Removing humans?

[TigerT20]

So, I was thinking about maybe restricting/removing some of the races from the options players could pick, or from the world entirely. And the idea popped into my head to remove the most staple, most common race in fantasy: humanity.

I gave it some thought and I've come up with a list of pros and cons, both flavourwise and mechanically.

Pros:
- One of the traps of worldbuilding is gone - the idea of the 'elf nation' and the 'dwarf nation' would mean you have 2 countries in your world. Interesting, but most worlds want a few more then that. (If any GM says they haven't done this at least once, they're lying)
- There is no variant human to be the standalone best option in terms of pure racial traits
- We don't have all the 'humans are versatile and can be anything!' nonsense that suggests all the other races only have slightly more free will than outsiders do
- A very minor thing, but there isn't a race that has everyone in the world speak their language, which is just weird (what are you trying to tell us Wizards? Are humans British?)

Cons:
- No 'blank slate' option for making just about anything.
- No entry-level race for beginners
- No way to get a feat at level 1 (because that's necessary?)
- Certain character concepts may be blocked? That's true for any race though.
- No half-elves or half-orcs (credit to Expired, I don't know how I forgot about that)

I'll add more as I come across them, and any that appear here which I like, so feel free to suggest things.

Now, I'll make one thing clear: The purpose of this thread is not to talk about whether races should be restricted and how awful a DM I am for not letting my players have every single option ever. It's to talk about the effects of restricting humans specifically.

[Expired]

It would definitely be interesting. You'd have to remove Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (as represented in the PHB) too, to keep it consistent with the theme of Humans not existing.

[Yora]

I'm currently running a no-human campaign. The only downside there is to it is that some people really only want to play nothing but humans in every game. But once the game begins, there really is no issue with that at all.

[fbelanger]

Simply remove the variant human, you will make human disappear form your players.

[Tes]

This isn't as much of a setting problem as a timespan one.

Humans are one of the younger races, you could easily start your campaign during a time when humans weren't around yet.

If it's about the mechanical benefit of VHuman, just limit the Feat they can take to a Half Feat or add minimum level requirements to some Feats (i.e. the "Master" ones).
It's some Feats are the problem not the VHuman.
Another version is to replace the Feat with another two flexible +1s (up to a max +2 in any given stat).

Imho the mechanical benefits are overrated though. Elf/Half Elf with Elven Accuracy are more cost efficient as soon as you get to tier 2. The amount of surprisingly relevant things (Darkvision, unique race abilities, free armor/weapon Proficiencies) usually adds up to more than the Feat you'll eventually be able to get anyway, just a little too late for lvl 10-12 campaigns.

Most races can also be flat out fixed by allowing to take a -1 to one of their fixed boni as a trade off to a flexible +1 that can go into anything they don't already get.
Mountain Dwarf caster with -1 STR +1 X for instance. Much better and suddenly a nice start for a plate wearing 1Fighter 19X without having a worse spell DC and doesn't need to have 15 STR.

[Eldariel]

As a rule, I remove humans from fantasy worlds entirely. Helps players truly get in the mindset and think about the races and their mentality a bit. My experience is that it makes characters a bit more than just racial stereotypes as a rule. If I wanted to play humans I'd play a human-only settings. Of course, Vuman being the best race is more symptomatic about the system just making feats too expensive and too rare than anything else; that's a separate issue. If you want to interact with the feat subsystem beyond picking up the best feat for your character archetype (near-essentials such as PAM in some cases), you have to either:
1) Play very high level
2) Roll for stats and roll high
3) Shoot yourself in the leg
4) Play Vuman

Which is dumb. I mean, I usually play Vuman just 'cause I like feats and I like the less impressive but cool feats (Keen Mind, Linguist, Actor, Prodigy, etc.) - I just don't get the chance to pick those up without severely gimping my character unless I go Vuman. Which is of course why, in my own games, I just give everyone a free bonus feat on level 1 and feats throughout leveling that are not optional with ASIs. That simply feels like it works better; more customizability and you don't have to give up the stats the game expects of you math-wise.

[Silly Name]

Worldbuilding-wise, you could have humans having gone extinct, and half-elves and half-orcs being their own distinct species rather than just hybrids, what little remains of the old human race.

Or you could have humans never existing, and make half-orcs the default orcs (I really like orcs as a playable race, so I'd try to keep them existing in some way).

Honestly, I think most of the time me and my players pick Human it's either because of mechanical advantages or because the character concept doesn't hinge on any racial trait unique to another race. The human is an easy pick, has excellent stats but very little traits to keep in mind (no cantrips, no situational bonuses, no keen senses or any of that stuff), and gives you more freedom because it's a race not restrained by the problem of having a monolithic culture ascribed to them.

For my part, when creating settings I try to have the various races not restrained into a single nation and give them cultural variety without falling in the "subrace trap", but as you noted it can be tempting. I tend to remove halflings from basically every setting because I never manage to make them into an interesting culture instead of knock-off Hobbits, so I think my players wouldn't be too bothered by trying a world without humans.

[TigerT20]

Worldbuilding-wise, you could have humans having gone extinct, and half-elves and half-orcs being their own distinct species rather than just hybrids, what little remains of the old human race.

Or you could have humans never existing, and make half-orcs the default orcs (I really like orcs as a playable race, so I'd try to keep them existing in some way).

You could use the Eberron orc for that too.


For my part, when creating settings I try to have the various races not restrained into a single nation and give them cultural variety without falling in the "subrace trap", but as you noted it can be tempting. I tend to remove halflings from basically every setting because I never manage to make them into an interesting culture instead of knock-off Hobbits, so I think my players wouldn't be too bothered by trying a world without humans.

Have you looked at Dark Sun's halflings? I don't think you could ever play Bilbo with those in your world.

[EggKookoo]

I'm currently running a no-human campaign. The only downside there is to it is that some people really only want to play nothing but humans in every game. But once the game begins, there really is no issue with that at all.

I have trouble getting any of my players to choose human. Well, that's not exactly right, as it implies I'm trying to do that. I don't encourage any one race over another. I just mean my players invariably gravitate to something other than human. You could remove humans, gnomes, halflings, half-elves, and probably half-orcs from my table and you'd never know the difference from what the players pick.

Regarding the OP, I see nothing wrong with having restrictions on race or class for a given campaign. Maybe all the elves are extinct? Maybe the dwarves have all gone horribly evil and are no longer suited as a PC race? Maybe the druids, in an attempt to "cleanse" the world centuries ago, accidentally unleashed an apocalypse of toxic wilderness that threatens civilization to this very day, and druidic magic/religion is now outlawed? (Ok, that last one is from one of my own settings.)

[firelistener]

I sort of did this in my current campaign. It's set on the continent in my world that is ruled over by orcish "tribes" (they're more like political parties in a loose confederacy). The region is racially and ethnically very diverse, but very anti-human because lots of humans invaded in the past attempting to colonize the continent. Elves are somewhat welcome, but not as much as most other races. One of the "orc" tribes is almost entirely composed of dwarves rather than orcs, another is mostly goblinoid races, and all of them have different views on what level of multiculturalism is acceptable.

It's been interesting playing because one of my players was initially convinced that they should start a "race war" between two clans. The other players realized that it would probably never happen since both rival groups were composed of both the dwarf and orc populations. There's been several other instances where it's payed off really well in making the campaign and world subvert the players' expectations, like how most NPCs they meet only speak orcish and one other language.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Just make your standard Orcs around 6 and and a half feet tall. Now Half-Orcs can be half Orc, half Dwarf.

Instead of calling them Half-Elves, call them Low-Elves (though they probably wouldn't be thrilled by the epithet) as opposed to the snobby High-Elves. They aren't half human, they just don't have access to the Trance, or past lives. Could be an interesting tension for the setting, as a "Low-Elf I can't see my past lives, does that mean this is my first life? Do I not have a soul? What does it mean?"

Personally I like Human Variant Fighters and take alot of Fluff feats to give me things to do outside of combat, but I've never had a problem with race restrictions.

[Warlush]

Simply remove the variant human, you will make human disappear form your players.

Lol, yup. I would love to play in a no human world. It would at least feel more like a fantasy.

[EggKookoo]

Instead of calling them Half-Elves, call them Low-Elves (though they probably wouldn't be thrilled by the epithet) as opposed to the snobby High-Elves. They aren't half human, they just don't have access to the Trance, or past lives. Could be an interesting tension for the setting, as a "Low-Elf I can't see my past lives, does that mean this is my first life? Do I not have a soul? What does it mean?"

"Novel-Elves" maybe shortened to "Novelves".

[HappyDaze]

Remove humans and you likely end up with even more one-note stereotypical racial-based mono-cultures.

[Joe the Rat]

..as oppose to the one-note stereotypical human cultures?


Human-free is one of my gaming goals.

I started my newest game with a very player-driven setting - what the players choose, is. It was off to a good start, until 1/3 the party came back changeling (not a killer), but That One Guy (who hasn't actually made it to a session) picked human.

But on the plus side, I got no elves.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Instead of removing humans, I changed their fluff to fit a more realistic take on humans (persistent hunting) within the D&D world(s) since a lot of the time humans don't have a patron deity. Humans are actually pretty scary and it's funny how gimped humans become in all types of fantasy. We are space orcs alpha predators! Aliens won't make contact with us because we are absolutely scary.

++++
Humans: The race without a god

Unlike other races, the humans have no patron deity to call their own (thanks Asmodeus, you slinky bastard).

One thing humans always say, and completely believe in, is that challenge is a great thing. Challenge brings the best out of someone or the situation. Challenge allows not only an individual to become better, but for humanity as a whole to prosper. No race exemplifies the concept of challenge better than humans.

The dwarves, elves, and halflings are already established, but not just established, they each have a patron deity looking out for them! Unfair, is just another day in the life of humans but this has made them the ultimate underdog. Even the less friendly races, typically called monstrous races, have their own deity looking out for them (again, thanks, Asmodeus)!

The human race that isn't as established, roam the world in tribes looking for a land to call their own. There are settlements throughout the lands but these humans are still fighting for their place and there aren't any human kingdoms as of yet.

Masters of persistance hunting, humans are one of the scariest hunters in the world. Persistance hunting is a hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking to pursue prey until it is exhausted. The other races have had their growth handed to them by their deities, but humans have fought for every scarp of meat, every moursal of knowlege, and every single trinket they can get their hands on.


++++

This allows for humans to still be in the game but you can have your two great kingdoms of dwarves and elves, while the halflings and gnomes are lesser kingdoms/members of each.

Humans are an underdog race and a bit more restrictive than in 5e but overall I think the changes are for the better.

[Anymage]

Instead of removing humans, I changed their fluff to fit a more realistic take on humans (persistent hunting) within the D&D world(s) since a lot of the time humans don't have a patron deity. Humans are actually pretty scary and it's funny how gimped humans become in all types of fantasy. We are space orcs alpha predators! Aliens won't make contact with us because we are absolutely scary.

Humans having a special niche that nobody else gets would require some mechanical way to reflect that. On top of that, most humans are used to thinking of humans as default and consequently nonhumans are defined by how they differ from the human baseline. (In fantasy and most games, this is generally about the ways that they're better instead of worse.) HFY! stories are cool, but you'd need a good bit of mechanical tinkering to make them game relevant. (Things like vuman make humans strong, but not in the ways that humans are exceptional compared to other earth species.)

As for removing humans from a world, I don't really see how that necessarily makes the world more fantastic. Someone has to tend the crops and slop the pigs. If those people have century+ lifespans and pointy ears, I don't know that makes them feel all that fantastical. The grand halls of the dwarves and the soaring tree cities of the elves stand out more by differentiating themselves from the cities of the humans. You either have to abolish human style cities entirely (which will have plenty of knock-on effects to your world), or else have human style cities that are filled with funny forehead/ear humans. The former is rather work intensive, while the latter doesn't change anything significantly.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Humans having a special niche that nobody else gets would require some mechanical way to reflect that. On top of that, most humans are used to thinking of humans as default and consequently nonhumans are defined by how they differ from the human baseline. (In fantasy and most games, this is generally about the ways that they're better instead of worse.) HFY! stories are cool, but you'd need a good bit of mechanical tinkering to make them game relevant. (Things like vuman make humans strong, but not in the ways that humans are exceptional compared to other earth species.)



Humans can be default without being baseline. My human in my sig has been fun to playtest.

The mechanical changes are really that severe, it balances them out a bit more (though berserker may be a favored sub-class class now).

The biggest issue is that if humans don't have a patron deity, there's no reason they would be as advanced as the other races. Yeah, humans can worship deities and gain power, but the ones that have deities that view their race as +theirs+ or as their children would have a leg up.

Humans in 5e are boring and not balanced on the week side and V Humans are not balanced on the "always a best choice for a class" side of things.

Removing humans is a step too far, so bringing them in line with other races, while giving them better fluff is the way to go.

[Petrocorus]

- No entry-level race for beginners

What do you mean?



- No way to get a feat at level 1 (because that's necessary?)

Some DM (me included) give a free feat to everyone at level 1 or 2. It's really a matter of your own way of playing.
Feats are not bad.



- No half-elves or half-orcs (credit to Expired, I don't know how I forgot about that)

They could be new subraces of the Orcs and the Elves.


Simply remove the variant human, you will make human disappear form your players.
In my game, after giving a free feat to everyone, i removed the Vuman and gave a bonus skill to the Suman to make them a little less underwhelming.

[False God]

Simply remove the variant human, you will make human disappear form your players.

My entirely-odd-stat-rolls and I quite like the standard human thank you very much!

------
@OP, Unless your players are sticklers for playing humans, I don't think it's a problem. IMO, it does require more creative world-building since many of the races lore is human-centric. IE: how X race deals with humans, how Y race fights with humans, how Z race lives longer than humans.

You could also take the suggestion I was given in another thread recently: every race gets 3 ASI points to spend as they choose. Dextrous dwarves? Hearty elves? Smart orcs?

Likewise, from anecdotal posts I've seen here, many people are playing with "everyone gets a feat at 1st level". So, combined with simply giving each race 3 ASI points, you might find the mechanical/thematic "versatile" niche humans filled taken up quite nicely by everyone else.

[Tanarii]

The primary problem with removing humans is you've just removed the only non-hat race, the race that all other races compare and contrast too.

All non-human races require one thing to roleplay as something other than a human, which is what we are: standard stereotypes / core aspects of non-humanity for the race that compare and contrast to humanity.

If you remove humans, your players will start to Create PCs that are humans with pointy ears and short and rotund humans and what-not. Humans in a race suit. i mean, lots of players do exactly that anyway, either because they're just playing stats or because they don't understand why D&D racial sterotypes exist. But you'll certain encourage it to happen more often.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The primary problem with removing humans is you've just removed the only non-hat race, the race that all other races compare and contrast too.

All non-human races require one thing to roleplay as something other than a human, which is what we are: standard stereotypes / core aspects of non-humanity for the race that compare and contrast to humanity.

If you remove humans, your players will start to Create PCs that are humans with pointy ears and short and rotund humans and what-not. Humans in a race suit. i mean, lots of players do exactly that anyway, either because they're just playing stats or because they don't understand why D&D racial sterotypes exist. But you'll certain encourage it to happen more often.

There is no need to have humans be the comparison because each race can be compared to each other.

You don't need humans to know dwarves are one thing and elves are another (edit: well, my groups don't, your mileage may vary).

People play races the way they want, removing stock humans don't change that. A lot of people play humans like other races, the race doesn't matter as much as how you as a player want to roleplay it. Having or not having humans won't change any of that.

[TigerT20]

What do you mean?

Generally, humans are viewed as the 'starter race' as you don't need to learn any lore, they have the fewest mechanics, you can be any class or build with them.

[Eldariel]

It really helps people take some distance to the races and characters IME. Humans easily become self-inserts of some fashion, while actualy having to consider the repercussions of being adapted to life underground or living hundreds of years or treating everyone arouns you as giants is an easy way of easing people into thinking about what it means to be what they are.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It really helps people take some distance to the races and characters IME. Humans easily become self-inserts of some fashion, while actualy having to consider the repercussions of being adapted to life underground or living hundreds of years or treating everyone arouns you as giants is an easy way of easing people into thinking about what it means to be what they are.

Eh, any race can be a self insert if that race aligns with the person's base personality.

Actually, I would say moreso as the other races exemplify specific traits that can draw a person to that race.

I really don't see it as more or less of an issue compared to what there races.

[Tanarii]

Here's some helpful, and for once not to ranty, advice fromAngry DM:
https://theangrygm.com/making-race-and-culture-matter/

[Eldariel]

Eh, any race can be a self insert if that race aligns with the person's base personality.

Actually, I would say moreso as the other races exemplify specific traits that can draw a person to that race.

I really don't see it as more or less of an issue compared to what there races.

You can't self-insert a thousand year old character because you can never be thousand years old. You can think about the repercussions of that on any kind of personality, world view, etc. but you will definitely have to create a character at that point. Same with dwelling deep underground in tunnels with the weight of thousands of tons constantly on your neck; what that does to you you'll have to imagine because you can't experience that in real life (even though technically humans could live that way). Same with being ½ the height of your average human - while everyone's been a child, it's adults are mentally quite different and everyone else being giant comparatively is definitely likely to change your perspective.

I'm not interested in racial stereotypes and personalities. Given we're assuming similar mental faculties and general brain functioning, there's no reason to assume the spectrum would be any narrower in any other humanoid race. What's different is what's actually physically different between the two. Lifespan is a big one; we can perceive how it affects creatures on this planet all around us. To a limited degree we can see how it influences humans too when you look at cancer patients or such, but of course that has the difference of the change coming midway through life instead of you being born to living a quarter of the average lifespan of people (or ten times). Mental faculties and physical environment, where it's one humans don't really inhabit, is also significant. There are some very striking adaptations that occur in creatures that dwell in the abyss or in dark caverns for instance (blindness is the most obvious one but they don't end there). How such a being treats light for instance, or the kinds of metaphors they speak in, or the kinds of actions they take when they want to feel safe (a dwarf would probably never want to sleep high for instance) can influence a character on a species-level rather than on a personal level. To say nothing of trade, economy, culinary arts, courtship, mating, etc. And the species level is what I'm interested in here. How do these humanoid creatures behave in ways that are alien to us, as human players? If you play a human, you'll easily forget to even think about what your character is, what its environment does it, what kind of world does it inhabit, what things influence its existence on an evolutionary level. With non-human races, such questions are much easier to ease players into as suddenly all the races have some clear extreme feature from where to start; where you as your player get to put your mind out and start to think about "what it would mean to be like this...".

[Waterdeep Merch]

Why is relatability a problem for a player character? Self-insert's getting used as a polite, milder form of Mary Sue, but a player can never be a Mary Sue without the DM explicitly making them that. Outside of some badly written backstory, at least.

If your concern is that the player isn't getting into the headspace of a fantasy world enough for your liking, enforcing different races isn't likely to solve much. I literally played this game, and the bad players continued to just be their id let loose in a place of little consequence. Outside from a handful of opportunities to roleplay bad stereotypes, they weren't any different from when they played humans.

The problem there was that there was no strong thematic reason for us not to be human, just the DM demanding we don't play anything normal. Some of us just shrugged and went with it to give the exotic flavor they were looking for, but it wasn't really any different from any other game in the end.

If there was some strong reason to not play humans, like an exploration of culture from an outside perspective, it might have actually made people think about it. But we got gruff dwarves under mountains, magical, aloof jerk elves, haughty, greedy dragons, and that was that.

[Tanarii]

The problem there was that there was no strong thematic reason for us not to be human, just the DM demanding we don't play anything normal. Some of us just shrugged and went with it to give the exotic flavor they were looking for, but it wasn't really any different from any other game in the end.

If there was some strong reason to not play humans, like an exploration of culture from an outside perspective, it might have actually made people think about it. But we got gruff dwarves under mountains, magical, aloof jerk elves, haughty, greedy dragons, and that was that.
I'd be interested in playing a game as the gruff dwarves (or magical aloof jerk elves), where humans were considered almost as big a problem as humanoids. Like in the dragonlance dwarf novels. (Teen books, but one of the better TSR sponsored novels.)

[Greywander]

Now, I'll make one thing clear: The purpose of this thread is not to talk about whether races should be restricted and how awful a DM I am for not letting my players have every single option ever. It's to talk about the effects of restricting humans specifically.
This is something I've thought about before when world building. IMO, too many fantasy settings have humans as the "can do/be anything" race, while all the other races are just "humans, but with pointy ears/tails/short/etc." and they're shoehorned into a stereotype. Like, we know that Klingon scientists and doctors and stuff must exist, but we just never see them because they're all portrayed as a warrior race monoculture. One example I've seen that does pretty well is the Elder Scrolls series: it's basically just humans and elves (plus a couple beast races), but those humans and elves each have various subraces that make them all feel like they're on an equal level, rather than one being the baseline and the other being variants of that baseline.

So, with this in mind, something I was considering was making a fantasy setting where either (a) everyone is human, or (b) no one is human. A good example of the former is the Belgariad book series. It works pretty well, actually. Basically, you just stop pretending that your fantasy races are anything but variants of humans, and just make them all different types of humans. For the second case, a good example might be the Redwall series (though arguably mice act as the stand-in for humans). Without humans to steal the spotlight as the "standard" race that all others are compared to, each race can take on a more unique flare and find their own place in the world. Naturally, people relate to humans easier than non-humans, so that's definitely something to consider.

[Petrocorus]

This is something I've thought about before when world building. *snip
Speaking of elves, i often wondered what would be the consequences of their lifespan.

What would we be, us poor humans, if we had a natural lifespan of several centuries, maybe close to a millennium.
What effect it would have on our anthropology and our cultures, and historical events, the passing of civilisations, etc.




So, with this in mind, something I was considering was making a fantasy setting where either (a) everyone is human,
That was the case of L5R first edition, and you can always play in this era if you want with later edition. True also for 7th Sea.
Their are some other settings i can think of.
Moorcock's Young Kingdoms is mostly human and several games set in this universe only let play humans (the recent Mournblade game for instance).

I can also think of a few universe from French authors that you probably don't know like Lanfeust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanfeust_of_Troy), or Cardinal's Blade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Pevel#Les_Lames_du_Cardinal_(The_Cardinal's _Blades)).

Most of this could be adapted to D&D with various ease.

[HappyDaze]

Speaking of elves, i often wondered what would be the consequences of their lifespan.

What would we be, us poor humans, if we had a natural lifespan of several centuries, maybe close to a millennium.
What effect it would have on our anthropology and our cultures, and historical events, the passing of civilisations, etc.



Sadly, it would probably result in more suicides.

[Greywander]

Speaking of elves, i often wondered what would be the consequences of their lifespan.

What would we be, us poor humans, if we had a natural lifespan of several centuries, maybe close to a millennium.
What effect it would have on our anthropology and our cultures, and historical events, the passing of civilisations, etc.

Sadly, it would probably result in more suicides.
I'm not so sure. I think we could find ways to appreciate life, though you're probably looking at either a well-off society supported by slave labor (or magic) who has the leisure to spend more of their time on subjects like gardening, philosophy, or pet projects, or a much simpler culture where most people are self-sufficient and take care of themselves (high elves vs. wood elves?). What I wouldn't expect to see is someone working the equivalent of a 9 to 5 minimum wage job for several hundred years with no prospects of getting something better. Remember, somebody has to pump the gas, and there are only so many high level positions available. In human society, it's easier to accept that you work your butt off when you're young so you can move up to a much nicer and better paying job after 20 to 30 years or so. It's a lot harder if its 400 years instead of 20 to 30. On the other hand, they might also trend toward entrepreneurship and self-employment, where they can work at their own pace and either advance quickly or do only as much as is necessary to support themselves.

More likely it would result in a more stagnant and unadaptive culture. It's the old people who hold power and make the rules, and when they die they're succeeded by a new generation with new ideas. Even if elves born in a particular era adapt to that era pretty well, by the time they're old enough to take positions of power, those ideas are already several hundred years old. I'd also expect lower reproductive rates, though it's possible that they could make babies as fast as humans do in an emergency, and they just choose not to most of the time (to prevent overpopulation). Still, this would mean waiting for anywhere from 15 to 100 years for those elf kids to reach "adulthood", and if the elven population is decimated that's a long time to wait. For humans, they would already have a variety of kids of different ages who would gradually mature to fill vacant roles, whereas elves would be specifically trying not to have too many kids and thus have very few at the moment of a crisis.

It might actually not be too long before our medical technology advances to the point where we can keep people alive virtually indefinitely. This could even happen in our lifetimes; you only need to live long enough to benefit from the next major advance that extends human lifespan, and if that extension allows you to live to the next major medical advance then these might chain together to let you live to see the day lifespans are extended indefinitely. A lot of the things that kill us are simply a result of growing so old that our body breaks down and can't defend itself anymore, so reversing the aging process would fix a lot of medical issues (and probably create new ones).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You can't self-insert a thousand year old character because you can never be thousand years old. You can think about the repercussions of that on any kind of personality, world view, etc. but you will definitely have to create a character at that point. Same with dwelling deep underground in tunnels with the weight of thousands of tons constantly on your neck; what that does to you you'll have to imagine because you can't experience that in real life (even though technically humans could live that way). Same with being ½ the height of your average human - while everyone's been a child, it's adults are mentally quite different and everyone else being giant comparatively is definitely likely to change your perspective.

I'm not interested in racial stereotypes and personalities. Given we're assuming similar mental faculties and general brain functioning, there's no reason to assume the spectrum would be any narrower in any other humanoid race. What's different is what's actually physically different between the two. Lifespan is a big one; we can perceive how it affects creatures on this planet all around us. To a limited degree we can see how it influences humans too when you look at cancer patients or such, but of course that has the difference of the change coming midway through life instead of you being born to living a quarter of the average lifespan of people (or ten times). Mental faculties and physical environment, where it's one humans don't really inhabit, is also significant. There are some very striking adaptations that occur in creatures that dwell in the abyss or in dark caverns for instance (blindness is the most obvious one but they don't end there). How such a being treats light for instance, or the kinds of metaphors they speak in, or the kinds of actions they take when they want to feel safe (a dwarf would probably never want to sleep high for instance) can influence a character on a species-level rather than on a personal level. To say nothing of trade, economy, culinary arts, courtship, mating, etc. And the species level is what I'm interested in here. How do these humanoid creatures behave in ways that are alien to us, as human players? If you play a human, you'll easily forget to even think about what your character is, what its environment does it, what kind of world does it inhabit, what things influence its existence on an evolutionary level. With non-human races, such questions are much easier to ease players into as suddenly all the races have some clear extreme feature from where to start; where you as your player get to put your mind out and start to think about "what it would mean to be like this...".

You totally can.

As someone who is "an old soul" I can take this part of me and extrapolate my personality out and roleplay someone who has been alive for a long time. My body looks young, but you damn whippersnappers need to get off my lawn.

It's fantasy. It's roleplaying.

Your argument is the same as saying "well, you aren't a fighter or wizard in real life so you can't roleplay one in D&D".

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'd be interested in playing a game as the gruff dwarves (or magical aloof jerk elves), where humans were considered almost as big a problem as humanoids. Like in the dragonlance dwarf novels. (Teen books, but one of the better TSR sponsored novels.)

Kind of reminds me of the Reverse Dungeon. Look at the ordinary game from a completely different perspective, see how what you're normally doing can be alien and frightening.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd be interested in playing a game as the gruff dwarves (or magical aloof jerk elves), where humans were considered almost as big a problem as humanoids. Like in the dragonlance dwarf novels. (Teen books, but one of the better TSR sponsored novels.) When I reach way back to Old Old D&D, one of our first ever dungeons (which was pretty much a dungeon crawl but we didn't even know that the term existed at the time) was an all dwarf party. All of us had read The Hobbit. And we really got into using the "This is dwarf business, human!" line with a lot of the NPCs we ran into.
Good fun.

But we did end up finding a cleric NPC to hire since none of us could turn undead ... and when we ran into undead, that was a bit of a problem. Yeah, back then only humans could be clerics. :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Kind of reminds me of the Reverse Dungeon. Look at the ordinary game from a completely different perspective, see how what you're normally doing can be alien and frightening.
Orcs of Thar Gazetteer had two ways of playing humanoids: level up, or level up but only against humanoids and monsters. Against invading adventurers you were just a standard orc or goblin. Better command some underlings to run into the meat grinder first ...

[sithlordnergal]

- No half-elves or half-orcs (credit to Expired, I don't know how I forgot about that)
.

I have a question, why would Half-Elves and Half-Orcs be removed? I mean, there are Dragons that mate with Elves, and other beings that mate with Elves. Half-Orcs have few examples, but I am fairly certain Half-Orc/Half-Bugbears can exist. I feel removing Humans, but expanding on those two races to be more diverse would be interesting. You could have a Half-Elf/Half-Dragon that has better strength then Charisma and such.

As for the word itself, I think it would make for a really neat world, and really interesting.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This all got me thinking...

Perhaps humans, in some setting, could/should be the half breed.

So, an elf and dwarf mates... Human!

A halfling and elf mates.... Human!

A tiefling and halfling... Human!

[Eldariel]

You totally can.

As someone who is "an old soul" I can take this part of me and extrapolate my personality out and roleplay someone who has been alive for a long time. My body looks young, but you damn whippersnappers need to get off my lawn.

It's fantasy. It's roleplaying.

Your argument is the same as saying "well, you aren't a fighter or wizard in real life so you can't roleplay one in D&D".

Okay, there seems to be a miscommunication of worst sorts going on here since I said none of those things and I feel you aren't even responding to my points.

First, I didn't say you couldn't roleplay it, I'm saying you can't make it a self-insert. Of course you can roleplay it. This is a roleplaying game, that's the whole point! I'm saying get out of your own head and into your character's! Don't just assume that everything is the same for you and your character; think about what it means to have lead a totally different life. Like actors do, except more so because you have an easy, gross physical difference in what kind of life the character is capable of experiencing in the first place!

If you just try to do "get off my lawn" shtick because you're thousands of years old, I feel you're totally missing the point of actually being that old. "Get off my lawn" is a behaviour and the player should be thinking about the reasons the character behaves in a certain way so as to enable consistent in-character behaviour, not individual behaviours. Behaviours are a surface manifestation of the character: understanding the character produces fitting behaviours for different situations while individual behaviours are only applicable to individual situations.

The player should be thinking about the repercussions of e.g. having to carry guilt, pain, etc. for centuries instead of decades and how much every adversity you've experienced molds you and thus how you must learn to react to them; how extreme such experiences grow when your mental faculties don't dwindle but you accrue more and more experience, and on the other hand how things lose edge when you are repeatedly subjected to them. How meaningless the world might seem and how something like a pet animal might, if lucky, last you one 50th of your lifespan making it a flash in a pan at best. What it means to build relationships to last for centuries for instance. What kind of social structure does that lead to? Loose association, extremely intimate relationships with few people, or mostly solitary living? Whatever the case, the weight of having to maintain something for such long time and on the other hand the sheer amount of shared experiences makes it something entirely different to what a human might experience. Entire years or decades can easily slip into oblivion. There's just so much more to it than a human-like caricature.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Okay, there seems to be a miscommunication of worst sorts going on here since I said none of those things and I feel you aren't even responding to my points.

First, I didn't say you couldn't roleplay it, I'm saying you can't make it a self-insert. Of course you can roleplay it. This is a roleplaying game, that's the whole point! I'm saying get out of your own head and into your character's! Don't just assume that everything is the same for you and your character; think about what it means to have lead a totally different life. Like actors do, except more so because you have an easy, gross physical difference in what kind of life the character is capable of experiencing in the first place!

If you just try to do "get off my lawn" shtick because you're thousands of years old, I feel you're totally missing the point of actually being that old. "Get off my lawn" is a behaviour and the player should be thinking about the reasons the character behaves in a certain way so as to enable consistent in-character behaviour, not individual behaviours. Behaviours are a surface manifestation of the character: understanding the character produces fitting behaviours for different situations while individual behaviours are only applicable to individual situations.

The player should be thinking about the repercussions of e.g. having to carry guilt, pain, etc. for centuries instead of decades and how much every adversity you've experienced molds you and thus how you must learn to react to them; how extreme such experiences grow when your mental faculties don't dwindle but you accrue more and more experience, and on the other hand how things lose edge when you are repeatedly subjected to them. How meaningless the world might seem and how something like a pet animal might, if lucky, last you one 50th of your lifespan making it a flash in a pan at best. What it means to build relationships to last for centuries for instance. What kind of social structure does that lead to? Loose association, extremely intimate relationships with few people, or mostly solitary living? Whatever the case, the weight of having to maintain something for such long time and on the other hand the sheer amount of shared experiences makes it something entirely different to what a human might experience. Entire years or decades can easily slip into oblivion. There's just so much more to it than a human-like caricature.

You shouldn't throw dead horses in glass houses.

You can make a self insert by roleplaying aspects about yourself that you see in different races.

It's still a self insert. Just because you may not be able to, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

[Eldariel]

You shouldn't throw dead horses in glass houses.

You can make a self insert by roleplaying aspects about yourself that you see in different races.

It's still a self insert. Just because you may not be able to, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

We probably mean such different things by "self-insert" that this is a moot discussion.

[moonfly7]

It would definitely be interesting. You'd have to remove Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (as represented in the PHB) too, to keep it consistent with the theme of Humans not existing.

That's assuming that all half elves and half orcs are half human. The stats could easily be applied to a half elf half orc. In fact the half elf has optional rules from the SCAG that lets you swap out the skill bonus of half elves with a parents feature. This is normally used for getting elf parent features but it would be easy to let them take say an orc or dwarf racial trait and have them be half elf half orc or dwarf. Half orcs a bit hard but it'd be pretty easy to say that the half orc traits can be for any orc/other race, unless you are the aforementioned orc/elf in which case either template is available.

[False God]

I have a question, why would Half-Elves and Half-Orcs be removed? I mean, there are Dragons that mate with Elves, and other beings that mate with Elves. Half-Orcs have few examples, but I am fairly certain Half-Orc/Half-Bugbears can exist. I feel removing Humans, but expanding on those two races to be more diverse would be interesting. You could have a Half-Elf/Half-Dragon that has better strength then Charisma and such.

As for the word itself, I think it would make for a really neat world, and really interesting.

I assumed they were referring explicitly to the standard elf/human "half elf" and the orc/human" half orc presented in the book.

There are other rules for other half-race creatures.


This all got me thinking...

Perhaps humans, in some setting, could/should be the half breed.

So, an elf and dwarf mates... Human!

A halfling and elf mates.... Human!

A tiefling and halfling... Human!

Since the books have always sort of dodged the "where do humans come from" and even say they have no creator god, the idea that humans would be the result of a pairing between two extremes (say, elves and orcs) makes sense.

[Petrocorus]

So, an elf and dwarf mates... Human!

That is exactly the origin of human in a homebrew setting i was working on.



I mean, there are Dragons that mate with Elves, and other beings that mate with Elves.
Pfff.... Dragons mate with absolutely everything. Those guys are sick.

Which incidently makes quite awkward the fact that chromatic Dragons don't have a Change Shape ability or spells. I mean, how can you have an half-human black half-dragon if the black dragon cannot ....

[TigerT20]

That is exactly the origin of human in a homebrew setting i was working on.



Pfff.... Dragons mate with absolutely everything. Those guys are sick.

Which incidently makes quite awkward the fact that chromatic Dragons don't have a Change Shape ability or spells. I mean, how can you have an half-human black half-dragon if the black dragon cannot ....

Life always finds a way.

[False God]

Pfff.... Dragons mate with absolutely everything. Those guys are sick.

Which incidently makes quite awkward the fact that chromatic Dragons don't have a Change Shape ability or spells. I mean, how can you have an half-human black half-dragon if the black dragon cannot ....

Dragons w/o Alternate Form can take a feat to gain Alternate Form 3/day.

Or the same way you breed big dogs and little dogs.

Or Polymorph the target into a black dragon. Or Polymorph self into a human/orc/w.e

Unless you rule that while you're shapechanged via effects other than Alternate Form you also gain the reproductive qualities of that form.

Also it's noted some half-breeds are created via magic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Since the books have always sort of dodged the "where do humans come from" They were delivered by storks. :smallcool:

[Waterdeep Merch]

Pfff.... Dragons mate with absolutely everything. Those guys are sick.

Which incidently makes quite awkward the fact that chromatic Dragons don't have a Change Shape ability or spells. I mean, how can you have an half-human black half-dragon if the black dragon cannot ....

Why is that weird? Can't they just wait for the stork like everyone else does? Or is the problem that a dragon would try to eat the stork?

Edit: Ha! I suppose the idea of unsquicking D&D via stork isn't all that original after all.

[False God]

They were delivered by storks. :smallcool:

The real truth behind the birds and the bees.

[Sigreid]

The answer is sure, as long as your players are still game to play in that world. I know it can sound weird to some, but some people just aren't comfortable playing something other than a human. They know what humans are like. Have a pretty good idea what they're capable of. And if you're not that into the roleplay portion of the game you don't have to spend time wondering how to be an elf.

[TigerT20]

The real truth behind the birds and the bees.

I understand the birds, but.. Bees? Where do the bees come in?

[Petrocorus]

Dragons w/o Alternate Form can take a feat to gain Alternate Form 3/day.

Or the same way you breed big dogs and little dogs.

Or Polymorph the target into a black dragon. Or Polymorph self into a human/orc/w.e

Unless you rule that while you're shapechanged via effects other than Alternate Form you also gain the reproductive qualities of that form.

Also it's noted some half-breeds are created via magic.

My point was about 5E, sorry not to have been specific about it.
Chromatic Dragons in 5E don't have Alternate Form and don't have spells unless the DM use an optional rule. And by this rule the Dragon's CR need to be 27 to cast Shapechange, which is not the case of an Ancient Red Dragon. Polymorph is available at CR 12 but Polymorph only allow a beast shape.
Even Metallic Dragons get the Change Shape ability only when they reach the adult or ancient category.

[Greywander]

Hmm, would you need to get rid of halflings, too? I don't know about D&D, but IIRC in the original LotR, hobbits were related to humans. Like an offshoot pygmy race of humans.

[JackPhoenix]

Since the books have always sort of dodged the "where do humans come from" and even say they have no creator god, the idea that humans would be the result of a pairing between two extremes (say, elves and orcs) makes sense.

I take it you haven't heard of our progenitor, the God-Emp... I mean, Zarus, patron god of HFY! and racism?


I understand the birds, but.. Bees? Where do the bees come in?

Well, storks have to eat, don't they? Yes, I'm aware they don't eat bees.

[False God]

I understand the birds, but.. Bees? Where do the bees come in?

The bees are the ancient enemies of the birds. Both believed that they were the lords of the sky. The kindly birds wanted to use their mastery of the sky to deliver children to all the world. The bees on the other hand wanted to use the skies to dominate all the "groundlings", to have their great Queen rule over land and sky. The birds and the bees fought a terrible and bloody war, but the birds triumphed, as their diversity led to many different tactics the hive-minded bees could not adapt quickly to.

And so the storks, the leaders of the birds, remain responsible for delivering babies to all mankind.


My point was about 5E, sorry not to have been specific about it.
That's my bad, I forgot we were in the 5E forum.


Chromatic Dragons in 5E don't have Alternate Form and don't have spells unless the DM use an optional rule. And by this rule the Dragon's CR need to be 27 to cast Shapechange, which is not the case of an Ancient Red Dragon. Polymorph is available at CR 12 but Polymorph only allow a beast shape.
Again my bad, I forgot what forum we're in. Also dragons are woefully underpowered by their CR in 5E. I typically give them class levels, usually something castery, but mostly I forgot what edition we were talking about again.


I take it you haven't heard of our progenitor, the God-Emp... I mean, Zarus, patron god of HFY! and racism?
Actually I typically write Pelor as the creator god for humans, and I love the lore behind Zarus, it really makes sense considering some of the early lore of rising, aggressive, anti-monster human societies and waning elf/dwarf empires and also the "kill the orc" mentality of the older game. I usually write Pelor as basically having split personalities. He's Pelor for all the good sun-related stuff, and he's Zarus for all the bad sun-related stuff.

[Ertwin]

It would definitely be interesting. You'd have to remove Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (as represented in the PHB) too, to keep it consistent with the theme of Humans not existing.

Or just have the Half-elf, and Half-orc be half something else other than human, like dwarf.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That is exactly the origin of human in a homebrew setting i was working on.



Pfff.... Dragons mate with absolutely everything. Those guys are sick.

Which incidently makes quite awkward the fact that chromatic Dragons don't have a Change Shape ability or spells. I mean, how can you have an half-human black half-dragon if the black dragon cannot ....

Nice.

Also, I'm 79% sure that Dragons and Humans share a common ancestor in D&D/Fantasy.

* Alignment all over the place
* Racist based on color
* Loves hording money for the sake of hording money
* Will bang pretty much anything, but human/dragons are especially common.
* Territorial
* Takes to magic rather well despite them not seeming like they would even have magic.
* Again, will bang anything and can do so with viable offspring.


We probably mean such different things by "self-insert" that this is a moot discussion.

When you self insert you will roleplay who you think you are PLUS features that you are not.

Whatever you think it means or not doesn't matter. Saying that a race stops everyone from having a self insert is 💯 wrong. No different than saying "well, you can't cast magic so your character can't be a self insert".

Again. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that other have the same limitations.

[EggKookoo]

Also, I'm 79% sure that Dragons and Humans share a common ancestor in D&D/Fantasy.

In my homebrewed setting, dragons are the original humans that evolved naturally eons ago. They became dragons for a "it's a long story" reason. The world is now a kind of post-apocalypse thing for them. Sort of.

Current humans are a re-created race, based on the dragon's original forms.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually I typically write Pelor as the creator god for humans, and I love the lore behind Zarus, it really makes sense considering some of the early lore of rising, aggressive, anti-monster human societies and waning elf/dwarf empires and also the "kill the orc" mentality of the older game. I usually write Pelor as basically having split personalities. He's Pelor for all the good sun-related stuff, and he's Zarus for all the bad sun-related stuff.

That sounds plausible. Compare their holy symbols, and Zarus is somehow a greater deity (same as Pelor), despite being pretty obscure and little worshipped. And his background fits 5e vumans well... his thing was being the best at everything, and with a correct feat, vuman can sort of be best at anything... half-feats to match the +2/+1 most other races have, Weapon Master to cover for racial weapon proficiencies, Prodigy for being the best at some skill, Skilled for most proficiencies, Magic Initiate for "racial" magic, etc.. As a god, he would likely have all of them at the same time, instead of only one of them.

[Eldariel]

When you self insert you will roleplay who you think you are PLUS features that you are not.

Whatever you think it means or not doesn't matter. Saying that a race stops everyone from having a self insert is 💯 wrong. No different than saying "well, you can't cast magic so your character can't be a self insert".

Again. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that other have the same limitations.

Okay, fine, let's waste time arguing semantics instead of talking about the point because that's so sensible. Self-insert means inserting an idealized version of oneself into the story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-insertion), either as is or in disguise. So it's basically building of mary sues - wish fulfillment versions of yourself that are clumsily covered. Now, stop to think about yourself for a bit - do you think any of your friendships/relationships, experiences, knowledges, etc. were the same if you were 200 years old instead? And if you knew you'd live another 200? Of course not - if you extrapolate yourself that far, it's as if you were an entirely different person anyways so calling it a self-insert is not only disparaging (because self-inserts are pretty cruddy RP characters) but also wrong - everything changes in 50, 100, let alone 200 years.

You can't very well insert yourself if the things that make you who you are aren't present in the character (or then it becomes an inconsistent character). If you truly stop to think about the impact of race, a character such as you cannot have come to be as another race, because of the fundamental reasons that make you who you are; when races are physically as distinct as many fantasy races, and when you start thinking about your character from the approach of what it actually means to be some race, you should be well-protected from making egregious, shallow characters such as most self-inserts. You can make something similar or alter those features to suit the race and try to extrapolate the mental faculties, emotional responses, attitudes, etc. but in such a case it's sufficiently far from the real thing to be its own, unique character anyways.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In my homebrewed setting, dragons are the original humans that evolved naturally eons ago. They became dragons for a "it's a long story" reason. The world is now a kind of post-apocalypse thing for them. Sort of.

Current humans are a re-created race, based on the dragon's original forms.

Neat.

I bet Dragonborn would hate Humans something fierce

[Anymage]

Self-insert means inserting an idealized version of oneself into the story, either as is or in disguise. So it's basically building of mary sues - wish fulfillment versions of yourself that are clumsily covered

"I know how to do everything because I had all the time in the world and got to live through it all" is a popular form of wish fulfillment. Especially when paired with the idea that such long life bestowed other cool perks as well. True that it wouldn't be a deep or realistic look at what such longevity would actually entail. Look into Harry Potter - or if you have the stomach, the world of Harry Potter fanfic even moreso - to see the popularity of simple wish fulfillment fantasy. Despite the simple facts that real-world humans can't do magic, and that the existence of Potterverse magic would warp the world into something indistinguishable from "our world, but there are secret underground magic schools".

[EggKookoo]

Neat.

I bet Dragonborn would hate Humans something fierce

Well, it's complex. The human-dragon thing isn't widely known. In fact I'd say it's pretty unknown. By and large, humans don't see themselves as creations of dragons. They're just... humans. Some in academic circles see historical clues that imply the connection, but there's debate over how literal it is. The consensus is that the dragons of old simply help set up early human tribes and perhaps elevated some of those to the first kingdoms, but it's all kind of fuzzy. The idea that humans were created directly by the dragons at a specific point in the past is considered a little out there.

https://i.imgflip.com/3xi3h9.jpg

Other PC races (and NPC humanoid races) came along after humans. There's a lineage there as well. Well, except tieflings, who have their own origin more similar to how it's described in the books (descendants of foul supernatural influence on a bloodline, but in this case that origin is more druidic than demonic).

Dragonborn are fairly rare and mostly tend to themselves on a cluster of small islands away from the main continent that most everyone else lives on. They're not at their height, civilization-wise, as that "cluster of islands" used to be one big island that had the unfortunate fate to also be a volcano. Prior to the eruption, they we're living pretty high on the food chain and certainly saw themselves as the special chosen-by-dragons race. Their origin is more murky -- they were also created by dragons but sort of as a side effect of the creation of humans. Their best theory is that they were made as assistants to the creation of humans, but some in their higher circles suspect they're the early cast-off experiments in that process (which is closer to the truth). They're torn. Part of their cultural identity is to be shepherds for humanity, but they also see themselves as a kind of master race who should be ruling over everyone. In practice, they're mostly just trying to reconstitute their own kingdom, which is now a handful of smaller competing tribes.

The idea that dragons originated as humans is unknown, possibly even to some of the younger dragons. There is a plane from which the dragons came, and where the original humans migrated to eons ago. Those folks are neither human or dragon, but some other kind of entity altogether -- they know the whole story.

I don't bother any of my players with most of this stuff. It's just there to help inform my own content-creation.

[Arkhios]

Personally, I don't see a reason to ditch half-elves or half-orcs just because you ditch humans.

Just give them individual names that don't refer them as half-something. Just, cut everything that even so much as mentions their human half.

Low-Elf (and High-Orc?!) could work pretty well, to be honest (jokes aside)

[MoiMagnus]

Pros:
- One of the traps of worldbuilding is gone - the idea of the 'elf nation' and the 'dwarf nation' would mean you have 2 countries in your world. Interesting, but most worlds want a few more then that. (If any GM says they haven't done this at least once, they're lying)

On the other hand, it means you have additional things to explain to your players. Stereotypes are useful because you don't need to explain them to your player. "This is the nation of dwarf. End of explanation." And you can use that time (and that player concentration and memory) for things that you want to focus on. Like the different factions, important families, special pantheon of gods...
A world without human is a world fundamentally uncommon, which mean either it is one of its main particularities, or you will quickly overload your least focussed players if you want multiple other special things in your world.
In short: this is a great beginning for world-building, but not something to add to an already complex world.


- There is no variant human to be the standalone best option in terms of pure racial traits

Fair point if this is a problem at your table.


- We don't have all the 'humans are versatile and can be anything!' nonsense that suggests all the other races only have slightly more free will than outsiders do

Agree. When I try to put a special place to humans in the lore, I relate them to latent shapeshifting abilities (werewolves and vampires are almost always humans, humans can breed with most humanoid races, they are none for polyvalence and adaptability, ...). But a race lore without an associated mechanics is kind of sad


- A very minor thing, but there isn't a race that has everyone in the world speak their language, which is just weird (what are you trying to tell us Wizards? Are humans British?)

Getting rid of common is a different issue than getting rid of humans. Even without humans, the common language could be the one of planar traveller and planar merchants, and talk by an elite in every nation that want to feel connected to "the greater world". Conversely, you could give a language specific to humans if you keep them.


Cons:
- No 'blank slate' option for making just about anything.

Elves. They are for the most part "magical humans", and can easily replace human in any universe without it feeling weird.


- No entry-level race for beginners

Wood Elves. You just need to say to the player they have Dex+2, Wis+1, Perception proficiency, and better movement. Then say "you need less hours to sleep, you see better in the dark, and you hide better in the wild". Fey ancestry is not relevant early on (and you can consider it your responsibility as a DM to remember it), and weapon proficiency is rarely relevant.
[Or Half-elves if you allow them, they are even simpler]


- No way to get a feat at level 1 (because that's necessary?)

If you're table really really want a feat at character creation, you can always give a free feat to everyone or start at level 4 rather than level 1. Both work reasonably well.


- Certain character concepts may be blocked? That's true for any race though.

Though probably more for humans than other races. When peoples think of a character which is non-humans, they often feel like their race must be relevant in some way, and linked to their abilities. Adding a race to a character concept (because human is "no race" in term of character concept) can feel like an unnecessary details, with no specific choice matching the idea they had in mind.


- No half-elves or half-orcs (credit to Expired, I don't know how I forgot about that)
Just rename "half-orcs" into "orcs" and you have a playable monster race.
Not sure what to do with the half-elves. They could become a sub-race of elves, but they need some lore to them.

[JackPhoenix]

In my homebrewed setting, dragons are the original humans that evolved naturally eons ago. They became dragons for a "it's a long story" reason. The world is now a kind of post-apocalypse thing for them. Sort of.

Sounds like sorcerer kings (no, not that one) from Dark Sun (who are actually wizards) who transform into dragons at the apex of their power.

[EggKookoo]

Sounds like sorcerer kings (no, not that one) from Dark Sun (who are actually wizards) who transform into dragons at the apex of their power.

I'm not very familiar with Dark Sun but I wouldn't be surprised at similarities. I love post-apocalyptic dying-earth magic-is-superscience-is-magic "Thundarr the Barbarian" Kirby-esque settings.

[Joe the Rat]

It's a bit less Kirby and a bit more Howard with a Paleo-Mad-Max aesthetic. But the dragons of the world are basically evolved caster/psions (Magic-User/Psionicist dual class in the original, which necessitated them being human).


That sounds plausible. Compare their holy symbols, and Zarus is somehow a greater deity (same as Pelor), despite being pretty obscure and little worshipped. And his background fits 5e vumans well... his thing was being the best at everything, and with a correct feat, vuman can sort of be best at anything... half-feats to match the +2/+1 most other races have, Weapon Master to cover for racial weapon proficiencies, Prodigy for being the best at some skill, Skilled for most proficiencies, Magic Initiate for "racial" magic, etc.. As a god, he would likely have all of them at the same time, instead of only one of them.
Cue Pelor the Burning Hate?


The only wrinkle in the "humans have no creator" is the discussion of deities in general. The various races have their panoply of deities - dig back into setting lore of various editions and you will see fair-sized pools for everyone.
So where did the non-racial deities come in? With the humans. Why would you need a God of War, and a Dwarven God of War, and a Gnomish one, and an Elvish one, and a half dozen Orcish ones? Humans are the assumed default, and their gods are the assumed default gods. Go to Greyhawk, and you get multiple full pantheons, based on Human cultures. The only thing that lacks is a "First God" or pantheon head. This also kind of leans into the origins of the game being a human world, with all the weird-ears being along for the ride.


One of variations that I've seen (and greatly appreciate) is the Many Names approach: There is a set pantheon for the setting, but each deity is named and recognized differently by the different races, with variations on symbols and status. The Human War god is associated with defense, symbol a tower. The Draconic version is about might, symbol an upraised clawed fist. The Orc version is rulership, symbol an orc head and crown. Same deity, each symbol is enough alike that it is recognizable as an associated symbol. (The examples here are from Demonac's TDDC series)



Personally, I don't see a reason to ditch half-elves or half-orcs just because you ditch humans.

Just give them individual names that don't refer them as half-something. Just, cut everything that even so much as mentions their human half.

Low-Elf (and High-Orc?!) could work pretty well, to be honest (jokes aside)
I was thinking to write them out entirely (I have no issues with dropping races from settings), but the race-variants has a certain logic and appeal. You can even see a waning of Corellon here: Eladrin --> Elf --> Half-Elf

[TigerT20]

Personally I think y'all are too caught up on the half-races. I dump them anyways. I do want to replace half-elves with a sort of changeling race, but mostly I don't see the sense in having 'half-races'. If you want to do that, pick a race. Now pick a class or assign your ability scores in a way that would be more typical of the other race. Roleplay with a mixture of the typca personalities of the races. You have a half-race. If you want more, talk to me about swapping certain features for other ones.

Example: Gnome/Halfling

Take Rock Gnome. Have a higher Dexterty or Charisma than you would normally. Have a lower Intelligence or Constitution than you would normally. Emphasise your laid-back attitude. Take Halfling as a language. Other than that, play a gnome.

[EggKookoo]

Personally I think y'all are too caught up on the half-races. I dump them anyways. I do want to replace half-elves with a sort of changeling race, but mostly I don't see the sense in having 'half-races'. If you want to do that, pick a race.

Even when I'm not homebrewing a setting, I still tend to present half-elves and half-orcs as distinct races. The "half" is more a descriptor of their degree of elvenness or orcishness, not that they're half breeds. I can suspend disbelief quite a bit but I still struggle with half-species like that. Spock bugs me too. In my headcanon he's genetically Vulcan, just modified such that he could be carried to term by a human woman, which could be seen as having a "human" influence on his biology. Hence, half-human, but only colloquially.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Personally, I'd rather focus on the issues that the crux of 'a bunch of different gods made each of the different species' brings. It's not an interesting enough premises to have been as overused to death as it has been, and it draws uncomfortable ultimate conclusions no matter what you do since species and religion end up inseparable. At the very least twist it a little, like how Dark Sun had halflings as the original archetype that all other (non-alien) humanoids came from.

Maybe use 'humans' as the distant ancestor to all modern humanoids, thus explaining all the commonalities between them? You can then use humans in the same sense that you'd use cavemen, or maybe 'hyper advanced people from the past'.

[Daghoulish]

No half-elves or half-orcs (credit to Expired, I don't know how I forgot about that)

You might not need to remove half-orcs. In the orc section of the monster manual there's a section talking about orc crossbreeding and it specifically brings up that dwarves can produce half-orcs. Here's the part that talks about it.

When an orc procreates with a non-orc humanoid of similar size and stature (such as a human or a dwarf), the resulting child is either an orc or a half-orc.