably relative to a human, yes? I mean, I suppose you could decide that everything in D&D would henceforth be evaluated relative to dwarves. Therefore, humans would become +2 Chr, -2 Con, move faster than the baseline race, etc., etc.

You will notice I was not talking about attribute changes, but I was talking about things that may be easier to say 'humans have x' ability, rather than restricting every other single race from doing 'x', because humans are one of fewer races that can, say.

Of course, you can't PLAY this baseline race with absolutely NO bonusses....not that you'd want to, since it's devoid of anything interesting or useful.

That's one part of this - to differentiate the racess a bit more. And (in a way) put the PC races into the ECL+2 (or so) category.

 

[Xeriar]

I, for one, think this is an interesting idea. You could use this to play a campaign during the rise of humanity - No one can play a human. They're the enemy, and you, the elves, dwarves, gnomes, and whatnot, are struggling to contain their seemingly unstoppable expansion.

Heh, I'm in a campaign that's sort of like this already - only there are humans who are fighting the 'True Cause of Humanity'.

 

[Tonguez]

Okay I've been thinking about the 'adaptability' of humans being their major advantage and how this relates to other races (it is still my opinion that the bonus feat and bonus skills cover this advantage however) So if you are going to apply evolution then what I've been thiniking is

1. Elves have very limited 'Adaptability' Adaptablity Index -1. They do not respond well to changes in the enviroment however they have survived due to a high Modification Index +2 (ie they EVOLVE in a generation!) and this has resulted in a slew of elfish subraces for every conceivable enviroment

2. Humans are the complete opposite of Elves. They have Adaptability Index +2 meaning that they can adapt to almost any environment without the need for physical modification. Any modification that has occured (colour,size etc) is essentially cosmetic.

3. Dwarfs have less adaptability then humans (A. Index +1) but have the advantage of endurance to withstand a range of environmental changes. Nonetheless they can not adapt to all environments as humans can and either go extinct or go through evolutionary change (Deep Dwarfs, Gully Dwarfs).

I'm not sure how to extend this Adaptability Index vs Modification Index to DnD mechanics yet (unless of course that bonus feat thing comes in again) - hmm Give Dwarfs Endurance and Take a way the Elfs Lvl 1 Feat. Require Elfs to make Fort checks against the elements on a more regular basis than other races when they are out of their native terrain....

 

[Xeriar]

Actually I was just debating on having humans resist weather and climate effects over time (making current ones a little harsher to balance). Drop the skill thing (confuzzling) and making sure that a feat change has to be pretty well explained.

 

[Eolin]

I guess the floating skill focus feat woudn't be all that bad. As like, I sure do know less about computers now than i did a few years ok. and not just because they've changed, I've seriously forgotten stuff ... intentionally.

and i don't think humans should resist the enviroment better. What we've really got going for us is two things (imho):
our big brains
our thumbs. bigger thumbs beat out smaller thumbs.

From that spawns a lot of other stuff. Maybe give humans all knowledge skills as class skills, a free +4 ranks to any previously unranked knowledge skill every few levels, and crafts (thumbwork) as class skills.

Gives elves a free level of sorcerer or wizard, depending on which you feel they are more associated with. Make it a level that doesn't stack with other spellcasting levels or its horribly broken. So you could be an elven wizard who essentially has a few extra fitrst level spells. Elves are magic, so give them more magic. Perhaps even a bonus to one of the mental stats.

dwarves'd need something too. something big.

 

[Desdichado]

It is a benifit. There also may be a lack of vitamin D in Scandanaivian diets - don't know, should check that

In cold weather, you want to conserve heat as best you can - you have any number of ways of getting warm - it's conserving that energy of warmth that is important. During the winter months, one recieves far, far less energy from the sun - it is no longer a source of heat for the human body.

Europeans and Inuit both are less than 30,000 years old as a group. That's not a lot of time, evolutionarily...

Yes, but even if it's true (and articles I've read don't seem convinced) that pale skin conserves a significant amount of heat, the very body plan of your typical Northern European is designed to radiate it -- tall and relatively thin is completely maladaptive to cold climates. As for the amount of time the populations have been in the area, all I can say is punctuated equilibrium, baby! Especially since Inuit are, in all other respects, about as perfectly adapted to their habitat as they can be.