Racial weaknesses compared to humanity (PHB)

[Tanarii]

Just a little change in perspective on the races and ability scores.

Weaker than humans:
Hill Dwarf, Elves, Halflings, Gnomes, Tieflings

Clumsier than humans:
Dwarves, Dragonborn, Rock Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Tieflings

Unhealthier than humans:
Elves, Lightfoot Halflings, Dragonborn, Forest Gnomes, Tieflings

Stupider than humans:
Dwarves, Wood Elves, Halflings, Dragonborn, Half-Orcs

Less aware than humans:
Mountain Dwarves, High Elves, Halflings, Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Tieflings

Less confident than humans:
Dwarves, Elves, Stout Halflings, Gnomes, Half-Orcs


Please don't bring up TBTSNBN (The Book That Shall Not Be Named). Everyone knows it doesn't exist, nor do any alternative rules for rearranging racial ASIs, so I'll be forced to ignore you to keep it that way.

[sayaijin]

This is why I actually like the Tasha's changes, but I understand why people want to see the recommended +2/+1 - they want to know on average how that species is relative to the others.

[PhantomSoul]

This is why I actually like the Tasha's changes, but I understand why people want to see the recommended +2/+1 - they want to know on average how that species is relative to the others.

Funny, I looked at it and went "sure, the labels might be different, but actually having a baseline for completely different species is nice!" and it reinforced not liking the book that doesn't exist (though +1 to everything rather than floating +1s for humans still surprises me, but I guess that's what you get when the real-world counterpart of the species is writing the book!)

[sayaijin]

So the most recent UA content didn't provide a baseline +2/+1 for the new races, and instead just says +2/+1 to anything a la Tasha's. I think it would be cool if they said which two stats normally get those score increases so if you put a tribe of that race into your campaign then you know what is characteristic of the entire race.

But adventurers are not just normal people, they are exceptional.

[PhantomSoul]

But adventurers are not just normal people, they are exceptional.

So exceptional they apparently partially cease having a species!

[Skrum]

So exceptional they apparently partially cease having a species!

I think this is perfectly reasonable in the context of DnD. By nature of it being a game, there's no strength score of 15.825, and it's very marginally different than 16.375. There's just 16, and then 15 below it (a massive difference with the modifier dropping from +3 to +2).

Adventurers are generally assumed to be the most exceptional, special, and outstanding specimens of their race. The Olympic Athlete of high fantasy, if you will. Having a rule that the smartest half-orc will always be meaningfully dumber than the smartest human is a little too much racial determination.

[Redwood0517]

Humans, best all around, most diversified, they are good to be friends with because they are everywhere you go. :confused:

[Anymage]

Nonvariant humans and the nature of even/odd stat scores complicate this a lot. The difference between a 14 and a 15 is practically nonexistent. On top of that, while "humans are talented generalists" might work to explain why this newcomer race is shaking things up, adventuring tends to reward specialists and doesn't care about a +1 to your dump stat.

When I clicked this I was expecting ideas similar to fairy tale weaknesses, inability to lie or vulnerability to certain damage types or whatnot. And while I don't see this taking off in official D&D ever, it might be interesting to see nonhumans have weaknesses compared to humans that don't boil down to a -1 in places where it won't matter.

[PhantomSoul]

Adventurers are generally assumed to be the most exceptional, special, and outstanding specimens of their race. The Olympic Athlete of high fantasy, if you will. Having a rule that the smartest half-orc will always be meaningfully dumber than the smartest human is a little too much racial determination.

Except they can all get 20s...

[Valmark]

Just a little change in perspective on the races and ability scores.

Weaker than humans:
Hill Dwarf, Elves, Halflings, Gnomes, Tieflings

Clumsier than humans:
Dwarves, Dragonborn, Rock Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Tieflings

Unhealthier than humans:
Elves, Lightfoot Halflings, Dragonborn, Forest Gnomes, Tieflings

Stupider than humans:
Dwarves, Wood Elves, Halflings, Dragonborn, Half-Orcs

Less aware than humans:
Mountain Dwarves, High Elves, Halflings, Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Tieflings

Less confident than humans:
Dwarves, Elves, Stout Halflings, Gnomes, Half-Orcs


Please don't bring up TBTSNBN (The Book That Shall Not Be Named). Everyone knows it doesn't exist, nor do any alternative rules for rearranging racial ASIs, so I'll be forced to ignore you to keep it that way.

I'm not sure this is true. If we assume the average person to have 10 in their stat then the basic human has absolutely no advantage (stat-wise) on other PHB races- what average are you using?

EDIT: Actually wait, humans would carry... 15 more lbs, I think? Then other races without +1 to Strenght (nor +2).

[Tanarii]

Nonvariant humans and the nature of even/odd stat scores complicate this a lot. The difference between a 14 and a 15 is practically nonexistent. On top of that, while "humans are talented generalists" might work to explain why this newcomer race is shaking things up, adventuring tends to reward specialists and doesn't care about a +1 to your dump stat.Agreed. This doesn't really say much about adventurers.

And clearly variant humans are mutants.
(Actually I really like them as human country or regional variants, with the DM choosing the bonuses and feats.


I'm not sure this is true. If we assume the average person to have 10 in their stat then the basic human has absolutely no advantage (stat-wise) on other PHB races- what average are you using?I dunno, 10-11 vs 11-12? So call it 50% for each ability score.

[Protolisk]

I can't remember who suggested this, but the fact of "only the modifier counts" for most stats except for Strength in some edge cases is solved by allowing odd scores to boost skills, but even scores boost saves, DCs and attack rolls.

Without it, yeah the 11 in everything human might as well be a 10 in everything human, beside the minor strength bonuses.

[sayaijin]

When I clicked this I was expecting ideas similar to fairy tale weaknesses, inability to lie or vulnerability to certain damage types or whatnot. And while I don't see this taking off in official D&D ever, it might be interesting to see nonhumans have weaknesses compared to humans that don't boil down to a -1 in places where it won't matter.

I was hoping for the same. It would be cool if there were drawbacks to each race beyond just stat abilities. Now that I think about it though, it might lead to more fantasy racism in games. Is it good or bad for the game if you give goblins disadvantage on insight checks when treasure is around or kobolds disadvantage against fear-inducing affects?

[LudicSavant]

This is why I actually like the Tasha's changes, but I understand why people want to see the recommended +2/+1 - they want to know on average how that species is relative to the others.

When we actually get members of species in monster manuals or adventures, they often don't match the PHB stat spread. For example, basic goblins have 10 Con in the MM, despite PC goblins having +1 Con. And of course we see high level drow Clerics with 21 Wisdom, despite drow having no Wisdom bonus.

[Protolisk]

When we actually get members of species in monster manuals or adventures, they often don't match the PHB stat spread. For example, basic goblins have 10 Con in the MM, despite PC goblins having +1 Con. And of course we see high level drow Clerics with 21 Wisdom, despite drow having no Wisdom bonus.

It does more align with how the DMG "goblin racials" work modifying with +2 dex, -2 str. At least for modifying NPC stats. A base "goblin" has 8 str, 14 dex, 10 con, 10 int, 8 wis, and 8 cha. So it kind of follows suit.

But in reverse, there is no "human" stats, so in reality, a human commoner is a creature with 10s in all stats, but a goblin commoner has 8 strength, 12 dex.

This means that a goblin commoner is in fact wiser than a goblin "warrior". Which makes some odd sort of sense.

[LudicSavant]

Lizardfolk Commoner (in GoS) has 15 Str, next highest stat is 12. And they have no Strength bonus in the PC stats. Goblin Commoner (TftYP) is listed as having 10 in all stats but Strength. Drow Commoner (OotA) is listed as having 10 in all stats. Orc Commoner (TftYP) is listed as having 10 in all stats.

[Theodoxus]

I got rid of humans. My progenitor race were changelings. After countless millennia and wars, here's the description of my base race (the world is named Raeth):

Raethlings resemble humans, though their skin color can include hues of blue, green and red. Their hair also can range from white to black and any color in the rainbow between. Some even have the rare ability to change their skin, eye and hair color on a whim. A trait inherited from the original changelings.

Raethings have a trait, rolled at random, also inherited from their changeling ancestors. Roll a d12 to determine what your trait is:

|1|Darkvision|
|2|Trance|
|3|Stout|
|4|Powerful Build|
|5|Lucky|
|6|Magic Resistance|
|7|Aggressive|
|8|Long-limbed|
|9|Poison Resistance|
|10|Toughness|
|11|Mask of the Wild|
|12|Relentless Endurance|

Raethlings have 3 attribute score improvements they can spend however they like.
They start with two skills, though they can choose the same skill twice to gain Expertise with it.
Finally, they start speaking Common, and have an additional proficiencies which can be spent on Languages or Tools. If they choose the same tool twice, they gain Expertise with it.Raethlings have 3 attribute score improvements they can spend however they like.
They start with two skills, though they can choose the same skill twice to gain Expertise with it.
Finally, they start speaking Common, and have an additional proficiencies which can be spent on Languages or Tools. If they choose the same tool twice, they gain Expertise with it.

Yeah, I yanked the last bit about attributes from the human thread. I really liked it.

There aren't any other standard humanoids races on Raeth. Though some enterprising mages created humanoid likenesses of their Zodiac: Bear, Bird, Bull, Cat, Dog, Dragon, Elephant, Frog, Insect, Lizard, Rat and Tortoise. (I'm sure you can figure out most of those - and for Dog I based it on the Leonine from Mythos.)

I also have 12 Planetouched races, 3 from each of the 4E cosmology: Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, Feywild and Shadowfell: Aasimar, Darakhul, Eladrin, Firbolg, Goblin, Jinborn, Kijani, Kobold, Kor, Rubit (Gearforged), Tiefling, and Trollkin (some of these are from the Midgard books from Kobold Press).

I for one, like the book that shan't be named, as it provides a basis to make my homebrew world a place where speciation doesn't have to exist. Raethlings have floating ASI because it makes perfect sense with their lineage of malleability. The Zodiac races don't, as they're created to be a specific way. The Planetouched, I haven't decided... but will probably end up with a static +2 attribute and a floating +1.


ETA: For standard human, since there is so much disdain for the quaternary through senary ASI, would it be a massively OP to simply double up for three +2's? Given everything else is the same in the PHB? With PB, you're still looking at a max of 17; and it epitomizes the speed at which humans are supposed to be learning/improving themselves. Just a thought.

[Cicciograna]

Just a little change in perspective on the races and ability scores.

Weaker than humans:
Hill Dwarf, Elves, Halflings, Gnomes, Tieflings

Clumsier than humans:
Dwarves, Dragonborn, Rock Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Tieflings

Unhealthier than humans:
Elves, Lightfoot Halflings, Dragonborn, Forest Gnomes, Tieflings

Stupider than humans:
Dwarves, Wood Elves, Halflings, Dragonborn, Half-Orcs

Less aware than humans:
Mountain Dwarves, High Elves, Halflings, Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Tieflings

Less confident than humans:
Dwarves, Elves, Stout Halflings, Gnomes, Half-Orcs


Please don't bring up TBTSNBN (The Book That Shall Not Be Named). Everyone knows it doesn't exist, nor do any alternative rules for rearranging racial ASIs, so I'll be forced to ignore you to keep it that way.

I don't see the problem. Assuming the standard Human with the basic, all-10 array, they'd get 11 in all the scores. Odd scores rarely impact the game, except maybe for Strength and carrying capacity, meaning that it's not really true that other classes would be "less" than Humans while it's true that the score is lower than the one of a Human, this inequality doesn't carry a particular mechanical effect (again, except for Strength for...how much, 15 lbs of carrying capacity?).

[strangebloke]

this is only true for first level PCs. For NPCs most of the examples we see are... all over the place.

I think its more fair to say that human adventurers are assumed to have a "well-rounded" background in life whereas races like dwarves tend to put a premium on armor and weapon training. Under most circumstances an elf NPC will be assumed to be higher level than some random human because they're longer lived and have had more time to train.

[Dr. Cliché]

When I clicked this I was expecting ideas similar to fairy tale weaknesses, inability to lie or vulnerability to certain damage types or whatnot. And while I don't see this taking off in official D&D ever, it might be interesting to see nonhumans have weaknesses compared to humans that don't boil down to a -1 in places where it won't matter.

Not quite the same, but I've always been fond of Pathfinder's stat arrangement - where humans get +2 in one stat and most other races get +2, +2, -2 (not free-floating).

In essence, each race will have at least one aspect where they're typically stronger than humans and another where they're typically weaker.

[Cybren]

(Actually I really like them as human country or regional variants, with the DM choosing the bonuses and feats.

I see people say some variant of this all the time and iI gotta say I... hate it? The entire allure to me in having something with very generic bonuses like variant human (+1 to any 2 stats, any skill, any feat)... is that they're generic. Having to be from a specific ethnicity or nationality because you want a certain feat is the opposite of that......

[Tanarii]

I see people say some variant of this all the time and iI gotta say I... hate it?Thats works. , Your feelings are valid. :smallamused:

[Cybren]

Thats works. , Your feelings are valid. :smallamused:

no they aren't stop that.

[Jon talks a lot]

no they aren't stop that.

Poor cybren, always getting bullied by a world that treats him with respect.

[Just Helping]

JPlease don't bring up TBTSNBN (The Book That Shall Not Be Named). Everyone knows it doesn't exist, nor do any alternative rules for rearranging racial ASIs, so I'll be forced to ignore you to keep it that way.

No, Tasha's does need to be brought up, since they do technically introduce a new... lineage? Whatever the Custom Lineage actually is meant to represent in AL or future content.

If you want to be so racially deterministic, this variant of humanoid needs to be accounted for just like the Variant Human -- especially since they can attain the rare +3. Whoever is represented by Custom Lineage may well be the champion of whatever vague archetype the stat scores represent in your mind.

That being said, the various +1s and +2s people do or do not get from their parental ancestry -- the minuses were not taken out by Tasha's, remember, but were specifically errata'd -- will either matter or not depending on what point buy or roll distribution is used to model whatever base capabilities NPCs are meant to have -- a +2 always changes how the d20 will see the result, while a +1 will only do so half the time.

If NPCs are all solid 10s, standard human NPCs have a bump in only the few capabilities that rely on stat scores instead of modifiers, so they won't see themselves differentiated much at all. Further, if the base stats are generated through some other means, different cultures might not assign the higher values the same way since they would benefit from different things as per their material conditions. Such benefits are divorced from racial idealism entirely.

The only way this list works as is is if you assume a stat line of 11 base for all stats, which just seems self-serving in my opinion.