Reworking Humanity

[Rakku]

Originally, I was simply going to ask for advice on how to properly homebrew a particular race for an upcoming campaign I'm working on, but I think it could also make for an interesting discussion if I explain why I want to change the race to begin with. Please, take into consideration that all of the following is just my personal opinion based on the experiences I've had with the human race in D&D and Pathfinder. Sorry if you find this rant long winded and tedious.

I've always found the human race in 3.5, Pathfinder and 5th edition to be extremely underwhelming. To the point that, after several years of roleplaying, I've never created a single human character. Now, I understand that they are meant to be a blank slate. An accessible race that has few mechanics and is very familiar. An easy pick for new players that might not be comfortable roleplaying a more "exotic" race. Unsurprinsingly, that leaves us with a rather bare bones race that doesn't really have a lot of defining characteristics. The description that the basic manuals offer paint the humans as versatile and adaptable. Diverse people that can become anything and behave in a myriad of different ways depending on their culture and environment. And that's it. That gives me nothing to work with. If you can be absolutely anything and the conditions of your birth have no bearing on how you percieve the world and behave, while being a nice message, that doesn't give you a lot insipiration on what you could do with this race, ¿does it?

Now, I'm not saying that you need a lot defined racial characterisitics to make an interesting character, of course you don't. And there certainly are benefits to not have any preset traits based on your race. I'm also aware that there's material out there for both D&D and Pathfinder in which human civilizations have dintinct cultures, with their own traditions and lore. But even then, those civilizations being human has no influence on them at all. There's nothing inherently human about them. There are always common threads that you expect to find in any elvish, dwarven or gnomish society, but not with humans. Because the only human trait that actually exists is being able to be anything. Ridding humanity of any innate traits.

I must admit that this rejection of mine towards the "blank slate" human comes from many other works of fiction with lazy worldbuilding that take a shortcut to making their stories more relatable by using humans as a default race. So I'm anything but unbiased. I would love to hear what you all think of humans in D&D. ¿Do you think I'm making a problem where there is none? ¿Do you think is better for the human to not have any defined traits? ¿Or do you also think that they should be more fleshed out?

Additionally, there's the mechanical issue with the human. They are way too versatile. While they are intended to be accesible to newbies, experienced players will constantly pick human solely because of their insane versatility. In 3.5 they are undeniably the best race for any build because of their extra feat. Every handbook for any class has the human as one of the top race choices. In Pathfinder this is somewhat mitigated because feats are not such a scarce resource anymore, but then they give the human a +2 on any stat, making them even more versatile. This keeps tempting veteran players to pick the human over and over again since they work so well with any character they come up with.

My solution to both of these problems is creating subraces for the human. I appreciate that 5th edition dedicated a few paragraphs to describe different human cultures, but they still share the same mechanics. I would prefer that these cultural backgrounds granted different bonuses and penalties.

So, finally, to the point of this thread. ¿How would you mechanically modify the Pathfinder human?

¿Do you think they are interesting and balanced just the way they are?
¿What would you do with that +2? ¿Remove it? ¿Assign it to a specific stat for each subrace? ¿Change it to two +2 modifiers and one -2 penalizer like every other race?
¿Should they be able to pick any feat that they want or should each subrace have a limited list of feats from where to pick from? ¿Or maybe one specific feat for each subrace?
¿Should they be able to put their extra skill points in any skill that they want or should they be forced to put those extra point in particular skills?

These are some of the ideas I'm playing with. I would love to read your suggestions. Sorry for the extremely long ramble. Cheers.

[BowStreetRunner]

Humans have a few things going for them that are actually quite good.

3.5

• An extra feat at 1st level. Most builds in this game are feat-starved, and this isn't just a specific bonus feat but can be any feat for which you are otherwise qualified. There are going to be builds that will come online 3 levels earlier for humans than any other race due to this feat.
• An extra skill point at each level. For skillful characters there never seem to be enough skill points to acquire all of the skills they need. Again, there will be builds that just fall behind if they don't have these extra skill points.
• Favored Class: Any is very strong if your DM plays with 3.5 multi-class penalties. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

PF

• +2 in the ability score of choice is another great flexible option. While you only get the bonus to one skill, there is no penalty to offset it.
• Bonus Feat and Extra Skill points the same as in 3.5.
• Lots of Alternate Racial Traits to choose from.
• Probably the longest list of Favored Class options of any race.
• A nice set of Racial Feats available as well.

Altogether, I don't really find them all that underwhelming. In fact, they seem to be one of the few races I see used over and over again in lots of different builds, and not just a niche race.

[The Insanity]

@ BowStreetRunner
I think OP means humans are underwelming fluff-wise, not crunch-wise.

In my opinion settings need at least one "normal" race like human to make other races look more fantastic by comparison.

[Hackulator]

I like humans the way they are. Their design makes a lot of sense because especially at low levels, a bonus feat and variable stat bump are very powerful and it sort of explains why humans tend to be the dominant race, they are better at adapting to whatever environment they need to.

I think you are making a problem where one does not exist. If you want to create a human subrace, it can easily be created within the current framework. Decide what feat and stat bump your subrace gets and take those. No new rules need to be created.

[upho]

Unsurprinsingly, that leaves us with a rather bare bones race that doesn't really have a lot of defining characteristics. The description that the basic manuals offer paint the humans as versatile and adaptable. Diverse people that can become anything and behave in a myriad of different ways depending on their culture and environment. And that's it. That gives me nothing to work with. If you can be absolutely anything and the conditions of your birth have no bearing on how you percieve the world and behave, while being a nice message, that doesn't give you a lot insipiration on what you could do with this race, ¿does it?

Actually, I think it can give you a lot of inspiration. The defining features here are versatility and variety, in the sense that any and every human society and culture tends to be more versatile by including a greater variety of individuals than those of any of the other races. Note the difference to "a myriad of different ways depending on their culture and environment", as regardless of culture and environment, human societies stand out as more versatile and more varied on an individual level (mechanics-wise as well as personality-wise). Or in other words, seen as a statistical population, the defining trait of humans is "the greatest standard deviation in a large majority of aspects".

I must admit that this rejection of mine towards the "blank slate" human comes from many other works of fiction with lazy worldbuilding that take a shortcut to making their stories more relatable by using humans as a default race. So I'm anything but unbiased. I would love to hear what you all think of humans in D&D. ¿Do you think I'm making a problem where there is none? ¿Do you think is better for the human to not have any defined traits? ¿Or do you also think that they should be more fleshed out?

And here is where I think the actual problem lies, because "lazy world building" tends to take recognizable human cultures/societies for granted IME. But that doesn't in any way mean that you should do the same in your setting. Instead, I recommend that you embrace the "greatest standard deviation" trait and find out what the logical conclusion of that trait may be in a world with several sentient races competing and/or cooperating for most resources.

Note that this conclusion may of course vary greatly depending on tons of other setting dependent factors, and it's not necessarily even remotely close to be "humans dominate" by default. Depending on the circumstances, it can be significant competitive disadvantage for a race/society to consist of individuals with qualities/personalities with a high standard deviation, especially if seen from a short-term perspective (which likely translates into at the very least a few hundred years in this context). Which also touches upon another very important long-term difference between humans and certain other staple fantasy races from a macro-perspective: lifespan. For example, is one elf society/nation/group more or less prone to go war against another elf society/nation/group than their human counterparts? If there is a difference, how much of that can be traced back to lifespan differences, and what are the likely long-term consequences of that difference in your setting?

Additionally, there's the mechanical issue with the human. They are way too versatile. While they are intended to be accesible to newbies, experienced players will constantly pick human solely because of their insane versatility. In 3.5 they are undeniably the best race for any build because of their extra feat. Every handbook for any class has the human as one of the top race choices. In Pathfinder this is somewhat mitigated because feats are not such a scarce resource anymore, but then they give the human a +2 on any stat, making them even more versatile. This keeps tempting veteran players to pick the human over and over again since they work so well with any character they come up with.

Yes in comparison to the other core races, humans are far more often a mechanical top choice for more classes/builds.

On the other hand, if your setting also includes more exotic races as possible PCs, human tends to quickly become "the second best race choice" for more classes/builds than any other race, if not simply "the race choice most often at least decent". These effects are IMO also a lot more in line with how most settings actually tend to treat the race's trademark versatility and variation, as they reflect a macro view of humans as "the race most rarely the best or the worst at anything", as otherwise humans would be far more likely to truly dominate everything and it would be a lot more difficult to come up with sensible reasons why any other native races still exist. And perhaps especially in PF which largely did away with LA, for example aasimar, tiefling and skinwalker are mechanically at least as versatile and probably a mechanically superior choice for more classes/builds than humans in many games beyond the earliest levels. I mean the simple fact that these races come in several variants for three "near-floating" ability score modifications, can be Small or Medium (or Large with good 3PP content such as from Dreamscarred Press) and have a huge number of other crunch and fluff options often give them a clear advantage in comparison to humans. Not to mention the two outsiders can choose to also be treated as humans for the purpose of all options restricted to race.

So, finally, to the point of this thread. ¿How would you mechanically modify the Pathfinder human?

In PF, I'd only nerf the most stupid no-brainer favored class bonuses, such as that of the sorcerer and oracle, and offer a greater selection of playable races actually mechanically competitive to humans in other regards if such races aren't already available. The latter goes for 3.5 as well. Perhaps you could allow UA's LA buy-off, making several races with more significant starting advantages competitive.

1. Do you think they are interesting and balanced just the way they are?
2. What would you do with that +2? ¿Remove it? ¿Assign it to a specific stat for each subrace? ¿Change it to two +2 modifiers and one -2 penalizer like every other race?
3. Should they be able to pick any feat that they want or should each subrace have a limited list of feats from where to pick from? ¿Or maybe one specific feat for each subrace?
4. Should they be able to put their extra skill points in any skill that they want or should they be forced to put those extra point in particular skills?

All the following is of course highly depended on the kind of setting and playstyle you're aiming for, but generally speaking:

1. See above. But on the whole, in my setting and the settings I've played in, yes.
2. Keep it, and see above.
3. The freely chosen feat is many ways the race's only advantage that truly matters and is distinctly unique. From a mechanical PoV, if you limit the choice to lists depending on sub-race, the only result will be that those lists will dictate your experienced players' choice of sub-race. And then you'd likely end up in a more awkward situation of the "all PC fighters are Ulfen, all sorcerers are Cheliaxan, and all bards Mwangi"-type.
4. This is a quite minor advantage, but uniquely human, so I'd definitely keep the choice open.

Even more generally speaking, I strongly believe nerfing options is rarely needed and should be viewed as the last alternative when attempting to "fix" mechanical imbalances. And IME, in an overwhelmingly large majority of cases, increasing the viability of other options in the same category is far more likely to result in a game more fun for everyone involved.

[JMS]

Yeah, I just want to add another voice to Upho’s detailed as usual commentary. Don’t nerf humans, raise the power of the less used races.

[Lord Raziere]

wow, what the hell guys.

the OP is talking about how he dislikes the human race in these games is done badly to his perspective and your response "do everything you don't want to do". learn to pay attention, they're not interested in your advice.

I agree OP. humans can be more than just these blank slates. humans in real life? their defining trait is in fact endurance. long ago when they were hunter-gatherers, they could simply hunt longer than anything else, sure another predator might be stronger but they'd tire out much quicker- their strength is largely all a burst. I find it useful to define humanity as beings of persistence and determination, that they keep going long after others give up and are willing to endure more pain to get what they want. so I'd give them bonuses to con and traits that reflect that.

I'd also give them bonuses to Wisdom. wisdom directly reflects how perceptive someone is, their will save, their insight and so on. you need willpower to keep going, and creativity requires one to be observant about details that you can take in and recombine. thus we have to be mentally tough as well as physically tough. and thus does this mental toughness contribute to why we can be considered flexible in a far more believable manner than just saying we are for no reason.

thus humans are defined- but not pigeon holed. these are the traits that have contributed to humanity's success since the dawn of time, long before anything else. it is only fitting that they be used to define us beyond being blank slates.

[HouseRules]

The Half Races will have a name overhaul when you change the default Race to non-Humans.

It is assumed that all Half Races are Half Default Race, so Half Default Race is never mentioned in the name of the Race.

Half-Elf Half-Human will be called Half-Elf by Humans, but Half-Human by Elves.
Half-Orc Half-Human will be called Half-Orc by Humans, but Half-Human by Orcs.

[Elvensilver]

[...]
Their defining trait is in fact endurance. long ago when they were hunter-gatherers, they could simply hunt longer than anything else, sure another predator might be stronger but they'd tire out much quicker- their strength is largely all a burst. I find it useful to define humanity as beings of persistence and determination, that they keep going long after others give up and are willing to endure more pain to get what they want. so I'd give them bonuses to con and traits that reflect that.

I'd also give them bonuses to Wisdom. wisdom directly reflects how perceptive someone is, their will save, their insight and so on. you need willpower to keep going, and creativity requires one to be observant about details that you can take in and recombine. thus we have to be mentally tough as well as physically tough. and thus does this mental toughness contribute to why we can be considered flexible in a far more believable manner .

I agree with Lord Raziere on the count of Endurance, but i beg to differ on the point of Wisdom. Chalk it up to my negative worldview, but I don't think we are a wise people, we are more shortsighted than wise. Not thinking about the more distant future may help with motivation, but it's not a wise thing.

So to sum us up: +2 Constitution, -2Wisdom ,+2 Intelligence (we are crafty and able to build big civilisations). Maybe there are differnt subtypes of humans, so that every subtype may have differnt lists for their bonusfeat, maybe different lists where they can put their extra skill rank in.

So a Human type would be: City Human: this Humans are typically skilled in professions and are very learned, but are kind of shortsighted. +2Co, -2Wi, +2In.
On each level this humans gain another skill rank in a profession/craft/knowledge skill.
On first level, these humans gain one of the following bonus feats: Skill focus, weapon focus, cosmopolitan... (small but mixed list)

For every human variant there would be some changes: one would have a strength bonus instead of an Intelligence Bonus, some would swap In-boni and Wis-mali, and every variant would have a list of focused skills, as well as a limited selection of first level feats.

Furthermore, I think such reworkings are really a necessity. I frankly find it vexing, that humans are the most uninteresting option fluff- and storywise, but, at least when playing Core, always the best or at least second-best option for a class. This often results in all the min-maxers playing blank monstronsities, where they don't even have some racial folklore to make them less one-dimensional.

[gkathellar]

The single greatest reason not to give humans designated stat bonuses is because we are human, and therefore we are our own baseline. By definition, the average human is not above-average. When we say "elves are quick, but frail" what we actually mean is "elves are quicker and frailer than humans." When we say, "dwarves are tough but unsociable," what we actually mean is, "dwarves are tougher and less sociable than humans."

From a naturalistic perspective, yes, humans have characteristics - we have good endurance over distances as long as we eat regularly, we have good vision both at distance and up close, our muscles are shockingly strong per pound (second only to chimps) but can't exert much force because they're calibrated for manual dexterity, etc etc. But within our own experience, we are the average.

It's not necessary to reflect that in game mechanics, but familiarity is a pretty good reason to do it. For most players, their collective experience of humanity is the norm from which they see all deviations, and granting that from the first makes things simple for them.

[Psychoalpha]

Minor point, but:

In 3.5 they are undeniably the best race for any build because of their extra feat. Every handbook for any class has the human as one of the top race choices.

There is a pretty big difference between 'the best race for any build' and 'one of the top race choices'. The best race for any build might indicate a problem, but being frequently one of the top racial choices does not. It merely means that humans excel in many different areas, which is not the same as dominating all of those areas. This pretty well reflects how humans fit in most fantasy worlds.

Aside from that, I have to agree with whoever said that this seems to be creating a problem where none exists. Yes, I understand that the OP sees a problem, but meh.

[upho]

wow, what the hell guys.

the OP is talking about how he dislikes the human race in these games is done badly to his perspective and your response "do everything you don't want to do". learn to pay attention, they're not interested in your advice.

Am I included in the "guys" that need to "learn to pay attention" here?

If so, could you please help me out and tell me exactly where and how I wasn't paying attention in my reply.

And yes, they did most explicitly say they are interested in advice (my added emphasis):

So, finally, to the point of this thread. ¿How would you mechanically modify the Pathfinder human?

¿Do you think they are interesting and balanced just the way they are?
¿What would you do with that +2? ¿Remove it? ¿Assign it to a specific stat for each subrace? ¿Change it to two +2 modifiers and one -2 penalizer like every other race?
¿Should they be able to pick any feat that they want or should each subrace have a limited list of feats from where to pick from? ¿Or maybe one specific feat for each subrace?
¿Should they be able to put their extra skill points in any skill that they want or should they be forced to put those extra point in particular skills?

These are some of the ideas I'm playing with. I would love to read your suggestions.

Why are you saying otherwise?

[upho]

The single greatest reason not to give humans designated stat bonuses is because we are human, and therefore we are our own baseline. By definition, the average human is not above-average. When we say "elves are quick, but frail" what we actually mean is "elves are quicker and frailer than humans." When we say, "dwarves are tough but unsociable," what we actually mean is, "dwarves are tougher and less sociable than humans."

From a naturalistic perspective, yes, humans have characteristics - we have good endurance over distances as long as we eat regularly, we have good vision both at distance and up close, our muscles are shockingly strong per pound (second only to chimps) but can't exert much force because they're calibrated for manual dexterity, etc etc. But within our own experience, we are the average.

These a very good points IMO. Closely related to this is that at least AFAIK, in RL humans are a species with one of the least standard variation in genes as well as other measurable properties that can be separated from short-term environmental factors. That is, most other known species of mammals have very distinct sub-species and individual differences, while humans arguably don't.* The reason we generally think of humans as exceptionally varied is of course because we are (likely) hard-wired to see the minor differences between groups and individuals of our own species much more clearly than we see them in other species.

And I believe having most non-human racial traits allow for an equally great or greater variation than those of humans may very well be more interesting for other reasons, not to mention a most healthy deviation from the usual highly anthropocentric view and IMO annoying stereotyping and enforced cultural homogenization of other fantasy races.

*For example, humans vary very little in height in comparison to other species and quite a lot in mass, but the high variation in mass is also very likely largely caused by short-term socioeconomic and cultural factors. And even then, human populations go from roughly 110 lb to 192 lb, where the populations with the lowest weight have a large proportion of starving underweight individuals, and those with the highest weight a large proportion (up to at least 74%) of overweight individuals. Now just imagine if the weight of human populations were to vary as much as say those of measured wild tiger populations - a variation most likely instead notably reduced due to short-term differences - where the males of one population has a typical weight ranging from more than two to three times greater than that of another; approximately 400–680 (500 average) lb for Siberian tigers and 190-220 (200 average) lb for Bali tigers...

[HouseRules]

On average, it takes 50 generation for one gene to express from dormant state for a specific environment. Yes, many genes are in dormant states and not active state for many generations.

[Lord Raziere]

Am I included in the "guys" that need to "learn to pay attention" here?

If so, could you please help me out and tell me exactly where and how I wasn't paying attention in my reply.

And yes, they did most explicitly say they are interested in advice (my added emphasis):Why are you saying otherwise?

Dude, now your just acting obtuse and playing stupid as if you aren't ignoring what the OP actually wants in favor of slapping it down for your own preferences and views about dnd humans thena ct as if your don't know what your doing. its dishonest, don't play that game with me.

[Rakku]

As I said in my original post, I am very interested in everyone's perspective here. I expressed a somewhat unpopular opinion and I expected people to disagree with me.

I made this thread with intention of getting advice on how to modify the human as well as reading disenting opinions in hopes that they may change my view of the race.

So, please, don't argue about this, I'm happy to read anyone's perspective on this topic, wether they agree or disagree with me.

[HouseRules]

I know that modifiers are usually even, but how about this:

• +1 to 4 ability score and -1 to 2 ability scores
• or
• +2 to two ability scores and -2 to one ability score

If you have time to create Special Racial Feats, I would make it so that all races gain these Special Racial Feat every even level. These Special Racial Feats should have ideas pulled from the Racial Paragon Classes from D&D, given that you are modifying Pathfinder, and Pathfinder does not have Racial Paragon Classes.

[upho]

Dude, now your just acting obtuse and playing stupid as if you aren't ignoring what the OP actually wants in favor of slapping it down for your own preferences and views about dnd humans thena ct as if your don't know what your doing. its dishonest, don't play that game with me.

We shouldn't derail this thread with this, but I just wanted to say that I sincerely did not play stupid in my reply to you, and it was very much not my intent to appear as if I was. Doing so would've been not only disrespectful but also pointless IMO, as I prefer to learn from critique, not ignore it or belittle it. Please believe me when I say I was truly clueless about what you think I did wrong, and that the main reason for me asking was simply because you gave no concrete reasons in your first post.

None of the things you mention above applies, so I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough and gave you the wrong impression that I was trying to impose my preferences. I would be grateful if you could send me a PM and tell me what I wrote that gave you that impression. And again, I'm not interested in debating about whether your arguments are good or not, I'm simply asking for your help to improve my communication skills.

Thankfully, it seems the OP believes my reply was given without any hidden agendas.

[BowStreetRunner]

@ BowStreetRunner
I think OP means humans are underwelming fluff-wise, not crunch-wise.

I was mostly reacting to the OP's question:

¿How would you mechanically modify the Pathfinder human?

and simply offering a differing perspective on the human mechanics in 3.5 and PF.

However, as I've already indicated that I don't think humans are underwhelming crunch-wise, I will also state that I don't think they are underwhelming fluff-wise either. Essentially, of all the races in the books, they have the largest supply of available source material for coming up with character concepts. All of real-life human history and literature are available to mine for ideas.

[Ashtagon]

I asked a similar question a while back.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...sign-the-human

My approach was to design a replacement "human" template. Feel free to crib ideas if you like.

[SimonMoon6]

My solution to both of these problems is creating subraces for the human.

This is potentially dangerous territory.

Consider the fact that while we have dark elves and, due to their popularity, "dark" or "deep" versions of almost every other humanoid race, imagine implementing a sub-race of humans called "dark humans". Then, decide what advantages and disadvantages they would have. Even if this sub-race is quite useful, it will almost certainly come across as racist due to real-world race issues, even if one is not going to implement real-world parallels, but if you do try to include something like "Due to having been enslaved for many generations and used for physical labor...", once you start implementing the logical game-design conclusion from that fluff, like "... dark humans have a bonus to physical stats and a penalty to mental stats," it suddenly becomes insultingly racist. And if you don't include the slavery aspect, you might still get stuck in a racist viewpoint if you give them those same stat bonuses and penalties for some other reason, like "Well, they were off on this southern continent where they didn't become 'civilized' like the pale humans did."

And the concept of "Eastern humans" or possibly "Humans of the Rising Sun" (to parallel Sun Elves, perhaps?) could be equally racist and insulting, especially if you start giving them bonuses to mental stats (and maybe penalties to physical stats).

Some of this is unavoidable, since D&D has at its core a racist ideology, but focused on being racist against fictional creatures usually. (Green people are always evil, so it's okay to kill them, for example.) If you aim that racist ideology at humans (a real-world creature), problems could ensue.

Oh, sure, you could just do nationalities instead of races, like using the stereotypes of how French people are, how German people are, how Polish people are... but that's also racist (but in more of a "blurring the line between races and nationalities" kind of way). Even when you fictionalize it a little ("These people aren't from France, they're from Ance-Fray. That's why they wear berets and striped shirts and drink wine all the time."), it's still a bad idea, imho.

I'd rather see sexual dimorphism addressed than sub-races of humans, and I know what a huge controversy sexual dimorphism is.

[HouseRules]

A lot of the existing races are Sub-Races of Human. All of the Planetouched Races are clearly a Sub-Racesof human.

The Half-Races are Sub-Races of Human and the Named Race(s).

[Ashtagon]

If you're looking to create human subraces based on ethnic/national lines, you could do a lot worse than look at Mongoose's d20 Conan offerings.

[Rakku]

Some of this is unavoidable, since D&D has at its core a racist ideology, but focused on being racist against fictional creatures usually. (Green people are always evil, so it's okay to kill them, for example.) If you aim that racist ideology at humans (a real-world creature), problems could ensue.

Oh, sure, you could just do nationalities instead of races, like using the stereotypes of how French people are, how German people are, how Polish people are... but that's also racist (but in more of a "blurring the line between races and nationalities" kind of way). Even when you fictionalize it a little ("These people aren't from France, they're from Ance-Fray. That's why they wear berets and striped shirts and drink wine all the time."), it's still a bad idea, imho.

I knew this would come up at some point. I always assumed this was the main reason why they never included subraces for the human, since it could be interpreted as racist.

Now, I don't want to come off as dismissive, I do appreciate your input. But, to put it simply, I don't care. I'm from a latinamerican country and here we don't really care much about this kinds of issues. We are such an ethnically diverse bunch that we don't see race as something relevant. Also, I've always been a firm believer that we shouldn't let certain aspects of reality limit what we can do with fictional worlds. This is escapism after all, let it stay as such.

If you want to interpret this as racism, sure, you can do it. You could draw parallelisms with real life history. But I think any mature roleplayer should be able to see this as the work of fantasy that it really is, instead of accusing the dm of being a secret racist trying to discriminate against them. To sum up, I believe this is only racist if you allow it to be.

I'd rather see sexual dimorphism addressed than sub-races of humans, and I know what a huge controversy sexual dimorphism is.

This is quite an interesting approach. I will take it into consideration.

[Rakku]

Thankfully, it seems the OP believes my reply was given without any hidden agendas.

Yes, of course. To be honest, your reply really gave a new perspective on humans. I will respond to your arguments in more detail later, but you certainly gave me pause.

The single greatest reason not to give humans designated stat bonuses is because we are human, and therefore we are our own baseline. By definition, the average human is not above-average. When we say "elves are quick, but frail" what we actually mean is "elves are quicker and frailer than humans." When we say, "dwarves are tough but unsociable," what we actually mean is, "dwarves are tougher and less sociable than humans."

I realize this is an unavoidable limitation. It is impossible for us to imagine a world from a fictional race's point of view since, well, they don't exist. But I would still like to make an effort to create a setting that doesn't feel so human-centric, if that makes sense.

I agree OP. humans can be more than just these blank slates. humans in real life? their defining trait is in fact endurance. long ago when they were hunter-gatherers, they could simply hunt longer than anything else, sure another predator might be stronger but they'd tire out much quicker- their strength is largely all a burst. I find it useful to define humanity as beings of persistence and determination, that they keep going long after others give up and are willing to endure more pain to get what they want. so I'd give them bonuses to con and traits that reflect that.

I completely agree. Endurance is definitely a defining human trait, as well as resourceful. A +2 to Con makes sense, but I don't think humans are innately wise.

So to sum us up: +2 Constitution, -2Wisdom ,+2 Intelligence (we are crafty and able to build big civilisations). Maybe there are differnt subtypes of humans, so that every subtype may have differnt lists for their bonusfeat, maybe different lists where they can put their extra skill rank in.

So a Human type would be: City Human: this Humans are typically skilled in professions and are very learned, but are kind of shortsighted. +2Co, -2Wi, +2In.
On each level this humans gain another skill rank in a profession/craft/knowledge skill.
On first level, these humans gain one of the following bonus feats: Skill focus, weapon focus, cosmopolitan... (small but mixed list)

For every human variant there would be some changes: one would have a strength bonus instead of an Intelligence Bonus, some would swap In-boni and Wis-mali, and every variant would have a list of focused skills, as well as a limited selection of first level feats.

Furthermore, I think such reworkings are really a necessity. I frankly find it vexing, that humans are the most uninteresting option fluff- and storywise, but, at least when playing Core, always the best or at least second-best option for a class. This often results in all the min-maxers playing blank monstronsities, where they don't even have some racial folklore to make them less one-dimensional.

This is close to what I had in mind. I wasn't sure if I should give the human a boost to Int, but it is the more fitting stat for the race.

I asked a similar question a while back.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...sign-the-human

My approach was to design a replacement "human" template. Feel free to crib ideas if you like.

Thanks a lot. I'll make sure to check it out.