Humans, once tribal, brutal men and women of great strength and cunning, but we have traded it mostly away for things like, money, knowledge, and power. The humans of pathfinder are somewhat a cross between these two extremes of human nature.
I am making these humans for an upcoming campaign, where there is a portal leaking out into the modern world, making it possible for some of the two worlds inhabitants to cross over, however, a wealthy company is bent on taking over the world without laws, and a few lowly PCs are the only things able to stop it.
A new factor I put in is training, allowing you to trade time and expiriance for bonuses in ability scores, and Intelligence cap, (as the world has many creatures using insanity effects, and insanity effects saving throws are based off intelligence). Finaly, as this campaign has many guns, I added a recoil effect :D
Modern Humans
+2 Charisma, +2 to one ability score of your choice, -2 Constitution: Modern humans are quite social and varied, but living outside of nature has made them weak to its effects.
Human subtype Humanoid Type Medium size 30 base speed blah blah blah boring stuff.
Unfetting Itellect: Modern humans are immune to Intelligence damage.
Technology Effective: Modern Humans gain a +2 racial bonus to Disable Device and Knowledge (engineering) checks.
Gluttony: Modern Humans are adapted to eating much more then regular humans, as such they must eat twice as much food per day to avoid starvation.
Bonus Feat: Modern humans gain Skill Focus in a Proffesion skill of their choice.
Firearm Familiarity: Modern Humans are always proficient with Firearms as well as any tools associated with their Proffesion (such as Puching Dagger if the Proffesion is Doctor).
Languages: Same as humans.
Intelligence Caps
Humans: 30
Elf: 25
Half-Elf: 30
Dwarf: 15
Modern Humans: 50
Half-Orc: 15
Gnome: 20
Halfling: 25
Centaur: 15
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely think there Intelligence limits should be dropped. It will be quite rare for anyone to reach those limits, and if they do then they are exceptional PCs and NPCs who extraordinary compared to the rest of the world.
The word is spelled Profession.
Instead of saying "any tools assocaited with their profession", you might as well say "one martial weapon of choice". You don't need proficiency in tools of any kind - they simply grant a bonus to a skill. And why in the name of Gozreh's beard would a doctor use a punching dagger at work?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um. Maybe you should study some basic anthropology. Modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. It also takes a lot of intelligence to survive in pre-agrarian societies.
What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
Just about everything in the OP is a bad idea, but:
What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
Not in the slightest.
|
Just about everything in the OP is a bad idea, but:
Not in the slightest.What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
"Racial" stats are racist to begin with, and basically codify a lot of unspoken assumptions and prejudices -- about culture, body type, skin colour, etc. -- that get really ugly if you look at them up close.
This is taking Pathfinder's racist subtext, and using it to divide actual living (and/or historical) humans into "better" and "worse" groups. That's called "overt racism."
|
|
Instead of saying "any tools assocaited with their profession", you might as well say "one martial weapon of choice". You don't need proficiency in tools of any kind - they simply grant a bonus to a skill. And why in the name of Gozreh's beard would a doctor use a punching dagger at work?!
What, isn't it normal to use medieval weaponry instead of surgical tools? You must be from one of those foreign countries that has socialist health care.
(Sarcasm aside, proficiency with tools is a thing in 5e. Species- or ethnicity-based ability score limitations, however, are not.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry. I'm just over-reacting. I hate all those theories about aliens building pyramids because ancient people were too dumb to do so.
Which obviously they weren't. Because ancient pyramids happened. And aliens didn't do it.
Um. Maybe you should study some basic anthropology. Modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. It also takes a lot of intelligence to survive in pre-agrarian societies.
This is a good point.
What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
Yeah! Don't go around offending all those people who died thousand of years ago! Their fossils might get triggered! Check your privilege!
[/sarcasm]
But seriously... What's this racist against? Cavemen? I somehow get the feeling they won't be offended. Those people have been dead for thousands of years, who cares what would offend them?
Just about everything in the OP is a bad idea, but:
Not in the slightest.What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
"Racial" stats are racist to begin with, and basically codify a lot of unspoken assumptions and prejudices -- about culture, body type, skin colour, etc. -- that get really ugly if you look at them up close.
This is taking Pathfinder's racist subtext, and using it to divide actual living (and/or historical) humans into "better" and "worse" groups. That's called "overt racism."
Just because some things called "Racial Traits" would be more accurately called "Species Traits" or "Character Traits" doesn't make the game mechanic racist.
Edit: By the above, I mean the generic racial mechanics of Pathfinder and not the OP's stuff specifically.
Just about everything in the OP is a bad idea, butNot in the slightest.What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
"Racial" stats are racist to begin with, and basically codify a lot of unspoken assumptions and prejudices -- about culture, body type, skin colour, etc. -- that get really ugly if you look at them up close.
This is taking Pathfinder's racist subtext, and using it to divide actual living (and/or historical) humans into "better" and "worse" groups. That's called "overt racism."
Just because some things called "Racial Traits" would be more accurately called "Species Traits" or "Character Traits" doesn't make the game mechanic racist.
Edit: By the above, I mean the generic racial mechanics of Pathfinder and not the OP's stuff specifically.
B-B-But it's racist against gnomes and elves! It might offend those completely fictious people!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been studies indicating that human intelligence might have peaked around 1,000 BC (around the time of the Golden Age of Greece) and has declined since.
I'd like to see those studies... Because that sounds highly implausible.
It's evolution. It selects for who has the most kids, not who has the best kids. See "Idiocracy."
I am pretty sure that enough alcohol (or enough time on the Internet) can cause Int damage in modern humans....
I might give them a penalty when using martial weapons for the first time, since modern humans might have seen movies where these kinds of weapons are swung around in a theatrical manner.
And medieval people didn't see plays where they did the same thing?
Please.
Modern humans with good diets tend to be stronger, faster, healthier, better educated, and pass these traits to their offspring. Instead of dying to every disease that comes along, we've the medical knowledge to fight them, live, and pass that resistance to our offspring more readily.
What we don't do is work ourselves into an early grave as often, starve to death as frequently, live in crappy homes with vermin and disease, ignorant of general health rules that just plain let you live longer, and we actually know how to farm and raise animals sensibly.
You'd be better off using Azlanti as a template then the cheese you're using above. A medieval human might actually think that weapons used in a play or theater are actually effective that way! Thanks to the sharing of knowledge, the majority of people know perfectly well you don't actually fight that way, without actually having to see a gladiatorial contest or duel...and they'd do the 'smart thing' and seek out good teachers instead of think they can conquer the world just by picking up a sword.
Because, y'know, smart and edumacated and all that.
==Aelryinth
It's evolution. It selects for who has the most kids, not who has the best kids. See "Idiocracy."
Evolution actually does both, since all the kids are lumped into one big pool, and survivors taken therefrom.
Amazingly, kids who are nurtured and focused on do tend to turn out better and not die as young as large broods. But the best of those large broods will also survive and pass on, they just won't have anywhere near the standard of living.
==Aelryinth
It's evolution. It selects for who has the most kids, not who has the best kids. See "Idiocracy."
You mean that humor movie made without any scientific basis because it's just a humor movie?
I'll assume you're joking... There's basically zero genetic difference between a human born yesterday and one born 100 000 years ago.
A discussion of race and genetics on an Internet forum. What could possibly go wrong... :)
As regards these modern humans, I'm still confused about two things: why the automatic firearm proficiency? Surely most modern humans don't know how to use firearms? Wouldn't just using the "guns everywhere" firearms rule make a lot more sense? And I would also like some clarity on this "doctors with punching daggers" thing, because that's just got me completely stumped.
Cheers,
- Gears
It's evolution. It selects for who has the most kids, not who has the best kids. See "Idiocracy."You mean that humor movie made without any scientific basis because it's just a humor movie?
I'll assume you're joking... There's basically zero genetic difference between a human born yesterday and one born 100 000 years ago.
Actually, the basic premise of the movie is accurate. If "smart" people only have 1 kid on average, and "dumb" people have 10 kids on average (or any number greater than 1), eventually the "dumb" kids will vastly outnumber the "smart" kids after multiple generations.
Actually, the basic premise of the movie is accurate. If "smart" people only have 1 kid on average, and "dumb" people have 10 kids on average (or any number greater than 1), eventually the "dumb" kids will vastly outnumber the "smart" kids after multiple generations.It's evolution. It selects for who has the most kids, not who has the best kids. See "Idiocracy."You mean that humor movie made without any scientific basis because it's just a humor movie?
I'll assume you're joking... There's basically zero genetic difference between a human born yesterday and one born 100 000 years ago.
Except that the vast majority of "dumb people" aren't actually dumb at all. Just uncultured.
Also, if we want to use a simplistic version of natural selection, we can very well assume that the smart people will lead longer, healthier lives and have stronger children, so while the dumb people struggle to survive due to not knowing how to operate their own civilization, the smart ones will survive and thrive with ease. Not to mention that in a world where machines do most of our manual labor, greater intelligence becomes a much bigger advantage for survival...
But like I said, that's a humor movie. It takes a simplistic premise to its extreme conclusion for the sake of comedy. Which is great, since the whole point of the movie is being funny, not an accurate portrait of evolutionary science.
But this is all irrelevant to the OP... Except to point out that the idea that a medieval human or even prehistoric human would be significantly different from modern humans is wrong... At least from a genetic perspective.
Well... At very least that's what I recall from my education and personal interest in biology. But I'm a mechanical engineer, not a biologist, so I won't claim to be 100% sure of my answers. I suggest the OP makes a quick research on human history and biology (specially evolution) before creating a "modern human" race. Nothing extraordinary... Just take a look at Wikipedia or something. Maybe ask someone who actually studied the subject. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little confused as to why you'd need any more variation than is provided by the current human racial traits (well, and ability score selection) to model the difference between modern (as we're using it in this conversation) and preindustrial human beings. I mean, they built aqueducts and we can still row boats when we have to.
I feel like this might be relevant to the conversation, but I'm not entirely sure how.
I started out as a mechanical engineering major and got my degrees in anthropology and biology, specializing in genetics and behavioral ecology.
"Dumb" and "Smart" are just short-hand terms.
By "dumb" I meant people who have less education, lower intelligence, or too lazy to use birth control. Folk who just "Netflix and chill."
By "smart" I meant people who are highly educated, have higher intelligence, and are either vigilant with their birth control, sterile, or abstinent.
You have more babies getting drunk on the couch than going to the theater or opera. A lot of highly educated people delay having kids for a variety of reasons (and have few children on average), and less educated people begin having kids very early (Teen Mom shows and Jerry Springer) for a variety of reasons (and have more children on average).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably, the Golarion humans already are modern humans - they have appropriate sizes, weights, and life spawns for humans of our era, rather than what would be reasonably expected for the Renaissance era.
I mean, IIRC, humans around the world were outright smaller a few centuries ago =P
Actually, the basic premise of the movie is accurate. If "smart" people only have 1 kid on average, and "dumb" people have 10 kids on average (or any number greater than 1), eventually the "dumb" kids will vastly outnumber the "smart" kids after multiple generations.
The mathematical premise is accurate, but the biological one is not. Look up "regression to the mean in IQ."
I'm not clear on how a biology major specializing in genetics could possibly be unaware of this well-documented phenomenon, which hinges on the fact that the heritability of intelligence is a lot less than 100%.
I started out as a mechanical engineering major and got my degrees in anthropology and biology, specializing in genetics and behavioral ecology.
"Dumb" and "Smart" are just short-hand terms.
By "dumb" I meant people who have less education, lower intelligence, or too lazy to use birth control. Folk who just "Netflix and chill."
By "smart" I meant people who are highly educated, have higher intelligence, and are either vigilant with their birth control, sterile, or abstinent.
You have more babies getting drunk on the couch than going to the theater or opera. A lot of highly educated people delay having kids for a variety of reasons (and have few children on average), and less educated people begin having kids very early (Teen Mom shows and Jerry Springer) for a variety of reasons (and have more children on average).
Maybe this is your point, but aren't going to the opera and getting drunk on the couch both equally removed from the food/clothing/shelter necessities of survival?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started out as a mechanical engineering major and got my degrees in anthropology and biology, specializing in genetics and behavioral ecology.
That's a huge shift in career choice. Kudos to you for being brave enough to do it.
"Dumb" and "Smart" are just short-hand terms.
By "dumb" I meant people who have less education, lower intelligence, or too lazy to use birth control. Folk who just "Netflix and chill."
By "smart" I meant people who are highly educated, have higher intelligence, and are either vigilant with their birth control, sterile, or abstinent.
The point is... I don't think intelligence varies all that much from human to human (save for special cases). Most of the time it's about culture/knowledge/training acquired. And that can be learned and taught. For us, humans, I dare say intelligence isn't even the major component of deciding who gets to be educated and who doesn't. It has much more to do with social status and opportunities.
You have more babies getting drunk on the couch than going to the theater or opera. A lot of highly educated people delay having kids for a variety of reasons (and have few children on average), and less educated people begin having kids very early (Teen Mom shows and Jerry Springer) for a variety of reasons (and have more children on average).
I get the point. What I'm saying, is that if you want to stretch that to the extreme (as the movie does, for the sake of comedy) you might as well say that communities with high rate of dumb people will likely collapse (as they are about to do in the movie), while communities with high rates of smart people will thrive. Therefore, smart people would survive longer. And higher intelligence would become more and more a valued trait by society (it already is. In modern society we tend to value intelligence over physical strength most of the time, since that's more useful in a society where machines do all the hard work). If you're more valued by society, you can more easily gain wealth and social status, both of which are major advantages to finding a willing mate.
Meanwhile, dumb people would be more and more despised. They might procreate like rabbits, but they'll die like lemmings too (I know the "lemming mass suicide" thing is bullshit, but it's a funny analogy).
Yeah, I know that's all exaggerated assumptions and make little to no sense in reality. My point is that the same can be said about the movie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's so simple, a caveman can....you know, never mind.
At this point, all I'm willing to say is that "dumb" and "smart" are extremely context-dependant.
Arguably, the Golarion humans already are modern humans - they have appropriate sizes, weights, and life spawns for humans of our era, rather than what would be reasonably expected for the Renaissance era.
I mean, IIRC, humans around the world were outright smaller a few centuries ago =P
I wouldn't call 4 foot 10 and 120 pounds the appropriate sizes and weights, and the life span is just put in so your game can last longer, if your human was running around with only 30 years in their life, the game will become much more chaotic.
At this point, all I'm willing to say is that "dumb" and "smart" are extremely context-dependant.
Exactly. Therefore the air quotes.
And the (eventual) clarifications.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call 4 foot 10 and 120 pounds the appropriate sizes and weights, and the life span is just put in so your game can last longer, if your human was running around with only 30 years in their life, the game will become much more chaotic.Arguably, the Golarion humans already are modern humans - they have appropriate sizes, weights, and life spawns for humans of our era, rather than what would be reasonably expected for the Renaissance era.
I mean, IIRC, humans around the world were outright smaller a few centuries ago =P
You quoted the base, which is less than the minimum.. considering you need to add a modifier roll which is minimum 2.
So that'd be minimum 5 feet and 130 pounds for a male human. Or, since we are talking about averages, 5 feet 9 inches and 185 pounds for the average male.Quick stats check says 5 foot 9 inches and 195 pounds is the average male in the US (google searched link).
Seems pretty close to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call 4 foot 10 and 120 pounds the appropriate sizes and weights, and the life span is just put in so your game can last longer, if your human was running around with only 30 years in their life, the game will become much more chaotic.Arguably, the Golarion humans already are modern humans - they have appropriate sizes, weights, and life spawns for humans of our era, rather than what would be reasonably expected for the Renaissance era.
I mean, IIRC, humans around the world were outright smaller a few centuries ago =P
I actually know people with that height and weight.
Also, people didn't live only 30 years. It's just that child mortality rate was so high that it lowered the average. But once people survived their childhood, most of them lived to 50+ years.
Quick stats check says 5 foot 9 inches and 195 pounds is the average male in the US (google searched link).
I suspect that's an arithmetic mean, which in this case is probably deceptive. Say we have a sample size of 5 men. Their heights are 5'0", 5'11", 6'0", 6'1", 6'3". It would be totally reasonable to say that "most of these men are about six feet tall" -- and the median height is indeed 6'0" in this example.
On the other hand, the arithmetic mean is only 5'10", even though four of the five men are taller than that. The one short dude (me!) is skewing the whole mean downward, disproportionately to to the somewhat taller guy.
If we throw in Yao Ming, he counterbalances the short guy and we end up with a more reasonable mean. But for every one basketball player, there's probably a genetically very, very small person as well, dragging the mean even further down. And the range of upward variation is a lot smaller than the range of downward variation; the tallest man in history was 8'11" (less than +3 ft. above the 6-foot mark), whereas the shortest was 1'9" (more than -4 ft. below the 6-foot mark), so one very short person can potentially have much more influence on the mean than one very tall person.
It would be interesting to look at something like the mode, in which case most U.S. men are probably taller than 5'9".
Then again, I live in Texas, and everything is bigger here.
Um. Maybe you should study some basic anthropology. Modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. It also takes a lot of intelligence to survive in pre-agrarian societies.
What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
Actually it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to live in pre-agrarian times, there's a good reason survival is based off wisdom, as is perception, I don't think Appraise is going too come in too handy in the middle of tribal hunting grounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to live in pre-agrarian times, there's a good reason survival is based off wisdom, as is perception, I don't think Appraise is going too come in too handy in the middle of tribal hunting grounds.Um. Maybe you should study some basic anthropology. Modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. It also takes a lot of intelligence to survive in pre-agrarian societies.
What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.
Are... Are you using RPG mechanics to justify views of real-world pre-agrarian civilization?
Gods... I really do hope you're joking...
Here! Let's joke together!
1- Appraise would be INCREDIBLY USEFUL in a world where we don't have price tables or customer's service.
2- Craft is based on Int. So are all knowledge skills, including Nature, Local, Geography, Engineering, Nobility and Religion. All of which would be REALLY FREAKING USEFUL in a pre-agrarian society.
3- Int gives you the skill points to assign to Survival and Perception.
You have to craft your own clothes. You have to craft your own shelter. You have to craft your own weapons. You have to craft your own armor. You have to craft your own tools. You have to craft your own cookware. You have to craft your own rope. You have to craft your own shield. You have to craft your own knife. You have to craft your own backpack. You have to craft your own bedroll. You have to craft your own traps. You have to craft your own fishing gear. You have to craft your own boat. You have to craft your own waterskin. You have to craft your own toys. You have to craft your own chair.
And in most pre-agrarian societies, money hasn't been invented yet. So you have to barter for what you can't make by providing something the maker wants or needs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't those pre-agrarians just cast fabricate? Their society is unrealistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget to give the modern human a -4 save penalty against Illusion (Pattern) effects!
I suspect that's an arithmetic mean, which in this case is probably deceptive. Say we have a sample size of 5 men. Their heights are 5'0", 5'11", 6'0", 6'1", 6'3". It would be totally reasonable to say that "most of these men are about six feet tall" -- and the median height is indeed 6'0" in this example.
On the other hand, the arithmetic mean is only 5'10", even though four of the five men are taller than that. The one short dude (me!) is skewing the whole mean downward, disproportionately to to the somewhat taller guy.
The link I provided where I got the stats from has a link to a pdf that details the statistics. It does mention their method of treating data as unreliable if they exceeded the mean by a certain amount. The data they used in the report doesn't include such data.
I suspect that the numbers are correct, but you have to remember that it takes into account *everyone*, not just your Texas buddies. ;)
Personally, I'm a little over 6 feet tall, and while most in my family are the same size or taller (males anyways), I can feel it when I run into someone taller than me when I'm anywhere else. It's practically a novelty, I'm unused to that situation.
On the flip side, I'm 5'7" and I think I have a total of two male friends (counting people in 8 or so different states) who aren't substantially taller than I am. Granted, one of the two is from Harbin, China, and apparently he's closer to average for there, so I'd probably fit right in (except that I'd freeze to death before the first winter was over).
I'm 6'4'' and I know quite a few people who are taller than me. And one of my best friends (and his mother and sister) would actually fit quite well into the mentioned minimum height/weight for humans (5'10''; 120 lb).
I wouldn't call 4 foot 10 and 120 pounds the appropriate sizes and weights, and the life span is just put in so your game can last longer, if your human was running around with only 30 years in their life, the game will become much more chaotic.Arguably, the Golarion humans already are modern humans - they have appropriate sizes, weights, and life spawns for humans of our era, rather than what would be reasonably expected for the Renaissance era.
I mean, IIRC, humans around the world were outright smaller a few centuries ago =P
You quoted the base, which is less than the minimum.. considering you need to add a modifier roll which is minimum 2.
So that'd be minimum 5 feet and 130 pounds for a male human. Or, since we are talking about averages, 5 feet 9 inches and 185 pounds for the average male.Quick stats check says 5 foot 9 inches and 195 pounds is the average male in the US (google searched link).
Seems pretty close to me.
O.o
My entire career as a GM I have been forcing my players too be under 5 foot 2. Lol
Really, intelligence as a heritable trait? I thought eugenics had died a well deserved death already.