The Human Race has no Culture!

The avrage roll on 3d6 is 9.5 so assume an average person has rolled 3 10s and 3 9s, that means the average human has a 13, 2 11s, and 3 10's ... omg that must totaly break the game:-S

In 3.5 my human mayor had 10's in every stat... in 5e he has an 11.str, 10 dex, 11 con, 10 int, 10 wis and 13 cha... totaly going to ruin my game...;)

The mean average roll of 3D6 is 10.5, statistically speaking. Rolling 4D6 and keeping the best three boosts it up to something like 12.5 average.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rather than just giving bland bonuses, what about creating interesting 'sub-races' for humans to work with?

Homogenous humans has also always bothered me.

I am not sure, but I think that some possible reasons why D&D hasn't done that could be:

- to avoid the possibility of quasi-racist archetypes; even if not done purposefully, there is always a small risk of this, particularly if you spice up the subclasses by differentiating their physical features to make characters recognizable (if you do this in your home game nobody cares, but if you put it in a published book you can't always be sure that some group even decides to sue you)

- because for some reason, a lot of people want to do this kind of human differentiation in their own home settings and won't be happy to have it fixed by default in the book

There have been campaign settings published by other companies where human subraces were defined, e.g. Kingdoms of Kalamar IIRC.

I think that it would be nice to have some "generic" subraces such as a human subrace of desert-dweller, another of nomadic tribes, another of reclusive folks etc. without implying too much to everybody's setting. "Barbarians" could very well be better as a subrace (although some may also want dwarven barbarians, elven barbarians etc... tho I quite dislike the idea) than a class or background.
 

I think that it would be nice to have some "generic" subraces such as a human subrace of desert-dweller, another of nomadic tribes, another of reclusive folks etc. without implying too much to everybody's setting. "Barbarians" could very well be better as a subrace (although some may also want dwarven barbarians, elven barbarians etc... tho I quite dislike the idea) than a class or background.

That's the way I'd like to do it.

RuneQuest differentiates four 'Cultures" - Civilised, Barbarian, Nomad and Primitive and it's a good basis to start from. There is some overlap with Backgrounds and the Barbarian Class, however, but something similar could still be done. After all, if we have Hill Dwarves and Mountain Dwarves, then why not Desert-Dwellers Humans, Arctic-Dwellers or Urban Humans, etc?
 

PC's are super human because they are the focus of the games narrative. In the same way the main characters of a book are more effective then the minor ones

Once they get to 2nd level, they already are, even if they did not start as superhumans. Experience and training goes a long way (just think of the difference between a naturally-born strong person who does not exercise and someone who did bodybuilding or use strength at work).

But as I say, this is more a cultural/philosophical bias. Some people believe than those who are "protagonists" in life were born superior. I believe they just chose to work their azz off.
 

That's the way I'd like to do it.

RuneQuest differentiates four 'Cultures" - Civilised, Barbarian, Nomad and Primitive and it's a good basis to start from. There is some overlap with Backgrounds and the Barbarian Class, however, but something similar could still be done. After all, if we have Hill Dwarves and Mountain Dwarves, then why not Desert-Dwellers Humans, Arctic-Dwellers or Urban Humans, etc?

Good points, except that I am against using Backgrounds to represent cultures, and the barbarian class can simply represent berserkers.
 

Nope - I get bored of this argument quite quickly. An 'adventurer' can be anyone, and actually, I quite like the idea of playing a rags to riches adventurer who comes from the ordinary folk and makes it big.

The character generation shouldn't just assume that everybody needs inflated stats to become adventurers, and the chargen system should be baselined on establishing typical members of a race. Indeed, there is nothing explicit in the rules that states their stats are inflated because of their 'adventuring' status - it's just a post-mechanic justification.

Even if you get bored of the argument, D&D player characters have never been just anyone.

An OD&D level 1 Fighting Man isn't a farmhand picking up his first sword, he's a Veteran.

No 1st level wizard in any edition has just found out about magic: they're all people who've put in years of study.

Would it be nice to have a system that truly supported zero-to-hero? Yes.

But D&D isn't trying to be that system. At least it generally hasn't, and in the current playtest, does not seem to be.

A first level cleric has a direct line to an actual god, and is able to channel that divinity once per day, as well as casting divine spells. He's either proficient in all weapons and armour, or able to fire off radiant lances at will. He's not the altar boy.

A first level fighter from the playtest already knows how to parry, how to make his strikes deadlier, and at least one other nifty trick. He's trained in the uses of all weapons and armour. He's not the kitchen boy.

A first level thief cannot fail at hard skill checks in things he's been trained in. Heck, he can't fail at moderate checks in things he hasn't trained in and has a poor natural ability for. He already knows a secret language. He's not Bilbo Baggins, who has never stolen a thing in his life before being hired to be the party thief. He's no first-time pick-pocket.

A first level wizard already knows five spells and three cantrips. He's not the apprentice on his first day.

A first level warlock has already made a pact to gain power. He's not the random scholar who's still considering performing the strange ritual he found in a dusty tome.

A first level sorcerer's power comes from his heritage, so he's intrinsically not just your average person, even if he didn't already have the ability to cast multiple spells in a day and and turn his hands into dragon claws.

PCs are clearly not "anyone". They're not the stable boy, the village idiot, the farmhand, or the tavern wench.

Maybe they used to be, but by the time we get our hands on them, they're past that. They're trained. They're intrinsically above average.
 

Even if you get bored of the argument, D&D player characters have never been just anyone.

An OD&D level 1 Fighting Man isn't a farmhand picking up his first sword, he's a Veteran.

No 1st level wizard in any edition has just found out about magic: they're all people who've put in years of study.

Would it be nice to have a system that truly supported zero-to-hero? Yes.

But D&D isn't trying to be that system. At least it generally hasn't, and in the current playtest, does not seem to be.

Says who?

I mean, 1st Edition D&D actually had 1st level Magic Users with one spell and were given a title 'apprentice' from memory. 1st level fighters were not veterans in any description I ever read, and generally started at teen age or early 20s.

Who is anyone to say what the D&D system is 'trying' to be? There is no inbuilt assumptions that you cite. Power levels have increased in more recent editions, but again we are talking about game-driven boosts, rather than narrative ones. Again, it's post mechanical justifications we are talking about. The only explicit thing the current D&D play test program is trying to be is something that appeals to as many D&D players as they can get.
 

Says who?

I mean, 1st Edition D&D actually had 1st level Magic Users with one spell and were given a title 'apprentice' from memory. 1st level fighters were not veterans in any description I ever read, and generally started at teen age or early 20s.

Who is anyone to say what the D&D system is 'trying' to be? There is no inbuilt assumptions that you cite. Power levels have increased in more recent editions, but again we are talking about game-driven boosts, rather than narrative ones. Again, it's post mechanical justifications we are talking about. The only explicit thing the current D&D play test program is trying to be is something that appeals to as many D&D players as they can get.

The 1e first-level titles are

Cleric-- Acolyte
Druid -- Aspirant
Fighter -- Veteran
Paladin -- Gallant
Ranger -- Runner
Magic-user -- Prestidigitator
Illusionist -- Prestidigitator
Thief -- Rogue (apprentice)
Assassin -- Bravo (apprentice)
Monk -- Novice
 

Well, there we go.

Let's put it this way then: In 1E, all these 1st level characters were based off 3D6 rolls by default. That had them set at an average of 10.5 on each of these scores, which was exactly the same as the scores rolled for NPCs. The bonuses in editions since then were done for no other reason than for gamist reasons - with mechanics leading to narrative justifications, not the other way round.

Could we talk about Human cultures now?
 

I'm a big fan of RQ, and liked how generic the starting character cultures were - could be fit into any game world.

I'm not seeing a great fit for this kind of "human culture" as either a sub-race or Background in D&D next. I think the end result is race-specific "cultures" will split between these in the final version. Occasionally for exceptionally strong cultural backgrounds with big in-game effects, they might fall into Specialities that e.g. provide for styles of magic or fighting only seen in certain cultures.

So you could probably emulate the RQ "Nomadic / Shaman" starting character package with a Background plus the option to access a Speciality with cool feats for Druids etc that brought out something flavourful about nature spirits (such as having a "fetch" similar to familiar or animated companion that other Specialities get)

That is "emulation of culture", rather than having it as a defining choice at character creation though . . .

So personally, I might prefer a separate,fifth character choice of "culture", to go with the other four. But this may be too complex for other players' tastes, at least in terms of the core rules. This is probably something I will add if it's not in the game, since I run things in my own game world. A lot of the time, this separate Culture would effectively be a lightweight Background, and act as a pre-requisite for other Backgrounds or Specialities.
 

Remove ads

Top