Humans

So, I was looking at the playtest packet and I noticed the flavor text for humans seems to mostly replicate the 3rd edition version of humans, as versatile, innovative, and cosmopolitan, sort of the Star Trek version of humans. Whereas 4e gave humans an ambition that could lead them to nobility but also to a lust for power; call this the LOTR version of humans. I have no idea if the stuff in the packet is the shape of things to come. However, if anyone is making decisions on such things right now, I generally prefer the 4e human. It's less wibbly, offers a stronger hook, and gives other races reasons both to admire and to fear humans. Ideally, I'd like to see the concepts combined in some way, linking the human trait of adaptability with human ambition. However, if I had to choose one or the other, I prefer LOTR humans to Star Trek humans in my D&D. 
So, I was looking at the playtest packet and I noticed the flavor text for humans seems to mostly replicate the 3rd edition version of humans, as versatile, innovative, and cosmopolitan, sort of the Star Trek version of humans. Whereas 4e gave humans an ambition that could lead them to nobility but also to a lust for power; call this the LOTR version of humans. I have no idea if the stuff in the packet is the shape of things to come. However, if anyone is making decisions on such things right now, I generally prefer the 4e human. It's less wibbly, offers a stronger hook, and gives other races reasons both to admire and to fear humans. Ideally, I'd like to see the concepts combined in some way, linking the human trait of adaptability with human ambition. However, if I had to choose one or the other, I prefer LOTR humans to Star Trek humans in my D&D. 


Interesting observation.  I agree with you.  I think greed and ambition are more interesting than versatility and adaptability.
Let's hope when they remake the humans, they are a little better.  There have already been several attempts on the blog to offer better ideas for human traits. 
The description of humans in D&D never made sense for me.
It's just a description of the humans we are, just more archetypal.

I don't know any human who had to live side by side with even a single other intelligent race. In D&D, humans are not even the first intelligent races, and the others live longer, are physically more powerful, and most of them share similar anatomical traits with humans.
There's no way humans nin a fantasy setting could be similar to what we are and what is described in the human entry.

From behavior to religion, the D&D humans make no sense, except for the mechanical part.
Humans being more advanced within each character class to compensate racial advantage other races have makes sense through ability score bump.  The idea to give specific human advantages within each class instead of stat bumps is tempting, but I can see problems regarding multiclass.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

I don't know if how races are positioned flavorfully has gotten any sort of examination or polish at this point. The flavor descriptions they're using are taken from the 3.5 PHB (in the sense of "the text from the 3.5 PHB is the text of the playtest packet"), which works fine, but doesn't necessarily represent much in the way of hints regarding how they're planning to position or present any of the races in the long run. I mean, races are races, so they're probably going to look basically like that, but in terms of nuance I don't know if you can read a whole lot into what's currently in the packet, as it doesn't represent any design work in the area yet. It's just a description that was useful by virtue of existing already.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.


I don't know any human who had to live side by side with even a single other intelligent race.



We did once (Homo Sapiens Neanderthals, which were far older than Homo Sapiens Sapiens when we encountered them), and it seems that we either hunted them to extinction, outcompeted them for resources and starved them to death, or mated with them until they were assimilated into our species, or a combination of the three. It isn't really known if our victory came from superior strength or intelligence or just luck.

So the idea of humans coexisting with other similar intelligent races doesn't make much sense to begin with, but it's fantasy, so it doesn't have to, it just has to be consistent in-universe.



I like the idea that humans are indeed more varied and adaptable, and that they also have a tendency toward ambition, not being content with occupying a single niche in the world, on both an individual and a cultural level. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusie - in fact I think they go together quite well.

The adaptablity, by the way, makes perfect sense in a world filled with older, longer lived races. Humans breed more quickly. They live shorter lives, so the ways of the old humans don't have as much influence on the young humans, because there aren't as many old humans as there are old elves, for example. Lessons learned from previous generations is harder to pass down, so humans must be able to learn quickly and adapt on their own without as much help from their elders.

I like the idea that humans have the potential to be the best at everything - they learn faster, they grow faster, they adapt faster - but it's harder for them to build lasting civilizations and cultures than for demihumans. This is partly because they do live for a shorter time, so consistency is harder, and also because of the ambition. Because humans are just naturally driven to change their world for their own benefit, they tend to fight with each other a lot. Humans are also good at learning from other races and taking those ideas and making them their own.

In my campaign world, humans are the up-and-coming masters of the world. The time of the elves - the old masters of the world - is passing. They were once the best at everything, and it took a long time for humans to catch up to them, but that combined adaptability and ambition has led to humanity spreading to every part of the world. The elves, old and set in their ways, still think they are the best, the masters of the world, and humans are just young upstarts - but really, humans have surpassed them.

As far as 5th edition goes, I think it's up to the inclusive D&D framework of the PHB/DMG to describe humanity in the most basic terms and then leave it to campaign settings to describe their place in that world. Same goes for elves, dwarves, etc.


I don't know any human who had to live side by side with even a single other intelligent race.



We did once (Homo Sapiens Neanderthals, which were far older than Homo Sapiens Sapiens when we encountered them), and it seems that we either hunted them to extinction, outcompeted them for resources and starved them to death, or mated with them until they were assimilated into our species, or a combination of the three. It isn't really known if our victory came from superior strength or intelligence or just luck.

So the idea of humans coexisting with other similar intelligent races doesn't make much sense to begin with, but it's fantasy, so it doesn't have to, it just has to be consistent in-universe.




This is the problem, with the level of power of some creatures, mostly outsiders, why humans would consider these creatures inferiors to gods ? Because the outsiders bribing mortals with spells deserve more worship ? Then devils should have the biggest number of followers, as it's easy to tell that what is said about them is false when you bribe enough people with power.

The humans are not coherent with the world as well as with the cosmology. It's ridiculous. Funny like science in the old science fiction medias, but ridiculous.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

BAsically Humans were never written to fit in to the fantasy world, but to link us to it. 

 
BAsically Humans were never written to fit in to the fantasy world, but to link us to it. 

 


This is usually, actually true. It's the reason Humans are featured, and usually predominant in settings. It gives us something to relate to.

I actually fleshed out the better part of a setting once, and had no humans in it. It really bothered some people. 
My two copper.
There's no story without identification.
That's why elves, dwarves and others also don't make sense in their descriptions. 

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

BAsically Humans were never written to fit in to the fantasy world, but to link us to it. 

 


This is usually, actually true. It's the reason Humans are featured, and usually predominant in settings. It gives us something to relate to.

I actually fleshed out the better part of a setting once, and had no humans in it. It really bothered some people. 


I tried that too, with the same effect.  And all the arguing about "Well, this makes more sense" isn't going to help wth that.

You can have a world that makes sense, in which humans are alien to us (if they exist at all)
OR
You can have a world that substantial numbers of real-world people can relate to.
IMO 
I don't think Humans should get any Ability modifiers. They are the baseline that gives the other Races their modifiers in the first place. The comparison to Humans is the only reason for the other Racial modifiers.

I do think that Racial Traits can, and should, be a part of the racial write-ups. This is where all Races can have special affinities that distinguish them from the other Races:


  • Racial Weapon Affinities (Weapon Training),

  • Racial Armor Affinities (Armor Mastery, w/o the proficiency part),

  • Racial Skill Affinities (Bonus or Improved Skills),

  • Racial Feat Affinities (Bonus or Improved Feats),

  • Racial Traits (Adaptablity/Diversity, Ambitious/Greedy, Fearless, Nimbleness, Resilience, Senses, Trance , Toughness, etc.),

  • and others.


Part of the problem is that the write up focuses on shallow surface aspects of humanity.

Humans aren't just adaptive and versatile because it's a good idea, but because we are hungry and ambitious and afraid.

Ditch the armor and weapon garbage, it's just dumb for there to be a link between race and weapon prof.
It is a playtest a place to test ideas and they just recycle fluff for it. 
It might be we don't see the actual 5th editionfluff untill it is released.
 
Part of the problem is that the write up focuses on shallow surface aspects of humanity.

Humans aren't just adaptive and versatile because it's a good idea, but because we are hungry and ambitious and afraid.

Ditch the armor and weapon garbage, it's just dumb for there to be a link between race and weapon prof.


Upon further reflection, I agree with your aversion to bonus Armor Proficencies. I edited my post to specify Armor Mastery, without the Proficiency part. I like the rest of Armor Mastery, and think it could be modified for different races.

I like the Racial Weapon Training, as it is written; it doesn't actually grant proficiency in those weapons. 
And that's less silly how?
I don't think Humans should get any Ability modifiers. They are the baseline that gives the other Races their modifiers in the first place. The comparison to Humans is the only reason for the other Racial modifiers.

I do think that Racial Traits can, and should, be a part of the racial write-ups. This is where all Races can have special affinities that distinguish them from the other Races:


  • Racial Weapon Affinities (Weapon Training),

  • Racial Armor Affinities (Armor Mastery, w/o the proficiency part),

  • Racial Skill Affinities (Bonus or Improved Skills),

  • Racial Feat Affinities (Bonus or Improved Feats),

  • Racial Traits (Adaptablity/Diversity, Ambitious/Greedy, Fearless, Nimbleness, Resilience, Senses, Trance , Toughness, etc.),

  • and others.



Making humans baseline sounds appealing, but I don't think it would end up working well at all. I assume that it's uncontentious that it's nice if various race options are at least in the same time zone in terms of how appealing they are as options. That is, it's best if it's not the case that some are just clearly better than others. Making humans the +0 across-the-board race means that other races have to be absolutely buried in broad-ranging drawbacks if they're to have any meaningful benefits. The thing about drawbacks is this: If a race has, say, +2 to one stat, and -2 to another stat, that doesn't actually "balance out" against +0 across-the-board, because people naturally seek out options where the bonuses are as meaningful as possible and the penalties are as meaningless as possible. You can make this better by making the drawbacks more broad-ranging; -1 to saves is a better drawback than -1 to weapon attacks, for instance, because it affects every character, but they still have to be relatively harsh, because people are maximizing the impact of the bonuses they're getting. Giving humans some bonuses, however, frees up a lot of head room to just give other races cool stuff without having to worry about burying things under drawbacks or creating a system where humans aren't very appealing as a character option.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I think Humans only fit in the fantasy world, as is, when they are the predominate race of the world. Otherwise, yes they would probably be overrun by the oher races.

That might make an interesting storyline: humans have almost been wiped out and have to live in secrecy.
I don't think Humans should get any Ability modifiers. They are the baseline that gives the other Races their modifiers in the first place. The comparison to Humans is the only reason for the other Racial modifiers.

I do think that Racial Traits can, and should, be a part of the racial write-ups. This is where all Races can have special affinities that distinguish them from the other Races:


  • Racial Weapon Affinities (Weapon Training),

  • Racial Armor Affinities (Armor Mastery, w/o the proficiency part),

  • Racial Skill Affinities (Bonus or Improved Skills),

  • Racial Feat Affinities (Bonus or Improved Feats),

  • Racial Traits (Adaptablity/Diversity, Ambitious/Greedy, Fearless, Nimbleness, Resilience, Senses, Trance , Toughness, etc.),

  • and others.





I think most of it is worthless garbage except a few things.
Resilience, not complete immunity, to charm, poison, fear, or other things. Nimbleness. Low-Light Vision, Dark-Vision, among other Racial Traits are useful.

I also happen to think alignment is useless. I think we should dump it from 5E even though it is iconic. Not every creature is completely and always evil or always good.

kira3696.tripod.com

And that's less silly how?

I see it as a physiological/cultural difference, from the baseline human, that manifests (in game) as these traits.

They're a way to make the non-human races special, when compared to humans. Why else have different races at all?

I meant the racial weapon training, I'm a jungle dwarf, I grew up bouncing from tree to tree wielding a blowgun, a tiger gut garrote, and a club. Why would taking a level of fighter give me a damage bonus with axes and hammers?
I don't think Humans should get any Ability modifiers. They are the baseline that gives the other Races their modifiers in the first place. The comparison to Humans is the only reason for the other Racial modifiers.

I do think that Racial Traits can, and should, be a part of the racial write-ups. This is where all Races can have special affinities that distinguish them from the other Races:


  • Racial Weapon Affinities (Weapon Training),

  • Racial Armor Affinities (Armor Mastery, w/o the proficiency part),

  • Racial Skill Affinities (Bonus or Improved Skills),

  • Racial Feat Affinities (Bonus or Improved Feats),

  • Racial Traits (Adaptablity/Diversity, Ambitious/Greedy, Fearless, Nimbleness, Resilience, Senses, Trance , Toughness, etc.),

  • and others.





I think most of it is worthless garbage except a few things.
Resilience, not complete immunity, to charm, poison, fear, or other things. Nimbleness. Low-Light Vision, Dark-Vision, among other Racial Traits are useful.

How is increasing the damage die (especially considering how WDD might be implemented going forward) not useful?
How is an extra +1 to AC not useful?
How are bonus Skills not useful?
How are bonus Feats not useful?


EDIT: Alignment is useful to those who like it; it is easier to ignore alignment than it is to add it in. They have already told us that alignment will be optional.

I don't think it's all that hard to write believable fantasy humans. First of all, it's been done. Tolkien did it, lots of other people have done it since. Second, we already have a model with regard to human cultures encountering other human cultures. It's not a perfect comparison, but it offers some real-life perspective on encountering people who are "different." (And it's not a pretty picture, for the most part.) Third, as noted above, we have coexisted with at least one, possibly a half dozen other species. The end result was the extinction of the other group, but there is a lot of evidence that it was a long co-existence. Further, things might have gone differently with a little more geographic isolation. Fourth, there are now decades of fiction, in another vein, with regard to humans in a science-fiction setting. If you want to move past the fairytale paradigm and make D&D about a believable fantasy world with strong ties to literary swords-and-sorcery, the science-fiction model makes sense. Some species are inimical, some are naturally complementary and beneficial, and most are potentially friendly and interesting but are regarded with a wariness that they could pose an existential threat to your species. The Vulcans, for instance, stand on the very verge between being naturally complementary with humans and also with being mutually suspicious of each other's trustworthiness. The Klingons seem naturally inimical, but turn out to have a lot in common with humans, enough to be natural allies when another, more dangerous external threat appears. Groups of radical genetic engineers, in Star Trek, invariably lead to paranoia about genocide and master races. 
The way I have chosen to see the human entry (which is not something indicated in the rules, by any stretch) is that the ability mods are for human adventurers only.  Whereas an elf, dwarf or halfling has magical, supernatural, or natural abilities (low-light vision, luck, magic, etc) that make them able to adventure, for the mundane humans, only the cream of the crop have the capability to survive the adventuring life.  (As such, I'd not give the human racial mods to non-hero/villain NPCs in my campaign: ten NPC dwarf attackers will beat ten NPC human defenders the majority of times.)

Just my take on it.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />How is an extra +1 to AC not useful?
How are bonus Skills not useful?
How are bonus Feats not useful?



They are, but not because of your race.
Now ability score bonuses+1 might show a slight difference in races.

kira3696.tripod.com
I meant the racial weapon training, I'm a jungle dwarf, I grew up bouncing from tree to tree wielding a blowgun, a tiger gut garrote, and a club. Why would taking a level of fighter give me a damage bonus with axes and hammers?

There are no Jungle Dwarves; maybe you're thinking of pigmies.

Seriously though, if you make a new race (or sub-race) that doesn't fit with the traditional racial traits, note it in their write-up and add/remove what is necessary for your vision.

The initial release material cannot cover everthing.

No but it shouldn't be limited to a tired re-tread of faux tolkein. 

Weapon and armor based abilities for races are a bad idea and we've known why they're a bad idea for years.
My vote for Human traits: no stat bonus, no weapon training, just a bonus feat and bonus skill. I play humans 90% of the time, and that's all I want out of them.
Bonus skill in DDN is pure crap ! Surprised

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

I just wish humans had a better hat then "our hat is the same as everyone else's hat, just smaller!"
I liked how at the start of 4E humans tended to be the most easily swayed/corrupted towards ideals, but apparantly no one else liked it because it got dropped quick =/
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
I meant the racial weapon training, I'm a jungle dwarf, I grew up bouncing from tree to tree wielding a blowgun, a tiger gut garrote, and a club. Why would taking a level of fighter give me a damage bonus with axes and hammers?

There are no Jungle Dwarves; maybe you're thinking of pigmies.

Seriously though, if you make a new race (or sub-race) that doesn't fit with the traditional racial traits, note it in their write-up and add/remove what is necessary for your vision.

The initial release material cannot cover everthing.




  Forgotten Realms has jungle dwarves.

  The point being that it makes little sense to give your races culutural traits like favored weapons- knowing full well that their culture will change (often drastically) between gameworlds.  Not even WOTC's own published settings really have their elves favoring similar weapons.

  Stuff that's inherited or a matter of anatomy- patience, sharp senses, nimbleness, and (relatively) long life- are traits that pretty much all elves tend to share.  Give us more stuff that reflects this and less bonuses to specific weapons groups. 

  Save that for backgrounds, regional/cultural bonuses, feats, and other options.
An alternate approach would be to give races bonuses or whatever with their favorite weapons as those traits are understood to be something that Brand X Generic versions of the race are likely to favor, and then alter those for different cultures as they're introduced. D&D has never really had a problem saying, "These are frost elves. They have some of the same stats as regular elves, and some different stats." That's not necessarily a better approach, but I think it's also okay.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
My vote for Human traits: no stat bonus, no weapon training, just a bonus feat and bonus skill. I play humans 90% of the time, and that's all I want out of them.


I honestly hope they stay as far from bonus feat and skill as they can. I just feel it's been played out. The same can be said for some of the other "classic" racial abilities as well. 
My two copper.
I meant the racial weapon training, I'm a jungle dwarf, I grew up bouncing from tree to tree wielding a blowgun, a tiger gut garrote, and a club. Why would taking a level of fighter give me a damage bonus with axes and hammers?

There are no Jungle Dwarves; maybe you're thinking of pigmies.

Seriously though, if you make a new race (or sub-race) that doesn't fit with the traditional racial traits, note it in their write-up and add/remove what is necessary for your vision.

The initial release material cannot cover everthing.




  Forgotten Realms has jungle dwarves.

  The point being that it makes little sense to give your races culutural traits like favored weapons- knowing full well that their culture will change (often drastically) between gameworlds.  Not even WOTC's own published settings really have their elves favoring similar weapons.

  Stuff that's inherited or a matter of anatomy- patience, sharp senses, nimbleness, and (relatively) long life- are traits that pretty much all elves tend to share.  Give us more stuff that reflects this and less bonuses to specific weapons groups. 

  Save that for backgrounds, regional/cultural bonuses, feats, and other options.

There must be a baseline; tradition is that baseline. Everything else is an addition/expansion to that baseline. The initial release has to be based in that baseline, so that everything else can be properly added/expanded to it.

I agree with 'Rampant - Humans aren't just adaptive and versatile because it's a good idea, but because we are hungry and ambitious and afraid.'

Regarding Humans in Fantasy - there are different ways to handle this

In Warhammer the default humans are from the empire. Educated folk in a well patroled nation, pantheon of gods but dominated by the state religion

You could make them former slaves, so while they look out for eachother in terms of education and weapon training, they haven't carved out an nation yet since they only earned their freedom 2 generations ago. So they would start with several languages and either con or char bonus (workers and traders) - abit like the primative Humans in the Stargate movie. In this example the Humans would either be barbarian tribesfolk, or small percentage in every town in every nation.

I'd rather not give a stat bonus, just 1 knowledge, 1 craft and 1 weapon skill.

Key things for D&D - Where is the character from and why do they do what they do? / Recurring NPCs - allies and enemies / Plot, World and Personal Events.

The baseline must also be appealing and exciting, the faux tolkein retreads just don't cut it on their own anymore. 

Also enough with the bonus skills and stuff. Give humans real gorram features for once. My favorites include the encounter power to help as a minor action, the ability to re-roll 1s  on attack rolls.
I like how Mass Effect did it. Its a blend of the 'versatile' and 'ambitious' Human archtypes, but what I really liked about them was the Human refusal to accept the status quo the other species of Citadel Space expected from them.

The Council essentially wanted to use Humanity as a blunt instrument against their various problem. Stabilize dangerous areas of Citadel Space, fight so the Asari and Salarians won't have to, counter-balance the military strength of the Turians, do everything we tell you and then we'll let you into our elite club.

Humans, collectively, said screw that, and it caused the aliens of Council Space to really be wary of the new kids on the block. Because Humans absolutely refuse to accept that they are inferior to anyone. Council threatens to economically sanction the crap out of you? Threaten war, you'll lose, but destroy their economies in the process! You're not allowed to build battleships? Make aircraft carriers! The Salarians have better trained spies than you? Create an experimental stealth starship and say 'Neener neener neener'! Turians are better in a frontline engagement? Go around them and blow their supply lines!

The real hat of Mass Effect Humans is their supernatural ability to disagree with everything anyone says or does. Even their own thoughts. Since there's never any agreement about what works best, they try everything. Since accepting the status quo for anything would give others the power to force them to stop disagreeing with everything, they're ambitious and power hungry.

I like that as a default for Humanity. Its not that they aren't the best at anything, its just that others have largely settled for something (Smithing and Brewing! Enviromentalism and Snottiness!) while Humans are still constantly trying to find new things to be best at.
The baseline must also be appealing and exciting, the faux tolkein retreads just don't cut it on their own anymore. 

Also enough with the bonus skills and stuff. Give humans real gorram features for once. My favorites include the encounter power to help as a minor action, the ability to re-roll 1s  on attack rolls.

I find the traditional races appealing and exciting. They do cut it, if they satisfy the majority opinion.

As far as bonus skills and feats, I actually agree with you on those. I was just giving examples and didn't want to leave out anyone's preferred choices.

I think humans as a young race in a fantasy setting would look at what they want from the other races and try to buy, rent, steal and then study them.
One generation after acquisition, they would have their own version of it, and the arms race would start, forcing the old races to adapt to the new pace of the world, and then hate the humans for that, regretting the good old times with goblinoids and giants.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

4e human was my favorite implementation of humans. I like the fluff and I especially like th mechanics.

5e human with the +1 to everything is just to mask the racial penalties of the other races. Even their bonus aren't their bonuses, they are other races penalties in disguise. The gave a value to racial penalties, removed the penalty and gave humans a state bump to offset it.

I actually like the flavor used to describe the bland mechanic, "The most daring and ambitious members of a daring and ambitious race". If they decide to change the mechanics (don't know how they will mask the racial penalties if they do), I think they should develop around the same flavor.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad.

I meant the racial weapon training, I'm a jungle dwarf, I grew up bouncing from tree to tree wielding a blowgun, a tiger gut garrote, and a club. Why would taking a level of fighter give me a damage bonus with axes and hammers?

There are no Jungle Dwarves; maybe you're thinking of pigmies.

Seriously though, if you make a new race (or sub-race) that doesn't fit with the traditional racial traits, note it in their write-up and add/remove what is necessary for your vision.

The initial release material cannot cover everthing.




  Forgotten Realms has jungle dwarves.

  The point being that it makes little sense to give your races culutural traits like favored weapons- knowing full well that their culture will change (often drastically) between gameworlds.  Not even WOTC's own published settings really have their elves favoring similar weapons.

  Stuff that's inherited or a matter of anatomy- patience, sharp senses, nimbleness, and (relatively) long life- are traits that pretty much all elves tend to share.  Give us more stuff that reflects this and less bonuses to specific weapons groups. 

  Save that for backgrounds, regional/cultural bonuses, feats, and other options.

There must be a baseline; tradition is that baseline. Everything else is an addition/expansion to that baseline. The initial release has to be based in that baseline, so that everything else can be properly added/expanded to it.




  Seems like I can't post on the forums with my phone.  Needed to get to a computer...

  The baseline doesn't have to include a mechanical incentive towards using certain weapons in the race's stat line.  Orcs don't usually get a bonus to useing axes, but everyone knows they love them.  Dwarves don't need a mechanical bonus to hammers in their stats.  Elves don't need a bonus to using bows. 

  You can give a baseline culture.  Just make it fluff, though. Not crunch that's stuck in the race's statline and requires houseruling if you ever want to do anything more than mining dwarves or woodsman elves.