Community

Dec 29, 2012 -- 5:10PM, Saelorn wrote:

It kind of bothers me that the average human is stronger than any other race that's not especially known for its strength.  Humans are supposed to be the baseline against which the other races are compared, since... you know ... they're the only ones with whom we have real-life basis.

So, we all know what a human is.  Dwarves can be defined as being less strong, less personable, less numble, and less intelligent than that.  Elves can be defined as being less strong, less tough, less perceptive, and less personable than humans.

It kind of makes everyone seem really lame. 

i would be fine with lower the bonuses of humans, and give back racial penalties. instead of showing elves being less strong than humans by not having a bonus, it is shown by elves having a penalty to strength

Dec 29, 2012 -- 4:27PM, ninjazombie42 wrote:

Dec 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, Orzel wrote:

The +1 to everything won't be as much of a problem if the other races got more.

The idea that adventuring human has the same or more constitution than an adventuring hill dwarf is settling.

The other races get a lot more, the have race features..Why couldn`t a hardy human can of course be as healthy and tough as any dwarf.
Anyways, I`m not talking about balance here..

It's not even about balance either.

It just looks off.
Sure a particular human adventurer can have a CON higher than a avdenturing dwarf.
Heck a goblin could make INT his highest ability and be smarter than a high elf.

But on average, adventuring humans are as tough as adverturing dwarf feels wrong.

I mean both the pregen humans have higher CON than the dwarf.
That ain't right.

There is something to be said about having some flaws on a character.  I had a great time playing an Orc Warden named Jym in 4e.  I made his Int score 8, but roleplayed it more like a 6 (he occasionally forgot his name and had to be reminded - Jym was not his original name).  He was hilarious, and though he was dumb as rocks, he was a very sweet and gentle soul (he enjoyed flowers and would stick them in his hide armor).  That is, until the bad guys would threaten his friends, of which he had very few.  Then he would enter a fierce, yet protective, rage.

Having higher ability scores doesn't preclude you from roleplaying as having lower ability scores (i.e. flaws).  Though Jym had an 8 Int due to character building restrictions, I played him as what I view as a 6 Int, more or less.  A higher ability score also means that you can be really good in some facets of that ability and not in others. 

For instance, you could be good at finding clues (normally an Int-Search check), but you have a horrible memory (which you would have to roleplay).  Having a high Charisma could just mean you're very good looking with a strong personality (roleplaying), but terrible at dealing with most people (an arrogant noble).  It's all about how you want to build your character and roleplay their personality.  In the end, ability scores do not have to reflect the entirety of your character's strengths and flaws.  As the campaign progresses, the character could become better at thest things without ever increasing an ability score because they have learned how to adapt to their shortcomings.  Maybe you compensate for the bad memory by taking lots of notes, or that arrogant noble could have been humbled by all he had seen.  That's how I tend to roleplay anyway.

Still, more on topic, I agree with the general sentiment that the human bonuses are somewhat dull.  In my opinion, I like sticking with the (seemingly tried and true) +1 bonus to an ability score, get an extra trained skill at level 1, and get an extra feat at level 1.  This would reflect the human's adaptability (which seems to be their "focus" in recent editions), but does not exceed any other race's capabilities.  You could maybe even offer another bonus or trait if those options are found lacking compared to the other races.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Rastapopoulos wrote:

Let's put aside for a moment the case of being or not overpowerd, and analyze that from another angle...



To me this +1 to everything bonus just makes no sense.

If you take a Human as the standard for races (which makes sense since we players are all humans), as the point of reference, then just make then flat.
No pluses, no minuses.

The points you distribute initially or the dice you roll for Ability Scores are (or should be) already in the human standard, without need for more adjustments.
Then you give + or - to the other races if they're stronger or weaker than humans in a certain aspect.


Pathfinder did something similar (can I mention that game here? I'm not sure :P).
They gave +2 to Humans in a chosen Ability, then gave even more bonuses to other races to compensate for they racial differences.

Why, I wonder?
That just causes inflation in the numbers.
Humans are the standard for comparison, so leave them flat.


3ed solution of giving humans an extra feat and skills to me was brilliant to add some "charm" to the race without breaking it as the point of reference for all others.
That is something which I feel the 5ed should stick to.


I get the impression that some new rules, such as this one, are added due to an impulse to make everything look "new", every rule at least a bit different, since it's a new edition being made.

Which I think is only natural as a primary impulse... but some of the old stuff was just plain good!
And they need not necessarily change.
 

I agree to some extent. Humans do not need some huge bonus regardless if they can fit into anywhere. Personally I think humans just need some definition and some idea of what they should be instead of this generic thing. When you choose human it kind of feels like its uncreative because they are designed in the most uncreative way. They need some fluff and traits that can define them similar to what the other races have. For a halfling you choose lightfoot or stout. For a human you should be able to make a similar choice such as climate, etc. Generally people from cold places have more cold resistance and people from sunny places enjoy the sun. If you give bonuses or traits based on those type of things then what they gain makes more sense. Random stat bonuses makes no sense. You are just putting numbers on your sheet at that point... 

Jan 3, 2013 -- 4:26AM, Savant1974 wrote:

Yeah I'm not a fan of the +2 to one stat that humans get. I'd rather they get +1 to all stats and something else, perhaps skill related (such as going up 1 dice size for skill checks) to give them a little bit of flavour, and because that +2 practically guarentees an 18 at first level. 

A +2 is perfectly fine but not when a +1 follows for everything because at that point you just have too many stats being raised from the start. However, I think that there should be several choices based on climate, etc. Take Avatar: The Last Airbender's different cultures. The Earth people were generally stronger because they worked with stone and rock, the Waterbenders could endure harsh conditions, The Fire Nation were really smart and the Airbenders were very agile. However, those need to be converted to climate instead of elements though.