Human, player race

[Rfkannen]

I for one am very disapointed in the way that all rpgs represent humans, always the middle of the ground adaptable race, and I must just say out loud, why? The reason we are so adaptrable is because we got hands and big brains, all player races have hands and several are smarter than us! I mean you have to think about what humans have that is not only caused by our intelligence or our hands, how would you do humans in 5e? Do you think they did it well?

Here is my attempt


Humans

Oh pelor it was terrifying
"We were unarmed, and it had nothing but a hatched
we were running much faster than it, we laughed out loud
we knew that it coudnt catch us
but then we took a break, thinking we had lost it

we had not lost it
it was still coming
it didn't even look tired.

We were tired but we thought it was to, so we ran
and ran
and ran

George was the first to fall
he simply died from exhaustion from the constant running
the human only stopped for a second to bash in his skull

It kept going on like that, each of us falling dead from exhaustion
If you hadn't found me and killed it, it would have ran us to death
I can still see it running in my sleep."

~a quote from a wood elf who was the only survivor of a human attack

http://a5.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fill,dpr_1.0,g_face,h_300,q_80,w_300/MTE1ODA0OTcxNzcxOTg3NDY5.jpg

Humans are the dominant species on almost every corner of the world. You may think you know humans, but you don't. Most humans never take advantage of their inate human prowess, those that do are some of the most terrifying monsters in the world. They are harder to kill than dwarves, having insane scar tissue development. They are better hunters than elves, able to simply run their prey to death. They have an inate instinct to destroy that which is diffrent from themselves, sometimes even killing other human tribes because those tribes look slightly diffrent. Run away from these genocidal, invulnerable monstrosities if you want to live. actually don't they will catch you no matter where you go.

Ability score increase. Your constitution increases by 2, your wisdom increases by 1

age. Humans age at the same rate as humans

Alignment. Humans on the most part walk the line between tryanic law and genocidal chaos. Naturally they work as a group in a way that even modrons can be impressed by. But they are known to just as quickly break out of these self imposed societies and become some of the work monstrosities in the universe
.
Size. You are medium

speed your base walkinig speed is 30 feet.

Persistence hunter; you can run for 3 times longer than any other player race

Sweat, humans can stand temperatures up to 120 degrees

Natures mature; you gain proficiency in animal handling

Those who shall not fall; you heal and develop scar tissue far faster than should be possible. You heal 1d4 more health every time you take a lon

[ThatKreacher]

Sweat and persistent hunter seem to have no backing.

Where did you get the idea that humans can run further than any other race? One of the main characteristics of dwarves is that they are sturdy folk and have good stamina(shown with the constitution boost), and i think most stamina checks rely on constitution checks.

I'm confused why humans are somewhat more resistant to heat than other races, I'm sure other humanoids produce sweat and can tolerate heat as well(again, it's a constitution thing).

I think the reason humans are so ambiguous in most rpgs is because humans are a 'race' in the real world, and trying to make comparisons between the physiology and cultural(we have a lot of different cultures, while most d&d races adhere to similar cultural beliefs) benefits is difficult, and it's much easier to say humans are adaptable and varied(which we are) than to say they have specific traits which, I for example, happen to disagree with.

If someone says 'in my imaginary world this race has these qualities' it's hard to dispute that fact because that race does not exist in our world, and as such, is much more easily as accepted.

Also this belongs in the homebrew thread really.

[Safety Sword]

age. Humans age at the same rate as humans


This is my favorite part.

[Invader]

Humans are actually really susceptible to heat injuries and aren't really adapted to handle it well at all.

[Rfkannen]

Sweat and persistent hunter seem to have no backing.

Where did you get the idea that humans can run further than any other race? One of the main characteristics of dwarves is that they are sturdy folk and have good stamina(shown with the constitution boost), and i think most stamina checks rely on constitution checks.

I'm confused why humans are somewhat more resistant to heat than other races, I'm sure other humanoids produce sweat and can tolerate heat as well(again, it's a constitution thing).

I think the reason humans are so ambiguous in most rpgs is because humans are a 'race' in the real world, and trying to make comparisons between the physiology and cultural(we have a lot of different cultures, while most d&d races adhere to similar cultural beliefs) benefits is difficult, and it's much easier to say humans are adaptable and varied(which we are) than to say they have specific traits which, I for example, happen to disagree with.

If someone says 'in my imaginary world this race has these qualities' it's hard to dispute that fact because that race does not exist in our world, and as such, is much more easily as accepted.

Also this belongs in the homebrew thread really.


I put this here because this wasnt realy a race I intended to ever use an the real point of my thread wasnt the race, but rather my point that I just don't like humans in d&d, or any rpg realy. And I wanted to spark a discusion of humans in d&d


For why humans can run furthur, I was thinking about what humans actualy did before we started hitting things with rocks, and all I came up with was persistence hunting. I just don't picture early members of the other races hunting like that, I image orcs would just straight up kill them, dwarves would probably be wresting, elves would be sprinting/magicing. Not sure about halflings.

For why they can run furthur than dwarves, I picture dwarven consition to be more withstanding pain and that stuff, while I think that humans should have the running thing because of percistance hunting

About sweat, again me grasping at straws. Not that many animals sweat, so why should all of the player races? The only two animals I can think of out of the top of my head that sweat are horses and humans.


Humans are actually really susceptible to heat injuries and aren't really adapted to handle it well at all.

are we? I guess I misheard, I thought most animals coudnt handle extreme heats as well as we could, I mean besides cammels and stuff. Like arent we better at that then wolves or pigs?

[MaxWilson]

Humans are actually really susceptible to heat injuries and aren't really adapted to handle it well at all.

Compared to horses, we are fantastic at dealing with heat. But I think that's largely a function of body mass.

[Safety Sword]

Not sure about halflings.



Digging holes, filthy vermin that they are. And they smell like cabbage, anyone else noticed that?

[Eslin]

age. Humans age at the same rate as humans

Breathtaking in its ingenuity.

On a more serious note, why are humans apparently endurance hunters? Other humanoids like elves appear to have the same kind of adaptations we do for long wind (uncoupling of the ribcage etc), why would humans be any better at it?

[Rfkannen]

Humans are actually really susceptible to heat injuries and aren't really adapted to handle it well at all.


Breathtaking in its ingenuity.

On a more serious note, why are humans apparently endurance hunters? Other humanoids like elves appear to have the same kind of adaptations we do for long wind (uncoupling of the ribcage etc), why would humans be any better at it?


Because it was the only thing I could think of. Also because When I look at most of the other races I just can't picture them doing stuff like that. I mean I personally think of wood elves as more closly resembling the elven ancestors, and they have the whole speed thing going, they appear to be built more for bursts of speed, that may just be me though. Only races I could think of doing besides humans conceptiuly would be orcs. I mean halflings/gnomes/dwarves are just to slow, tieflings are humans. And dragon born.... well I don't know about dragon born


Same thing with sweat, I have no evidence that elves sweat.

[Ziegander]

Same thing with sweat, I have no evidence that elves sweat.

I'm sorry, but I had to:

http://random-scribblings.net/hugo/gallery/albums/ftp/elrond/fotr/rivendell033_fotr.jpg

[Eslin]

Because it was the only thing I could think of. Also because When I look at most of the other races I just can't picture them doing stuff like that. I mean I personally think of wood elves as more closly resembling the elven ancestors, and they have the whole speed thing going, they appear to be built more for bursts of speed, that may just be me though. Only races I could think of doing besides humans conceptiuly would be orcs. I mean halflings/gnomes/dwarves are just to slow, tieflings are humans. And dragon born.... well I don't know about dragon born


Same thing with sweat, I have no evidence that elves sweat.

You also have no evidence they don't, and pretty much every temperate creature has a method of heat release. Do elves pant instead?

[Rfkannen]

I'm sorry, but I had to:

http://random-scribblings.net/hugo/gallery/albums/ftp/elrond/fotr/rivendell033_fotr.jpg

Okay I have no evidence that elves in d&d sweat, lol




You also have no evidence they don't, and pretty much every temperate creature has a method of heat release. Do elves pant instead?

I am going to go with yes, yes they do. Or they might just not sweat as well as humans.


I am grasping at straws here, anyone else got cool things about humans?

[Eslin]

Okay I have no evidence that elves in d&d sweat, lol


I am going to go with yes, yes they do. Or they might just not sweat as well as humans.


I am grasping at straws here, anyone else got cool things about humans?

There's no good reason elves wouldn't sweat as well. It doesn't cost them anything and gives them an advantage, it would be really really strange if they didn't have an equally effective heat release method.

Cool things about humans wise: The average set of races seems to be human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling. Of those, humans are the biggest and strongest - why not give them a bonus to strength, maybe a smaller bonus to constitution? Or a bonus to size of weapon used, perhaps a critical bonus? And possibly try to emphasise tenacity - not endurance, considering an elf should be just as able to run long distance, but humans holding on to the very last is a common theme, give them the ability to keep fighting at 0 for a short amount of time?

[Rfkannen]

You also have no evidence they don't, and pretty much every temperate creature has a method of heat release. Do elves pant instead?


There's no good reason elves wouldn't sweat as well. It doesn't cost them anything and gives them an advantage, it would be really really strange if they didn't have an equally effective heat release method.

Cool things about humans wise: The average set of races seems to be human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling. Of those, humans are the biggest and strongest - why not give them a bonus to strength, maybe a smaller bonus to constitution? Or a bonus to size of weapon used, perhaps a critical bonus? And possibly try to emphasise tenacity - not endurance, considering an elf should be just as able to run long distance, but humans holding on to the very last is a common theme, give them the ability to keep fighting at 0 for a short amount of time?

Yeah, the sweat thing didn't make all that much sense, that would be another one of those things shared by all the naked bipedal humanoids. I was trying to think of stuff

Good point about the tenacity

What I was trying to do, related to that, but failed was represent scarification. I mean humans heal like a boss, and have incredably overactive scar tissue, alongside not dieng from shock very easily. That could somehow be tied to the tenacity thing, But I can't think of how to represent it mechanicaly.

[Arzanyos]

So, make them Half-orcs?

[Kaeso]

I for one am very disapointed in the way that all rpgs represent humans, always the middle of the ground adaptable race, and I must just say out loud, why?

Simply because humans (us) need humans (in DnD) as a frame of reference, because it's filled with all kinds of crazy creatures. Of course you can say that elves possess great acuity, that dwarves are though and goblins weak but numerous, but these races are acute, though and weak compared to what? Humans, the scale of reference of course!

I actually like the way DnD portrays humans: they aren't really specialized in anything, but they're ambitious and driven. This keeps humans in the middle and makes them moldable, as our frame of reference would be (every human is different, so our eyes and ears into the DnD world should be adaptable depending on who's looking into that world, if this makes sense).

[Rfkannen]

So, make them Half-orcs?

That is actualy A good point, a human should be very diffrent from an orc. Personally, I would see orcs as being more designed for pure combat, they exude violence from every orifice. While a human shoud be a juggernaught that can't be stopped, but can't do nearly as much damage as an orc.

[JoeJ]

I for one am very disapointed in the way that all rpgs represent humans, always the middle of the ground adaptable race, and I must just say out loud, why?

Humans were probably declared the most adaptable because there are thousands of very distinct human cultures, and nobody wanted to go to the trouble of creating more than a very tiny fraction of that for any other race.

[Eslin]

That is actualy A good point, a human should be very diffrent from an orc. Personally, I would see orcs as being more designed for pure combat, they exude violence from every orifice. While a human shoud be a juggernaught that can't be stopped, but can't do nearly as much damage as an orc.

Eh, orcs make sense - they sacrifice some mental ability for more capable children and a faster adolescence. The time it takes a human to grow up and how helpless we are when we do is a huge cost, one compensated for with intelligence. Orcs pay less of that cost, so they must have evolved in an environment that favoured faster maturity and greater strength. The increase in energy usage from their size wouldn't be offset by the minor reduction in energy usage from less brainpower, so they're from an environment where they can gather at least as much food as humans.

Strength is kind of a wash, reason wise - it could be for social dominance, food gathering or self defense, we have no way of differentiating it. The ability to see in the dark indicates primarily nocturnal activity, and the jaw full of grinding teeth indicates, unlike humans, an entirely herbivorous diet. We can therefore conclude that orcs were a night time forager in a sustenance rich environment - which means they lived in an environment in which they were vulnerable to large predators, otherwise the night time adaptation would have been unnecessary. Their greater strength then is likely similar in reason to that of bears and gorillas, needing to uproot trees or defend themselves. Their environment was almost certainly jungle or heavy forest - night time adaptation means larger predators, and their frame is unsuitable for escaping those predators via running, though their long arms and greater strength means they were almost certainly very good climbers, plus such an environment would have been the only one with enough nutrients to sustain such a lifestyle.

It is pretty clear then that orcs are likely an offshoot of a gorilla-like ape, very likely splitting off from human's ancestors at the homonidae stage and undergoing parallel evolution, ending up similar to humans due to whatever factors increased our intelligence to such a degree (likely a social skill evolutionary arms race, but impossible to determine) but with the differences outlined above.

http://s27.postimg.org/siiis9bw3/orcteeth.png
As we can see, aside from the tusks (seen on rooting animals like boars), orcs have a mouth full of grinding teeth. While sharp teeth are not technically needed to eat meat, almost every omnivore or carnivore has at least some sharp teeth - so if orcs are omnivorous, it is a very recent adaptation.

[RealCheese]

orc theories snipped.
Omfg, do one of these for each race, i love it!

[Tenmujiin]

snip

While this post was amazing you forgot to accout for divine influence. If orcs had developed in our world then this would have been an apt theory but since divine influence on just about every world of D&D is quntafiable and in almost all of those worlds the humanoids orther than humans were designed or at least modified by various deities to suit their own purposes and just because they are deities doesn't mean they are smart (cough giving orcs herbivore teeth and makong then carnivores cough). Ultimately any attempt to assess the creatures in a fantasy world have to take into account the differences that world has from our own.

Edit: on topic, humans are varird and adaptable because of the sheer number of different human cultures compaired to say the 2-4 cultures elves have. The differences between a human and an elf or dwarf are about the same as the differences between say someone of celtic decent and someone of slavic or native american decent. The fact that humans can interbreed with the different races means that they, by definition, are the same species (two creatures are only a different species from eachother if they cannot produce fertile offspring). Obviously this breaks appart in a fantasy world somewhat but the biggest example of this not being true (half-dragons/fiends/celestials) is due to magic (and hence exempt from the rules of our world)

[Hytheter]

It is pretty clear then that orcs are likely an offshoot of a gorilla-like ape, very likely splitting off from human's ancestors at the homonidae stage and undergoing parallel evolution

Considering that humans and orcs can produce viable offspring, their divergence has to be far more recent. They're at least the same genus, if not species.

That's taking an evolutionary perspective; it's more likely that the orc god just copy pasted the human genome and fiddled with the dials until he liked the result.

[Eslin]

Considering that humans and orcs can produce viable offspring, their divergence has to be far more recent. They're at least the same genus, if not species.

That's taking an evolutionary perspective; it's more likely that the orc god just copy pasted the human genome and fiddled with the dials until he liked the result.

For the first, that makes no sense, there's nothing that could select so quickly for darkvision that amazing. There is no way humans and orcs are close enough to interbreed.

For the second, that's pretty obviously the answer. It's magic, gods are happening, nothing has to make sense.

[Hytheter]

There is no way humans and orcs are close enough to interbreed.

So Half-Orcs are.....?

[Eslin]

So Half-Orcs are.....?

Stupid? Seriously, I have no idea why they are so obsessed with including this weird unlikely half breed in the PHB. Just do the far more common orcs.

[jaydubs]

Humans are usually cast as versatile, because many players prefer to play as humans for flavor reasons, regardless of the game. So, many games purposely make them effective as any class, to cater to that crowd that wants to play as a human no matter what class they pick.

Also, forum discussion of how a race sweats disturb me, ever since the Mass Effect 3 thread that involved a detailed scientific analysis on what theoretical Quarian sweat tastes like.

[silveralen]

It helps explain the (typically) human dominated worlds you see, with humans takin up practically every role and being treated as the baseline.


Also, forum discussion of how a race sweats disturb me, ever since the Mass Effect 3 thread that involved a detailed scientific analysis on what theoretical Quarian sweat tastes like.

Welp, I'm terrified.

[Gwendol]

Humans are usually cast as versatile, because many players prefer to play as humans for flavor reasons, regardless of the game. So, many games purposely make them effective as any class, to cater to that crowd that wants to play as a human no matter what class they pick.


I thought it harkened back to older versions of the game where race=class except for humans?

[Tenmujiin]

I thought it harkened back to older versions of the game where race=class except for humans?

Not really, the thing is that the stats are defined by the average capabilities of a human being 10.5 in each stat, and since all the other races get nice things humans need something to make up for that deficiency, I.E. versatility since as the baseline they shouldn't be better at a specific thing (since you should instead make the other races worse at that thing and keep humans sitting as the baseline). 5e did this by having every almost every other race effectively get +0 in a stat, +1 in a stat and -1 in 4 stats (and some nice abilities) when compared to a human.

Basically, humans are cast as versatile not because they are but because everything else is focused and so they become versatile relative to the other races.

[Gwendol]

Well, yes, only that it was made even more explicit in earlier editions. If you wanted to play any class, you had to be human. Or rather, to play another race shoehorned you in playing a distinctive role: gish as elf, fighter as dwarf, or fighter/rogue as halfling.

[Tenmujiin]

Well, yes, only that it was made even more explicit in earlier editions. If you wanted to play any class, you had to be human. Or rather, to play another race shoehorned you in playing a distinctive role: gish as elf, fighter as dwarf, or fighter/rogue as halfling.

Yea, honestly I wouldn't play that game. I'm glad I found TRPGS at a time they have matured and lost some seriously annoying features (though the edition I started in, 3.5e, was a bloody mess in its own right, my group never cared enough about winning D&D for most of its flaws to be a problem). Ultimately, the modern human may be listed as the 'versatile' race due to holdovers from the dark early days of OD&D it is probably the best way to describe the baseline (I.E. most similar to the players as a group) race.

Edit: Another way of looking at it is that each of the common races are essentially humans with certain characteristics emphasised (stubbornness and strength for dwarves, arrogance and grace for elves, ect.). The race being described by the OP is the Orc who embodies violence and physical power.

[Gwendol]

Yea, honestly I wouldn't play that game. I'm glad I found TRPGS at a time they have matured and lost some seriously annoying features (though the edition I started in, 3.5e, was a bloody mess in its own right, my group never cared enough about winning D&D for most of its flaws to be a problem). Ultimately, the modern human may be listed as the 'versatile' race due to holdovers from the dark early days of OD&D it is probably the best way to describe the baseline (I.E. most similar to the players as a group) race.

Edit: Another way of looking at it is that each of the common races are essentially humans with certain characteristics emphasised (stubbornness and strength for dwarves, arrogance and grace for elves, ect.). The race being described by the OP is the Orc who embodies violence and physical power.

I wouldn't call that feature annoying really, it was cool if you rolled well and managed to qualify for a an elf for example.

[Tenmujiin]

I wouldn't call that feature annoying really, it was cool if you rolled well and managed to qualify for a an elf for example.

The part I've emphasised is probably the biggest problem I have with earlier editions. Bad rolls in char-gen could completely change the character you made. I can understand some people liking that and I'm fine with it past char-gen (and during so long as it doesn't strictly bar you from certain charter types). Honestly, I'd call having to gamble that you'll be able to make the character you want annoying (this is why I either use point buy or heavily regulated rolling methods).

[Gwendol]

The part I've emphasised is probably the biggest problem I have with earlier editions. Bad rolls in char-gen could completely change the character you made. I can understand some people liking that and I'm fine with it past char-gen (and during so long as it doesn't strictly bar you from certain charter types). Honestly, I'd call having to gamble that you'll be able to make the character you want annoying (this is why I either use point buy or heavily regulated rolling methods).

Oh yes, don't get me wrong here. The strict 3d6, and no reshuffling ability rolls make for a host of mediocre PC's that likely never survive their first encounter. That was however the style of the game, and so manageing to roll an elf was something to remember. Nothing says you can't apply point-buy in that game as well though.

[Gurka]

The reason humans are always treated as the average, middle of the road race, is because humans are the only race that every person playing the game has a frame of reference for. Thus all other races are described as being "more" or "less" than humans. Stronger or weaker, heartier or more frail, more or less observant, etc.

And as far as mammals go, humans have rather poor stamina for long distance running (of any long term exertion). We're not exceptionally bad as predators go I suppose, though we lack the flat out speed of most. When looking at herbavores though, compared to any but very large herd animals, our stamina is rather sub par.

Our ability to heal and recover from injury naturally is also average at best for mammals, and far less than many reptiles, cephalopods, etc.

Lastly, sweat is a very good way to dissipate heat in the short term but unfortunately it's a poor adaptation for permanent habitation in a desert climate. Because we sweat, we have to consume many times the water of other desert adapted creatures in order to avoid dehydration, and since the defining characteristic of a desert is it's lack of moisture, that's kinda the yard stick by which to measure. To be sure, there are high temperature climates which do not lack for water, but the reason we've thrived in desserts as nearly every other climate is because we're smart and stubborn.

[Gwendol]

The reason humans are always treated as the average, middle of the road race, is because humans are the only race that every person playing the game has a frame of reference for. Thus all other races are described as being "more" or "less" than humans. Stronger or weaker, heartier or more frail, more or less observant, etc.

And as far as mammals go, humans have rather poor stamina for long distance running (of any long term exertion). We're not exceptionally bad as predators go I suppose, though we lack the flat out speed of most. When looking at herbavores though, compared to any but very large herd animals, our stamina is rather sub par.


Care to give a reference to that assertion? It appears to go against current evolutionary science regarding the development of mankind. See for example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_humans.html

Our capacity to run, while not expending much energy, and doing that when most other animals are resting, appears to have an impact on our development.

[Gurka]

Care to give a reference to that assertion? It appears to go against current evolutionary science regarding the development of mankind. See for example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_humans.html

Our capacity to run, while not expending much energy, and doing that when most other animals are resting, appears to have an impact on our development.

Nice article. My line of thought is, if you notice, precisely in line with the "conventional" theory on it. There is always something new to learn, and always new ideas floating about. I didn't think anybody but truly exceptional runners could do things like outpace horses over long distance, and I wasn't prepared to apply a generalization based on the top 10% (or likely less) of the population. I'm still not certain that an average athlete could manage this type of feat. Plus, anatomically speaking, most of the people in the world are not nearly as adept runners as those of many African nations. None of those things invalidate your point, but I'm walking you through my general thought process.

That said, even if it's agreed that the human muculoskeletal system is adapted ideally for endurance running, one would think other humanoids with very similar physiology would share that particular advantage. Elves for instance are nearly identical to humans in proportions and (as far as I know) anatomy, even if a bit on the short side for human average, and genetically similar enough to be reproductively compatible. And as pointed out by a previous poster, dwarves are typically legendary for their capacity to force march, so they should be right there too.

Perhaps they just need to adjust the standard to make longer distance running easier in the game.

[rlc]

About sweat, again me grasping at straws. Not that many animals sweat, so why should all of the player races? The only two animals I can think of out of the top of my head that sweat are horses and humans.


since these are humanoids we're talking about, i wouldn't use all animals as a comparison and i'd stop at primates. according to a quick google search, all primates can sweat.

edit: obvious exception is dragonborn

[Tehnar]

It depends on what you want your history behind the races to be. Basically you have 3 options:


The Gods created races as is. This gives you pretty much license for races to have any kind of modifiers, magical powers or whatever you can think of.
The races evolved separately. You still have a lot of freedom to assign whatever modifiers you want to the races, but you should look at what a particular race evolved from and how those evolutionary advantages favor them now.
The races evolved from a common ancestor (or the Gods shaped the races from a common mold). This is usually the most popular one, but I would not assign racial modifiers (or even not at all, depending on granularity), but would go more for cultural modifiers.


Evolutionary, humans have a lot of advantages vs other animals, but the main thing is efficiency. Humans are a lot more efficient (in terms of energy expended to energy gained per body mass) then any of their competitors. There is a theory that early humans (from cca 2 million years ago to 200,000 years ago) were responsible for the extinction of 4 preadator species.

[brainface]

This feels relevant.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910

So basically, yes, we are boss at handling heat, and endurance running as compared to sprinting. You could totally model humans as having a better ability at adjusting to extreme climes/endurance, and it'd even fit with how they're shown in tolkein, iirc. Instead, humans are almost always "just kinda middle of the road" which equals them being mechanically bleh. ^_^

(I liked 4e's "they're action heroes" theme, if only because it was a specific thing humans could do and others couldn't. If you're unfamiliar with the edition, humans were really good at spending their action point--whenever you decided to go crazy and take another action, you could get bonuses to attack, damage, whatnot. So orcs are stronger, dwarves are tougher, but put a human under duress and they're going to rise to the occasion. For a round at least. ^_^)

[rlc]

^so maybe humans can use inspiration to do more things? get an extra bonus action, change the element for a spell for one round, etc?

[mephnick]

New solution: Just get rid of humans

[Rallicus]

Oh pelor it was terrifying

~a quote from a wood elf who was the only survivor of a human attack


So spooked that he decided to start worshiping a human deity.

[Rfkannen]

The reason humans are always treated as the average, middle of the road race, is because humans are the only race that every person playing the game has a frame of reference for. Thus all other races are described as being "more" or "less" than humans. Stronger or weaker, heartier or more frail, more or less observant, etc.

And as far as mammals go, humans have rather poor stamina for long distance running (of any long term exertion). We're not exceptionally bad as predators go I suppose, though we lack the flat out speed of most. When looking at herbavores though, compared to any but very large herd animals, our stamina is rather sub par.

Our ability to heal and recover from injury naturally is also average at best for mammals, and far less than many reptiles, cephalopods, etc.

Lastly, sweat is a very good way to dissipate heat in the short term but unfortunately it's a poor adaptation for permanent habitation in a desert climate. Because we sweat, we have to consume many times the water of other desert adapted creatures in order to avoid dehydration, and since the defining characteristic of a desert is it's lack of moisture, that's kinda the yard stick by which to measure. To be sure, there are high temperature climates which do not lack for water, but the reason we've thrived in desserts as nearly every other climate is because we're smart and stubborn.
I did actualy know the thing about sweat, I just wasnt sure how to put it into a character race

for healing, I am just going to assume all the races exept wood elf and dragonborn are mammels.


Care to give a reference to that assertion? It appears to go against current evolutionary science regarding the development of mankind. See for example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_humans.html

Our capacity to run, while not expending much energy, and doing that when most other animals are resting, appears to have an impact on our development.

Woot people agreeing with me!


Nice article. My line of thought is, if you notice, precisely in line with the "conventional" theory on it. There is always something new to learn, and always new ideas floating about. I didn't think anybody but truly exceptional runners could do things like outpace horses over long distance, and I wasn't prepared to apply a generalization based on the top 10% (or likely less) of the population. I'm still not certain that an average athlete could manage this type of feat. Plus, anatomically speaking, most of the people in the world are not nearly as adept runners as those of many African nations. None of those things invalidate your point, but I'm walking you through my general thought process.

That said, even if it's agreed that the human muculoskeletal system is adapted ideally for endurance running, one would think other humanoids with very similar physiology would share that particular advantage. Elves for instance are nearly identical to humans in proportions and (as far as I know) anatomy, even if a bit on the short side for human average, and genetically similar enough to be reproductively compatible. And as pointed out by a previous poster, dwarves are typically legendary for their capacity to force march, so they should be right there too.

Perhaps they just need to adjust the standard to make longer distance running easier in the game.
Okay so here is my reasoning, adventurers are people of adventure in a ruff and tumble time. I would say that the reason most humans in the real world can't do the running thing is because we no longer train for it under threat of death. Also on the elf thing, if you picture an elf from the times before tools, how do you picture it hunting. I conseed on the dwarf thing.



since these are humanoids we're talking about, i wouldn't use all animals as a comparison and i'd stop at primates. according to a quick google search, all primates can sweat.

edit: obvious exception is dragonborn

I did not realise this.


It depends on what you want your history behind the races to be. Basically you have 3 options:


The Gods created races as is. This gives you pretty much license for races to have any kind of modifiers, magical powers or whatever you can think of.
The races evolved separately. You still have a lot of freedom to assign whatever modifiers you want to the races, but you should look at what a particular race evolved from and how those evolutionary advantages favor them now.
The races evolved from a common ancestor (or the Gods shaped the races from a common mold). This is usually the most popular one, but I would not assign racial modifiers (or even not at all, depending on granularity), but would go more for cultural modifiers.


Evolutionary, humans have a lot of advantages vs other animals, but the main thing is efficiency. Humans are a lot more efficient (in terms of energy expended to energy gained per body mass) then any of their competitors. There is a theory that early humans (from cca 2 million years ago to 200,000 years ago) were responsible for the extinction of 4 preadator species.
I personally like the second one, and that was what I was working off of in my head. but in all 3, if humans weren't better at anything than other races, they simply would have been out competed. Because take elves, not only are they smarter, faster, and more magical, they also appernetly have every single trait humans have withought downsides.

This feels relevant.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910

So basically, yes, we are boss at handling heat, and endurance running as compared to sprinting. You could totally model humans as having a better ability at adjusting to extreme climes/endurance, and it'd even fit with how they're shown in tolkein, iirc. Instead, humans are almost always "just kinda middle of the road" which equals them being mechanically bleh. ^_^

(I liked 4e's "they're action heroes" theme, if only because it was a specific thing humans could do and others couldn't. If you're unfamiliar with the edition, humans were really good at spending their action point--whenever you decided to go crazy and take another action, you could get bonuses to attack, damage, whatnot. So orcs are stronger, dwarves are tougher, but put a human under duress and they're going to rise to the occasion. For a round at least. ^_^)
It has been a while since I read lotr how exactly are humans portrayed in that?


^so maybe humans can use inspiration to do more things? get an extra bonus action, change the element for a spell for one round, etc?

I personally woudnt like this, as some dms give it out very rarely or very frequently. So either humans are the most op thing ever or useless

New solution: Just get rid of humans
Some people like haveing the ability to play the same race as themselves.


So spooked that he decided to start worshiping a human deity.
Uhhhhhh yes. That was completly on purpose. Of course.

[ThatKreacher]

New solution: Just get rid of humans

Seconded. Humans are unnecessary. Are we really so anthropocentric that we must insert ourselves in everything?

[rlc]

Seconded. Humans are unnecessary. Are we really so anthropocentric that we must insert ourselves in everything?

yes.
did you seriously have to ask?

[Gurka]

Honestly, this is why there need to be more variant human options. No reason that we can't model the cultural or anatomical difference between various cultural and ethnic groups. Then again, people get touchy about certain things that way, so maybe best not.

Honestly, I'm fine with basic humans as they are, as well as the variant that offers the feat, though I'd probably allow any combination of +2 to a pair of stats that a player wanted as a human, if they justified it with an interesting cultural backstory.

[MaxWilson]

I personally like the second one, and that was what I was working off of in my head. but in all 3, if humans weren't better at anything than other races, they simply would have been out competed. Because take elves, not only are they smarter, faster, and more magical, they also appernetly have every single trait humans have withought downsides.

A reproductive rate less than 1/16 of the human rate seems like a downside.

[Rfkannen]

A reproductive rate less than 1/16 of the human rate seems like a downside.

Actualy, I am pretty sure in mentions in the phb that elves are sexualy mature at the same age as humans. Even if they arent emotionaly mature till they are 70, evelutionaly they would have been haveing children at the same time as humans.

Also I am pretty sure that even if they did have that slow birth rate they could just kill all the humans and steal all there food. I mean why woudnt they? An old elf in naturaly better at weaponry and one of the subraces has every member able to use magic. Put a 600 year old elf against a 40 year old human and the elf is going to win, and then steal the humans food, and then kill more humans for 100 years, and steal there food.

[MeeposFire]

I thought it harkened back to older versions of the game where race=class except for humans?

Though half orc was not an option for a class in that version of D&D (neither was half elf for that matter unless it was in Dragon or something).

It was however an option in 1e AD&D but that edition had races separate from classes.

Also half orcs have been in the game (as a PC race or not) due to at the very least Tolkien since humans and orcs could mate in LotR.

[Gurka]

Actualy, I am pretty sure in mentions in the phb that elves are sexualy mature at the same age as humans. Even if they arent emotionaly mature till they are 70, evelutionaly they would have been haveing children at the same time as humans.

Also I am pretty sure that even if they did have that slow birth rate they could just kill all the humans and steal all there food. I mean why woudnt they? An old elf in naturaly better at weaponry and one of the subraces has every member able to use magic. Put a 600 year old elf against a 40 year old human and the elf is going to win, and then steal the humans food, and then kill more humans for 100 years, and steal there food.

I'm not sure if it explicitly breaks it down, but in most fiction elves have remarkably slow reproductive cycles yeah.

And they might be able to kill all the humans, because a 600 year old elf is certainly more than a match for a 40 year old human... the thing with high reproductive rates though, is that for every 600 year old elf, there is likely to be a dozen or more humans of various ages, and that's usually more than a match for the elf.

Also consider that while that elf may have experienced many times that human's life, it doesn't mean that they internalize and develop at the same rate. Indeed, since they're only considered emotionally mature at the age of 70, while humans are emotionally mature at the (debatable) age of 20 (or never, if you ask my wife) you can extrapolate that elves advance mentally much more slowly than humans. This does not mean less intelligent, but it does mean that they would likely be much more hidebound and less apt to evolve and adapt their behaviors to a changing environment. This is an evolutionary handicap of the first order. Adapt or die.

Lastly, even if their numbers were roughly equal, who comes out ahead can have as much to do with cultural things. Often times the more aggressive and warlike culture will simply win, and in most fictions elves are, at their core, rather peaceful. More so than humanity is typically portrayed, anyway. Look at the crusades. At that time, the middle-east had more advanced education, mathematics, science, metallurgy, hygiene, and nearly everything else. Still, Europeans took Jerusalem by force of numbers and the willingness to absorb any number of casualties in the name of victory. In a lot of ways, the middle-east hasn't recovered from that even now. Not that that's the primitive-man hunting/gathering days you're talking about, but I thought it apt all the same.

[Gurka]

thinking further down those lines, in primitive times that elf is not likely to survive to 600, for the same reason that most humans would not have made it to even 40. We're physically capable of living much longer, but even in medieval and renaissance times, humans seldom died of old age. Too many other things to kill us along the way, plus the hardships of hunter/gatherer life would make it even less likely. Consider that it was a struggle to keep a human child alive to adulthood... and that's when we can pop out roughly one per year. If you can only manage one every decade or two... that makes it really difficult to maintain a steady population against even the attrition of illness, starvation, and exposure. Add tribal conflict on top of that, and forget about it. If you consider it that way, the LAST thing they would do is try and kill the humans. Indeed with their inability to replenish their population at the sort of rate humans do, their only evolutionary option would be to hide and evade conflict: flight over fight.

[Rfkannen]

I'm not sure if it explicitly breaks it down, but in most fiction elves have remarkably slow reproductive cycles yeah.

And they might be able to kill all the humans, because a 600 year old elf is certainly more than a match for a 40 year old human... the thing with high reproductive rates though, is that for every 600 year old elf, there is likely to be a dozen or more humans of various ages, and that's usually more than a match for the elf.

Also consider that while that elf may have experienced many times that human's life, it doesn't mean that they internalize and develop at the same rate. Indeed, since they're only considered emotionally mature at the age of 70, while humans are emotionally mature at the (debatable) age of 20 (or never, if you ask my wife) you can extrapolate that elves advance mentally much more slowly than humans. This does not mean less intelligent, but it does mean that they would likely be much more hidebound and less apt to evolve and adapt their behaviors to a changing environment. This is an evolutionary handicap of the first order. Adapt or die.

Lastly, even if their numbers were roughly equal, who comes out ahead can have as much to do with cultural things. Often times the more aggressive and warlike culture will simply win, and in most fictions elves are, at their core, rather peaceful. More so than humanity is typically portrayed, anyway. Look at the crusades. At that time, the middle-east had more advanced education, mathematics, science, metallurgy, hygiene, and nearly everything else. Still, Europeans took Jerusalem by force of numbers and the willingness to absorb any number of casualties in the name of victory. In a lot of ways, the middle-east hasn't recovered from that even now. Not that that's the primitive-man hunting/gathering days you're talking about, but I thought it apt all the same.

Yeah I was supprised when I read it but it pretty plainly states that they are physically mature by the age of 20. However It is probably more useful to work with the standered slow ageing elves as that is what most editions and rpgs have.

You do raise a good point about learning diffrences, actualy now that I think about it humans are one of the fastest agers besides orcs.... Hmm that actualy could be beneficial for adventurers, especialy in a world with ways to get immortality. Haveing the ability to learn faster could be very healpful

While there weren't really peaceful cultures back then, I do see your point. They could have been less hunter and more gatherer.

[Rfkannen]

thinking further down those lines, in primitive times that elf is not likely to survive to 600, for the same reason that most humans would not have made it to even 40. We're physically capable of living much longer, but even in medieval and renaissance times, humans seldom died of old age. Too many other things to kill us along the way, plus the hardships of hunter/gatherer life would make it even less likely. Consider that it was a struggle to keep a human child alive to adulthood... and that's when we can pop out roughly one per year. If you can only manage one every decade or two... that makes it really difficult to maintain a steady population against even the attrition of illness, starvation, and exposure. Add tribal conflict on top of that, and forget about it. If you consider it that way, the LAST thing they would do is try and kill the humans. Indeed with their inability to replenish their population at the sort of rate humans do, their only evolutionary option would be to hide and evade conflict: flight over fight.

Lol darn it you posted before I was finished with my first reply.


This is a pretty good point, they probably would die at around the same age as humans.

And with the flight thing it would make sense that the wood elves are faster than humans.

One thing I just thought of though that only realy works as logical in d&d. So every elf is trained in weaponry. '
Every.
Single.
One.

Why in the world are these gatherers all able to use a long bow? Or even less sense, a bloody rapier! You could say culture, but as a racial trait I would say that at the least it is easier for an elf to pick up weaponry than a human. And this probably means that adapted to useing weaponry/tools so long before humans that they began to pick up weaponry faster than a human can. That would imply some bloody evolution.

This also brings two ideas to my head. Haveing a primitive tribal campaign would be awesome, and how the hell are gnomes alive? What were they doing for most of the universe....

[JoeJ]

One thing I just thought of though that only realy works as logical in d&d. So every elf is trained in weaponry. '
Every.
Single.
One.


Every elf player character is trained in weaponry. That doesn't mean every elf is.

[Rfkannen]

Every elf player character is trained in weaponry. That doesn't mean every elf is.

You take two player characters with the backround that they were cheifs in the army. Why does the elven one have the ability to use a sword better than the human? I mean both of them were just chiefs. Lets make them wizards. They were both cheif wizards in the army. When did the elf learn to use a sword? Why did the human not?

[Cybren]

New solution: Just get rid of humans

I'd rather get rid of non-humans. They are always invariably just differently speckled humans

[JoeJ]

You take two player characters with the backround that they were cheifs in the army. Why does the elven one have the ability to use a sword better than the human? I mean both of them were just chiefs. Lets make them wizards. They were both cheif wizards in the army. When did the elf learn to use a sword? Why did the human not?

Those are questions you should ask the people playing those characters.

[Rfkannen]

Those are questions you should ask the people playing those characters.


Okay let me reword my question. I did actualy come into this question when building a character, he was a elven wizard chief, and somehow he knew how to use a sword. Because withought homebrewing every single elf adventurer knows how to use a sword. You have to do work to make your elf not be able to use a sword. By raw your elf can't not know how to use a sword, no matter the backstory. Even if they spent all their time mastering magic and cooking.

[Gurka]

Okay let me reword my question. I did actualy come into this question when building a character, he was a elven wizard chief, and somehow he knew how to use a sword. Because withought homebrewing every single elf adventurer knows how to use a sword. You have to do work to make your elf not be able to use a sword. By raw your elf can't not know how to use a sword, no matter the backstory. Even if they spent all their time mastering magic and cooking.

Yes, that's technically true. The races in the book are made to depict members of their respective societies in the DEFAULT D&D setting, which is generally (and also appears to be in this edition) Faerun. In said Elven societies, every elf upon reaching their majority, serves some term in their nation's military or militia, or even that it's part of their basic primary school education. Kinda like how we all learn how to wrestle and play baseball in middleschool PE class. It's certainly not unheard of. Were you to model a human society after Sparta, every adult (male anyway) would serve in the army, and that variant would certainly come with proficiency in certain weapons or equipment. Heck, even today every Israeli serves a term in the army, thus they ALL have proficiency with small arms, grenades, man portable anti tank weapons, etc. There are always exceptions, but that's the deal in general.

Elves aren't born knowing how to wield longswords, nor are dwarves born knowing how to move and fight in light and medium armor. I'd personally prefer that they didn't make things like that part of racial bonuses since they really specifically are not racial, and had instead included them in background options. It's how they did it though, so it's what we deal with.

Also, by the time whole societies begin standard levels of education, they're so far beyond their hunting/gathering roots, so while they may still shape a society in general ways, they don't really apply in any specific sense anymore.

[JoeJ]

Okay let me reword my question. I did actualy come into this question when building a character, he was a elven wizard chief, and somehow he knew how to use a sword. Because withought homebrewing every single elf adventurer knows how to use a sword. You have to do work to make your elf not be able to use a sword. By raw your elf can't not know how to use a sword, no matter the backstory. Even if they spent all their time mastering magic and cooking.

Elves have a lot of time to kill before they're old enough to start adventuring; enough to have learned a great many things. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that you can have a PC without the standard weapon proficiencies if you want, but it does require an exception (however minor) to the rules, so you'd have to ask your DM. However, unless there's some campaign specific reason why every adult elf has certain skills, I can't imagine why they'd say no.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

in dwarf fortress's worldgen a while back, elves had pretty good reproduction rate and they'd eat just about anything. every world would end up with enormous hordes of elves overwhelming everything with pure numbers then eating the bodies. Not too far in, most races would have a handful of incredibly talented survivors that threw back every attack on their domicles. then they'd eventually die of old age or bronze colossus attack, while the elves just keep living their long lives and spawning yet more cannibal elves... ;_;

so let's just assume we have slow elf reproduction okay

[Tenmujiin]

So elves can start reproducing at 20, that is almost double the average age for modern humans (12) and it was even earlier the further back in history you go. So yea, humans mature a hell of a lot faster than elves.

[Gurka]

So elves can start reproducing at 20, that is almost double the average age for modern humans (12) and it was even earlier the further back in history you go. So yea, humans mature a hell of a lot faster than elves.

It's really not that specific. If I recall properly it states that elves reach physical maturity at "the same age as humans", but do not reach emotional maturity until around 70 years old. I'd note that it's also an assumption that for elves " physical " maturity and "reproductive" maturity are the same thing, which they may well not be.

Also, once society has progressed to the point that reproduction as frequently as possible is not a matter of survival, many women opt not to have children until much later (when the society they live in gives them a choice at all).

Elven societies are usually depicted as having complete (or nearly) gender equality, so it's reasonable to assume that they would be afforded that choice. Once (if) various forms of magic are commonplace, disease becomes much less of a factor in everyday life, and that further reduces the impetus to reproduce for survival.

Consider that many women opt not to have children until their "biological clock" starts ticking, which is often as much as 2/3 through their viable reproductive years. If elves are anything like that, then many females may not feel the biological drive to reproduce for it's own sake, for 300 to 500 years.