The future of humanity in D&D?

[Mastikator]

I was watching the talk between Todd and Jeremy about Monsters of the Multiverse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw) and one thing struck out to me, Jeremy said that this was the first time all the races were in one book... but it doesn't seem like humans are in the book.

Are humans no longer a D&D race? Do humans have a future in D&D at all? Why are they so dead set against including humans in D&D?

[Zevox]

Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't include anything from the PHB, not just humans. His statement should come with the caveat that it refers to races added outside of the PHB, but means nothing else.

[JackPhoenix]

His statement should come with the caveat that it refers to races added outside of the PHB, but means nothing else.

And even that's not true.

[Naanomi]

It doesn't even cover all the non-PHB races

[KorvinStarmast]

It doesn't even cover all the non-PHB races It gives us improved Genasi. Finally. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Are humans no longer a D&D race? Do humans have a future in D&D at all? Why are they so dead set against including humans in D&D?

I know what you mean. When their corporate-mandated goon squad showed up at my house and ripped the PHB out of my hands, my whole group was traumatized.

[Mastikator]

I know what you mean. When their corporate-mandated goon squad showed up at my house and ripped the PHB out of my hands, my whole group was traumatized.

What do you think human will look like in the 2024 PHB?

[Psyren]

What do you think human will look like in the 2024 PHB?

A race? I presume? Like literally every other edition of the game?

[Sigreid]

Sounds to me like they're just trying to make you excited for what is largely a reprint of existing content.

[False God]

A race? I presume? Like literally every other edition of the game?

So, boring but useful?

[Psyren]

So, boring but useful?

If you like, sure.

[Leon]

I was watching the talk between Todd and Jeremy about Monsters of the Multiverse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw) and one thing struck out to me, Jeremy said that this was the first time all the races were in one book... but it doesn't seem like humans are in the book.

Are humans no longer a D&D race? Do humans have a future in D&D at all? Why are they so dead set against including humans in D&D?

Because we are humans and why play a human when you live as one all day everyday. Humans in D&D have always been a bland choice which is why they get things like extra feats skills and stats choices compared to all the other interesting creatures you could play out there. Last time i played a human in D&D was a longtime ago in a very large group who had all the other common races covered and the DM really wanted a human in the starting in the "human capital" party (Rome in case your wondering, Renaissance theme)

[jojo]

I know what you mean. When their corporate-mandated goon squad showed up at my house and ripped the PHB out of my hands, my whole group was traumatized.

I just let them pet pigs and smoke good old quasi-legal PA Hash when they strapped their jackboots on to pound at the door to my farm. Everyone had a really good time, we ended up playing FFG Star Wars Edge of Empire...

[Kaviyd]

There seem to be two goals with the races picked:

1) Take races specific to a given setting and make them generic to the entire multiverse.

2) If the race is already generic, update something in its mechanical details.

Humans would not need to be updated since there is nothing that needs to be done in regard to either of these goals.

However, virtually every other PHB race could use some work for goal 2. Maybe they are being held back for the PHB revision?

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

I was watching the talk between Todd and Jeremy about Monsters of the Multiverse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw) and one thing struck out to me, Jeremy said that this was the first time all the races were in one book... but it doesn't seem like humans are in the book.

Are humans no longer a D&D race? Do humans have a future in D&D at all? Why are they so dead set against including humans in D&D?

The book is called “MONSTERS of the Multiverse”

Humans are not monsters.

Why would humans be in a book about monsters?

[Catullus64]

Because we are humans and why play a human when you live as one all day everyday. Humans in D&D have always been a bland choice which is why they get things like extra feats skills and stats choices compared to all the other interesting creatures you could play out there. Last time i played a human in D&D was a longtime ago in a very large group who had all the other common races covered and the DM really wanted a human in the starting in the "human capital" party (Rome in case your wondering, Renaissance theme)

The fact that I'm human is precisely why I often like to play them. I prefer to play characters closer to real-life historical people, and to have the odd and fantastical be mainly a feature of the story and the game world rather than the PCs. This is why "humans in hats" is a thing.

I think the OP is being a bit hyperbolic by saying that humans are being pushed out of the game; humans aren't going anywhere from this game. I do think it is true that humans are being de-centered as the "default" in D&D settings, for... thread-killy reasons. Contrast this to older settings and editions, which assumed that D&D worlds were more like historical human medieval societies with magic and elves and such existing at the periphery. E.G.G very explicitly said as much once:


A moment of reflection will bring (players who want to play as weird monstrous races) to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind. Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity.

Which is more my cup of tea anyway, but is generally no longer the done thing.

[Dienekes]

The book is called “MONSTERS of the Multiverse”

Humans are not monsters.

Why would humans be in a book about monsters?

There is some disagreement about that second assertion there.

[Cikomyr2]

The book is called “MONSTERS of the Multiverse”

Humans are not monsters.

Why would humans be in a book about monsters?

So all other races are monsters?

[Sigreid]

The book is called “MONSTERS of the Multiverse”

Humans are not monsters.

Why would humans be in a book about monsters?

Humans are the worst monsters. Many could make a demon lord weep.

[Psyren]

However, virtually every other PHB race could use some work for goal 2. Maybe they are being held back for the PHB revision?

All the PHB races were left out of this book. There is not some kind of shadowy anti-human conspiracy happening like the OP appears to believe.


The fact that I'm human is precisely why I often like to play them. I prefer to play characters closer to real-life historical people, and to have the odd and fantastical be mainly a feature of the story and the game world rather than the PCs. This is why "humans in hats" is a thing.

I think the OP is being a bit hyperbolic by saying that humans are being pushed out of the game; humans aren't going anywhere from this game. I do think it is true that humans are being de-centered as the "default" in D&D settings, for... thread-killy reasons. Contrast this to older settings and editions, which assumed that D&D worlds were more like historical human medieval societies with magic and elves and such existing at the periphery. E.G.G very explicitly said as much once:


Which is more my cup of tea anyway, but is generally no longer the done thing.

Humans will definitely always be a part of the game, but the assumptions set up by Gygax apply more to the settings he played in (e.g. Greyhawk and Blackmoor) which are no longer front and center for the game itself. And frankly, the ease with which one can slip into a wide variety of more fantastic races' skins is a strength of D&D in general and 5e in particular, so playing that up in supplemental material makes sense.

As a salient example, Legend of Vox Machina (the Critical Role / D&D-inspired animated show currently running on Amazon) has exactly one human in its main cast of 7 party members. The others consist of two gnomes, three half-elves, and a Goliath. (IIRC the original crew includes a dragonborn as well, but no sign of him in the show yet.)

[togapika]

1) Take races specific to a given setting and make them generic to the entire multiverse.


*Some of the races

[ProsecutorGodot]

As a salient example, Legend of Vox Machina (the Critical Role / D&D-inspired animated show currently running on Amazon) has exactly one human in its main cast of 7 party members. The others consist of two gnomes, three half-elves, and a Goliath. (IIRC the original crew includes a dragonborn as well, but no sign of him in the show yet.)

There won't be, he left the group on bad terms.

Also I'm willing to bet when JC said "all of the races" he was referencing it as this collection of races, it pulls from many sources. I know we rail on his communication skills through Twitter but this is a bit of a stretch in my book.

Side note, I also do primarily play humans, I'll fully admit one of the primary focuses is because of variant human but I also have a bit of trouble moving outside of "I am a human" thoughts. Lizardfolk was a pretty fun race to try out though, not sure I really got the killer pragmatism right but it was a very different experience.

[Psyren]

There won't be, he left the group on bad terms.

Unfortunate, didn't realize that. As it stands their only real arcane caster is the bard, who as I mentioned is a walking cliche and pretty annoying to boot. He comes off more as a self-insert fantasy than a realized character to me. Their other two full casters (the cleric and druid) carry a bit too much piety baggage for my tastes, I like having a caster on the team that is more interested in magic for its own sake - Sypha from Castlevania or Raven from Teen Titans being standout examples of the archetype.


Also I'm willing to bet when JC said "all of the races" he was referencing it as this collection of races, it pulls from many sources. I know we rail on his communication skills through Twitter but this is a bit of a stretch in my book.

Uh, who's "we?" :smallconfused:

I am very in favor of lead designers communicating directly with the playerbase, in any game I play. I don't agree with every single ruling JC puts out (Shield Master comes to mind) but I find the vast majority to be both welcome and helpful.


Side note, I also do primarily play humans, I'll fully admit one of the primary focuses is because of variant human but I also have a bit of trouble moving outside of "I am a human" thoughts. Lizardfolk was a pretty fun race to try out though, not sure I really got the killer pragmatism right but it was a very different experience.

I do wish Vhuman and Custom Lineage weren't the only ways to start with floating bonus feats. I find a lot of other races more interesting but starting with that part of your build settled already is so powerful.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

There is some disagreement about that second assertion there.

Certainly, but in the jargon of D&D, elves, dwarves, orcs and tieflings have been monsters in the Monster Manual or Monstrous compendium in every edition of the game.


So all other races are monsters?

By the jargon of the game, yes. Non-human creatures are Monsters. Non player humans are NPCs.

[Psyren]

Again, humans not being in this book has nothing to do with their status as being or not being "monsters", and everything to do with the fact that PHB races are being deferred to the PHB update in 2024.

Halflings are "monsters" in the jargon of the game and they are not in this book either, because they are a PHB race.

[KorvinStarmast]

I do wish Vhuman and Custom Lineage weren't the only ways to start with floating bonus feats. I find a lot of other races more interesting but starting with that part of your build settled already is so powerful. I am glad that they are. Most 'races' are quite front loaded at level 1 with all kinds of special stuff. vHuman feat allows them to front load with a special stuff .... :smallcool:

[KorvinStarmast]

Certainly, but in the jargon of D&D, elves, dwarves, orcs and tieflings have been monsters in the Monster Manual or Monstrous compendium in every edition of the game. In the original game everything not a PC was a monster. Said so in the book. First monster manual included Dwarves, elves, humans, etc ...

[Psyren]

I am glad that they are. Most 'races' are quite front loaded at level 1 with all kinds of special stuff. vHuman feat allows them to front load with a special stuff .... :smallcool:

Let me clarify - humans getting an extra feat is good. It fits thematically with human diversity and drive, and mechanically it gives them a benefit that is on par with the goodies other races get like darkvision, weapon proficiencies, rerolls and flight.

In prior editions however, everyone got a feat at first level, and humans simply got a second one. Doing it that way, humans would still be special, but they wouldn't be basically the sole fast lane to entire character concepts before level 4 the way they are currently. Every other race has to wait until level 4 before they can do things like TWF effectively or use metamagic on a non-sorcerer.

So personally I would like a suggested rule where everyone can start with a feat (and vhumans and clineage can get a second one.) Perhaps ruling that theirs cannot be a half-feat or something so that they aren't starting the game with a 19.

[KorvinStarmast]

In prior editions however, everyone got a feat at first level,
In prior WoTC editions. :smallwink:
I am glad that feats are optional also. (Granted many folks exercise that option).
The game works without them.

So personally I would like a suggested rule where everyone can start with a feat (and vhumans and clineage can get a second one.) Perhaps ruling that theirs cannot be a half-feat or something so that they aren't starting the game with a 19.
That would also be fine, but as DM I'd need to ramp up the challenge level (now that I know what I know) starting at about level 2. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

In prior WoTC editions. :smallwink:
I am glad that feats are optional also. (Granted many folks exercise that option).
The game works without them.

I know (and support) feats being optional. What I wanted was an official suggestion that "hey, if you're going to use this system, consider not waiting until the end of the tier for people to get their first one."


That would also be fine, but as DM I'd need to ramp up the challenge level (now that I know what I know) starting at about level 2. :smallsmile:

Everyone getting an extra feat over their career wouldn't have that big an impact on challenge in my mind - but sure, you could make things a bit harder to compensate. Throw a couple extra bandits in that ambush etc.

The difference in the game feel would be pretty noticeable. You'd get a lot of builds who take a while to have anything worthwhile to do with their bonus action or reaction (for example) suddenly not feeling as though those resources are wasted.

[deljzc]

The fact that I'm human is precisely why I often like to play them. I prefer to play characters closer to real-life historical people, and to have the odd and fantastical be mainly a feature of the story and the game world rather than the PCs. This is why "humans in hats" is a thing.

I think the OP is being a bit hyperbolic by saying that humans are being pushed out of the game; humans aren't going anywhere from this game. I do think it is true that humans are being de-centered as the "default" in D&D settings, for... thread-killy reasons. Contrast this to older settings and editions, which assumed that D&D worlds were more like historical human medieval societies with magic and elves and such existing at the periphery. E.G.G very explicitly said as much once:



Which is more my cup of tea anyway, but is generally no longer the done thing.

I have always preferred E.G.G. vision of his campaign settings. And yes, that includes a world that is human-centric.

There is nothing to prevent other campaigns from existing. If anything, all the new races ALLOW for that type of tinkering and creativity.

That said, I think RESTRICTING races in a particular campaign actually makes for a more rich and interesting story. You can't have them all or it just gets silly in my opinion, which is kind of how I feel reading all the optimization and race/multi-class threads on this board.

What might be nice about the new rule setup is that you can start with maybe 6-8 races you want to build your world around as playable races (either because they are common enough, or it helps enrich the storyline). And there might even be a case in your campaign humans wouldn't be one of them. That would take a lot of work, since the backdrop of such a world would have to be sort of radically different from some time-stamp era of human history on earth (modified to include fantasy elements).

I mean, even writing fantasy novels take this easy way out because to tackle a world where humans are minor characters is a really tough creation/story telling exercise.

[Segev]

I know what you mean. When their corporate-mandated goon squad showed up at my house and ripped the PHB out of my hands, my whole group was traumatized.

Those 6 am raids are a pain; your monsters are always either just waking up or going to sleep, the traps usually haven't been reset yet, and your boss chamber is a mess, not set up for company and a boss fight at all. So rude.

[Atranen]

I have always preferred E.G.G. vision of his campaign settings. And yes, that includes a world that is human-centric.

That said, I think RESTRICTING races in a particular campaign actually makes for a more rich and interesting story. You can't have them all or it just gets silly in my opinion, which is kind of how I feel reading all the optimization and race/multi-class threads on this board.

I agree with all of this. Anything goes worlds end up feeling far too cosmopolitan for the rest of the setting; it feeds into the "other races are humans in funny hats" problem. I prefer that each race feel unique, that its existence actually means and contributes something to the world, rather than being variant human.

But that's not the direction the game has gone.

[Anymage]

I agree with all of this. Anything goes worlds end up feeling far too cosmopolitan for the rest of the setting; it feeds into the "other races are humans in funny hats" problem. I prefer that each race feel unique, that its existence actually means and contributes something to the world, rather than being variant human.

But that's not the direction the game has gone.


That said, I think RESTRICTING races in a particular campaign actually makes for a more rich and interesting story. You can't have them all or it just gets silly in my opinion, which is kind of how I feel reading all the optimization and race/multi-class threads on this board.

That's less of a claim about the number of playable races than a general question of the monsters available. A cult of amoral snake people takes up space in the world whether or not they're narratively relevant. If they aren't narratively relevant the DM is free to just ignore the pages they're written on, which only fails to be a waste because including all the published monsters would make adventures excessively bloated before it made the world feel that way.

There should be an understanding that just because it's published does not mean that you should be able to use it. That's more of a session zero question than a publishing one, though; people can decide what elements interest them, and the DM is encouraged to use the ones that excite players over the ones that don't. Your setting need not have tabaxi or orcs if nobody is especially lit up by the ideas. The matter is somewhat complicated if someone reads a thread about the supersonic tabaxi monk and decides to bring one into an established campaign, but that's about specific setting issues more than WotC's initial idea to publish tabaxi in the first place.

[Psyren]

Those 6 am raids are a pain; your monsters are always either just waking up or going to sleep, the traps usually haven't been reset yet, and your boss chamber is a mess, not set up for company and a boss fight at all. So rude.

I was with my therapist for hours after the last one.



That said, I think RESTRICTING races in a particular campaign actually makes for a more rich and interesting story. You can't have them all or it just gets silly in my opinion, which is kind of how I feel reading all the optimization and race/multi-class threads on this board.

I don't disagree but that's not the designers job. Restricting your campaign is your job. Their job is to provide hooks that explain how things can be possible.

So when they say stuff like "there are rumors of Tortle tribes in remote areas of Chult" or "Longtooth Shifters are known to frequent Kartakass" you can still ban those races from your FR and Ravenloft campaigns if you want to. But other tables who were either interested in including them or just on the fence, now have interesting vectors for doing so. That's a good thing.


That's less of a claim about the number of playable races than a general question of the monsters available. A cult of amoral snake people takes up space in the world whether or not they're narratively relevant. If they aren't narratively relevant the DM is free to just ignore the pages they're written on, which only fails to be a waste because including all the published monsters would make adventures excessively bloated before it made the world feel that way.

There should be an understanding that just because it's published does not mean that you should be able to use it. That's more of a session zero question than a publishing one, though; people can decide what elements interest them, and the DM is encouraged to use the ones that excite players over the ones that don't. Your setting need not have tabaxi or orcs if nobody is especially lit up by the ideas. The matter is somewhat complicated if someone reads a thread about the supersonic tabaxi monk and decides to bring one into an established campaign, but that's about specific setting issues more than WotC's initial idea to publish tabaxi in the first place.

Yes and also - just because X exists in the setting doesn't mean it's available for play in that campaign.

[Veldrenor]

Unfortunate, didn't realize that. As it stands their only real arcane caster is the bard, who as I mentioned is a walking cliche and pretty annoying to boot. He comes off more as a self-insert fantasy than a realized character to me.

That's literally what Scanlan was made to be. For those who don't know the outside story, Sam Reigel had never played D&D before so when he got invited to the one-shot he asked Liam O'Brien "Can I just be the worst? What's the worst? I'll be the worst character." Liam said "You could be like, a gnome." And later after talking about classes Sam said "possibly a bard gnome or a cleric gnome, because I want to be as dorky as possible." He was supposed to be an obnoxious, one-note character mixing the cliche horny bard with Eminem.

To the OP, humans will always be a thing. D&D needs that ordinary, average, everyday aspect to act as a point against which its fantastical elements can be measured. And as others have already pointed out, Monsters of the Multiverse not including humans isn't much of an indicator of anything, since it doesn't gather any of the PHB races. They're probably saving the PHB race updates for the full core revision in 2024.

[Schwann145]

Humans will definitely always be a part of the game, but the assumptions set up by Gygax apply more to the settings he played in (e.g. Greyhawk and Blackmoor) which are no longer front and center for the game itself.

The Forgotten Realms (primary setting for 5e) is also a humanocentric setting. The demi-human population numbers are a bit higher than in settings like Greyhawk, but they're still vastly smaller than the human populations.
D&D groups just tend to ignore this outright, since a small group of 3-6ish adventurers being mostly non-human doesn't really reflect the setting as a whole. But when you start throwing massive amounts of dragonborn and tieflings and genasi and everything else into major population hubs as if they're equally represented, that's going directly against the lore of the setting.

Take the city of Waterdeep for example:
The human population is 64%, followed by elven and dwarven populations of 10% each. After that is halflings and half-elves at 5% population each, then gnomes at 3%. Lastly are half-orcs at 2% and everything else makes up 1% of the population.

Baldur's Gate simply lists itself as, "mostly human."

Even a city like Silverymoon, with a very strong elven population, is mostly human (41% human, 29% elven).

And the further away from major population areas like these, the more segregated the racial compositions become, meaning outside of specifically demi-human territories (Evereska, Gauntlgrym, High Forest, Mithral Hall, etc), it's almost entirely human and half-breeds.

[Psyren]

That's literally what Scanlan was made to be. For those who don't know the outside story, Sam Reigel had never played D&D before so when he got invited to the one-shot he asked Liam O'Brien "Can I just be the worst? What's the worst? I'll be the worst character." Liam said "You could be like, a gnome." And later after talking about classes Sam said "possibly a bard gnome or a cleric gnome, because I want to be as dorky as possible." He was supposed to be an obnoxious, one-note character mixing the cliche horny bard with Eminem.

You know, somehow, knowing he intentionally made his character that obnoxious doesn't help much.


The Forgotten Realms (primary setting for 5e) is also a humanocentric setting. The demi-human population numbers are a bit higher than in settings like Greyhawk, but they're still vastly smaller than the human populations.
D&D groups just tend to ignore this outright, since a small group of 3-6ish adventurers being mostly non-human doesn't really reflect the setting as a whole. But when you start throwing massive amounts of dragonborn and tieflings and genasi and everything else into major population hubs as if they're equally represented, that's going directly against the lore of the setting.

Take the city of Waterdeep for example:
The human population is 64%, followed by elven and dwarven populations of 10% each. After that is halflings and half-elves at 5% population each, then gnomes at 3%. Lastly are half-orcs at 2% and everything else makes up 1% of the population.

Baldur's Gate simply lists itself as, "mostly human."

Even a city like Silverymoon, with a very strong elven population, is mostly human (41% human, 29% elven).

And the further away from major population areas like these, the more segregated the racial compositions become, meaning outside of specifically demi-human territories (Evereska, Gauntlgrym, High Forest, Mithral Hall, etc), it's almost entirely human and half-breeds.

I know humans are still the majority in other settings too (including FR.) My point though was that EGG though they should be the vast majority of adventurers too, and that is a lot less likely to be the case now.

[Schwann145]

I know humans are still the majority in other settings too (including FR.) My point though was that EGG though they should be the vast majority of adventurers too, and that is a lot less likely to be the case now.

Statistically? They should be.
Players just (generally) choose character options with no respect for the setting they're playing in. Whether this is a bad thing or a good thing is up to each table.
Afterwards, what tends to happen is that no one treats demi-humans or planar-humanoids as anything special, even though even the 5e rules say you should. A tiefling walking through ye olde village is going to get, at the very minimum, stares - but players ignore that too.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

I know humans are still the majority in other settings too (including FR.) My point though was that EGG though they should be the vast majority of adventurers too, and that is a lot less likely to be the case now.

Which simply means EGG was swimming against the tide.

Or at least posturing that way. Obviously the parade of non-human playable races began under his watch and grew and grew over time.

D&D was always an “Elf Game”, despite what Gygax said.

[Schwann145]

D&D was always an “Elf Game”, despite what Gygax said.

Not surprising, since in basically all the literature that inspired D&D elves, they've just been "human, but better." :smallamused:

[Devils_Advocate]

The majority of adventurers being human doesn't follow remotely directly from a majority human population.

Demographics obviously vary by setting. But under fairly conventional old-school assumptions that settings are "like historical human medieval societies with magic and elves and such existing at the periphery", and that elves are superior to humans...

... then most humans work in agriculture without much access to education or training in anything else. They spend their lives doing their best not to starve while the ruling class squeezes them for pretty much as much as they can manage without killing them off (because dead cows stop giving milk). Knighthood, joining the clergy, and the sort of academic experience required to become a wizard in D&D are mostly left to a relatively tiny elite.

Elves, on the other hand, have a far more advanced society with a far higher average standard of living. By default, high elves all start with four martial weapon proficiencies and a wizard cantrip, because they come from a culture where everyone learns the basics of combat and magic. They have, on average, a way easier career path than humans do to wandering the land and going on quests without getting stabbed to death by the first goblin they encounter. Heck, the average elf is probably more likely to become an adventurer than the average human noble, who is far more liable to be fat and lazy.

Note that these considerations do not remotely apply equally to all character classes and backgrounds. To the extent that rogues are as a rule blue-collar criminals, the percentage of humans who are rogues is probably higher than the percentage of any demihuman race. The percentage of wild mages is likely near invariant, since they just crop up at random (I assume; anything else seems rather out of theme). And of course the Urchin and Folk Hero backgrounds are for lower-class player characters. Obviously adventurers with those social backgrounds exist. But these are exceptions and not the rule.

Again, setting-dependent. You can go the Eberron route and decide that magic isn't just on the periphery but a normal part of daily life, leading to a radically different society. You could also go the exact opposite direction and decide that elves have exactly the same feudal social structures and demographics as humans, and somehow things like them living for hundreds of years and being able to see in total darkness have basically zero impact on their way of life, but why would you do that? That's going beyond saying that other races have to be like humans, it's deciding that all civilizations need to be nearly identical and can't even differ in the ways that the various human civilizations that have existed throughout the world have differed from each other over the course of history. Bleah.


(primary setting for 5e)
From what I've read, they've made a conscious decision to move away from having a primary setting.


In the original game everything not a PC was a monster. Said so in the book. First monster manual included Dwarves, elves, humans, etc ...
Humans are peculiarly absent from the 3rd Edition Monster Manual, but 3E is very clear that "monster" is a synonym for "creature", and also that anything with Wisdom and Charisma scores is a creature, so humans qualify. (And even were that not the case, I should certainly hope than any "Humans aren't creatures because they aren't in the Monster Manual" argument would be made strictly tongue in cheek.)

So, "monster" as a quasi-technical game term does not mean "non-human creature". And I can't recall ever encountering "monsters" as a catch-all term specifically for all non-human creatures, including halflings, gnomes, toads, and cats (notwithstanding the threat that the last of those historically represented to a first-level wizard). So if Dr. Murgunstrum asserts that that's common usage within the hobby, then, well, citation needed.


There seem to be two goals with the races picked:

1) Take races specific to a given setting and make them generic to the entire multiverse.

2) If the race is already generic, update something in its mechanical details.

Humans would not need to be updated since there is nothing that needs to be done in regard to either of these goals.

However, virtually every other PHB race could use some work for goal 2. Maybe they are being held back for the PHB revision?
Maybe it's because I haven't been closely following developments in this field, but it's not clear to me that humans don't need a mechanical update, especially if everyone else is getting a shiny new revamp.


So personally I would like a suggested rule where everyone can start with a feat (and vhumans and clineage can get a second one.) Perhaps ruling that theirs cannot be a half-feat or something so that they aren't starting the game with a 19.
If things are reworked to give everyone 1.5 ASIs to start, may as well allow trading in a starting ASI for a feat. Doesn't strike me as having a high ratio of power creep to concept enabling.


You know, somehow, knowing he intentionally made his character that obnoxious doesn't help much.
Scanlan strikes me more as comic relief than as annoying to the players, the DM, and/or the audience. That said, while one might generally expect a bard to be personable, I recall Scanlan being more prone to use his Charisma to irritate people who bother him than to try to win them over. Pretty reasonable to find someone like that unlikable even when his unpleasantness isn't directed towards you personally. Because, well, he's kind of a jerk. Scanlan grows on people, but so does a rash.