D&D General What are humans?

[Frozen_Heart]

I think part of the issue was only a couple of 'evil' species were given weaknesses and penalties. Almost as punishment for playing them and suggesting that they're 'inferior'.

If every single species had had two +1s and a -1 from day 1, there might have been less drama around it.

(Also the absolute requirement to have a 16 to hit an unshielded goblin 50% of the time at level 1 completely destroyed how play with sub optimal scores felt).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

How do you square that with a lack of a Strength bonus?

I mean, I still support species ASI.

But failing that, I feel that powerful build and adrenaline rush help get that feel across.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D species weren't allowed to have mechanical psychological weaknesses.

Gnomes still have super brains.
Humans get a feat.

In an adventurer, being a homebody is a psychological weakness.

 

[James Gasik]

How do you square that with a lack of a Strength bonus?

I assume that, while PC's don't have to play Strong Orcs, that most Orcs are Strong Orcs, and that PC's are just allowed to play outliers if they want. Surely not all Orcs are Strong Orcs- they have their geniuses, their innovators, their artists, and their farmers, just like everyone else. But the majority still fit the "Strong Guy" mold. That way I can have my cake and eat it too, and don't have to throw out all the (good)* lore with the bathwater.

The (bad)* lore I tossed out years ago.

*I'm not going to define what lore I think is good or bad, so don't ask. That is a conversation that I've found is more based on emotion and opinion than anything else, so like politics and religion, is best avoided.

 

[James Gasik]

In an adventurer, being a homebody is a psychological weakness.

Yeah, you have to be a homeless weirdo who does odd jobs for gold, invades people's homes under the guise of being "heroes", and carry around the wealth of nations in your bags of holding!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I assume that, while PC's don't have to play Strong Orcs, that most Orcs are Strong Orcs, and that PC's are just allowed to play outliers if they want. Surely not all Orcs are Strong Orcs- they have their geniuses, their innovators, their artists, and their farmers, just like everyone else. But the majority still fit the "Strong Guy" mold. That way I can have my cake and eat it too, and don't have to throw out all the (good)* lore with the bathwater.

The (bad)* lore I tossed out years ago.

*I'm not going to define what lore I think is good or bad, so don't ask. That is a conversation that I've found is more based on emotion and opinion than anything else, so like politics and religion, is best avoided.

I'm glad that works for you, but for me I have a hard time getting behind what is essentially an informed trait, since PC mechanics don't reflect it and I don't see PCs and NPCs as fundamentally different beings (since the core reason for that distinction is narrative).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Surely not all Orcs are Strong Orcs

Thing is the argument here was that orcs were innately stronger than humans.

An orc who studied books all day and never worked out would still be stronger than a human who also read books all day.

The problem was that the starting scores required to have fun were so inflated that it basically meant no orc wizards allowed.

 

[Minigiant]

In an adventurer, being a homebody is a psychological weakness.

PC Halflings don't have this.

All PC Halflings are weird or affected Halflings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

PC Halflings don't have this.

All PC Halflings are weird or affected Halflings.

Right, which is why I can't get behind it because it's an informed trait from my perspective. To me PCs and NPCs are not different types of creatures, so anything possessed by the whole species should be possessed by both. It's like saying that all Drow are good heroes yearning to throw off the bad reputation of their evil kin, if the example was something other than alignment.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm glad that works for you, but for me I have a hard time getting behind what is essentially an informed trait, since PC mechanics don't reflect it and I don't see PCs and NPCs as fundamentally different beings (since the core reason for that distinction is narrative).

Simply put, as a DM, you have to make the setting reflect that, and let the PC's do what PC's do. If they really want to be a smart Orc Wizard, fantastic. Orcs need Wizards the same way Klingons need scientists- but make sure they realize that they'll get the same amount of respect as a Klingon scientist.

Adventurers are typically your oddballs, misfits, idealist, free thinkers, and renegades. That the rules allow you to actually be these things is a benefit, I feel.

Don't get me wrong, I have very mixed feelings about getting rid of racial ASI's- I want to support creativity, and I've always hated entire species being pigeonholed into a particular role, but at the same time, it is weird to have Goliaths who aren't stronger than other races on average.

In my current game, I told the players that we'll be using the racial ASI's, but if you really want to vary them, I can give you +1 to three ability scores instead. No one took me up on that, sadly, because, as usual, their lineage choices sat at the intersection of "cool abilities" and "advantages that line up with my class". Le sigh.