How did we get to become a civilization? [DnD]

[Tanuki Tales]

Or why doesn't that scary beastie stamp us into goo paste for lunch?


Once again perusing varying monster books (in this case Pathfinder's Bestiary 3) I find myself gripped by another conundrum born from a flight of fanciful thinking:

How come these monsters don't completely "pwn" the base races off the face of the Earth without the existence of major racial arms races that completely unbalance the setting as a whole?

Let's take the Greater Cyclops for example. It's a CR 12, Chaotic Evil, Huge Humanoid (Giant) that likes to hunt megafauna and enjoys man flesh. Sure, the fluff tries to tell you that they're mostly solitary and live in "forgotten, out of the way" places but it also gives you down in the organization bit of the stat block that they live in tribes of 6 to 14 individuals.

What's to stop a tribe of these brutes to just rub out a major human city if they feel like it?

And even if you discount them there are tons of other creatures (sentient or otherwise and numerous or otherwise) that would run completely roughshod over civilization unless there were a good dollop of level 8+ NPCs/PCs in every settlement and that's before getting into creatures that would at least make level 20 PCs sweat a little (and aren't one time Doombringers who sleep forever and need a MacGuffin to awaken).

I guess I'm just saying my suspension of disbelief is kind of snapping and I'm curious if anyone has ever come across this conundrum and how they go about rationalizing it.

[Mutant Sheep]

Why WOULD the big CR 10+ monsters go running from their ancestral lands to tear apart human cities? Any decent town is a good distance away from anything above CR 3. Why would they travel for a few days or weeks to go and tear apart a bunch of stone houses when there are big fat fill in the wooly mammoth substitute an hour or two away? Thats one reason I heard when the local whiner-er whined about how the main city should have been destroyed by monsters before the campaign even started. (Also, magic scawee.:smalltongue:)

[Tanuki Tales]

Why WOULD the big CR 10+ monsters go running from their ancestral lands to tear apart human cities? Any decent town is a good distance away from anything above CR 3. Why would they travel for a few days or weeks to go and tear apart a bunch of stone houses when there are big fat fill in the wooly mammoth substitute an hour or two away? (Also, magic scawee.:smalltongue:)

Like I said, that's just the Greater Cyclops.

I just find it hard to believe that anything with enough raw power to reduce a city to slag (either by itself or in a reasonable amount of numbers) would either be so far away from civilization or so completely uninterested in going anywhere near civilization to have the chance to do that.

And magic is only scary if you've got 8+ PCs preparing their spell lists intelligently, which plays into my comment about needing to arms race yourself to safety and world unbalance.

[NichG]

Large numbers of low level archers can pose a threat against high CR monsters (since most of them don't actually have the versatility of a high-level PC to deal with such a threat). If a city can put together 400 men with longbows and decent response time and sentries, the massed fire can do about 110 damage a round against things regardless of their AC.

Things with DR are the bigger threat since if their DR is high enough they can just shrug off the hits.

[FatJose]

Besides sheer numbers, I've noticed most fantasy settings seem to have a golden age where the civilized races were at their peak. Usually it would be because of lost technology or magic. It's like every fantasy setting is the result of rebuilding after a post-apocalyptic scenario where everyone lost. So, yes, the monsters did indeed clean house but humanity either survived by the skin of their teeth or entered the picture after the fact.

[LibraryOgre]

There's a few things that could influence it.

First, remember that the PC-scale races tend to have more, and more powerful and involved, deities. This means clerical magic, and may also mean direct intervention (or indirect intervention via the creation of chosen... children, etc.).

You also have wildcards like sorcerers (who might manifest magical powers to save their tribes), and greater beings who might protect them. In the case of the Forgotten Realms, for example, many races flourished under the patronage of the Dragons, until they eventually overthrew them. Likewise, in Midkemia, the elves and dragons were subject to the immensely powerful Dragonlords until humans and their gods came onto the scene.

You also have to consider planar travel. In some cases, you may have humans coming fully formed into a given crystal sphere, with enough advancement on a lesser world that they can establish themselves. Likewise, some of these horrors may have come from a different world... the Greater Cyclops may have evolved on a world where it was the little guy, and a small population got moved to the PC's world.

[Lord Tyger]

Well, as far as establishment of civilization, I assume that comes down to gods. And from there, yeah, Pathfinder's Campaign Setting seems heavy on the descent from power thing- civilizations used to be a lot more advanced then they are now- so the monsters had some time to learn to keep away.

Of course, now that things are more up in the air, there's no reason their coming back shouldn't be part of a campaign...

[Dimers]

The answer given in GURPS 3rd-ed: humans are organized, aggressive and prolific. We (and elves, gnomes, etc.) have babies much faster than dragons and cyclopses and tarrasques do ... we band together in the face of an external threat and can choose to make sacrifices toward the greater good ... and we actually desire and care about taking territory, goods, glory and such, which leads to high motivation in conflict. Most creatures don't want to fight as much as humans do, don't regenerate their numbers quickly, and/or don't unite to beat humanity the way humanity will unite to beat them.

Long-range planning, insight, tool use, curiousity, traps and communal learning from previous failures are other good answers.

[Doorhandle]

So, basically, how humans came to dominate THIS earth.

Also, nothing says the big 'uns get along, and thei biggest barrier to destroying humanity may be each other. The D&D world become a bit more awesome and a lot more funny if you read into said giant monsters having huge godzilla-style slugfests every few days, with the nearby peasants watching, popcorn in hand.

[Ashtagon]

So, basically, how humans came to dominate THIS earth.

Also, nothing says the big 'uns get along, and thei biggest barrier to destroying humanity may be each other. The D&D world become a bit more awesome and a lot more funny if you read into said giant monsters having huge godzilla-style slugfests every few days, with the nearby peasants watching, popcorn in hand.

This is why most fantasy game worlds lack any kind of organised spectator sports such as soccer or baseball. They watch the dragons vs. the giants instead :smalltongue:

[Doorhandle]

Should we posit this to tippy, or has he already thought of this?

[gkathellar]

Pretty sure he's got this one already. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007)

[Cirrylius]

It's like every fantasy setting is the result of rebuilding after a post-apocalyptic scenario where everyone lost.

It's an easy way to explain lots of ruins in stretches of monster-reclaimed wilderness. Which is what most campaigns use.

[HunterOfJello]

Depends on the setting, but it's usually a combination of heavy deity involvement and author placement of powerful magical items or a safe setting to originally grow up in.

Humans are often the most fertile and fastest reproducing race in fantasy settings. The races that can reproduce faster, like Orcs, are usually evil or chaotic aligned and therefore don't build large civilizations as easily.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You also have to consider planar travel. In some cases, you may have humans coming fully formed into a given crystal sphere, with enough advancement on a lesser world that they can establish themselves. Likewise, some of these horrors may have come from a different world... the Greater Cyclops may have evolved on a world where it was the little guy, and a small population got moved to the PC's world.
Man, why don't we have more settings where Plane-Shifting adventurers uplift the savages of a forgotten world?

"Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick!" *flourishes a Wand of Fireballs*

...I'd run this with my own Players, but I don't know if they'd handle the power well :smalleek:

[Tanuki Tales]

The problem I see with Deity involvement is though....why?

Chances are there are gods of equal power (or equal power in numbers) on the Monster's side who would have a vested interest in not only placating their worshipers but also destroying any threats to the status quo.

Or the gods have worship split between the monsters and the base races so they'd win one way or the other.

Didn't Ao have to step in for FR to make sure the gods did what is being suggested?

I could see an Overdeity being the reason but then it begs "why?".

[boomwolf]

You just don't get the basic fact of most fantasy worlds:

There IS a major arms race that unbalances the setting, its called ADVENTURERS!

What? you think your team is the only one? there are many parties running around, kills stuff for fun and profit, and generally keeping major threats away from civilization by taking them in their own homes.

If you were a dragon, would you have bothered fighting the potentially-lethal humanoids with all the tools and magic that they seem to bee so keen and capeable in making and learning, or just dominate a god-forsaken mountain where nothing poses a threat to you and you can eat pretty much everything you what because they can't even touch you?

I'll go for domination of a far-away place.

And even when you reach those far away places because you are a notorious thrill-seeker and believe in getting rich or dying while trying, what do you usually face? humanoid-made traps, other notorious thrill-seekers (read enemy adventurers) "retired" adventurers in the form of undead, etc...

Humanoids rule the world because there IS this arms race, and the setting is unbalanced. if it was not that way, being an adventuring party would have been far more suicidal, and far less profitable...

[Oracle_Hunter]

The problem I see with Deity involvement is though....why?

Chances are there are gods of equal power (or equal power in numbers) on the Monster's side who would have a vested interest in not only placating their worshipers but also destroying any threats to the status quo.

Or the gods have worship split between the monsters and the base races so they'd win one way or the other.
Fantasy worlds don't need to be set up this way -- and few are.

Often, Monster Gods are of explicitly lesser power than the PC Gods. Gruumsh, for example, was seriously wounded by Corellon; rare is the PC God who has been wounded by a Monster God.

Additionally, Racial Gods care about their races, not pure worshiper numbers. This gives the creators of a race an incentive to make sure they keep kicking around. See again, Corellon.

There are lots of ways to tilt the Divinity Table towards PC races simply by altering the assumptions of the world.

[Aron Times]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0417.html

Relevant strip is relevant.

[bloodtide]

They do. All the time. A fantasy world is always in flux. Sometimes the monsters are in control, and sometimes the 'human -like races' are in control. Most default games are just set in a 'human-like races' control era.

For a simple example. Fire Giant Jar takes over and enslaves the dwarven kingdom. And for 55 years he rules the whole area and defeats any other powerful (high cr) monsters in the area. Then he dies of natural causes. Jar has two sons that split the empire down the middle and get into a civil war. And right when both of Jar's sons are at their weakest, the dwarves rise up and rebel. Most of the fire giants are killed, but a couple escape. So in year 56 you have a new dwarven land, and no monsters within miles to oppose them. The dwarves rebuild and with in a couple decades they have a massive dwarven empire. It would be at this point in history that the 'game starts', with the dwarves in control of the area, and few big, bad monsters around.



The role-playing answer, is of course, that most default game worlds are made to make the player characters special. The game does not just want the players to be 'just' characters in the fantasy world, the game wants the players to be the super star super special snowflakes of the fantasy world. This can clearly be seen in such published fantasy worlds as Greyhawk, Dragonlance and most of all Ebberon. In this type of world setting, everyone else in the world(the npcs) are less then useless. Should any problem happen, such as a monster attack, the PC's are the only people in the whole wide world that can do anything about it. This is done to make the players feel special and important, as they are the only ones that can act and do anything.

There is another way to do this, of course. The balance between folk and monsters, the way it's done in the Forgotten Realms. There are tons and tons of powerful and high level NPC's around that can fight back against the monsters. So it's at lot of give and take, sometimes the folk win and some times the monsters win. Places in the Realms have long histories of fighting off monsters and such. Though many people don't like this way as it does not make player characters special and needed, the PC's are just part of a crowd. And the backlash from this sort of idea gives you fantasy worlds with no powerful npc heros, such as Ebberon.

[Tanuki Tales]

You just don't get the basic fact of most fantasy worlds:

There IS a major arms race that unbalances the setting, its called ADVENTURERS!

What? you think your team is the only one? there are many parties running around, kills stuff for fun and profit, and generally keeping major threats away from civilization by taking them in their own homes.

If you were a dragon, would you have bothered fighting the potentially-lethal humanoids with all the tools and magic that they seem to bee so keen and capeable in making and learning, or just dominate a god-forsaken mountain where nothing poses a threat to you and you can eat pretty much everything you what because they can't even touch you?

I'll go for domination of a far-away place.

And even when you reach those far away places because you are a notorious thrill-seeker and believe in getting rich or dying while trying, what do you usually face? humanoid-made traps, other notorious thrill-seekers (read enemy adventurers) "retired" adventurers in the form of undead, etc...

Humanoids rule the world because there IS this arms race, and the setting is unbalanced. if it was not that way, being an adventuring party would have been far more suicidal, and far less profitable...

Except this only works if humanoids are already well established in the setting, which makes more sense, especially with high powered hobos running amok alongside powerful empires and strong magic.

But this isn't our world. Our only opposition for evolution and becoming civilized isn't just stupid animals running on instinct and who can't compete with our tools and discoveries.

This is a setting where creatures are just as smart as us (even smarter) and are far more stronger and deadly.


@Oracle: But that's already stacking the deck, assuming that Monsters (who chances are were and have been around longer) having weaker dieties.

And I wasn't talking racial gods, I was talking gods that get worship from both monsters AND base races. Who has a split worship base and have no reason to favor one over the other.

@Silver: If that was relevant against me:

That assumes:

A. A setting where humanoids are already established.

B. That the few v. many isn't High CR Intelligent monsters (like saying an Ancient Dragon and a few tough giants and other horrors) pitted against rank and file npcy guys.

[vegetalss4]

In most Fantasy settings civilization is granted to the mortal races from on high, either from the gods or from an older race, as such any argument based around civilization evolving on its own is inherently flawed when dealing with those worlds.

[Morph Bark]

Why WOULD the big CR 10+ monsters go running from their ancestral lands to tear apart human cities? Any decent town is a good distance away from anything above CR 3. Why would they travel for a few days or weeks to go and tear apart a bunch of stone houses when there are big fat fill in the wooly mammoth substitute an hour or two away? Thats one reason I heard when the local whiner-er whined about how the main city should have been destroyed by monsters before the campaign even started. (Also, magic scawee.:smalltongue:)

They could move closer to the villages.

Alternatively, there's the fact that a party can get to level 20 in just four months if they power-level. The only real issue is that they would have needed access to magic to get far. And then you get into a kind of chicken-and-egg situation with some monsters where it's like "was the monster there before the humans started messing around, or were they the reason they needed to mess around to survive".

[boomwolf]

Except this only works if humanoids are already well established in the setting, which makes more sense, especially with high powered hobos running amok alongside powerful empires and strong magic.

But this isn't our world. Our only opposition for evolution and becoming civilized isn't just stupid animals running on instinct and who can't compete with our tools and discoveries.

This is a setting where creatures are just as smart as us (even smarter) and are far more stronger and deadly.



Yes, what the DnD humanoid face is far deadlier they we ever faced, but then again-didn't they also need to evolve and grow to the power they are now? they were not that strong at square 1 either, and the limit of human ability is far, far more then a real world human can dream off.

The main problem I see is the fact level 1 is starting level, it makes no sense as a starting level, level 3-5 does.
After all, when I was an 18 years old with no combat training at all and no experience I could do equivalent feats that beat the crap out of a first level fighter, and he lives in a world when you learn survival from birth, not spend your time on videogames and TV. (heck, i could take a gun shot and keep at it, something most third level melee characters in dnd will find hand)
After military service at ages 18-21, still no ACTUAL combat experience, and I could take a level 5 fighter equivalent of ability, and I'm not even a combat specialist, I'm mobile artillery dammit.
The game on the other hand assumes you need dozens of life-and-death situations to reach such levels. it makes no sense. when a dnd world guy reach maturity he probably has seen and done quite enough to know how to swing a freaking sword, how to aim at vitals, how to take a freaking cat scratch and live to tell the story.

[NichG]

The main problem I see is the fact level 1 is starting level, it makes no sense as a starting level, level 3-5 does.
After all, when I was an 18 years old with no combat training at all and no experience I could do equivalent feats that beat the crap out of a first level fighter, and he lives in a world when you learn survival from birth, not spend your time on videogames and TV. (heck, i could take a gun shot and keep at it, something most third level melee characters in dnd will find hand)
After military service at ages 18-21, still no ACTUAL combat experience, and I could take a level 5 fighter equivalent of ability, and I'm not even a combat specialist, I'm mobile artillery dammit.
The game on the other hand assumes you need dozens of life-and-death situations to reach such levels. it makes no sense. when a dnd world guy reach maturity he probably has seen and done quite enough to know how to swing a freaking sword, how to aim at vitals, how to take a freaking cat scratch and live to tell the story.

Most real people I think you'd find would be functionally disabled by a gunshot. The maximum damage from a pistol on a crit is 24, so if you pick a level where people are going to have more than 14hp you obtain a situation where a gun, no matter how well aimed, cannot outright kill a person in one shot. A third level melee character will generally have at least that much (10hp from max HD at first level, +11hp average from two level ups, +9 from Con). That sets an upper limit. Even at 3hp, only crits (1/20 chance) can outright kill a person.

Generally though you find that D&D character level does scale with profession. Most DMs wouldn't have city guards be Lv1, but rather as you say Lv3-5 with the guard captain probably being 7. Those aren't even soldiers, so you can figure how much actual life or death experience they have. In that context, the Lv1 adventurers are the apprentices and younglings who don't even have that much seasoning but think they can make their own way.

[Tanuki Tales]

Yes, what the DnD humanoid face is far deadlier they we ever faced, but then again-didn't they also need to evolve and grow to the power they are now? they were not that strong at square 1 either, and the limit of human ability is far, far more then a real world human can dream off.

Which begs the question how? Assuming they did need to evolve from Neanderthal up and weren't just straight created from the aether or something.

And also assuming that powers far stronger treat the base races as insects long enough for them to accumulate power and structure. Which sounds a little bit like holding that idiot ball for millennia across several different monster races.

Which I guess could happen. But then again, how the base races rose to power in Eberron is what makes the most sense in my eyes but doesn't explain away monsters going roughshod over the races after the fact. That level 20 Druid wasn't always on Khorvaire and he's only one, essentially omnipotent for the setting, NPC.


The main problem I see is the fact level 1 is starting level, it makes no sense as a starting level, level 3-5 does.
After all, when I was an 18 years old with no combat training at all and no experience I could do equivalent feats that beat the crap out of a first level fighter, and he lives in a world when you learn survival from birth, not spend your time on videogames and TV. (heck, i could take a gun shot and keep at it, something most third level melee characters in dnd will find hand)

To be fair, using d20 Modern's stats, the average handgun will do 7 points of damage on average. A 1st level fighter with average health and a Con score of 16 can take a bullet and keep on trucking for at least a little while.


After military service at ages 18-21, still no ACTUAL combat experience, and I could take a level 5 fighter equivalent of ability, and I'm not even a combat specialist, I'm mobile artillery dammit.

Well, your training was probably infinitely better than what a soldier in a military from the DnD time period would receive.


The game on the other hand assumes you need dozens of life-and-death situations to reach such levels. it makes no sense. when a dnd world guy reach maturity he probably has seen and done quite enough to know how to swing a freaking sword, how to aim at vitals, how to take a freaking cat scratch and live to tell the story.

At least PCs are assumed of this. It comes down how you explain the abstract of levels. Do they measure time spent and work done and risks taken or do they represent innate talent, potential and skill?

[Jay R]

The same reason that earth cities aren't overrun by elephants, lions, tigers, hippopotami, rhinos, or any other species whose members are more powerful than individual humans.

An average human city is on the plains, surrounded by miles of farmland in all directions. No monster whose food source is found in the wilderness wants to be anywhere near the human city.

Human lands will only be overrun by a race who shares enough common ground with humans that human cities will serve their purpose.

Besides, unless the species is invulnerable to normal weapons, any small family group of beasts will be beaten by an ordinary human army.

[boomwolf]

As for evolution, why would they NEED to evolve from neanderthal from the firstplace? most settings assume that the things that live today were created AS THE ARE from the first-place, they were always this smart, this adaptable, this attuned to magic-they just didn't have such a massive infrastructure. and if the setting dictates that evolution DOES work, then it applies for the entire rest of the world in a similar rate, so while the humanoids were less capable-so was everything that puts them in danger.

d20 modern stats for handguns are silly in comparison to knifes and such, so no point making them as an argument, i hardly see how getting stabbed by a knife as risky as getting shot. heck, even the renaissance weapons in the DMG, like the musket deals 1d12 damage (average 6.5), and it is FAR inferior to a simple modern handgun, if a renaissance musket deals 1d12 with a critical of 20/x3 damage per shot, a modern handgun should be 3d8, and its critical rating should be 15-20/x5 because it has far more force in it, and if it hits your internals, ANY of them, it pretty much scrambles them and rips them to shreds.

and then as well, this is damage for a character with no feat/class ability support for it, equivalent of a real-life person shooting a gun for the first time or so, he has no clue at how to fire properly, nor where to fire (no, shooting to the head is sub-optimal, unless you are a sniper, despite it being intuitive) and frankly I will be surprised if it kill anyone in a single shot unless really lucky (or unluky in miss-fire)

However, if we compare basic damage, a dagger deals 1d4 damage (average 2.5), a non-combatant should be able to sustain appropriately seven-eight untrained stabs before passing out (~16 hp), and far more if he is a trained combatant (heck, a commando would still stand after taking 20-30 stabs, and a "commando" is really not as unique as people assume...)
You just misunderstand the meaning of "hit" and "critical hit"
A "hit" is just a scratch, a bruise, HARDLY impacting, not a full stab
A "critical hit" is a properly made attack, yet still lacks any training on how to deliver true punishment (precision dice usually, weapon specialization for another)

As for training, as far as evidence shows, a modern day soldier's training is more about tool usage and precision performance of his intended role, especially in training such as mine-and in fact if pitted against even a rookie medieval warrior, my 3 years of experience will lead me to assured death with equal medieval equipment (and to be fair, one he is also unfamiliar with), we relay much more on equipment usage then physical power nowadays and most medieval non-temporary-drafted-guys that are actually intended warriors (such as knights) train pretty much from the day they can swing a sword, and are far more seriously then modern training, as they are USED to lifting more, walking more, and taking more punishment-modern warfare does not reward a soldier that can take a hit because most weapon platforms will rip your body the shreds no matter how hardy you are, and rifles will just hit you multiple times to make sure you die.
Heck, I probably cant even do a proper swing with armor on, I trained for pointing my "magic wand" on stuff and making holes appear...(or the big wand that makes craters appear :P)

And now, the final point, the fact that they don't have a great chance does not mean it is impossible, and even if its a minor chance then the humanoids in the settings are only the ones that DID survive and thrive despite everything, less advanced humanoids are labeled savage and they got crappy technology because they didn't keep up as well, and others died out entirely-despite having a fair chance-they just lost the great dice roll of luck that influences everything.

The best way to explain how one mostly harmless spices can dominate other, more naturally powerful is the lovely minecraft.
Sure, you start out as a weakling that runs from every damn thing and hides like a coward all night long-but if you tell somebody the very basics (how to make his first wooden pickaxe, sword, light-easy to figure out stuff in real live, you just need to know how the system works) and never tell him of the higher functions (and block access for internet guides, he gotta figure out himself) he has a fair chance to end up dominating all the other, far more naturally powerful monsters that live out there. heck eventually he is BOUND to get that, it will just take him some attempts. heck I know I got to a level of taking down multiple monsters simultaneously from not knowing anything at all in a few attempts, WITHOUT even that basic knowledge given to me. (and for those who don't know minecraft-unarmed even a single monster of the weakest kind is a serious threat...)

[Tanuki Tales]

The same reason that earth cities aren't overrun by elephants, lions, tigers, hippopotami, rhinos, or any other species whose members are more powerful than individual humans.

You are honestly comparing Ancient Dragons, High CR Giants, High CR Outsiders, Mind Flayers and other such oddities to being as ineffectual a threat to humanoid supremacy as some base animals? :smallconfused:

Edit:


As for evolution, why would they NEED to evolve from neanderthal from the firstplace? most settings assume that the things that live today were created AS THE ARE from the first-place, they were always this smart, this adaptable, this attuned to magic-they just didn't have such a massive infrastructure. and if the setting dictates that evolution DOES work, then it applies for the entire rest of the world in a similar rate, so while the humanoids were less capable-so was everything that puts them in danger.

*cough*Frostburn*cough*

And that's not necessarily true at all, especially with magic in the works. Just because humans evolved first here on Earth to power and influence doesn't mean this holds true to everything else and is again just deck stacking.

And even with settings where humans were made and didn't just come about, the monsters either were there first or came to a head faster than the humans. Just look at Forgotten Realms or Eberron.


d20 modern stats for handguns are silly in comparison to knifes and such, so no point making them as an argument, i hardly see how getting stabbed by a knife as risky as getting shot. heck, even the renaissance weapons in the DMG, like the musket deals 1d12 damage (average 6.5), and it is FAR inferior to a simple modern handgun, if a renaissance musket deals 1d12 with a critical of 20/x3 damage per shot, a modern handgun should be 3d8, and its critical rating should be 15-20/x5 because it has far more force in it, and if it hits your internals, ANY of them, it pretty much scrambles them and rips them to shreds.

And you trying to use real world anecdotal evidence to disprove that you were wrong in saying that you could take a gunshot better then a level 1 character when this isn't the case at all when we compare the relevant game statistics isn't silly how and without point how?

And the average damage is 6, not 6.5. You round down and the .5 only matters with multiple dice. And most modern guns are 2d6 with the Desert Eagle being 2d8. That's how things got statted for Modern. So you can state how you'd homebrew different as much as you want but....


and then as well, this is damage for a character with no feat/class ability support for it, equivalent of a real-life person shooting a gun for the first time or so, he has no clue at how to fire properly, nor where to fire (no, shooting to the head is sub-optimal, unless you are a sniper, despite it being intuitive) and frankly I will be surprised if it kill anyone in a single shot unless really lucky (or unluky in miss-fire)

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, except maybe, again, using real word anecdotal evidence.


However, if we compare basic damage, a dagger deals 1d4 damage (average 2.5), a non-combatant should be able to sustain appropriately seven-eight untrained stabs before passing out (~16 hp), and far more if he is a trained combatant (heck, a commando would still stand after taking 20-30 stabs, and a "commando" is really not as unique as people assume...)
You just misunderstand the meaning of "hit" and "critical hit"
A "hit" is just a scratch, a bruise, HARDLY impacting, not a full stab
A "critical hit" is a properly made attack, yet still lacks any training on how to deliver true punishment (precision dice usually, weapon specialization for another)

This, once again, is only relevant once you define an abstract. In this case Hit points.

Some people don't treat losing hit points as actually getting hit or hurt. Some treat it as some kind of "luck shield" and you only actually get hurt once you're close to 0 or in the negatives.


As for training, as far as evidence shows, a modern day soldier's training is more about tool usage and precision performance of his intended role, especially in training such as mine-and in fact if pitted against even a rookie medieval warrior, my 3 years of experience will lead me to assured death with equal medieval equipment (and to be fair, one he is also unfamiliar with), we relay much more on equipment usage then physical power nowadays and most medieval non-temporary-drafted-guys that are actually intended warriors (such as knights) train pretty much from the day they can swing a sword, and are far more seriously then modern training, as they are USED to lifting more, walking more, and taking more punishment-modern warfare does not reward a soldier that can take a hit because most weapon platforms will rip your body the shreds no matter how hardy you are, and rifles will just hit you multiple times to make sure you die.
Heck, I probably cant even do a proper swing with armor on, I trained for pointing my "magic wand" on stuff and making holes appear...(or the big wand that makes craters appear :P)

Are you or are you not trained in at least some layman's knowledge of hand to hand combat without a weapon?



And now, the final point, the fact that they don't have a great chance does not mean it is impossible, and even if its a minor chance then the humanoids in the settings are only the ones that DID survive and thrive despite everything, less advanced humanoids are labeled savage and they got crappy technology because they didn't keep up as well, and others died out entirely-despite having a fair chance-they just lost the great dice roll of luck that influences everything.

You still need to explain "how" though. It doesn't matter that they did, because they obviously did since the setting is opening with them having done so, but "how".


The best way to explain how one mostly harmless spices can dominate other, more naturally powerful is the lovely minecraft.
Sure, you start out as a weakling that runs from every damn thing and hides like a coward all night long-but if you tell somebody the very basics (how to make his first wooden pickaxe, sword, light-easy to figure out stuff in real live, you just need to know how the system works) and never tell him of the higher functions (and block access for internet guides, he gotta figure out himself) he has a fair chance to end up dominating all the other, far more naturally powerful monsters that live out there. heck eventually he is BOUND to get that, it will just take him some attempts. heck I know I got to a level of taking down multiple monsters simultaneously from not knowing anything at all in a few attempts, WITHOUT even that basic knowledge given to me. (and for those who don't know minecraft-unarmed even a single monster of the weakest kind is a serious threat...)

So...Anecdotal again? From a game where the power disparity isn't necessarily the same at all?

[Zombimode]

OP: This question, asked generally, is most certainly futile.
Why a specific setting is how it is, needs to be answered sperately for each setting.

So, asking: "How it comes, that humanoids in general and humans specificly are so dominant in Faerun?" provides the possibility for an satisfying answer. In fact, this question was already answered by Mark Hall in this thread.
But obviously the same answer is not necessarily aplicable for other settings.

Without specifying what setting or what kind of setting you do have in mind, your question cannot be answered.

[Tanuki Tales]

OP: This question, asked generally, is most certainly futile.
Why a specific setting is how it is, needs to be answered sperately for each setting.

So, asking: "How it comes, that humanoids in general and humans specificly are so dominant in Faerun?" provides the possibility for an satisfying answer. In fact, this question was already answered by Mark Hall in this thread.
But obviously the same answer is not necessarily aplicable for other settings.

Without specifying what setting or what kind of setting you do have in mind, your question cannot be answered.

The question is only futile when generally asked if you hold the pretense that the person asking the question already knows that you need Author/DM/Etc. fiat concerning the inner workings of the setting in order for the base races to hold any dominance (which, without fiat or some stacking of the deck/unimpeded arms racing can't actually happen).

Edit:

Which is exactly why I posed the question in the first place. To discern if there is any non-fiat way/reasons.

Enough archers with enough arrows could keep the local Hill Giant at bay succintly, but this breaks down against...say... 20 Hill Giants led by Smog the Ancient Red Dragon. Something that was shown/answered through this thread.

[Splynn]

That's the point of the fantasy setting. The deck is stacked against you, but you fight on anyway.

Also, a lot of attention is being given here to the evil hill giant. What about the juvenile silver dragon who doesn't want to see the town burned down?

There are forces of good as well as evil. Let's say Smog (as previously mentioned) does rally together 20 hill giants and attacks the town. The golden dragon who has long hated Smog and challenged him constantly isn't going to let the town go down without a fight. And I'm sure he has friends of his own.

Smog, though. He knows this. So he's not going to play his hand so boldly; he'll do it secretly. And thus a struggle between good and evil is born, but the town of humans is just trying to scrape by with what they can, oblivious to the conflict surrounding them. Mostly.

It's easy to focus on the evil monsters. But good ones exist, too. And I doubt they'd all be willing to sit around idly watching evil take over.

[Zombimode]

The question is only futile when generally asked if you hold the pretense that the person asking the question already knows that you need Author/DM/Etc. fiat concerning the inner workings of the setting in order for the base races to hold any dominance (which, without fiat or some stacking of the deck/unimpeded arms racing can't actually happen).

Er.. what?
Dont you see the logical problem? Your question, asked generaly, CAN not be answered. You HAVE to specify the setting/type of setting to have the question make sense.
The prevalence or absence of humanoid races and their civilisations is an empirical stat of a world which is highly subjective to the inner workings of that world, its histories and metaphysics.

What do you expect from an not setting specific answer?

Really, Im curious.

Maybe lets take an example. There was a short answer given why in Faerun humanoid races are as dominant as they are. Do you think this is not a satisfactory answer, and if yes, why? What else do you want?

[Tanuki Tales]

That's the point of the fantasy setting. The deck is stacked against you, but you fight on anyway.

Also, a lot of attention is being given here to the evil hill giant. What about the juvenile silver dragon who doesn't want to see the town burned down?

There are forces of good as well as evil. Let's say Smog (as previously mentioned) does rally together 20 hill giants and attacks the town. The golden dragon who has long hated Smog and challenged him constantly isn't going to let the town go down without a fight. And I'm sure he has friends of his own.

Smog, though. He knows this. So he's not going to play his hand so boldly; he'll do it secretly. And thus a struggle between good and evil is born, but the town of humans is just trying to scrape by with what they can, oblivious to the conflict surrounding them. Mostly.

It's easy to focus on the evil monsters. But good ones exist, too. And I doubt they'd all be willing to sit around idly watching evil take over.

See, here is honestly a scenario I didn't think of. That it isn't the base races just being already tough or well entrenched or having specifically more powerful gods watching over them, but that equally powerful neutral/good creatures are keeping an eye on the younger/weaker races and protecting them from cataclysmic harm directed towards them by those things that wish to destroy them.

Thank you for this insight.


Er.. what?
Dont you see the logical problem? Your question, asked generaly, CAN not be answered. You HAVE to specify the setting/type of setting to have the question make sense.

No, No I don't. :smallconfused:

Why would I be asking the reasoning behind an established setting (like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Eberron) being coherent and stable when it's blindly obvious or outright stated why it is what it is?


The prevalence or absence of humanoid races and their civilisations is an empirical stat of a world which is highly subjective to the inner workings of that world, its histories and metaphysics.

Yes? :smallconfused:


What do you expect from an not setting specific answer?

Obviously, and as I've stated more than once, the reasoning that can be used to support the base races coming to a point of power that doesn't require DM/Author/etc. fiat.

Splynn gave me such a reasoning and (though I didn't respond to his wonderful post) Bloodtide gave another.



Maybe lets take an example. There was a short answer given why in Faerun humanoid races are as dominant as they are. Do you think this is not a satisfactory answer, and if yes, why? What else do you want?

I've addressed this already. :smalltongue:

[Zombimode]

Yes? :smallconfused:

So you acknowledge that the state of any setting depends on the inner mechanics and contigent history of the setting in question. If yes you have to acknowledge that any explanation regarding why things are the way they are in a given setting is dependened on those elements that are specific to the setting. And thus you wont find any answers that are universally true/applicable to all settings, and therefore the question has to be specific to a certain setting or type of setting.


Obviously, and as I've stated more than once, the reasoning that can be used to support the base races coming to a point of power that doesn't require DM/Author/etc. fiat.

Im puzzled by you use of "fiat" here. To my understanding it means handwaving something, eg. just not bothering with a explanation that would be suffice to the matter at hand.
I fail to see how this applies to some of the answers that were given in this thread but you were not content with for some reason (urgh, my grammar in this sentence is certainly messed up; sorry, not a native speaker): protection from higher entities, humanoid races beeing "fully developed" upon creation, a sheltered existence till they had grown strong enough on their own, etc.



I've addressed this already. :smalltongue:

I cant find a response from you to Mark Halls posting. Could you point me to posting you have in mind?

[Heatwizard]

Why would I be asking the reasoning behind an established setting (like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Eberron) being coherent and stable when it's blindly obvious or outright stated why it is what it is?

Because this question doesn't mean anything without a context to put it in. What dragons? What humans? What town? Why is this dragon going through all the trouble of schmoozing giants and stomping on tiny, primitive caveman farms? If they pose a threat, then they can fight him off; if they don't, why even bother? These two entities are not obligated by the system to seek each other out and fight, and if we're not talking about a setting in which they do so then these are just squares full of numbers that exist in the same series of books.

[Tvtyrant]

The answer is pretty obvious; because otherwise there wouldn't be a game to play. If you remove the monsters the game isn't as varied, if you remove people there isn't a game to play.

Some settings like Eberron actually have everything be normal during the evolutionary stage, and then outsiders invade and destroy everything. These are more realistic in that aberrations and fiends (and dinosaurs, oh my!) only moved in after civilization was set up and running.

[Dr.Epic]

Our ability to develope agriculture and not remain hunter/gathers is probably the best reason. We stopped moving around, developed skills to make fortifications and powerful weapons that can stop hostile beasts. In a D&D sense, this also applies. Even with the more powerful monsters, there are still major magical items/weapons and powerful spells.

[Tvtyrant]

But you have to live long enough to get to those artifacts, right?

Actually, why aren't there any pre-made campaigns about a monster free world undergoing the Apocalypse? I sense a good plot for an elder evil campaign...

[Tanuki Tales]

So you acknowledge that the state of any setting depends on the inner mechanics and contigent history of the setting in question. If yes you have to acknowledge that any explanation regarding why things are the way they are in a given setting is dependened on those elements that are specific to the setting. And thus you wont find any answers that are universally true/applicable to all settings, and therefore the question has to be specific to a certain setting or type of setting.

I think you're just failing to grasp that this discussion isn't about specific settings because specific settings already have fiated reasons for why humanoids are the dominant species.

And I did find some good, universal reasons. Provided by both Splynn and Bloodtide.

So...you're wrong.




Im puzzled by you use of "fiat" here. To my understanding it means handwaving something, eg. just not bothering with a explanation that would be suffice to the matter at hand.
I fail to see how this applies to some of the answers that were given in this thread but you were not content with for some reason (urgh, my grammar in this sentence is certainly messed up; sorry, not a native speaker): protection from higher entities, humanoid races beeing "fully developed" upon creation, a sheltered existence till they had grown strong enough on their own, etc.

Fiat isn't always a handwave. Fiat is generally something happening because X Authority Figure of Omnipotent power says so.

It can be a case of the Humanoid Gods being more powerful or the monsters not living close enough to care or being incapable of organizing or just constantly playing hot potato with the idiot ball.

It's all fiat.

Because without the idiot ball going around and without deck stacking explicitly in the favor of the humanoids, things don't come up as rosy for humans, elves, dwarves and the others.




I cant find a response from you to Mark Halls posting. Could you point me to posting you have in mind?

I answered it in the same post replying to the rest of your very confusing post.


No, No I don't.

Why would I be asking the reasoning behind an established setting (like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Eberron) being coherent and stable when it's blindly obvious or outright stated why it is what it is?

There ya go.

[Zombimode]

I think you're just failing to grasp that this discussion isn't about specific settings because specific settings already have fiated reasons for why humanoids are the dominant species.

And I did find some good, universal reasons. Provided by both Splynn and Bloodtide.

A universal statement has the following form:

For all x is true, if x is P, then x is Q.

Like: For all x is true, if x is human, then x is mortal. (Appealing the fact that "beeing mortal" is an essential property of "human".)
Or: For all x is true, if x is a proposition of the form "P->~P", then x is false. (Appealing to the fact of the impossibility that a contradiction can be true.)

With your question in the OP, there are no analytical truths to be found. There are no essential properties or tautologies involved. What you inquire are contingent empirical states of a given world. Therefore no universal answer can be given (and, no supprisingly, there arent any in this thread).

Another poster has explained it in other words (a posting you conviniently ignored):

Because this question doesn't mean anything without a context to put it in. What dragons? What humans? What town? Why is this dragon going through all the trouble of schmoozing giants and stomping on tiny, primitive caveman farms? If they pose a threat, then they can fight him off; if they don't, why even bother? These two entities are not obligated by the system to seek each other out and fight, and if we're not talking about a setting in which they do so then these are just squares full of numbers that exist in the same series of books.

Now, you seem to think there ARE universal answers, some of them given by posters in this thread. You cite Bloodtide and Splynn.
So lets have a look at these postings:


They do. All the time. A fantasy world is always in flux. Sometimes the monsters are in control, and sometimes the 'human -like races' are in control. Most default games are just set in a 'human-like races' control era.

I think this is the relevant part. Please correct me if you are referring something else.

Now, while I agree that this is a good answer applicable to many settings (since it is a nice settup for conflict and conflict is in many cases what is interessting), its hardy a universal one (albeit gramatically suggested). For that it would have to be true for all (possible) fantasy settings. Its not hard to see that this can not be the case.

1. It hinges on the existence of beeings in conflict in the first place. Any setting that a) has no sentinent beeings in it or b) has no major conflict would be a counterexample.
An example for a) would be Argentum which would later become Mirrodin but only through external influence. For b) there is Serra's Realm (before it was invaded by Phyrexia, of course), which entire point was that it had no internal conflict.
2. The Principle of the Constant Flux is also not neccessary. Again there are multiple examples of settings where one "side" actually has exterminated all oposition. In most fiction szenarios like this are presented as what-if or as a certain but distant destiny (WH: 40k comes into mind, which is a doomed setting by all accounts), but that is for narrative reasons.

Case in point, if counterexamples are possible, it cant be a universal statement.


That's the point of the fantasy setting. The deck is stacked against you, but you fight on anyway.

Also, a lot of attention is being given here to the evil hill giant. What about the juvenile silver dragon who doesn't want to see the town burned down?

There are forces of good as well as evil. Let's say Smog (as previously mentioned) does rally together 20 hill giants and attacks the town. The golden dragon who has long hated Smog and challenged him constantly isn't going to let the town go down without a fight. And I'm sure he has friends of his own.

Smog, though. He knows this. So he's not going to play his hand so boldly; he'll do it secretly. And thus a struggle between good and evil is born, but the town of humans is just trying to scrape by with what they can, oblivious to the conflict surrounding them. Mostly.

It's easy to focus on the evil monsters. But good ones exist, too. And I doubt they'd all be willing to sit around idly watching evil take over.

To my understanding this in the idea of a checks-and-balance system. Again, I think this is applicable to a wide range of contexts. But for similar reasons it is not a universal answer. It hinges on contingent empirical data which is setting specific.



It can be a case of the Humanoid Gods being more powerful or the monsters not living close enough to care or being incapable of organizing or just constantly playing hot potato with the idiot ball.

Of course, there are explanations that are less plausible then others, or are simply lazy.
But when creating a setting upping the stacks against lowly humanoids is in no way more or less contrived than introducing elements to even the odds. Both are concious decisions by the desinger.

[Jay R]

You are honestly comparing Ancient Dragons, High CR Giants, High CR Outsiders, Mind Flayers and other such oddities to being as ineffectual a threat to humanoid supremacy as some base animals? :smallconfused:

Only as much as I'm comparing D&D towns with wizards, priests and other spell-casters to the fighting skills of a medieval village. If real beasts without magic didn't take over real villages without magic, then D&D magic-using beasts should not take over D&D towns with magic-users.

The data we have is that people organized into towns can repel the threats from the wilderness. Scale up the threats from the wilderness and the abilities of the town, and the same results seems reasonable. Large, powerful wilderness threats don't, in fact, destroy human cities.

Besides, that was only one effect I discussed. The other one is that an average human city is on the plains, surrounded by miles of farmland in all directions. No monster whose food source is found in the wilderness wants to be anywhere near the human city. Human lands will only be overrun by a race who shares enough common ground with humans that human cities will serve their purpose.

And as others have pointed out, the only long-term threats come from monsters who reproduce quickly. The only serious threats to human cities have come from rats, fleas and flies - pests with no ability to fight us, but which reproduce faster than we can kill them.

[bloodtide]

1. It hinges on the existence of beeings in conflict in the first place. Any setting that a) has no sentinent beeings in it or b) has no major conflict would be a counterexample.
An example for a) would be Argentum which would later become Mirrodin but only through external influence. For b) there is Serra's Realm (before it was invaded by Phyrexia, of course), which entire point was that it had no internal conflict.
2. The Principle of the Constant Flux is also not neccessary. Again there are multiple examples of settings where one "side" actually has exterminated all oposition. In most fiction szenarios like this are presented as what-if or as a certain but distant destiny (WH: 40k comes into mind, which is a doomed setting by all accounts), but that is for narrative reasons.

Case in point, if counterexamples are possible, it cant be a universal statement.


1.So ok you could have a setting with no sentient beings in it, but that sure is an extreme. What would be the point of such a setting? And any setting that has more then one form of life will have conflict.

2.The Principle of the Constant Flux is universal. You could pick a time frame and say 'that side has won', but it would only be true in that time frame. So the Evil Empire kills all the good folk and is around 'forever'. Well...not exactly 'forever', just lets say five thousand years(and that is not forever) then it falls. Then a couple years later there are good folk again building in the evil ruins.

[Fri]

There's a topic close to this a few years back.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72425

[LibraryOgre]

So, it comes down to "What keeps competing species from destroying each other, allowing both to develop?" And, for that, we should look at what does.

First is that they might not have always been in competition... they might have evolved separately, and only recently come into competition. In D&D, this might be represented by evolving in different crystal spheres, alternate primes, or even completely different planes. In 4e, Humans and Elf-kin fill some similar niches, but the elf-kin originally come from the Feywilde. Though they are in competition, they're not in such fierce competition that they cannot coexist (since humans can respond to elven pressure in the forests by moving to other biomes).

Secondly, you may have symbiosis... one species may enter into an alliance with another, trading a degree of independence for increased survival. In the real world, you can look at ravens and wolves, or at humans and any of our myriad of domesticated animals. In D&D, you have a number of examples of races protecting (or herding) other races, so that those races survive together. The elves of Faerun were fostered by the dragons. The gith were enslaved by the mind flayers. Neogi enslave umber hulks. Humans tend to live somewhat symbiotically with halflings. In the Elder Scrolls, you have the aedra and daedra entering into alliances with men and mer. This would be the same place you put Gods, actually.

Lastly, we have competitive advantages. I'm going to compare humans to the OGL hill giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#hillGiant), instead of the Greater Cyclops. Now, the Hill Giant has many of the same traits as were mentioned for the greater cyclops. They're big, tough, and can hunt megafauna (they stack up comparably to an elephant). What can humans do against them?
Well, humans require less food per individual than a hill giant, meaning they can thrive where hill giants will barely survive. They likely breed faster, meaning they can replace more than the hill giants can eat. And humans run the gamut of alignments, whereas hill giants are Often Chaotic Evil... meaning they are worse at cooperating, and less likely to seek out alliances, either with other humans or with semi-competing species; remember, most tribes names for themselves means, essentially, "People", with everyone else being alien; an alliance between humans and elves against a group of orcs isn't much different than an alliance between Roman and the Greeks of Asia Minor against the might of Pontus. This leaves out theoretical technological advantages, though humans have another advantage, here... they don't require nearly the component resources that a hill giant was. Even if both have designed plate armor, humans are going to be able to make a lot more of it than a hill giant will be able to.

These are the main abstract ideas that I see keeping humans and demihumans alive in a world with some of the powerhouses. Keep in mind that the average campaign world, with its ten thousand year history, is not the end of the story. You may be looking at the brief flourishing of human culture before it is crushed under the might of the monsters. Or you may be looking at the decline of the monsters, before humanity rises to the top and puts them in the history book. That's what heroes are for.

[WarKitty]

One fun one I have used is humanoids as the creators of the monsters. Once upon a time, there were only humanoids and animals. Powerful civilizations develop, ruled by powerful mages. Humanoids start playing with more powerful magic than they can control. Enhanced beasts and enhanced humanoids ran out of control, or simply rebelled against their creators. Portals were opened to other planes, not only allowing strange creatures in but also further mutating earth creatures that came into contact with alien forces. The great civilizations are destroyed in the wars, but humanity retains enough might and magic to protect itself - although often only the immediately militarily useful is preserved. The monsters themselves are still wary of their old masters, not all realizing that they have lost much power.

[NichG]

One variation of this could be as follows:

- We accept that there are creatures far more powerful and more natively intelligent than humanoids in the setting. Let us posit then that these creatures achieve civilization first, before mankind (this looks like it makes the problem harder, but it'll actually make things easier).
- We accept that in the real world, the fact that mankind eats cows does not preclude cows from existing. The same goes for any foodstock farmed by a civilization - it is in that civilization's interest to maintain the foodstock. Furthermore, there are a large class of things that are effectively below our notice that we do not systematically try to make extinct, like ants, bees, cats, etc.

So lets posit the following scenario. Powerful, intelligent creatures civilize first. They take primates as slaves/foodstock/whatnot. Primates observe the intelligent creatures habits, effectively learning proto-civilization by mimicking an existing one.

This continues stably for X time. Eventually, an opportunity event is a statistical certainty. An opportunity event is any situation in which a subset of the enslaved/farmed primates are present in an isolated locale absent their masters. This could be because there is one master per 100 slaves, and one that lives on an isolated island dies of age/violence/etc, leaving the slaves behind. It could also be massed disease, warfare, colonies of escaped slaves, etc. Given sufficient time, one of these events will occur.

Now, whether humanoid civilization flourishes or not depends on the trajectory of things from the opportunity event. For isolated societies, if they just continue to habitate and don't do anything significant they could go unnoticed by the monster civilization. Perhaps there's a fall of the Roman empire scenario in the monster civilization, causing a return to barbarity (where the humanoids have a shorter distance to fall).

It might even be beneficial for the monster civilization to leave the humanoid proto-civilization alone, exacting tithes from it occasionally. Saves on management and lets them devote themselves towards higher pursuits while the helpless humanoids toil in the fields of their own, self-regulated villages.

So basically, given some fairly weak assumptions and a long time, its likely that you'd get something like civilization amongst all species mentally capable of sustaining it. Relatively successfulness of said civilization will vary strongly, but the origin of such things is probably more in obscurity or appeasement than violent defense.

[Jan Mattys]

Only as much as I'm comparing D&D towns with wizards, priests and other spell-casters to the fighting skills of a medieval village. If real beasts without magic didn't take over real villages without magic, then D&D magic-using beasts should not take over D&D towns with magic-users

Good point, but I think we are underestimating a difference between the D&D world and the real world:

Animals learn the basics and adapt. After you've killed enough bears and wolves, they get it: roaming the village surroundings is a bad thing, it will get them hunted and killed, and if you give them no quarter they will end up searching for food someplace else. It's only in time of great need (a particularly rigid winter, or lack of prey) that forces them to get back to the dangerous business of attacking humans on their home turf.

D&D threats, though, are often as intelligent as humans, or at least partially intelligent, and perfectly capable of having their own agenda. That's a kind of enemy/natural competitor that's many degrees worse than a bear to face.

We didn't have to deal with intelligence. A sabre cat can be cunning, but that's a laughable threat when compared with an illithid or a beholder, and no, that doesn't change if you have access to fireballs. The main difference isn't the power level: it's the difference between animal cunning and intelligence 6+.

[Kami2awa]

Because every time they try, a small group of disparate adventurers with powers well above the human norm put a stop to it.

[Jay R]

Good point, but I think we are underestimating a difference between the D&D world and the real world:

Actually, I'm not estimating it at all. I'm just assuming that there is about the same difference on both sides of the battle.


A sabre cat can be cunning, but that's a laughable threat when compared with an illithid or a beholder, and no, that doesn't change if you have access to fireballs. The main difference isn't the power level: it's the difference between animal cunning and intelligence 6+.

Until they desire what's in the city and organize hundreds of themselves into an army to get it, that simply doesn't matter. The biggest threat to a city isn't a few illithids who want to live in the wilderness and eat the brains of occasional wanderers; it's 10,000 orcs who want to sack the city.