dtgreene: (Funny thing is, in classic Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1e & 2e), Humans are the one playable core race that *can't* multi-class, which is rather at odds with this idea.
Ryan333: Furthermore, humans are the only race which CAN dual-class - which also seems a bit at odds.
Lore-wise, giving up progression in your original class and starting again from level 1 seems to make much more sense for a long-lived race like elves or dwarves. With the shorter lifespan of humans, multi-classing would make more sense -- using their flexibility and resourcefulness to get more out of the limited time they have. Conversely, I would expect an elf to be the one to say, "Well I had a pretty good run over the past two-hundred years as a fighter, but I seem to be reaching my limits. Perhaps I'll start practicing magic for the next part of my life..."
Mechanics-wise, dual-classing also seems to make more sense for non-humans since all non-humans have level caps on each class (with the sole exception of half-elf bards). A halfling cleric, for example, can only advance to level 8. I would think they should be able to dual-class into something else at that point and continue progressing. Otherwise, why in the world would anyone pick a race/class combo with a very low level cap? Even if they multi-class, they're getting more abilities but the level caps on each class still apply.
I suppose the whole concept is meant to be allegorically similar to
pedagogy, where becoming a professional character in the game world requires a guild-like training process to pass on skills from master to apprentice.
Ryan333: In AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, all the non-humans are front-loaded with abilities while the humans eventually become more powerful after a long time and have the greatest long-term growth potential... which seems completely backasswards.
Except that longevity is not guaranteed, whereas starting out is unavoidable. :)
Enebias: Humans cannot reach the "top" of most abilities because, when compared to the other "fantasy" races, they lack sheer power.
They'll never have keen senses like Elves, they'll never be sturdy as Dwarves, never stong as Orcs and so on.
They are also short lived and, despite being numerous, their numbers are nowher near other species, like the Goblins.
So i'd say their strong point should diplomacy (their short lives, physical weakness and numbers might tend to have others underestimate them, leaving more open to compromises) and fast learning. We evolved to be adaptable, so in a game we could have a significant advantage in learning abilities an technology -that's how we always overcame the animal menace since the dawn of times.
Lone_Scout: Bonuses to deceiving or lying.
Fast learning skills.
Jorev: The ability to be truthful.
Yes, humanity has certainly mastered cunning, as evidenced by the spectacular acceleration of our understanding of the world around us that began in earnest with the
Siècle De Lumières (French “Age of the Enlightened”) or (German)
Aufklärung.
Jorev: The ability to be truthful.
Since symbolic cognition is rare, the ability to lie is likewise; this is the main driver and source of the antidote to dogmatism, firstly as a too-successful generalization and then as a logical deconstruction, analogous to a lexical
strié.
The apposite classical Greek term for this human ingenuity is
δεινός (
deinos) from which we get the modern English word dinosaur.
toxicTom: […]
As someone mentioned, other "races" are simply extrapolations of human traits:
- Elves - love for art and nature
- Dwarves - persistance and greed
- Orcs - fighting spirit and cruelty.
[…]
I prefer to use the Enlightenment-Romantic dichotomy, too; Elves are Romantic in the sense that they are not preoccupied with the logical colonization of nature through intellectual contrivance and gifted technology, like the Dwarves, who represent the Enlightenment perfection. Orcs are driven by the thirst for control over others, naked power
qua per se.
edit: combined prior posts