Dark skinned elves

[Darius1020]

I always thought elves all had fair, or even pale skin, (except for dark elves) but there's been a bunch of dark skin elves in the comic, (V's kids, the Peregrine guy, I'm pretty sure there's been others)

So, are they common? Not D&D necessarily, but as a fantasy rule in general?

[The Dark Fiddler]

They could be half elves, or a sub-species.

After all, are Drow pale? No.

[Darius1020]

After all, are Drow pale? No.

I excluded Drow in my post, or at least reffered to them as dark elves...

[The Rose Dragon]

I always thought elves all had fair, or even pale skin, (except for dark elves) but there's been a bunch of dark skin elves in the comic, (V's kids, the Peregrine guy, I'm pretty sure there's been others)

So, are they common? Not D&D necessarily, but as a fantasy rule in general?

In Faerun, Wood Elves have light brown-green skin. Wild Elves have bronze skin. Sun Elves have golden skin.

So no, there is nothing that says elves are light-skinned.

[Darius1020]

In Faerun, Wood Elves have light brown-green skin. Wild Elves have bronze skin. Sun Elves have golden skin.

So no, there is nothing that says elves are light-skinned.

Huh didn't know that, thanks,

I just assumed all elves were light skinned cuz their all pretentious jackasses...

(I'm white so it's ok for me to generalize my race)

[Ozymandias9]

I always thought elves all had fair, or even pale skin, (except for dark elves) but there's been a bunch of dark skin elves in the comic, (V's kids, the Peregrine guy, I'm pretty sure there's been others)

So, are they common? Not D&D necessarily, but as a fantasy rule in general?

IIRC, 4th edition gave elves the same range of variance in skin tone as humans, with a tendency to the darker end of the spectrum.

In 3rd, the presumption was more Tolkien-esque (sp? on Tolkien), but not bindingly so.

[The Rose Dragon]

(I'm white so it's ok for me to generalize my race)

No. No it's not. Please stop it.

[Darius1020]

No. No it's not. Please stop it.

k, sorry, i was just trying to make a joke

[Snake-Aes]

k, sorry, i was just trying to make a joke

Say it out loud before clicking "Submit Reply". This applies to, more or less, absolutely everything in the internet.

[Elfin]

Wise advice.

[Darius1020]

I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone would be offended by it, I guess I misjudged things.

I'll try not to do it again

[Bibliomancer]

I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone would be offended by it, I guess I misjudged things.

I'll try not to do it again

You fell prey to this:

http://xkcd.com/481/

Except the sub-routine hasn't been written for this site yet.

[Snake-Aes]

You fell prey to this:

http://xkcd.com/481/

Except the sub-routine hasn't been written for this site yet.

You'll notice that's why I spread it as advice anyway.

[Bibliomancer]

You'll notice that's why I spread it as advice anyway.

It's a shame you can't write the sub-routine. Any hacking experience?

[Acero]

are elves not allowed to tan? they can be whatever color they want to be, just as long as they spend some time in the some

[Bibliomancer]

Is the Some in the kingdom of Somewhere?

Also, in Tolkien elves do not appear to tan. Remember, the general gist of Oots is that "elves are not humans with pointed ears." Their physiology could be quite different, including the possibility of major skin variation.

Lastly, I don't believe that it is possible for Caucasians (assuming that elves are as white as Caucasians) to tan brown, although I'm not a great judge, give that I don't live in the tropics.

[Snake-Aes]

are elves not allowed to tan? they can be whatever color they want to be, just as long as they spend some time in the some
That might be a very human characteristic. If an elf can live a dozen times longer than a human, have a finer metabolism just that many times more efficient, and even have no need of sleep, what says they HAVE to react to sunlight like we do?

Remember how tolkieneske elven lore shows a deep appreciation for the night? Don't elves have keen senses? Don't they see in the penumbra? They are much, much more adapted to a night life than a human. That may influence it a lot too.

[Devils_Advocate]

Darn it, I was going to link that xkcd comic.

Anyway, belonging to a group doesn't validate one's opinions of that group, nor does being outside of a group invalidate one's opinions of that group. Those are both offensive notions, and endorsing one of them as a joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.JustJokingJustification) is not funny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DudeNotFunny). The reason that it's not funny is that a disturbing number of people appear to believe those things, or things close to them, in real life. If no one, or only a very small minority, held such opinions, maybe they would qualify as comically absurd, but that's not the case.

In 3E, high elves are supposed to be fair-skinned, black-haired, and green-eyed, but a lot of artists seem to ignore that. A lot of artists seem to ignore -- or just not be aware of -- the physical descriptions of the demihuman races in general. In particular, they seem to be often drawn as relatively fair-skinned no matter how they're described.

So, this is Rich sort of doing the opposite. (Note that the elves have a broad range of hair colors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouGottaHaveBlueHair) as well.)

[NerfTW]

Well, considering a tan is the skin releasing more melanin, which is what causes skin color, yes, they can tan brown. You could conceivably tan completely black, but you might want to use a different method than UV rays, since you'd get burns before the skin would produce enough melanin.

Micheal Jackson had a disorder that did the opposite. Melanin production shut down, causing blotches with no pigmentation that he hid using makeup.

[[TS] Shadow]

Darn it, I was going to link that xkcd comic.

Anyway, belonging to a group doesn't validate one's opinions of that group, nor does being outside of a group invalidate one's opinions of that group. Those are both offensive notions, and endorsing one of them as a joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.JustJokingJustification) is not funny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DudeNotFunny). The reason that it's not funny is that a disturbing number of people appear to believe those things, or things close to them, in real life. If no one, or only a very small minority, held such opinions, maybe they would qualify as comically absurd, but that's not the case.

Look, he admitted that it was a joke and a mistake, and thus he apologized. There's no reason to further chastise him for it; you're only making the thread go off topic. Kind of like what I'm doing now.

Anyway...yeah, about the elves. Are you able to play as the wood elves, though? I'm pretty sure they aren't a player race...(although they are NPCs, so I guess this doesn't really apply.)

[The Rose Dragon]

Shadow;6586568']Anyway...yeah, about the elves. Are you able to play as the wood elves, though? I'm pretty sure they aren't a player race...(although they are NPCs, so I guess this doesn't really apply.)

They are a player race on grounds of being in FRCS player races section.

[Bibliomancer]

Micheal Jackson had a disorder that did the opposite. Melanin production shut down, causing blotches with no pigmentation that he hid using makeup.

Well, he said that was what happened. I thought the general consensus was that he had some form of surgery that altered his skin. Also, hypothetically that disease generally only occurs in patches, not all over.

[Zevox]

Shadow;6586568']Anyway...yeah, about the elves. Are you able to play as the wood elves, though? I'm pretty sure they aren't a player race...(although they are NPCs, so I guess this doesn't really apply.)
Sure you are. They're in the monster manual, along with several other Elven subraces - and unlike monster races (Goblins, Kobolds, Hobgoblins, etc) they're actually balanced compared to the PHB races. And they're in the FRCS, as The Rose Dragon said.

Zevox

[NerfTW]

Well, he said that was what happened. I thought the general consensus was that he had some form of surgery that altered his skin. Also, hypothetically that disease generally only occurs in patches, not all over.

Yes, and he used makeup to cover the splotches, gradually switching to white when there was more white than black showing. This isn't just something he said, he had makeup artists that can verify it.

General consensus doesn't mean squat. People will believe whatever the gossip rags tell them.

[Bibliomancer]

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware of the additional detail. I think that the common assumption was that he had it done around the same time that he has plastic surgery performed on his nose.

[Skorj]

Of course, Tolkien's "dark elves" and "grey elves" had nothing to do with the color of the elves' skin, but whether they'd seen the light of the Two Trees.

[archon_huskie]

To answer the question about Caucasions tanning brown

I was a lifeguard for a few years in college. During a rather long break period on account of a thunderstorm, one of my co-workers was reading a Rolling Stones Magazine. Abruptly he held his tanned arm up to a photo and started laughing.

"I'm darker than Usher!" he declared.

So yes Caucasions can tan darkly if we get enough sun. (Oddly I've noticed that we get darker tans when we use higher SPF. The guys who used SPF 45 sunscreen got darker than the girls who used spf 5 tanning lotion. Granted those girls usually ended up burning red instead of tanning because SPF 5 means reapplying almost every half hour.)

[Optimystik]

Elves don't tan, not that I've ever heard of, so I'd say he's a wood or wild elf. Wild Elf is the most likely answer due to his height. (He's taller than everyone else on Peregrine Team - check the teleportation panel.)

[David Argall]

Any differences in color are likely artwork-centered rather than story centered. Stickfigure art does not allow many ways to differ characters, and so skin colors differ whether or not that makes any story sense.

[Optimystik]

Any differences in color are likely artwork-centered rather than story centered. Stickfigure art does not allow many ways to differ characters, and so skin colors differ whether or not that makes any story sense.

While I'm inclined to agree, I don't see how having multiple subraces of elves working together would affect the story in any way. In OotS, the only distinction that seems to matter is "Drow" and "Not-Drow."

[JonestheSpy]

You know, it's interesting how many people seem to react as if Tolkien invented elves and the like.

Elves are mostly represented as causcasian because they were the invention of Northern European folklore, as are dwarves, gnomes, etc. Tolkien largely kept his creations consistent with that mythology, though he obviously expanded quite a alot and came up with some interesting twists of his own (such as 'gnomes' actually being a derivation of the word 'Noldor', i.e. high elves, not little cousins of the dwarves). Likewise, we think of djinn and efreeti as Arabic because they come from Middle Eastern mythology, gold dragons looked like Chinese dragons instead of the European style because that's where the stories of good dragons came from, etc.

RPG's, in their endless invention, have expanded on the folklore tremendously of course, putting elves in tropical jungles and dwarves in the desert. And let's not forget that most rpg's are American, one of the most mulitcultural societies in history. So it's prefectly natural that our fantasy stories include the same variations in people that we see in real life.

[Snake-Aes]

You know, it's interesting how many people seem to react as if Tolkien invented elves and the like.

Elves are mostly represented as causcasian because they were the invention of Northern European folklore, as are dwarves, gnomes, etc. Tolkien largely kept his creations consistent with that mythology, though he obviously expanded quite a alot and came up with some interesting twists of his own (such as 'gnomes' actually being a derivation of the word 'Noldor', i.e. high elves, not little cousins of the dwarves). Likewise, we think of djinn and efreeti as Arabic because they come from Middle Eastern mythology, gold dragons looked like Chinese dragons instead of the European style because that's where the stories of good dragons came from, etc.

RPG's, in their endless invention, have expanded on the folklore tremendously of course, putting elves in tropical jungles and dwarves in the desert. And let's not forget that most rpg's are American, one of the most mulitcultural societies in history. So it's prefectly natural that our fantasy stories include the same variations in people that we see in real life.

The current elves have already been used in different environments with much less effect displayed on their skin on most depictions of it. Why can't we assume that they just don't tan as much as humans?

We are, literally, on a point where whatever we want it to be will be. I find that hard to discuss since there's no common reference.

[JonestheSpy]

The current elves have already been used in different environments with much less effect displayed on their skin on most depictions of it. Why can't we assume that they just don't tan as much as humans?

Um, well, because we DO see elves (and dwarves, and halflings) who aren't caucasian in OotSworld. THus the existence of this thread



We are, literally, on a point where whatever we want it to be will be. I find that hard to discuss since there's no common reference.

That, I agree with. I (and others) were just pointing out how the OotSworld had made a pretty big departure from the typical Eurocentric fantasy standard to something more multicultural/multiracial.

[Lissou]

The Giant has been using a whole range of skin tones for the characters (except those with a set colour such as kobolds and Goblins). Humans and dwarves also have pale through dark tones. I find it logical that it would be the same for elves, halflings and so on.

[Snake-Aes]

Um, well, because we DO see elves (and dwarves, and halflings) who aren't caucasian in OotSworld. THus the existence of this thread



<sigh> Let me rephrase then: Elves don't gain tan. They either have it or don't. We have no evidence of an elf getting tan from exposure to sunlight, and it does not clash against what we have ever seen of elves so far.

[Optimystik]

Um, well, because we DO see elves (and dwarves, and halflings) who aren't caucasian in OotSworld. THus the existence of this thread

Black people don't tan (much) either. There's a difference between being able to tan and being naturally dark-skinned. Wild and Wood Elves are the latter, and no elf I've seen fits the former.



That, I agree with. I (and others) were just pointing out how the OotSworld had made a pretty big departure from the typical Eurocentric fantasy standard to something more multicultural/multiracial.

A more accurate assessment would be that D&D made that departure, and OotS followed suit. Check the Races supplements, FRCS and ECS to see just how many varieties of humanoid there are in 3.5.

[Snake-Aes]

A more accurate assessment would be that D&D made that departure, and OotS followed suit. Check the Races supplements, FRCS and ECS to see just how many varieties of humanoid there are in 3.5.

GM:"Okay, you guys are finally confronting the trolls you came to destroy."
P1:"I attack with my sword"
GM:"It hits but just as the sword leaves it's flesh, the wound closes."
P2:"I make a knowledge check"
GM:"You recall these beings can only be hurt with fire"
P3:"Fire? Crap, we can't do anything"
GM:"What do you mean "We can't do anything"? YOu guys went into a dark dungeon and you don't have a torch?"
P1:"I'm a dwarf, I see in the dark"
P2:"I see my enemies with telepathy"
P3:"And I'm carrying my continual flame stone..."
GM:<facepalm>

"Human" parties are rare at every passing day.

[Optimystik]

"Human" parties are rarer at every passing day.

1) I said "humanoid": i.e. there are human subraces, dwarf subraces, halfling subraces, gnome subraces and elven subraces, all of which have at least one variant where dark skin is not out of the ordinary.
2) Tell that to their bonus feat, favored class:any, medium size and extra skill points :smallwink:

[Skorj]

You know, it's interesting how many people seem to react as if Tolkien invented elves and the like.

Tolkien popularized elves in modern fantasy. Elves were a playable race in early editions of D&D because the creators took so much from Tolkien wholecloth (plus a few other writers, of course). D&D had elves for the same reason it had ioun stones: they came from fiction the creators liked.

D&D has moved on since then, of course, and may have eventually incorporated elves from broader mythology if they weren't in Tolkien, but as it happened his work was the direct source of elves as a playable race in D&D.

[[TS] Shadow]

Sure you are. They're in the monster manual, along with several other Elven subraces - and unlike monster races (Goblins, Kobolds, Hobgoblins, etc) they're actually balanced compared to the PHB races. And they're in the FRCS, as The Rose Dragon said.

Zevox

Oh, thanks. I'm just not really familiar with the D&D rules; I've only played one campaign and then the only experience with elves was this one NPC I had to babysit half the time.

[Bibliomancer]

Shadow;6593183']Oh, thanks. I'm just not really familiar with the D&D rules; I've only played one campaign and then the only experience with elves was this one NPC I had to babysit half the time.

Was this because the elf did not spend enough time jogging? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html)

Most of the time, elves are not depicted tanned. They remain whatever skin color they started with, which can vary quite a bit.

[Kish]

"Human" parties are rare at every passing day.
How I wish that were true.

(Hate D&D humans so much. As generic as white bread, as ubiquitous as cockroaches, and ridiculously--and generically--overpowered. Faugh.)

[Liwen]

Kish, I then suggest you do not play in my new campaign. There's only two playable races based of the Earth setting : Humans and Eranstm. The later is a friendly alien race with telepathic capabilities.

5/6 of the party are Humans

The lone Eran can't even speak with them, only transmit emotions using his telepathic powers. This has made for quite a few laughable moments.

[Kish]

I didn't know I was invited in the first place, but thanks for the warning. :smalltongue:

[Liwen]

Well I might actually spring an internet version for more serious players. The current bunch of friends I've got united for this form a ineffective group. 2 of them really want to have an epic adventure, 1 in there just to have sex with 'everything that moves under 15 miles an hour', 1 is just in to push the rules as much as possible by using homemade overpowered weapons (which I can't let him use for obvious balancing concerns), 1 just like a good laugh and the last one is pretty passive and just follows the calls of other players.

My DMing concerns aside, I believe Elven morphology is quite different from that of humans. Drow and the darkest skinned elves around and they live underground. If the skin color was the result of the presence of melanin in the skin, rather than multiple other possible source of coloration, this would made little sense. Thus I believe Elves can't tan.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Well I might actually spring an internet version for more serious players. The current bunch of friends I've got united for this form a ineffective group. 2 of them really want to have an epic adventure, 1 in there just to have sex with 'everything that moves under 15 miles an hour', 1 is just in to push the rules as much as possible by using homemade overpowered weapons (which I can't let him use for obvious balancing concerns), 1 just like a good laugh and the last one is pretty passive and just follows the calls of other players.

My DMing concerns aside, I believe Elven morphology is quite different from that of humans. Drow and the darkest skinned elves around and they live underground. If the skin color was the result of the presence of melanin in the skin, rather than multiple other possible source of coloration, this would made little sense. Thus I believe Elves can't tan.


Perhaps this means they tan in reverse; their melanin-analogue lightens in the presence of sun, and darkens in the lack of sun?

[Snake-Aes]

Perhaps this means they tan in reverse; their melanin-analogue lightens in the presence of sun, and darkens in the lack of sun?

Unless their skin serves a camouflaging purpose, I don't see that happening.
Unless it's reflexive, which would be funny.

[Dizcorp]

Well, you have Vaarsuvius and Inkyrius's adopted elf children, who have dark skin.

I suppose the same would apply to the non-player races. After all, orcs probably have a range of greens in their skin colours. As would goblins. One might imagine kobolds and lizardfolk with different shades of scales.


Perhaps this means they tan in reverse; their melanin-analogue lightens in the presence of sun, and darkens in the lack of sun?

I like this, this is a good idea. If my world's elves weren't already taking the role of Stereotypical Nomadic Arabs (with matching skin tans) then I'd use that. Although they already have crazy hair colours by the simple virtue of a player's mistaken entry on his character sheet...


EYES GREEN! HAIR BROWN!!!!!!

*points at character sheet* WRONG!!!!!!

And it's not unusual for the non-player races to have widely varying skin tone variations.

Just look at Warhammer's Black Orcs.

[The Dark Fiddler]

And it's not unusual for the non-player races to have widely varying skin tone variations.

Just look at Warhammer's Black Orcs.

It's not weird for players to have that either. My Human Druid? Green skin, green hair from a curse that was never fully explained by me. I'm hoping my DM picks up on that.

The Human Cleric (who is also a pimp)? Blue skin. I don't know why for that one, but still.

Needless to say, its not a very serious campaign, but still.

[Optimystik]

How I wish that were true.

(Hate D&D humans so much. As generic as white bread, as ubiquitous as cockroaches, and ridiculously--and generically--overpowered. Faugh.)

If they weren't, nobody would use them. You'd end up with Warcraft Syndrome. (Elves outnumbering humans almost 2 to 1, and the other races doing so too if they weren't purposely made ugly.) Granted, there is an in-universe explanation for the lesser presence of humans, but they are still supposed to be more populous than elves.

[Kish]

If they weren't, nobody would use them. You'd end up with Warcraft Syndrome.

In the immortal words of Vaarsuvius, "And what exactly would the problem with that be?" Humans don't need to dominate any given adventuring party to be more numerous in the outside world than elves and dwarves--the expected number of goblins in most adventuring parties is 0, after all--and, not to put too fine a point on it, I find humans' because-we-say-so dominance of the world, stemming from exactly the generic overpoweredness I so despise...something I can live without keeping intact. Somehow.

(Incidentally, as far as "purposely made ugly" in Warcraft, take a close look at the human males in World of Warcraft sometime.)

[Optimystik]

In the immortal words of Vaarsuvius, "And what exactly would the problem with that be?"

Sneak attack upside the head!


Humans don't need to dominate any given adventuring party to be more numerous in the outside world than elves and dwarves--the expected number of goblins in most adventuring parties is 0, after all--and, not to put too fine a point on it, I find humans' because-we-say-so dominance of the world, stemming from exactly the generic overpoweredness I so despise...something I can live without keeping intact. Somehow.

It's not just numbers that lead to humans adventuring predominance. We're the race the most apt to try new things, the most apt to leave hearth and home behind, and are unfettered by racial deficiencies (both mental and physical.) Numbers are not what limit the prevalence of goblin, kobold or other monstrous adventurers.


(Incidentally, as far as "purposely made ugly" in Warcraft, take a close look at the human males in World of Warcraft sometime.)

They may be... oddly built (my priest looks like Michael Freaking Phelps!) but at least they have good posture, unlike the entire horde (minus the blood elves, of course.)

[Kish]

It's not just numbers that lead to humans adventuring predominance. We're the race the most apt to try new things, the most apt to leave hearth and home behind,

I've read that as many times as anyone. It's all told, not shown, and thus, as far as I'm concerned, amounts to "because we say so." No one writes the D&D races in a way that would make me see "the humans are particularly adaptable and flexible" based on how they're presented rather than because they come stamped, "Particularly adaptable and flexible." The Dragonlance authors manage to make humans come across better than elves (note, just elves) not by writing humans in a way that makes them interesting, but by presenting elves as hideous fascists who deserve the title "Usually Evil" way more than goblins do, and then calling elves "the embodiment of Good" and going, "See, see, these are the flaws in Good."

Also? Those aren't viable advantages for human PCs because D&D doesn't encourage any form of "your dwarf can't try new things" or "your halfling won't leave hearth and home" enforcement, nor should it. They amount to, "Humans dominate adventuring because...they're the most prone to personality traits which all PCs have nearly by definition!" Circular. I know humans are the most powerful race in 3.xed D&D, in their completely generic way. It's one of the things I hate them for. If, on the other hand, you were to suggest that, in the writing process, it went, "We'll give all the races these traits, now which race should predominate, based on the traits we assigned them?" rather than, "Humans will of course be dominant in the setting, what traits shall we give them to justify this?" we'd disagree.


and are unfettered by racial deficiencies (both mental and physical.)

As I said: As generic as white bread, as ubiquitous as cockroaches, and ridiculously--and generically--overpowered.

[Skorj]

All starting stats the same means "most adaptable and flexible". +2 INT and -2 CHA means "stronger at one class, but less flexible build choices". Right?

In any case, humans were so underpowered in early versions of D&D that there really was no mechanical reason to play one. Want to be a thief? Play a race with +DEX. Want to be a wizard? Play a race with +INT. Etc. (Want to be a munchkin? Play an Elf, wear plate while being a wizard!).

The blandness is because somebody has to be the neutral race - you have to zero the measurement system somewhere. Because the players are human, it just makes sense to set the stat scales so that "10 = normal human" for all stats, as the players at least have some idea what that means. The overpoweredness is just the designers overrreacting to the previous system: pendulum swings and all that.

[Kish]

All starting stats the same means "most adaptable and flexible". +2 INT and -2 CHA means "stronger at one class, but less flexible build choices". Right?

As far as I can tell, this amounts to saying that "most adaptable and flexible" is semantically equivalent to "generically overpowered." To which I say, yes, yes it is.


In any case, humans were so underpowered in early versions of D&D that there really was no mechanical reason to play one.

What are you talking about? Humans used to be way more generically overpowered than they are nowin 3.xed. In 1ed, 2ed, and 0ed, they were the only race with unlimited level advancement (not to mention access to all classes). Every archmage, every master thief, every worldwide faith leader--every paladin in 1ed and 2ed, even the first-level ones--was a human.


The blandness is because somebody has to be the neutral race

No. No one has to be generic. (If you present an actual reason why a generic race is necessary or good, I'll address it.)

[Optimystik]

I've read that as many times as anyone. It's all told, not shown, and thus, as far as I'm concerned, amounts to "because we say so." No one writes the D&D races in a way that would make me see "the humans are particularly adaptable and flexible" based on how they're presented rather than because they come stamped, "Particularly adaptable and flexible."

It isn't just the stamp on humans that has led to this treatment. The other races were stamped as well, and not starting with Gygax or WotC. Giving the other races those uniquely human qualities I mentioned would fundamentally change their nature. In most Tolkien-esque fantasy, Dwarves are strong adherents of tradition. Sure there are chaotic dwarves, but the race as a whole tends towards Lawful, and their resistance to new ideas reflects that. The other races have similar quirks that set them apart from humanity.


The Dragonlance authors manage to make humans come across better than elves (note, just elves) not by writing humans in a way that makes them interesting, but by presenting elves as hideous fascists who deserve the title "Usually Evil" way more than goblins do, and then calling elves "the embodiment of Good" and going, "See, see, these are the flaws in Good."

Dragonlance as a whole has ridiculous morality, so I agree with you there. I mean, I haven't even read it since Takhisis WON in Dragons of Summer Flame by being the same ***** she always has been, but painting all of D&D (much less all of fantasy) with that brush isn't really fair.

Now Eberron is a setting I can get behind, but the racial tendencies still exist there, and they fit.


Also? Those aren't viable advantages for human PCs because D&D doesn't encourage any form of "your dwarf can't try new things" or "your halfling won't leave hearth and home" enforcement, nor should it. They amount to, "Humans dominate adventuring because...they're the most prone to personality traits which all PCs have nearly by definition!" Circular.

That doesn't seem circular to me. "Humans are the best adventurers because they have the most traits an adventurer should have" is like saying "Michael Phelps is a great swimmer because he has lots of traits that good swimmers should have." It's a straightforward argument; those traits are distinct from the status of adventurer, just as Phelps would have those traits whether he was a swimmer or not. This is proven by the fact that most humans are NOT adventurers, in any setting.

What you CAN argue is that humans were purposefully designed that way, but I don't see anything wrong with that.


I know humans are the most powerful race in 3.xed D&D, in their completely generic way. It's one of the things I hate them for. If, on the other hand, you were to suggest that, in the writing process, it went, "We'll give all the races these traits, now which race should predominate, based on the traits we assigned them?" rather than, "Humans will of course be dominant in the setting, what traits shall we give them to justify this?" we'd disagree.

It's more along the lines of "what traits shall we NOT give humans to keep them from becoming tall dwarves or muscular elves?"


As I said: As generic as white bread, as ubiquitous as cockroaches, and ridiculously--and generically--overpowered.

I see them as just powerful, not overpowered. For all their feats and skill points, they still have the second-shortest lifespan of the base playables. The whole point behind humans is "they can get a LOT done with the time they have," and the bonuses they receive reflect that. Their variety is also a weakness; you can much more easily get ten elves or ten dwarves to agree on something than you can ten humans (unless the topic is pro-humanity :smalltongue:).


No. No one has to be generic. (If you present an actual reason why a generic race is necessary or good, I'll address it.)

Every game with character choice needs The Mario (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMario), and D&D is no exception. First, it provides a necessary baseline by which to compare the other races (both Half-Orcs and Dwarves are tougher than Elves, but how do we show that Dwarves are the toughest without a zero?) Second, it eases new players into the game, because the lack of attribute penalties won't penalize new players who don't understand the system fully, and the lack of attribute bonuses will allow them to try new things. (A human wizard one session, a human ranger the next.)

[Kish]

It isn't just the stamp on humans that has led to this treatment. The other races were stamped as well, and not starting with Gygax or WotC.

That's not my point. My point is that we see (with Durkon, for example) dwarves being lawful and traditional. I can't think of a non-Dragonlance novel or sourcebook I've ever read that has made me think, "Oh, that's particularly flexible and adaptable of these human characters." It's told, not shown. What is shown, is that they rule the world. Because.


It's more along the lines of "what traits shall we NOT give humans to keep them from becoming tall dwarves or muscular elves?"
And their choice was, "Anything that gives them an identity beyond ruling the world with their genericness"? I am moved by the impressive writing skill and imagination thus demonstrated. Not.


Every game with character choice needs The Mario (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMario), and D&D is no exception.

Yet (I didn't say this to Skorj because it would be unfair to expect everyone reading this to know WoW, but since you've advertised that you do), there isn't one in WoW. Humans are still the most powerful race there (Diplomacy is incredible), but none of their racial abilities are any more generic than those of any other race. And does the game suffer from it? Well, that all depends on whether you consider humans not being the most commonly played race to be a problem; I don't.

[Skorj]

As far as I can tell, this amounts to saying that "most adaptable and flexible" is semantically equivalent to "generically overpowered." To which I say, yes, yes it is.

"Generic" is sufficient for "most adaptable and flexible". The two ideas are the same. There is no "most adaptable and flexible" stat. If the races are balanced, then to be particularly good at X there must be some Y that that race is particularly bad at. The "generic" race that is good at everything equally, and therefore not bad at anything particularly, is "most adaptable and flexible".

Your annoyance seems to be centered on the fact that the "generic" race is too powerful, and so you have to give up to much to be coloful. That's just a huge problem with D&D in general (and many other RPGs), not a problem with having a generic race in the first place.


What are you talking about? Humans used to be way more generically overpowered than they are nowin 3.xed. In 1ed, 2ed, and 0ed, they were the only race with unlimited level advancement (not to mention access to all classes). Every archmage, every master thief, every worldwide faith leader--every paladin in 1ed and 2ed, even the first-level ones--was a human.

Hello? Gygaxian D&D? There were no high level PCs! :smallbiggrin:

Classes above 10 or so were for BBEGs. PCs reaching that level were encouraged to retire (or it could just be assumed that your trousers ate you one day, or maybe your toilet - no one is prepared for their toilet to eat them). Most of the spells above 5th were game breaking if played by someone with Undead Prince's mindset, and they were supposed to be: they were only for DM use, to explain a "high fantasy" campaign world.

I never played a high-level campaign that used those level-limt rules, as they were obviously silly if you were going to play past 10th.

By 2ed though humans had become overpowered (or at least balanced without level limits), thanks mostly to the various "dual class" cheeses.

And since you seem to be a reasonable and intelligent person, I'm just going to ignore that fact that you cited WoW as a good RPG rules system. :eek:

[Kish]

Your annoyance seems to be centered on the fact that the "generic" race is too powerful, and so you have to give up to much to be coloful.

No, no, no. My annoyance is centered on the fact that humans are presented as generically ruling the world. There are three words in that sentence that lead to me hating D&D humans: "human," "generic," and "world." Change any of the three and I don't hate them nearly as much. Dwarves are generic but humans have color? I could live with that. No race is generic? Good. Humans are generic and are a minor race who live around the settlements of the halflings who dominate the world? That works for me.

Hello? Gygaxian D&D? There were no high level PCs!

Classes above 10 or so were for BBEGs. PCs reaching that level were encouraged to retire (or it could just be assumed that your trousers ate you one day, or maybe your toilet - no one is prepared for their toilet to eat them). Most of the spells above 5th were game breaking if played by someone with Undead Prince's mindset, and they were supposed to be: they were only for DM use, to explain a "high fantasy" campaign world.

If I granted that, which I don't (note 20 levels and all nine levels of spells being in the Player's Handbook, not 10 levels and 5 spell levels in the Player's Handbook and 10 levels and four spell levels in the Dungeon Master's Guide; modules were published all the way up to level 20 and beyond), it wouldn't be a big improvement. "Every major villain or high-level plot NPC has to be human." Bleh and double bleh.


I never played a high-level campaign that used those level-limt rules, as they were obviously silly if you were going to play past 10th.

And why were they silly? Oh, yeah, because they meant only humans were viable. Saying, "My groups changed the rules because they were obviously silly" sits uneasily in a defense of said rules, y'know.



And since you seem to be a reasonable and intelligent person, I'm just going to ignore that fact that you cited WoW as a good RPG rules system. :eek:
I didn't. I pointed to it as proof that your statement that there has to be a generic race is wrong. If WoW is bad* and still manages not having a generic race, the D&D authors have even less excuse for being unable to do so.

*Note, "If." Discussion of the merits or lack thereof of WoW is way off topic for this board.

[Optimystik]

That's not my point. My point is that we see (with Durkon, for example) dwarves being lawful and traditional. I can't think of a non-Dragonlance novel or sourcebook I've ever read that has made me think, "Oh, that's particularly flexible and adaptable of these human characters." It's told, not shown. What is shown, is that they rule the world. Because.

Humans are nothing but flexible to me. Look at Azure City; even within the confines of one human settlement we have a spectrum of traits and tendencies.

Lawful and traditional? Kubota, Hinjo.
Sneaky and deceptive? Niu, Shojo.
Violent and deadly? Well, everyone, but especially Kasumi and Miko.

..And so on. Now, I'm not saying that elves or dwarves lack that variation; but finding that much in one place among any race but humans is rare. A scene like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html) would just look weird in a dwarven or elven settlement's siege.


Yet (I didn't say this to Skorj because it would be unfair to expect everyone reading this to know WoW, but since you've advertised that you do), there isn't one in WoW. Humans are still the most powerful race there (Diplomacy is incredible), but none of their racial abilities are any more generic than those of any other race. And does the game suffer from it? Well, that all depends on whether you consider humans not being the most commonly played race to be a problem; I don't.

In Warcraft, class is the defining choice, not race. The difference in playstyle between a human warlock and an orc warlock with the same talent spec are miniscule at best.

In WoW, The Mario is the Druid class. It is capable of every function in the game, but excels at none of them without extreme specialization, just like Humans in D&D.

[Skorj]

No, no, no. My annoyance is centered on the fact that humans are presented as generically ruling the world. There are three words in that sentence that lead to me hating D&D humans: "human," "generic," and "world." Change any of the three and I don't hate them nearly as much.

Well, that's a different kettle of fish. That's a campaign setting issue, really, not a rules issue. You can have whatever race you want ruling the world in your campaign.

I was just pointing out that the "neutral race" is necessarily going to be able to do the most things well, at the cost of doing nothing best. It's silly to reason from that to who rules the world, I agree. Whoever has the most money rules the world, unless fantasy setting plot points say otherwise.



If I granted that, which I don't (note 20 levels and all nine levels of spells being in the Player's Handbook, not 10 levels and 5 spell levels in the Player's Handbook and 10 levels and four spell levels in the Dungeon Master's Guide; modules were published all the way up to level 20 and beyond), it wouldn't be a big improvement. "Every major villain or high-level plot NPC has to be human." Bleh and double bleh.

And why were they silly? Oh, yeah, because they meant only humans were viable. Saying, "My groups changed the rules because they were obviously silly" sits uneasily in a defense of said rules, y'know.

So the part about getting eaten by your toilet didn't tip you off that I wasn't entirely serious? :smallconfused: Of course, that was a genuine threat in 1e, along with getting eaten by the ceiling, the floor, the walls, the stalactites, the stalagmites, the door, the treasure, and your trousers. :smallbiggrin:



I didn't. I pointed to it as proof that your statement that there has to be a generic race is wrong. If WoW is bad* and still manages not having a generic race, the D&D authors have even less excuse for being unable to do so.

There's simply no harm in having a generic race: no one is forcing you to play that race, after all. You have to have some way to explain what a 10 in each stat means, and human players know what "average human" means, so it's almost inevitable that you have a race called "human" where the average for each stat is the "average human" value. It just helps new players understand the game and the fantasy races by comparison to what they know from real life.

[Bibliomancer]

No, no, no. My annoyance is centered on the fact that humans are presented as generically ruling the world. There are three words in that sentence that lead to me hating D&D humans: "human," "generic," and "world." Change any of the three and I don't hate them nearly as much. Dwarves are generic but humans have color? I could live with that. No race is generic? Good. Humans are generic and are a minor race who live around the settlements of the halflings who dominate the world? That works for me.

In my homebrew campaign settings, I tend to have humans as the most numerous, but not dominate. The most powerful nations in my last setting were a relatively new elven nation situated on the only trade route through the mountains that divide the Continent into north and south and the expanding empire of the hobgoblins. The humans were fractured, weak, and often client states (in theory or in fact) of the above two.

Eberron does this even better: only 5 of the 16 regions of Khorvaire are dominated by humans, and on the continent of their origin all humans are enslaved by the psionic race of the Inspired.

Humans also are very rarely generic. Only a very lazy DM has uninteresting human civilizations, which are often extremely varied. Just because their stats are the same doesn't make a Roman Legionnaire similar to a Native American Hunter, after all.

[warrl]

Fiction writers also deal with a "neutral character". It's what the readers will assume about a character unless given some reason to think otherwise.

"Someone entered the room."

Tell me about your image of that situation.

There's a LOT of neutrality going on here. We have a neutral person entering a neutral room in a neutral manner. Oh, and this occurs in a neutral universe. ANY detail comes from YOU. Do you think it unlikely that the person who entered the room is a fourteen-legged crustacean? Your assumptions, nothing I said.

In D&D we have MANY sorts of "someone", but there is one thing we're pretty sure of about ALL the readers: they are human, and accustomed to interacting with humans.

No matter how much anyone may dislike the idea, therefore, our neutral person is human.

"A human entered the room."

It doesn't seem like I've said much. But actually... Why did I think it necessary to specify "a human"? What are the other possibilities, and what are their relative likelihoods? Maybe it's actually strange for a human to enter the room.

"A human entered the egg chamber."

Unless we've changed the definition of "human" quite a bit, this is probably not a normal place for a human to be. Species that have egg chambers or the equivalent tend to be rather defensive about them, and dislike other species approaching. So something is amiss here. Surely the human was nervous, or prepared for combat, or...

"A human strode past the K'k'it guards and into the egg chamber."

HEY! Not walk, not sneak, not step warily - this human STRIDES in here, into this guarded non-human place, as if it has some right to be there. And the guards let it through! What's up?

[Kish]

In Warcraft, class is the defining choice, not race. The difference in playstyle between a human warlock and an orc warlock with the same talent spec are miniscule at best.

As opposed to the differences in playstyle between a human archery ranger and an elven archery ranger?


In WoW, The Mario is the Druid class.

This made me blink and examine your link more carefully, since I can't imagine anyone seriously calling WoW druids generic.


A character that does not specialize (and explicitly so). Strong but not the strongest, fast but not the fastest. The typical jack-of-all-trades, good at everything, the best at nothing. His biggest strength is his lack of any glaring weaknesses, but he may have trouble dealing with characters whose skills are more extreme than his if they're allowed to press their advantages.[...]The Mario is almost never the best character in any given game or a Game Breaker.

That's not D&D humans. As fighters they're competitive with dwarves, as wizards they're competitive with elves, and they are the most powerful race in the game. Scrolling further down the page, I see it claims humans as a trope example in D&D; this only convinces me the person who wrote that didn't think it through. (Also, bards for the "Mario" class? Really? Jack-of-all-trades or not, I'd never recommend a bard to a new player with an uncertain grasp of the rules.)

[Optimystik]

As opposed to the differences in playstyle between a human archery ranger and an elven archery ranger?

Since there are no "archery rangers" in WoW, here's a better example; a human warlock and an orc warlock. In WoW, they play virtually identically, but in D&D they are fundamentally different, even to the point of levelling at different speeds.


This made me blink and examine your link more carefully, since I can't imagine anyone seriously calling WoW druids generic.

They can main tank, off tank, main heal, raid heal, melee dps, ranged dps, area of effect dps, AND stealth. But every area they focus on makes them critically weak in the others. They are a textbook Mario.


That's not D&D humans. As fighters they're competitive with dwarves, as wizards they're competitive with elves, and they are the most powerful race in the game. Scrolling further down the page, I see it claims humans as a trope example in D&D; this only convinces me the person who wrote that didn't think it through.

At lower levels, that isn't true. A grey elf wizard has significant advantages over a human wizard. A halfling rogue can outsneak a human rogue any day.
But the human wizard and rogue are not bad at what they do, just not as specialized. A new player choosing the human race is thus not penalized for his lack of knowledge on racial attributes, and is free to learn the aspects of his class that might make him want to pick a more focused race in his next session.

Now, you can claim that high level play has no Mario, but by then you don't need one - new players wouldn't (or shouldn't) be starting the game with high-level characters, so that level of play doesn't need an introductory jack-of-all-trades character.

So for the reasons I mentioned earlier, humans serve a vital function in D&D.

[Kish]

Since there are no "archery rangers" in WoW, here's a better example; a human warlock and an orc warlock. In WoW, they play virtually identically, but in D&D they are fundamentally different, even to the point of levelling at different speeds.

That's a better example for your point, I'm sure, since no core D&D class uses anything but the base XP table. You must realize, though, that cherry-picking your examples like that doesn't make your case look strong enough to stand on its own.


They can main tank, off tank, main heal, raid heal, melee dps, ranged dps, area of effect dps, AND stealth. But every area they focus on makes them critically weak in the others. They are a textbook Mario.


What is it that makes them unique compared to all other classes?

Ghostcrawler: Forms is the big answer. The druid versions are more meaningful than other class equivalents in the game, such as Stances or Presences. One could argue they are too meaningful, because players sometimes don’t want to use any other form but “theirs.” Perhaps the most unusual facet of the druid forms is that they use three different resource systems depending on the form, and these are not reset when they shift. A leveling druid can shift out of cat form to heal themselves, then shift into bear form while their mana regenerates.

Druids also have a couple of other interesting qualities. They actually fit four distinct roles into the class, even though two of the roles share a talent tree. They have some unusual utility spells, including Revive and Innervate. While druids no longer bring many unique buffs, they still pack a lot of them onto one character. Raids are still happy to get druids because of their benefit to the group. Druids also have unique travel abilities, from Travel, Aquatic, and Flight form, to the Moonglade teleport.

It's also worth mentioning that druids can be only one race each on the Horde and Alliance side. They have the least racial diversity of any class in the game.


http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/druid.html

Ahem. I don't know if that makes them a "textbook Mario" or not. Does it actually matter? (Scrolling down that TVTropes page, I see that someone who edits it thought shaman were the "Mario" of WoW. Shrug again.) Whether WoW druids can be crammed into a TVTrope without distorting that trope out of all meaning makes little difference to whether or not D&D humans are generic.


At lower levels, that isn't true. A grey elf wizard has significant advantages over a human wizard. A halfling rogue can outsneak a human rogue any day.
But the human wizard and rogue are not bad at what they do, just not as specialized. A new player choosing the human race is thus not penalized for his lack of knowledge on racial attributes, and is free to learn the aspects of his class that might make him want to pick a more focused race in his next session.

The fact that this argument has concerned WoW as much as it has is surprising, but kind of amusing. Someone seriously arguing that humans aren't the most powerful core race in 3.x edition D&D, though? That surprises me greatly.

[NeonRonin]

I'm just remembering some of the games I used to play with my old group- we played predominantly in the Faerun setting. Every- and I do mean, EVERY- time someone decided to play a wizard, it was a freakin' Sun Elf wizard. That whole bonus to Intelligence and all. Yes, we were a group of min-maxers, though I wasn't nearly as good as the others.
I did rather enjoy making Wild Elf characters, though the campaigns often puttered out(i.e. GM burnout) before they had much chance to shine. Last 3.5 edition elf I played was a gray elf Warmage (penalties to Con and Str, but bonuses to both Dex and Int). He was fun.

[Optimystik]

That's a better example for your point, I'm sure, since no core D&D class uses anything but the base XP table. You must realize, though, that cherry-picking your examples like that doesn't make your case look strong enough to stand on its own.

It's not a cherry-pick; you were trying to make the claim that race choice in D&D is comparable to race choice in WoW (i.e.: has no significant impact on gameplay.) Yet even looking at two races and classes common to both games we can see that isn't true.

Even using races without level adjustments the differences are palpable. An elf wizard in D&D is immune to sleep spells; an elf wizard in WoW is not. A gnome rogue in WoW can use all the same weapons as his human counterpart; a gnome rogue in D&D has size penalties. There is a Mario race in D&D, but none in WoW because WoW races are nigh-cosmetic. Class is everything.


Ahem. I don't know if that makes them a "textbook Mario" or not.

"Jack of all trades, master of none." The fact that they can specialize does not mitigate their Mario status. In Mario Kart, Mario has the car that is average in every way, but he can still win races. It merely requires more know-how on the part of his player. Just like Druids in WoW, and Humans in D&D.

I get the feeling "generic" is synonymous with a curse when you type it. Stop me if I'm wrong. :smallsmile:


The fact that this argument has concerned WoW as much as it has is surprising, but kind of amusing. Someone seriously arguing that humans aren't the most powerful core race in 3.x edition D&D, though? That surprises me greatly.

Where did I say they aren't the most powerful race? :smallconfused: Every racial advantage I listed in the previous post is balanced by a disadvantage. A halfling rogue can outsneak a human one, but is hard pressed to outdamage or outskillmonkey him. A grey elf wizard has more spell slots, but crumples to a stiff breeze. Humans being the Mario doesn't make them weak. Mario can outperform any other character in any game he's in; it depends on his player. My point is that he is still generic, and serves the valuable function of catering to a wide variety of playstyles to smooth out the learning curve - just like humans in D&D.

[Kish]

It's not a cherry-pick; you were trying to make the claim that race choice in D&D is comparable to race choice in WoW (i.e.: has no significant impact on gameplay.) Yet even looking at two races and classes common to both games we can see that isn't true.

Looking at two classes and races which have the same names in D&D and WoW but are fundamentally very different. Looking at a class which is non-core in D&D and apparently does something weird with its XP gain :smallconfused:. Yes, it's the definition of a cherry-pick.


Even using races without level adjustments the differences are palpable. An elf wizard in D&D is immune to sleep spells; an elf wizard in WoW is not.

:smallsigh: Um, Optimystik? Remember what I said about WoW, that humans there aren't generic as they are in D&D? Is that a difference between the two games or a similarity? However you got to attempting to make a point that D&D is different from WoW, whatever that's supposed to do with justifying humans in D&D, you're certainly right. It is.

There is a Mario race in D&D,

"The Mario is almost never the best character in any given game or a Game Breaker." Are you arguing that humans aren't more powerful than every other core race in D&D or not?



Where did I say they aren't the most powerful race? :smallconfused:


That's not D&D humans. As fighters they're competitive with dwarves, as wizards they're competitive with elves, and they are the most powerful race in the game. Scrolling further down the page, I see it claims humans as a trope example in D&D; this only convinces me the person who wrote that didn't think it through.



At lower levels, that isn't true. A grey elf wizard has significant advantages over a human wizard. A halfling rogue can outsneak a human rogue any day.



Every racial advantage I listed in the previous post is balanced by a disadvantage. A halfling rogue can outsneak a human one, but is hard pressed to outdamage or outskillmonkey him. A grey elf wizard has more spell slots, but crumples to a stiff breeze. Humans being the Mario doesn't make them weak. Mario can outperform any other character in any game he's in; it depends on his player. My point is that he is still generic, and serves the valuable function of catering to a wide variety of playstyles to smooth out the learning curve - just like humans in D&D.
*yells* Hey! Undead Prince! What's your thought about human characters who choose their bonus starting feat suboptimally?

Tactically speaking, humans are no less complicated to play than any core race. The only advantage to starting play with one is if a human player can assume they think like him/her--in other words, if all the other races have cultures in the fantasy world and the humans don't.

[Optimystik]

Looking at two classes and races which have the same names in D&D and WoW but are fundamentally very different. Looking at a class which is non-core in D&D and apparently does something weird with its XP gain :smallconfused:. Yes, it's the definition of a cherry-pick.

Substitute Half-Orc for Orc, and the differences remain. They level at the same speed now, but one is still far-less suited for the class.


:smallsigh: Um, Optimystik? Remember what I said about WoW, that humans there aren't generic as they are in D&D? Is that a difference between the two games or a similarity? However you got to attempting to make a point that D&D is different from WoW, whatever that's supposed to do with justifying humans in D&D, you're certainly right. It is.

You're the one that used WoW as an example of a game with character selection and no "Mario" choice - no baseline, average character. I pointed out druids to show that that isn't the case.


"The Mario is almost never the best character in any given game or a Game Breaker." Are you arguing that humans aren't more powerful than every other core race in D&D or not?

"Almost never." (While they can be the best character, I don't think they're a "game breaker" either; that's kobolds.)

I'm arguing about accessibility, not power. The former is more important to a new player, otherwise they will die and get frustrated with the game long before getting to do anything truly degenerate.


*yells* Hey! Undead Prince!

Nice try. :smallamused:


What's your thought about human characters who choose their bonus starting feat suboptimally?

Define "suboptimally?" The starting feat only goes so far to redressing the balance. A human rogue can pick the Stealthy feat and Luck of Heroes to simulate a Halfling's racial bonuses, but must still do without the size modifiers, the bonus to saves vs. fear, etc.


Tactically speaking, humans are no less complicated to play than any core race. The only advantage to starting play with one is if a human player can assume they think like him/her--in other words, if all the other races have cultures in the fantasy world and the humans don't.

You're speaking from the benefit of experience, but a newcomer to D&D won't realize just how painful his elf wizard's constitution penalty is until he gets poisoned or hit with negative energy. A Mario (read: Human) keeps his bases covered until he can optimize himself and find his own ways around the detriments of other races.

[Zevox]

Since there are no "archery rangers" in WoW, here's a better example; a human warlock and an orc warlock. In WoW, they play virtually identically, but in D&D they are fundamentally different, even to the point of levelling at different speeds.
Er, are you talking about 4e? Because in 3.5, the main difference between an Orc Warlock and a Human one is that Humans are a bit better suited to it, since they don't lose 2 points of charisma, the class' casting stat, and that the Orc will be a better meleer due to his +4 strength. And they won't level at different speeds, since Orcs don't have an LA.

Zevox

[Kish]

Substitute Half-Orc for Orc, and the differences remain. They level at the same speed now, but one is still far-less suited for the class.

...Are parts of my posts getting deleted?

"Look at this non-core class, in D&D an orc with it levels differently from a human with it, which proves that the differences between how races play is more significant than the differences between how classes play in D&D!" If you have a point, you should look for another way to make it, because all this tack is doing is making me scratch my head.




You're the one that used WoW as an example of a game with character selection and no "Mario" choice

No, I said there was no generic race there, and therefore it's not necessary for there to be one in every game. You corrupted that into there being no Mario choice there. Since the druid class in WoW certainly doesn't resemble the description at that link in my (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Kirin+Tor&n=Arinowene) experience, I feel an obligation to provide my own TVTropes link here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanHasAPoint?from=Main.TheStrawmanStrikesBack ). But even if you could convince me that druids fit that "Mario" concept, it would avail you not, because that wouldn't mean anything to whether humans in D&D are generic, whether humans in WoW are generic, or whether it's necessary for every game to have a generic race.

And I feel deeply sorry for anyone who chooses the druid class first in WoW because it's supposed to be easy. "Wait, forms? Uh, I want to be a healer, which spell should I use...?" The other class that can check all three LFG boxes (paladin) starts out simpler to play at level 1 and stays simpler to play all the way into Ulduar, in my (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Scarlet+Crusade&n=Trian) professional experience.

[Optimystik]

"Look at this non-core class, in D&D an orc with it levels differently from a human with it, which proves that the differences between how races play is more significant than the differences between how classes play in D&D!" If you have a point, you should look for another way to make it, because all this tack is doing is making me scratch my head.

Sorcerer then, or bard, or even rogue. Those are core classes, are they not?
Or better yet, paladin, since that's another race both games have AND is core. Scratch that, orcs can't be paladins in WoW.


No, I said there was no generic race there, and therefore it's not necessary for there to be one in every game. You corrupted that into there being no Mario choice there.

The corruption was yours; this entire argument started because Skorj and I made the point that any game with character choice needs a baseline character, both to illustrate what "average" means in their game world, and to smooth the learning curve for new players. Note that I didn't limit it to choice of race - that was your doing, and a direct attempt to subvert the discussion. My exact words were "any game with character choice needs The Mario" (complete with link), and Skorj's exact words were "you have to zero the measurement system somewhere."


And I feel deeply sorry for anyone who chooses the druid class first in WoW because it's supposed to be easy. "Wait, forms? Uh, I want to be a healer, which spell should I use...?" The other class that can check all three LFG boxes (paladin) starts out simpler to play at level 1 and stays simpler to play all the way into Ulduar, in my (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Scarlet+Crusade&n=Trian) professional experience.

Paladins are close, but don't qualify for a couple of reasons. In original WoW, only one faction had them; Also, they can't (or couldn't) teach players anything about ranged combat. Thus they were not generic. Druids have always been available to players on both sides, and have always had all the playstyles I mentioned available to them, since launch.

[Skorj]

After reading this lengthy WoW comparison, I feel the need to wander over to the House of Horrors thread and borrow a bucket of Brain Bleach. :smallmad:

You guys are talking past each other. To the extent that Humans are overpowered, they aren't "the Mario", but they are still generic. To the extent they're overpowered, that makes them a design flaw, since you don't need an "overpowered Mario" in a game (and OP races are just a problem), you need a genuine Mario.

[Kish]

Dear me, Skorj, it sounds like you agree with me now about the genericness of D&D humans, if not the burning red rage* it causes me to feel toward them. :smalltongue:

(For the record, Druids weren't in WoW at all when it launched with eight classes. They were added in a patch later. And, I promise, I won't say anything further about WoW in this thread.)

*Kidding. They're not worth expending that much energy on when I never have to play one.

[Optimystik]

I don't understand all the acid towards WoW. Sure, the playerbase leaves a lot to be desired, but it's still a pioneer of its genre and a powerhouse of PC gaming in general, like most other Blizzard games. Maybe it's just 'cool' to dislike it? :smallconfused: I don't play it any more myself, but that's because it's starting to show its age rather than because it was spawned from the pit of hell like some posts would indicate.

I still maintain that Humans were designed to be the baseline of D&D. "The Mario" was a succinct analogy I thought would illustrate that; it's not a perfect comparison, but tropes seldom are. In particular I'll agree that humans are more powerful than said trope would indicate, but I don't consider them game-warping or game-breaking either.

[Delgarde]

You know, it's interesting how many people seem to react as if Tolkien invented elves and the like.

I think he did, to a degree - Tolkien's depictions of elves draw on what went before, but they're also somewhat different. His elves are very much human - flesh and blood, motivated by love, and honor, and revenge, and desire for adventure, and all those human things. They're not the supernatural creatures of earlier myth - mysterious, glamorous, enchanting, otherworldly.

D&D very much draws on that tradition - if you want to find more the classic elves, you need to look at the creatures D&D labels fae. Dryads, nymphs, satyrs - creatures that defend themselves with charm, and glamor. The concept of the Faewild in 4E harkens very much to those older myths, with the greater eladrin and others serving as mighty kings and queens of Faerie. But as playable races, elves and eladrin remain little more than humans with pointy ears and a few minor racial powers.

[Delgarde]

No, no, no. My annoyance is centered on the fact that humans are presented as generically ruling the world.

Only if you want them to be. There's an assumption, granted, that humans are more numerous than the other playable races. Which does make some sense, since from the point of view of the longer-lived races, humans breed like rabbits.

So work with that - maybe one of the elder races has been taking steps to keep the human population down, perhaps by encouraging them to fight among themselves, or with other nuisance races like orcs and goblinoids. There's a concept for a campaign right there, where humans aren't as dominant as usual...

Or go even further, and put humans in the "great enemy" role, with players representing the alliance of elves and orcs holding back the tide. If you've got a human character in that group, they're not going to be the default wherever they go - indeed, will be facing prejudice on one side, and accusations of treachery from the other.

[Skorj]

Dear me, Skorj, it sounds like you agree with me now about the genericness of D&D humans, if not the burning red rage* it causes me to feel toward them. :smalltongue:

Err, I've said from my first post in the thread that humans were generic, and that's what makes them "flexible and adaptive". I just can't understand why you hate a neutral race. "If I should die, tell my wife I said ... hello."


I don't understand all the acid towards WoW. Sure, the playerbase leaves a lot to be desired, but it's still a pioneer of its genre and a powerhouse of PC gaming in general, like most other Blizzard games.

Well, one's experience playing a game tends to taint one's opinion of the system, but the thing about Blizzard is that they aren't ever innovators. Blizzard has never had a successful "pioneer" product. Thier powerhouse franchises were

The million and first RTS game
The million and first Rogue clone with graphics
The million and first EQ clone

What Blizzard excels at is taking a well worn concept that's firmly established in the marketplace, and turning out a out a clone that's extremely well tuned for fun, even at highly competitive levels of play.

If Blizzard made a PnP RPG, I'm sure it would be wonderous, but they made WoW to attract a generation of console gamers that had never played a PnP RPG. It's not that it's a bad game (aside from the people you meet), it's that it's perfectly tuned to be fun for nothing-but-combat nothing-in-character computer "RPG" play. That's fine and all, but shouldn't be consulted as anything worthy for PnP play, precisly because it's so carefully tuned to be something else.

[Bibliomancer]

Only if you want them to be. There's an assumption, granted, that humans are more numerous than the other playable races. Which does make some sense, since from the point of view of the longer-lived races, humans breed like rabbits.

So work with that - maybe one of the elder races has been taking steps to keep the human population down, perhaps by encouraging them to fight among themselves, or with other nuisance races like orcs and goblinoids. There's a concept for a campaign right there, where humans aren't as dominant as usual...

Or go even further, and put humans in the "great enemy" role, with players representing the alliance of elves and orcs holding back the tide. If you've got a human character in that group, they're not going to be the default wherever they go - indeed, will be facing prejudice on one side, and accusations of treachery from the other.

This certainly sounds interesting.

However, humans rarely dominate the world, they simply fill it. Their various civilizations hate each other far more than other races, and if they ever unite in an Empire it tends to last only until the next campaign starts, given that lost empire is a staple for most campaigns, including Eberron (Galifar) and Forgotten Realms (several).

[Optimystik]

Well, one's experience playing a game tends to taint one's opinion of the system, but the thing about Blizzard is that they aren't ever innovators.

Oh, I never claimed that Blizzard invented any of the genres they currently dominate. Apple didn't invent the cellphone (or even the smartphone) either, yet they are still considered pioneers. Being able to combine existing elements in a new way can be just as innovative as coming up with your own.