PDA

View Full Version : Redesign the human?



Ashtagon
2011-03-08, 04:33 PM
The D&D human is the mario (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMario). Are there any tropes that a revised D&D human could fill that are, well, a bit more flavourful, while at the same time being reasonably believable?

Zaydos
2011-03-08, 04:59 PM
Humans are Warriors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreWarriors)

Chronos
2011-03-08, 06:12 PM
The problem with making humans anything but the Mario is that all the other races were, ultimately, designed by humans. And the way we humans generally design something like a fantasy race is "Like humans, but...". If you give humans some distinguishing trait, then what you're really doing is distinguishing all the other races by the lack of that trait.

3WhiteFox3
2011-03-08, 06:27 PM
Muggle Power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MugglePower)
Humans Are Leaders (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreLeaders)
Humans Are Diplomats (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreDiplomats)
Humans Are Special (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreSpecial)
Humans Are Cthulhu (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreCthulhu)
Humans Are Infectious (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanityIsInfectious)
Humans Are Flawed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreFlawed)
Humanity Is Superior (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanityIsSuperior)
Humanity Is Insane (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanityIsInsane)

ForzaFiori
2011-03-08, 06:40 PM
Diplomats might be interesting... There aren't many races that are made to be a party face.

Also, the bonus skill points and feats ties into a "humans are adaptable" idea that most fantasy games/books/whatever have. not sure if it's a TV trope or not (really don't get on their a whole lot, cause I'll lose a day on there)

Thomar_of_Uointer
2011-03-08, 08:09 PM
Pathfinder did a good job with humans, I think. The real trick is coming up with multiple human nations and empires in your campaign, but you can usually just base them on real-world cultures. In other words... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WriteWhatYouKnow)

Ashtagon
2011-03-09, 12:22 AM
I think the humans are warriors trope works best. Keep us warm, dry, and fed, and we are kittens. But when our backs are to the wall, we are tougher than old boots. How to express that?

Possible ideas:

* Endurance feat
* Bonus on environmental heat/cold saves
* 4e style Second wind for humans only
* Bonus on Will saves against non-magical, non-fear effects (does anything qualify in that regard?)
* Extra action points
* Able to go without food/drink/sleep longer than traditional fantasy races (elves halflings and dwarves especially are noted in literature for their habitual feasts, making them weaker in trope than humans on this aspect)

The common point is that these are all features that provide no real benefit as long as we are warm, dry, and fed.

Proposed final design. It's a mix of humans are warriors and humans are survivors.


Environmental Adaptation: Humans gain a +2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused by environmental heat or cold.
Second Wind: Once per day as a swift action, humans can gain a second wind. They immediately restore a number of hit points equal to their Constitution score plus their character level. This ability can only be used when the character has less than half full hp, but more than 1 hp. If using vitality/wounds, it cannot restore wound damage.
Famine Resistance: Humans are not particularly used to having an abundance of food at all times, and occasionally experience famines. They get a +2 bonus on Constitution checks to resist penalties from lack of food or water.
Destiny: Humans receive one additional action point each time they gain a level. (If not using action points, allow human characters to choose one of the "save bonus" feats at 1st level as a free feat.)
Resourceful: Humans can pick one skill as a permanent class skill (Exception: Not UMD, K/Arcana, or Spellcraft). Once per day, you may re-roll the result of any check with this skill, but you must accept teh second result, even if it is worse than the original.
Favoured Class: Each human can pick any single class as their favoured class, as long as it is not a full caster class. They cannot change this choice once it has been made. Humans lack the raw magical talent to excel as casters in the way that some others races can, but they make up for this by being far more flexible.


Is this Balanced for LA +0?

Icewalker
2011-03-09, 03:39 AM
The problem with making humans anything but the Mario is that all the other races were, ultimately, designed by humans. And the way we humans generally design something like a fantasy race is "Like humans, but...". If you give humans some distinguishing trait, then what you're really doing is distinguishing all the other races by the lack of that trait.

This is very true, but avoidable. If you really rework a setting, or even make a new one, you can make it so that humans aren't the default with other races being variations on them, and actually make all the races moderately different instead. Although this tends to result in just a fantasy setting with no 'human' race. Alternatively, avoid the planet of hats problem, and make all of the races highly adaptable and varied too, as intelligent beings will be. That could make things interesting.

Eldan
2011-03-09, 03:48 AM
Compare humans to other real-life animals.

Long life. Now, this is mostly civilization, and it's also the elf's shtick, so leave that out.
Dexterity. Our arms and shoulders may be flimsy and prone to popping out, but damn, if we aren't able to do strange stuff with them. Same with fingers.
Endurance, especially in hot climate. Humans can kill things by walking after them until they drop dead. It's estimated early humans, in Africa, walked between 40 and 60 kilometers every day.

Also, what I included: humans breed with everything. Tieflings. Aasimar. Half-dragons. For me, that's not just breeding with everything, but humanity's adaption means that even by living in an area, they will have adapted children one generation later. All those Chaonds aren't just from "contact" with slaads, they are from living in Limbo.

Icedaemon
2011-03-09, 10:21 AM
This is very true, but avoidable. If you really rework a setting, or even make a new one, you can make it so that humans aren't the default with other races being variations on them, and actually make all the races moderately different instead. Although this tends to result in just a fantasy setting with no 'human' race. Alternatively, avoid the planet of hats problem, and make all of the races highly adaptable and varied too, as intelligent beings will be. That could make things interesting.

I also prefer this course of action. Don't make the principal non-human civilisations a bunch of prancy smelly elves or identical hard-working dwarves. In the homebrew I am making, for example, the only truly cosmpolitan nation is ruled by dragons, which is completely different from all other lands. The two most powerful goblinoid nations, while competing to see which can be more lawful evil, are philosophically so different they are engaged in a bitter war. Even dwarven nations are different from one another, although they are all still clearly dwarven.

It is useful to keep the human-like races to a minimum. Take a look at what other LA +0 races are out there. I only use dwarves because I like to use them and enjoy finding ways to subvert the 'dwarves are all the same' trope.

By the way, Ashtagon, I for one see the proposal as something incredibly overpowered. The second wind alone should, if we are talking about a 3.x edition game, raise the level adjustment by one, since this is one power which will remain incredibly useful for many levels and effectively make many healing powers such as a paladin's fondle seem quaint. The race described is less like a basic person and more like a 'paragon human'.

Besides, the most realistic trope regarding humans is this one anyway (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreBastards). (OK, humans are flawed and humans are insane are also pretty good).

Zaydos
2011-03-09, 10:44 AM
I'd weaken the Second Wind a bit; as is it's full health for one or two levels. Maybe change it to Con modifier + level x 2?

Veyr
2011-03-09, 10:52 AM
By the way, Ashtagon, I for one see the proposal as something incredibly overpowered. The second wind alone should, if we are talking about a 3.x edition game, raise the level adjustment by one, since this is one power which will remain incredibly useful for many levels and effectively make many healing powers such as a paladin's fondle seem quaint.
Not that I disagree with you overall, but the human doesn't need to change at all to make Lay on Hands "quaint" - the numbers being thrown about in that class feature are not particularly meaningful at any level. It's one of the most useless active class features in the game.


Besides, the most realistic trope regarding humans is this one anyway (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreBastards). (OK, humans are flawed and humans are insane are also pretty good).
I'm going to quietly disagree with that, especially seeing as the linked trope is explicitly and purely speculative - it can't be realistic, we don't have intergalactic spacetravel yet.

Ashtagon
2011-03-09, 11:11 AM
Hmm, on second thoughts, that second wind as written is a little overpowered. It effectively means you can fully recover from any attack that doesn't kill you outright, at least for the first level or two.

I'm also not sure it fits in with my overall theme of traits that only come into play in dire straits.

How about replacing it with:


Second Wind: Once per day, as a swift action, you may immediately recover from fatigue, or convert an exhausted condition to a fatigued condition.


That also better fits in with the natural meaning of what second wind actually means.

The other issue is I'm not sure if the alternate feat if you aren't playing with action points is balanced with the action point option. Maybe just replace it entirely with a "re-roll a saving throw 1/day"?

Icedaemon
2011-03-09, 11:28 AM
Not that I disagree with you overall, but the human doesn't need to change at all to make Lay on Hands "quaint" - the numbers being thrown about in that class feature are not particularly meaningful at any level. It's one of the most useless active class features in the game.

The Paladin Grope of Healing was used as an example. I am rather aware that it is really only meant as a way for those buggers to have an excuse anyway.

I'm going to quietly disagree with that, especially seeing as the linked trope is explicitly and purely speculative - it can't be realistic, we don't have intergalactic spacetravel yet.

I am not sure if this was easily understood and have seen trouble by assuming that my flippancy was obvious before. This was meant as a half-joke, if only to counter the overly 'humans are superior'-type vibe this thread has.


Hmm, on second thoughts, that second wind as written is a little overpowered. It effectively means you can fully recover from any attack that doesn't kill you outright, at least for the first level or two.

I'm also not sure it fits in with my overall theme of traits that only come into play in dire straits.

How about replacing it with:


Second Wind: Once per day, as a swift action, you may immediately recover from fatigue, or convert an exhausted condition to a fatigued condition.


Indeed it is much better.

That also better fits in with the natural meaning of what second wind actually means.

The other issue is I'm not sure if the alternate feat if you aren't playing with action points is balanced with the action point option. Maybe just replace it entirely with a "re-roll a saving throw 1/day"?

I would personally lose the 'destiny' trait altogether. Not everyone should expect to have some grand fate awaiting them. It would make more sense as a feat, methinks.

If the environmental adaption would be something that does not kick in immediately (meaning, the adaption requires that the character spend at least X days in the given environment before gaining the +2 bonus), coupled with no destiny and the balanced second wind, I'd call this a fine and balanced version of oomin.

Zaydos
2011-03-09, 11:39 AM
Hmm, on second thoughts, that second wind as written is a little overpowered. It effectively means you can fully recover from any attack that doesn't kill you outright, at least for the first level or two.

I'm also not sure it fits in with my overall theme of traits that only come into play in dire straits.

How about replacing it with:


Second Wind: Once per day, as a swift action, you may immediately recover from fatigue, or convert an exhausted condition to a fatigued condition.


That also better fits in with the natural meaning of what second wind actually means.

The other issue is I'm not sure if the alternate feat if you aren't playing with action points is balanced with the action point option. Maybe just replace it entirely with a "re-roll a saving throw 1/day"?

I like the re-roll a saving throw 1/day, although I don't think giving them one of Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Lightning Reflexes would be unbalancing. Compare to dwarves which get +2 on all saves versus spells and +2 Con which gives them +1 on everything humans get +2 on already.

Ashtagon
2011-03-09, 11:45 AM
If the environmental adaption would be something that does not kick in immediately (meaning, the adaption requires that the character spend at least X days in the given environment before gaining the +2 bonus), coupled with no destiny and the balanced second wind, I'd call this a fine and balanced version of oomin.

I think that's being a little severe. As you've written it, you're losing a free feat and 4+level skill points in exchange for for some very circumstantial bonuses, plus a skill re-roll 1/day and a recover from fatigue 1/day. I'm trying to make a niched human, not a nerfed one.

Note that the environmental bonus is exactly that. It won't help at all against a fireball or an ice storm spell.

Icedaemon
2011-03-09, 12:01 PM
Hmm... I do tend to look at things from the fluffy point of view rather than from the rules angle. For me, the environmental adaption taking time (though several days, perhaps, would be too much for a game) makes sense, as I have experienced the way I personally adapt to cold winters and warm vacations over time. I also prefer to err on the side of the more nerfed rather than the overpowered.

I do still think that, say, the idea presented by Zaydos, of adding the great fortitude feat, might perhaps fit better than making destiny mandatory, unless fate is supposed to play a big role in the storylines you intend.

Ashtagon
2011-03-09, 12:21 PM
Environmental Adaptation: At 1st level, human characters can choose any two of the following abilities. This choice cannot be changed later. Since its ridiculously rare for a PC at levels where this ability is truly useful to be in both a hot and a cold environment in the same day or three, no need to make a complicating mechanic to force one or the other benefit. I do agree though that's it's a little cinematic having both constantly 'on'. Forcing humans to choose just two of these allows for a little cultural flavouring and minor customisation.


+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused on environmental heat.
+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused on environmental cold.
+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused on altitude sickness, suffocation, and oxygen starvation.
+2 bonus on checks to resist the negative effects caused by lack of food or water.


Swift Recovery: Once per day as a swift action, a human can completely recover from the fatigued condition, or convert an exhausted condition to a fatigued condition. Renamed to avoid confusion from the 4e hit point healing ability, which now works very differently.
Destiny: Humans are destined for great things. Once per day, a human character may re-roll a single saving throw. He must accept the result of the second roll, even if it is worse than the original roll. I much prefer active choices of when to use a bonus over a flat bonus; it's statistically weaker, which eases balance, and it forces players to engage more with what's going on in the action.
Resourceful: Humans can pick one skill as a permanent class skill (Exception: Not UMD, K/Arcana, or Spellcraft). Once per day, you may re-roll the result of any check with this skill, but you must accept the second result, even if it is worse than the original.
Favoured Class: Each human can pick any single class as their favoured class, as long as it is not a full caster class. They cannot change this choice once it has been made. Humans lack the raw magical talent to excel as casters in the way that some others races can, but they make up for this by being far more flexible.


I think I'm happy with the above race. This gives a decent amount of customisation for players (choose two environmental adaptations, choose a favoured skill, and choose a favoured race) and three at-will abilities (recover fatigue, skill re-roll, and save re-roll) to use during an adventure each day). If you're playing with Pathfinder rules, add an extra +2 to one ability score of your choice.

otoh, is this race too weak? I still want humans to be the go-to choice of character race.

Roderick_BR
2011-03-09, 12:27 PM
On a design level, you could create a "virtual human" on "ground zero", as a vanilla base race for all races, and then make the actual humans from there.

One idea that comes to mind, is to mix humans with half-elves: bonus to listen, spot, diplomacy, and vs charms, extra skill point (the extra class skill idea is a good idea too), extra feat.
Half-elves take over the normal elf rules.
Actual elves would then become something more exotic. I saw some LA+1 or +2 out there for elves. Just allow LA buyoff, and you have it, new remasterized human/half-elf/elf.
I'd say these are a good start to differentiate them more without needing to remake several rules. You can go from there for more different stuff.

Zaydos
2011-03-09, 12:46 PM
otoh, is this race too weak? I still want humans to be the go-to choice of character race.

It's not an automatic best choice even in PHB only races anymore. For heavy armor types you have dwarves (+2 Con and awesome save bonuses), for casters you have halflings and gnomes, and for light armor melee you now compete with half-orcs and elves once again have a role as skill monkeys and rogues. It is more balanced with the other PHB races than PHB human, but from my personal experience that means many people won't pick it. The reason human is the go-to race in 3rd is two fold: it's humans and we know humans, and it's better than the PHB races or non-Faerun races printed for PC use (exception anthro-X). The first reason still holds true but you'll have a lot more diversified parties than human, human, human, human.

If you want it to be the go-to race give it something a little more, maybe the Heroic Destiny feat from Races of Destiny and maybe... I'll think some more on this.

Ashtagon
2011-03-10, 01:24 AM
It's not an automatic best choice even in PHB only races anymore. For heavy armor types you have dwarves (+2 Con and awesome save bonuses), for casters you have halflings and gnomes, and for light armor melee you now compete with half-orcs and elves once again have a role as skill monkeys and rogues. It is more balanced with the other PHB races than PHB human, but from my personal experience that means many people won't pick it. The reason human is the go-to race in 3rd is two fold: it's humans and we know humans, and it's better than the PHB races or non-Faerun races printed for PC use (exception anthro-X). The first reason still holds true but you'll have a lot more diversified parties than human, human, human, human.

If you want it to be the go-to race give it something a little more, maybe the Heroic Destiny feat from Races of Destiny and maybe... I'll think some more on this.

As a base race ability, I want to avoid "add an extra 1d6 to a roll" in favour of "roll your d20 again", since the extra 1d6 allows you to go beyond what is normally 'possible', while the second lets you do your level of 'possible' more reliably. And I've already got two different "roll your dice again" benefits in the race build.

I'm going to give all the environmental adaptation bonuses to all humans though, without forcing a choice. It's a needless complication for what are meant to be corner-case situations.

I think giving "+2 to any stat of your choice" is the way to go next.

Oh, and "background NPC humans" are a race apart, and simply don't get most of these bonuses. This race template is the non-mook human. Think of PCs and major NPCs as a human sub-race (in the elf vs gray elf sense, not the morlock vs human sense) that occasionally comes up as a result of human genetics, kind of like being albino or having green eyes or really big earlobes.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-10, 02:14 AM
Environmental Adaptation: At 1st level, human characters can choose any two of the following abilities. This choice cannot be changed later. Since its ridiculously rare for a PC at levels where this ability is truly useful to be in both a hot and a cold environment in the same day or three, no need to make a complicating mechanic to force one or the other benefit. I do agree though that's it's a little cinematic having both constantly 'on'. Forcing humans to choose just two of these allows for a little cultural flavouring and minor customisation.


+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused on environmental heat.
+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused on environmental cold.
+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused on altitude sickness, suffocation, and oxygen starvation.
+2 bonus on checks to resist the negative effects caused by lack of food or water.


Swift Recovery: Once per day as a swift action, a human can completely recover from the fatigued condition, or convert an exhausted condition to a fatigued condition. Renamed to avoid confusion from the 4e hit point healing ability, which now works very differently.
Destiny: Humans are destined for great things. Once per day, a human character may re-roll a single saving throw. He must accept the result of the second roll, even if it is worse than the original roll. I much prefer active choices of when to use a bonus over a flat bonus; it's statistically weaker, which eases balance, and it forces players to engage more with what's going on in the action.
Resourceful: Humans can pick one skill as a permanent class skill (Exception: Not UMD, K/Arcana, or Spellcraft). Once per day, you may re-roll the result of any check with this skill, but you must accept the second result, even if it is worse than the original.
Favoured Class: Each human can pick any single class as their favoured class, as long as it is not a full caster class. They cannot change this choice once it has been made. Humans lack the raw magical talent to excel as casters in the way that some others races can, but they make up for this by being far more flexible.


otoh, is this race too weak? I still want humans to be the go-to choice of character race.

This race is definitely to weak. This comes down to the following:

Two +2 bonuses to rarely-encountered environmental conditions that can be avoided with a level 1 spell (Endure Elements).
A 1/day ability to negate a condition imposed by very few common activities short of a Barbarian's Rage.
A re-roll of a single saving throw 1/day.
1 extra class skill.

That's a rather pathetic list of racial features, honestly. I'd never take this, from a mechanical perspective.

lightningcat
2011-03-10, 02:43 AM
I use action points in my game and gave this ability to humans:
Human have long been noted as heroes and villains, they roll one additional die whenever they spend an action point, and they gain 1 additional action point at each level.

Logic: When its important, humans can pull off some amazing stuff, but the rest of the time they're normal.

Kuma Kode
2011-03-10, 06:55 AM
(in the elf vs gray elf sense, not the morlock vs human sense) Dunno why, but the sudden reference to morlocks made me laugh.


This race is definitely to weak. This comes down to the following:

Two +2 bonuses to rarely-encountered environmental conditions that can be avoided with a level 1 spell (Endure Elements).
A 1/day ability to negate a condition imposed by very few common activities short of a Barbarian's Rage.
A re-roll of a single saving throw 1/day.
1 extra class skill.

That's a rather pathetic list of racial features, honestly. I'd never take this, from a mechanical perspective.

Yeah, environmental adaption is less than awesome, since most DMs really don't feel like tracking the effects since they're so minor and easily defeated. Environmental effects is one of the few things I've seen players need to go to books to look up.

Perhaps play with nonproficiency penalties? Maybe humans are more creative and better in a pinch than other creatures and so we can make do with some pretty funky things as weapons.

Or maybe we have a stronger racial identity than others? It makes us more xenophobic but strengthens our bonds to other humans?

Or take the Humans are Warriors trope literally and offer proficiency and combat bonuses like dwarves have. Humans are known to get into some pretty big brawls over pretty ridiculous things. Perhaps other races are more reserved or cautious than we are and we've become the badasses because of our self-destructive tendencies, willing to try crazy things.

The answer may also lie in redoing some of the other races as well, to pull them away from the tough-guy niche. Right now, all the other niches are covered by the races, leaving the Mario for humans. If you push humans into the tough race niche, you're competing with dwarves who, frankly, are going to do it better.

If action points function like d20 Modern's, maybe give them d8's instead of d6's?

ericgrau
2011-03-10, 12:32 PM
Humans are generally treated like the average baseline because the players are humans. If anything they tend to be given general purpose abilities. If you want to make them feel different, then change that. Make something else the norm, and give humans something that varies from that norm. Perhaps there is something that most other races have that humans don't. Or give the humans a certain special ability or stat bump that means maybe they're better than other races at certain classes, and worse at other classes.

Ashtagon
2011-03-10, 01:18 PM
Humans are generally treated like the average baseline because the players are humans. If anything they tend to be given general purpose abilities. If you want to make them feel different, then change that. Make something else the norm,

Having any race as the "normal" one is something I am keen to avoid. Each race should have its own distinctive hat, and in that regard, "being average" isn't a hat worthy of the name. I think I'm going for the determinator (with a hint of warrior) as the human hat.

Ziegander
2011-03-10, 02:12 PM
Two +2 bonuses to rarely-encountered environmental conditions that can be avoided with a level 1 spell (Endure Elements).
A 1/day ability to negate a condition imposed by very few common activities short of a Barbarian's Rage.
A re-roll of a single saving throw 1/day.
1 extra class skill.

That's a rather pathetic list of racial features, honestly. I'd never take this, from a mechanical perspective.

It also grants a re-roll of the extra class skill 1/day, but yes, I agree that it's still very weak. Of course, other than Dwarves, the PHB races are pretty weak as well. I'd consider giving the Human back the extra skill point per level.

Veyr
2011-03-10, 05:00 PM
Uhh... Gnomes are excellent, actually, especially for casterly types - Small means you're harder to hit and have any easier time hitting, penalty to Strength is meaningless, bonus to Constitution is awesome, plus a smorgasbord of bonuses (+1 to Illusion DCs? yesplz!) and a decent handful of Spell-likes.

pyrefiend
2011-03-10, 07:50 PM
I don't like the idea of simply giving humans extra action points, or generic bonuses, or the like. It feels like a cop out. I'd rather take one feature of mankind and make it unique to humans, plain and simple- just don't give it to the dwarves and elves and kobolds.

The idea I've been toying with for a month or so is this: music is unique to human culture, and only evokes emotional responses in humans. Other races have art, but dwarven warriors don't march in time to drum beats, elves don't pluck at lyres in their tree forts, etc. Humans get various bonuses and abilities while music is playing, and the bard is a humans-only prestige class which takes advantage of these features.

I'm not just saying that the other cultures somehow never discovered music, I'm saying that humans are the only race wired to respond to melodic sound in any way. The influence of music is already somewhat ethereal and even mystical, so why not let humans hold on to that?

Ajadea
2011-03-10, 10:01 PM
Something I've thought of is making humanity's 'hat', so to speak, 'ambition as a virtue'.

Many of the core civilized races have longer lives. The only one that doesn't have an appreciably longer lifespan (halflings) is unnaturally lucky, and are very difficult to scare. With their total of a +3 racial bonus vs. fear effects, an average 1st level halfling commoner is nearly as hard to scare as an average 1st level human cleric.

Humans don't have that time. They don't have that luck. They scare as easy as any other race. They don't have the grace of an elf or the strength of a dwarf. And they know that. But they are arguably the biggest dreamers of the core races. A halfling or half-elf drifts, an elf dabbles, a dwarf follows tradition, a gnome works magic with words. And the humans make things happen.

Maybe make their racial features reflect that.

Bardic
2011-03-10, 10:32 PM
@Ajadea: I must say, I like that as a concept. Perhaps, to make humans unique enough alongside that, you could give them different abilities based on culture? For instance, a human from a primarily seafaring nation would likely be more competent on board a ship or adrift in general, while a group of people from the high mountains would have cold resistance. Vagabonds would have innate survivability and ability to take care of themselves; finding food, etc. Just a few thoughts.

Veyr
2011-03-10, 10:37 PM
That's pretty much the schtick that Races of Destiny takes, too. IIRC, so does the Races of War tome by Frank and K.

Lyndworm
2011-03-10, 11:26 PM
@Ajadea: I must say, I like that as a concept. Perhaps, to make humans unique enough alongside that, you could give them different abilities based on culture? For instance, a human from a primarily seafaring nation would likely be more competent on board a ship or adrift in general, while a group of people from the high mountains would have cold resistance. Vagabonds would have innate survivability and ability to take care of themselves; finding food, etc. Just a few thoughts.

I'm pretty sure that's what the extra skill and feat are for.

Ashtagon
2011-03-11, 12:25 AM
@Ajadea: I must say, I like that as a concept. Perhaps, to make humans unique enough alongside that, you could give them different abilities based on culture? For instance, a human from a primarily seafaring nation would likely be more competent on board a ship or adrift in general, while a group of people from the high mountains would have cold resistance. Vagabonds would have innate survivability and ability to take care of themselves; finding food, etc. Just a few thoughts.

The flaw with using humanity's bonus feat and skill points to fill out specific human cultures is, how then do you fill out specific non-human cultures?

Lyndworm
2011-03-11, 12:33 AM
The flaw with using humanity's bonus feat and skill points to fill out specific human cultures is, how then do you fill out specific non-human cultures?

Isn't that what those 15+ elven subraces are for? I'm pretty sure you could scrape together enough dwarven and halfling subraces to fill pretty much any sociological niche you want, too.

Ashtagon
2011-03-11, 12:36 AM
Isn't that what those 15+ elven subraces are for? I'm pretty sure you could scrape together enough dwarven and halfling subraces to fill pretty much any sociological niche you want, too.

I want for players to be able to choose a single race, a cultural background, and a class, and then go. I want to remove as much as possible from the race package and place them into the background packages.

ETA: Since part of this redesign will inevitably require new hats for old races, here is what I have so far:

Humans: Humans are the determinator, the diehard, with a hint of warrior thrown in.

Dwarf: Proud warrior race good with stone and metal.

Halfling: Fearless and Lucky.

Elf: Capable magical students, but better known as agile, quick, and with sharp eyes. Most of the core rules subraces are now just elves with specific culture background packages tacked on.

Gnome: Naturally magical, with extremely plastic genes that create extreme levels of adaptation to their environment. For example, where a human gets environmental adaptation, a gnome gets a "specific energy resistance 5".

Orc: Noble savage.

Half-Elf/Orc: I'm dropping these from my homebrew.

Lyndworm
2011-03-11, 12:47 AM
A perfectly understandable and reasonable goal, which brings us right back to the problem of hatless humans...

I think the issue at hand is that if you give humans a hat then they won't be recognizably human anymore. The entire game is statted with humans being not the default, but the baseline. Earlier in the thread somebody mentioned that other races are "like humans, but _____." This is true, but not only of races. Every single creature in the game is scored assuming that humans have a +0 modifier to all scores. If you up their Strength, for example, then every single creature in the game becomes slightly weaker because the bar was raised. Any bonuses they get should not be represented by ability scores, other than maybe the "+2 to any one score" rule.

To understand what makes humans human, I think we first need to understand what makes non-humans non-human. If you're trying to reduce the impact race has on character creation over background, perhaps you should figure out/post what the other races are like. I don't see where it could hurt, at least.

Ziegander
2011-03-11, 02:31 AM
Well, he's not talking about giving the humans ability bonuses or penalties, necessarily. He just wants to replace the bonus feat and skill points with more flavorful racial abilities that key off of being "the determinator, the diehard, and the warrior." Of course, as I've run into, making Humans "the diehards" basically means giving them +2 Constitution and/or defensive and toughness bonuses which people dislike because it seems to steal the Dwarf's thunder.

Ajadea
2011-03-11, 02:48 AM
That's pretty much the schtick that Races of Destiny takes, too. IIRC, so does the Races of War tome by Frank and K.

I thought human's shtick in D&D was 'learning curve of ridiculous', hence the bonus feat and the Able Learner and the skills.

If you want more racial freedom, make the 'core' races closer to an LA+1 race, and then you can give them more flashy abilities. Normal is relative. If all the normal races are that strong, you can ignore the Level Adjustment and just make them fight more challenging things.

Can I suggest giving at least one race some mental bonuses? Smart hat is something core sorely lacks.

Eldan
2011-03-11, 05:04 AM
Pretty much that, yeah.

I mean, a 20 year old human can cast spells. Elves are what, 130, when they start adventuring?

The human could become an archmage and die of old age before the elf is considered a full adult.

Ashtagon
2011-04-10, 12:59 PM
Environmental Adaptation: Humans are better able to withstand the rigours of not just their favoured environment, but just about anywhere. They can adapt to most climates with ease. They gain all of the following bonuses:


+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused by environmental heat.
+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused by environmental cold.
+2 bonus on saves to resist fatigue and non-lethal damage caused by altitude sickness, suffocation, and oxygen starvation.
+2 bonus on checks to resist the negative effects caused by lack of food or water.


Swift Recovery: Once per day as a swift action, a human can completely recover from the fatigued condition, or convert an exhausted condition to a fatigued condition. Renamed to avoid confusion from the 4e hit point healing ability, which now works very differently.
Tough: Humans are hard to keep down. They gain a bonus +1 hit point per level. Note: In my house rules, hit points represent a kind of 'hero shield', not actual damage taken.
Destiny: When spending an action point, humans use d8s instead of d6s. If they have a feat that allows them to roll d10s, that feat instead allows them to roll d12s instead of d10s. In my house rules, 'skill bonus' feats additionally grant the ability to use larger die types when spending action points on the skill in question.
Resourceful: Humans can pick one skill as a permanent class skill (Exception: Not Iaijutsu Focus, UMD, K/Arcana, or Spellcraft). Once per day, you may re-roll the result of any check with this skill, but you must accept the second result, even if it is worse than the original.
Favoured Class: Each human can pick any single class as their favoured class, as long as it is not a full caster class. They cannot change this choice once it has been made. Humans lack the raw magical talent to excel as casters in the way that some others races can, but they make up for this by being far more flexible.


Pathfinder change: Add a +2 to any one ability score.

Change Log: Granted all the environmental adaptation bonuses, and added Toughness.

sengmeng
2011-04-10, 05:05 PM
The thing that has always bugged me about humans in all editions is that the non-humans' best of the best are a little beyond what humans can do... no natural 20 stats. I like the "humans are adaptable generalists," but let's face it, some are really niched and some have had abilities that could not be merely 18. Caesar only had 18 Charisma, and Einstein had an 18 intelligence? no way. My fix is then:

Keep everything the same, except the human may forego his level one bonus feat to add a +2 racial bonus to any ability.

And maybe limit the favored class to Druid, Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk (the ones no one else has), so that they can't ignore classes other than the ones in PHB as their favored class. Or limit it to all the PHB base classes, which is what was probably intended. Or I don't really care if humans can multiclass really well.

paddyfool
2011-04-10, 05:49 PM
I want for players to be able to choose a single race, a cultural background, and a class, and then go. I want to remove as much as possible from the race package and place them into the background packages.


Based on this... you should really have a look at Fantasy Craft. (I know, I know, whole new system... but definitely worth a look).

Ashtagon
2011-04-10, 11:26 PM
The thing that has always bugged me about humans in all editions is that the non-humans' best of the best are a little beyond what humans can do... no natural 20 stats. I like the "humans are adaptable generalists," but let's face it, some are really niched and some have had abilities that could not be merely 18. Caesar only had 18 Charisma, and Einstein had an 18 intelligence? no way. My fix is then:

Somehow, I don't think Caesar and Einstein were level one. They had their higher abilities not because they were human, but because they were high level. Also, this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).


Keep everything the same, except the human may forego his level one bonus feat to add a +2 racial bonus to any ability.

This makes my chief gripe against the SRD human, its genericness, an even greater issue than before.


And maybe limit the favored class to Druid, Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk (the ones no one else has), so that they can't ignore classes other than the ones in PHB as their favored class. Or limit it to all the PHB base classes, which is what was probably intended. Or I don't really care if humans can multiclass really well.

Favoured class as written in the SRD is generally ignored by most people anyway.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-10, 11:28 PM
Wait, has anyone else brought up the fact that humans, as a species, will apparently screw anything? Hell, I know even Orcs are more inhibited than humans.

Ashtagon
2011-04-10, 11:44 PM
Wait, has anyone else brought up the fact that humans, as a species, will apparently screw anything? Hell, I know even Orcs are more inhibited than humans.

Is this the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194582)you were asking about?

Nothing wrong with playing to that trope, but it's not really reflected in in the majority of popular culture.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-10, 11:47 PM
Is this the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194582)you were asking about?

Nothing wrong with playing to that trope, but it's not really reflected in in the majority of popular culture.

Captain Kirk would disagree. :smallamused:

Morph Bark
2011-04-11, 06:05 AM
Is this the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194582)you were asking about?

Nothing wrong with playing to that trope, but it's not really reflected in in the majority of popular culture.

If talking popular culture where other races exist, I have to disagree with you.

Anime has half-humans in DBZ, InuYasha, Soul Eater, Slayers, Vampire Hunter D, Bleach, One Piece. Comic books have so many it's not even funny. Even worse in mythology. Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, Angel, Doctor Who, Farscape, Charmed, Final Fantasy, the Tales Of series, Dragon Quest, Ben 10, Warcraft. The New World of Darkness of White Wolf seems to have quite a number as well, same with Exalted.

And that is all of specifically half-humans created through breeding. If you take out gods and non-human creatures possibly capable of breeding with anything, then you can take out between a third and a half of that, but you'd have to take into account that in most those cases you wouldn't really know whether it is because of the human side or the other (godly) side that the super-breeding is possible, because there aren't any other races at the human level to show that they can't breed with gods or whathaveyou.


...and let's hope that Kirk didn't actually impregnate all of the alien chicks he has bedded. :smalleek:

Veklim
2011-04-11, 08:24 AM
Alternatively you could just redesign the entire paradigm:
Remove human as a race, use this as your base model.
Take every player race in the player's handbook and make them a specific sub-race of human (elf becomes wiry lanky human with good lifespan and a predeliction for finery and pomp, dwarf becomes miner/brawler type with a short, yet tenacious and stocky body, etc...). Any human from this list is perfectly capable of mating with any other human, making half-breeds irrelevant as they are all just human.
Redesign all other races to be more like their paragon versions and make them at least +1 LA.
Job done, diverse humans and still plenty of niche-filling for all the other races.

Thing is, all this does is redefine the parameters of 'human' rather than diversifying them, but then again that's all you need isn't it?

sengmeng
2011-04-11, 12:27 PM
Not exactly on topic, but has anyone ever had fluff that humans are an amalgam of the other common races?

ericgrau
2011-04-11, 02:33 PM
Having any race as the "normal" one is something I am keen to avoid. Each race should have its own distinctive hat, and in that regard, "being average" isn't a hat worthy of the name. I think I'm going for the determinator (with a hint of warrior) as the human hat.

Then establish a norm that no race gets but every race is a variation of. Most likely it is medium size, 30' speed and +0 to all stats. No race should have all of those, unlike the D&D human. All the other races are that plus X specific abilities, which are almost never general purpose nor "any" abilities. Human should now fall into that "specific abilities" category instead.

UserShadow7989
2011-04-11, 08:00 PM
Honestly, the 'Human hat' should be about getting as much done in their short lives as possible. Having a long life span like the Elves or Dwarves would make someone far more cautious about taking risks or coming out of their comfort zone then a shorter one. Kind of like how people who hear they only have "X months/years" left to live will go all out and try to complete their bucket lists (a list of things they want to do before kicking the bucket).

When you live 400+ years on average, you start to say 'eh, I can always do that later'. When you live an average of 60~80 years, barring accidents, the 'I'll do it later' phase won't last. Since humans have so little time to do anything compared to other races, they rush. They rush to adulthood, they cram their schedules full of parties and theaters and drinking and dating and working and learning and playing and exploring and anything that tickles their fancy or needs to be done.

The adaptability can be seen as an expansion on that. Going to a new place takes a little while to get used to, but we can't afford to dawdle on that when we have **** we gotta do. So we're used to going through changes and experiencing new things and filing them away quickly. It can also have to do with there being so many things that are part human; when you live hundreds of years, you're gonna get sick of being a sex hound long before you get old. When your life is so short, you're more receptive to trying new things.

On the other hand, that makes us a little reckless. We don't have as many years to lose if we get into a situation where our last words are "Hold my beer, I'm gonna do something AWESOME". Few Humans have any patience, at least on the scale of something that lives so long. We don't always spend precious time thinking before we act unless there's a very obvious reason for us to do so.

Perhaps Humans should get a bonus when attempting a non-Wis based skill check untrained, and bonuses to Strength/Dexterity or whatever when their remaining hit points are below 1/4th their maximum, but a Wisdom penalty when between 3/4 and full? It goes well with the die-hard theme and reckless behavior, as well as the quick learner deal.

Kellus
2011-04-11, 08:43 PM
The problem with doing anything with humans other than 'be good at anything' is that there is a significant portion of the audience that is only willing to play a human and nothing else. If a human is suddenly suited to only one role or class, then there are going to be a lot of unhappy people that wanted to play a human something else.

But there are also a lot of people that will for whatever reason (escapism, imagination, interest in folklore, whatever) never play a human. Which means that you need a nonhuman option for basically everything in the game. This gets more complicated when you break this set of players down into people that want to play human-LIKE races like dwarves, elves, tieflings and whatever and people that want to play NON-human races like beholderkin and intelligent goats. So you need an option from each of those two groups for every class in the game in order to keep everybody happy. There can be overlap between the two (for example, your intelligent goat race could be good at being both a rogue or a wizard) but there needs to be an option to cover each of them.

Since the only thing you know for SURE that people are going to want to play as everything in the book is humans, the easiest way to set up your races and minimize page count is:

• Humans versatile enough to be anything
• A humanoid option for each archetype (dwarves for fighter, elves for wizards, halflings for rogues, gnomes for artificers, etc)
• A nonhuman option for each archetype (minotaurs for fighter, beholderkin for wizards, kenku for rogues, intelligent goats for artificers, etc)

You can cut some corners there, but the one thing you absolutely have to make sure is that humans can be played as any class, which leads to the human-as-mario version we have today.

The only option if you want to make the human class unique is to give every race so much versatility that they can enter into and succeed with every class in the book. This sounds good, but they all end up very samey when there are no clear options for "what race should my wizard be". If the answer isn't obvious (intelligent goat) you've done something wrong.

ericgrau
2011-04-12, 02:55 PM
Partly true, but I'm the type that likes to play gnome barbarians, dwarven wizards, elven rogues (actually quite a good match there) and half-orc bards... all with mechanical reasons.

Veklim
2011-04-19, 09:16 AM
...and half-orc bards...

I too have done this one in particular, she was truly scary actually!
Fact is, any race can play any class really, some are better suited than others and some are just asking for trouble, but there's always space for the human, no bonuses and no negatives make for a truly versatile race. No matter how much you banter back and forth on the subject, it remains a solid fact. WotC made humans the baseline because we know what a human is already, and because SOMETHING had to be the base.
Humans are adaptable, humans are versatile, humans are warriors, spellcasters, experts, politicians (warrant their own category if you ask me). Humans can do anything if they really want. Isn't that reason enough to keep them as they are. There is a whole plethora of races out there for just about anything under the sun you could want, if a player won't play anything but human then they need to deal with that fact.

Wardog
2011-04-20, 05:23 PM
Can I suggest giving at least one race some mental bonuses? Smart hat is something core sorely lacks.

That might actually be a good hat for humans.

Firstly, its a unique ability that no other core race gets.

Secondly, it's quite a worthy hat fluff-wise, and goes well with "humans are special" type tropes (as well as emphasising the characteristic that most sets real humans apart from other creatures).

Thirdly, its also quite a versatile bonus:
* Good for wizardry.
* Good for any skill-based character
** And especially for int-based skills.
* Not as useful, but still benificial for combat classes, as some combat feats have an int requirement (plus you get an extra skill point).

The last point could be enhanced by creating more int-based abilities and tactical options for fighters and the like. Sure, the (half)orc fighter is stronger than you, and the elf is quicker, and the dwarf is tougher. But you're smarter than them, and can beat them through cunning and tactics.

(Unfortunately, I can't think of many obvious ones, although making feint be based on int rather than cha would help, as well as probably making more sense. And maybe something to do with attacks of opportunity could be linked to int, whether it helps you avoid provoking them, or enables you to make more of them).

Kellus
2011-04-20, 07:12 PM
That might actually be a good hat for humans.

Firstly, its a unique ability that no other core race gets.

Secondly, it's quite a worthy hat fluff-wise, and goes well with "humans are special" type tropes (as well as emphasising the characteristic that most sets real humans apart from other creatures).

Thirdly, its also quite a versatile bonus:
* Good for wizardry.
* Good for any skill-based character
** And especially for int-based skills.
* Not as useful, but still benificial for combat classes, as some combat feats have an int requirement (plus you get an extra skill point).

The last point could be enhanced by creating more int-based abilities and tactical options for fighters and the like. Sure, the (half)orc fighter is stronger than you, and the elf is quicker, and the dwarf is tougher. But you're smarter than them, and can beat them through cunning and tactics.

(Unfortunately, I can't think of many obvious ones, although making feint be based on int rather than cha would help, as well as probably making more sense. And maybe something to do with attacks of opportunity could be linked to int, whether it helps you avoid provoking them, or enables you to make more of them).

The problem you run into when you say that humans have an Int bonus is that you're basically saying every other race is on average stupider than humans.

To put that another way, you're saying an average elf is stupider than an average human. That's deeply stupid, and one of the big reasons humans are the baseline. It's the only point on the graph we have for comparison, so everything else is derived from that.

Ashtagon
2011-04-20, 11:29 PM
My plans for human redesign specifically exclude any kind of ability score modifier.

Ouranos
2011-04-21, 12:18 AM
Well, if we want to follow the adapatable line AND smart line, what you could do:

"Put your mind to it":

The human is bred to adapt to their situation, and can add their Intelligence modifier (if positive) up to their character level to one of the following, chosen upon waking up.

1. Melee attack rolls
2. Ranged attack rolls
3. Caster Level checks to overcome spell resistance
4. Armor Class as a Stackable Misc. bonus


We think, we adapt, and we better ourselves at whatever we put our mind to. Can we do it all at once? Nope. Can we do it all? Yup.

DemLep
2011-04-21, 04:25 AM
Okay, I did not read every post so most certianly somebody brought this up and probably in a much better way than I will. But just in case:

First, humans are not the mario. Humans are the baseline and everything is based off them, making them look like the mario.

Seconds, we are humans, so it is hard to nail us into a set predefined behavior like we do to the other races we create. Truthfully this as race that would be as intelligent or more so would probably like wise as adaptable or more so.

So the first thing you need to fix is the baseline. You would need to create an abstracted one not based on a race, or that race just becomes the new human.

Once you figure out what your base line will be you judge the "average" human by it and apply those modifiers.

The next problem, and here is the really problem, you then need to change all other races to fit the baseline. This means either you are just going to compare them against the humans, and you've at this point fixed nothing. Or you are going to spend hours reevaluating races to your baseline and you are on your way to creating a new system.

The baseline for this planet would probably be much lower than human and rank pretty high on it, but when you add in creatures that are essentially modify humans, it screws that up.

That's my thoughts on it at least. If someone beat me to it oh well, if you disagree I'd like to hear why.

Ashtagon
2011-04-21, 05:28 AM
Fine. My "baseline race" is no special abilities, no ability score bonuses or penalties, no skill modifiers, Medium size, 30 ft land move rate.

In core, humans are not the baseline, because that statement would imply that all races get the feat and skill bonus humans have. Those are uniquely human in core. Those unique bonuses turn humans into the mario.

With the baseline I have chosen, other races don't generally need to be played. Some will be changed anyway, since I want to separate racial and cultural bonuses.

DemLep
2011-04-21, 06:06 AM
The extra feat and and skill points are added to the baseline yes, but humans are still the baseline. But not the point. Also, note when it comes to D&D I am only familiar with 3.x. I know some other the previous edition, less on 4, and nothing on pathfinder. So with that I am approaching this like 3.5.


Fine. My "baseline race" is no special abilities, no ability score bonuses or penalties, no skill modifiers, Medium size, 30 ft land move rate.

Okay if that's your baseline, what makes humans different and two other base races that would be in your game to be compared against?

On a somewhat unrelated note I just had an interesting and probably not unique idea.

What if other races like elf and dwarves are humans with genetic alterations. This gives more reason for humans being a baseline and could lead to other mixes too. But that's another discussion and need more thought put into it still.

Ashtagon
2011-04-21, 07:45 AM
The extra feat and and skill points are added to the baseline yes, but humans are still the baseline. But not the point. Also, note when it comes to D&D I am only familiar with 3.x. I know some other the previous edition, less on 4, and nothing on pathfinder. So with that I am approaching this like 3.5.

Okay if that's your baseline, what makes humans different and two other base races that would be in your game to be compared against?


Here's the tropes I'm aiming for:

human - survivors and diehards. (that doesn't mean warrior btw).

dwarf - stalwart warriors and craftsmen.

elf - magical archer types

halfling - lucky slingers

gnome - magically-infused short folk

goblin - crazed experimenters (in every aspect, not "science")with no real thought toward self-preservation. I'm thinking this gives them poison resistance and a flair for alchemy, along with a touch of fearless.

orc - shamans and rangers, with a touch of combat rage.

(purposely ignoring the derailing tangent)

DemLep
2011-04-21, 08:31 AM
That's fine, but how do you want to show that against your baseline.
How much of that is "Fluff" or story information, and how much will affect game mechanics?
Also how much of it will be done in class/skills/feats selection?

Wardog
2011-04-21, 11:53 AM
To put that another way, you're saying an average elf is stupider than an average human. That's deeply stupid, and one of the big reasons humans are the baseline. It's the only point on the graph we have for comparison, so everything else is derived from that.


Elves?

You mean the race that takes decades to mature, but doesn't start adulthood any smarter than humans?

And which lives to be hundreds of years old, but can't advance to a higher level (even in academic classes, like wizardry) than humans?

And who's civilization typically predates that of humans by millenia, but hasn't advanced beyond the Renaissance (or in some cases, that of hunter-gatherers)?

Ouranos
2011-04-21, 12:07 PM
People are taking things way too seriously on this. Elves live longer, but they don't force themselves forward continually like humans do, they have no real drive. So we accomplish more. Elves take decades to mature PHYSICALLY. A human at 18 may be done growing, but our minds aren't fully developed til mid twenties, sometimes even 30. Humans are designed as the mid point of the game racially, redoing it can be done in a balanced way, but it isn't easy. And picking on other races doesn't make it easier.

Wardog
2011-04-22, 07:57 AM
People are taking things way too seriously on this. Elves live longer, but they don't force themselves forward continually like humans do, they have no real drive. So we accomplish more. Elves take decades to mature PHYSICALLY. A human at 18 may be done growing, but our minds aren't fully developed til mid twenties, sometimes even 30. Humans are designed as the mid point of the game racially, redoing it can be done in a balanced way, but it isn't easy. And picking on other races doesn't make it easier.

I was only saying that to counter the suggestion it was "stupid" to have humans more intelligent than elves.

Veklim
2011-04-23, 05:51 AM
On a somewhat unrelated note I just had an interesting and probably not unique idea.

What if other races like elf and dwarves are humans with genetic alterations. This gives more reason for humans being a baseline and could lead to other mixes too. But that's another discussion and need more thought put into it still.

Check post #49 dude. I'm actually currently working on using the idea anyway.

FatJose
2011-04-23, 10:48 AM
The reason humans don't have a defined niche is because humans have multiple races and cultures. Dwarves are built to be supernaturally hardy, short Nords. Elves are pretty much druidic Celts. Hobbits are...? But the bonus skills, feat and Favored Class allow you to make a human from any culture and race. Even half-humans have a cemented place in the RAW. Half-elves' are the diplomats between two people. Half-orcs are...watered down orcs. Do not approve.

Of course, with power gaming, optimization, whatever you want to call it, people just pick the most helpful attributes to their human's class/build instead of culture.

What I did with humans was make it so whatever skills they chose for the human's bonus skills becomes a class skill. I also thought of allowing a first level class ability as a choice when picking the human bonus feat (A non-improving favored enemy ability, rage, bard song, etc.) but...Hahahahaha No...

-edit- Survival and adaptability is key to all humans, though. I say just throw a resistance to some environmental danger as you did before on top of their normal features. Humans are already sort of underpowered because of their ability to choose. Compare this to dwarves who are over-powered combatants but those same attributes make it impossible to be competent at most other classes.
Also, I have to say "The Mario" is the worst title for what that is. They're Jack-of-all-Trades, TV Tropes. Mario makes no sense. If you're going to say Mario, why not go one better and refer to a characters like "The Barbie." She's a veterinarian, lifeguard, fireman, etc. You can't name a trope after a guy who only exemplified the trope in one game that was just a re-skin of a completely different game!

DemLep
2011-04-23, 09:56 PM
@Velkim ...Oh right.
@FatJose Dwarves, Elves, the standard Giant* and many other of the other races are actually all from Norse mythology. So Elves have nothing to do with Celts.

*Most cultures have some sort of giant though.

Wardog
2011-04-24, 04:16 AM
@Velkim ...Oh right.
@FatJose Dwarves, Elves, the standard Giant* and many other of the other races are actually all from Norse mythology. So Elves have nothing to do with Celts.

*Most cultures have some sort of giant though.

True that "elves" (by that name) are Norse in origin.

But the Celtic sidhe (or sith :smalleek: if you go by the Scottish spelling) are pretty elfy (albeit more otherworldly than some elf interpretations), right down to being pretty darn badass and nigh-untouchable warriors, at least in some legends. And most elvish languages (Tolkien and derivitives) always seemed quite Celtic-sounding to me.

Extract from The Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel (Penguin Classics Early Irish Myths and Sagas)

"I sam an apartment with nine men in it; all had fair, yellow hair and all were equally handsome, and they wore mantels of various hues... Overhead were nine pipes, all four-toned and ornamented; and the light from the ornamentation was sufficient for the royal house...

"They are the nine pipers that came to Conare from Síd Breg because of the famous tales about him; their names are Bind, Robind, Ríanbind, Nibe, Dibe, Dechrind, Umal, Cumal, and Cíalgrind. They are the best pipers in the world. Nine tens will fall by them at the first onslaught, and a man for each weapon, and a man for each man. They will match the performance of anyone in the hostel; each of them will boast of victories over kings and royal heirs and plundering chieftains, and they will escape afterwards, for combat with them is combat with a shadow. They will slay and not be slain, for they are of the Sidhe."

Ashtagon
2011-04-24, 05:04 AM
Tolkein Elvish was specifically written to combine sounds of Welsh and Finnish.

FatJose
2011-04-24, 05:35 AM
True that "elves" (by that name) are Norse in origin.

But the Celtic sidhe (or sith :smalleek: if you go by the Scottish spelling) are pretty elfy (albeit more otherworldly than some elf interpretations), right down to being pretty darn badass and nigh-untouchable warriors, at least in some legends. And most elvish languages (Tolkien and derivitives) always seemed quite Celtic-sounding to me.

Extract from The Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel (Penguin Classics Early Irish Myths and Sagas)

Yeah, Tolkien was trying to differentiate Dwarves and elves. There is a lot of contradictory lore. Depending where you look, dwarves look exactly like elves and many etymologists think dark elves and dwarves were most likely the same creature in Norse myth.

Morph Bark
2011-04-24, 07:25 AM
Yeah, Tolkien was trying to differentiate Dwarves and elves. There is a lot of contradictory lore. Depending where you look, dwarves look exactly like elves and many etymologists think dark elves and dwarves were most likely the same creature in Norse myth.

Yep. In many mythologies, some races overlap, like goblins and kobolds, or elves and dwarves, or elves and trolls, or gnomes and dwarves, or fairies and goblins. Giants are the only ones that are distinct from the rest, but what exactly constitutes a giant differs hugely across cultures.

Perhaps we should make the base races humans, [insert a combo of gnomes, dwarves, elves, goblins, kobolds, fairies and trolls], giants and a few monstrous races (one dragonblooded, one fey, one aberration, one undead sounds good to me), with humans having sets of stuff to choose from and combine to create various sub-species like the planetouched and half-breeds.

Hazzardevil
2011-04-24, 07:49 AM
Not exactly on topic, but has anyone ever had fluff that humans are an amalgam of the other common races?

The Mongrelfolk does that.

Anyway, in most mythology, Giants are big.
Gigantic is derived from Giant for a reason people!

The dnd PHB Elves are mostly similer to Tokien, I belive Tolkien took a huge mess of mythology and amalgamated it, I like how he did it.

In a lot of mythology, Dwarves are described as small of stature, I always imagined this as Half the size of the average Human, Tolkien made his dwarves based off what I think is Norse Myths.

Giants are an even bigger mess than elves when they are derived from Mythology, But they are in most myths big, Norse, Greek, even I British, not that theres much less with all the people from other places come in.

Halflings/Hobbits, I know they are mythology from somewhere but I don't know where. I belive they are based off Leprecauns to a certain degree.

We're all humans on this forum, (well we are supposed to be,) this means because we have nothing to compare ourselves to that we belive we are the Jack-of-all trades.
Suppose we had Elves and Dwarves in real life and they weren't hunted to extinction or something like they would be if they existed.
And humans exist too, I doubt that Elves and Humans would co-exist peacefully and I don't belive a human with a gun could beat an elf with a gun generally.

Now For a community to reach Civilisation like us, you need people that have different skillsets. That's why Human's are the Jack-of-all trades and use crossbows over Bow's compared to Elves.

Veklim
2011-04-24, 07:54 AM
Well orc just means foreigner in old english (pre 1066 certainly, so maybe olde :smallamused:). The whole D&D universe is an amalgam of celtic, eastern european and scandanavian mythologies, expansions and alternate settings have introduced american, african and far eastern mythologies. There are others I'm sure, but the point is you can either use what's presented to you or pick and choose to populate a world with a certain feel to it. I'm not entirely convinced by the arguement for 'authentic mythology' if you get my meaning!