Would new players necessarily be picking humans? In a fantasy world such as this I like the thought much more of playing an Elf, Dwarf, or Hurthling. ..I'm not necessarily against this RFE, but I'm not convinced that humans need to be improved. I like that most races in ADOM have some challenge to them. That humans have no healing is IMHO a good counter to their over all 'good' starting stats. And there is an early quest that will get it. {shrugs}

I'd love to have at least one good reason to play a human. They're meant to be ordinary and average while other races have their unique features. That's why I think giving them a reasonable buff would make me pick a human.
Healing could be one of such buffs indeed... I don't see it as a big problem because it's obtainable and because there are plenty of other ways to restore HP. It would just add more flexibility to roleplay (pick up druid quest with any class having no worries about missing healing, ability to play safely with any star sign, not only candle, etc.). It would make humans a good choice for challenge games during which Terinyo can't be visited. And all this matters only for classes which aren't starting with Healing already. Furthermore it could be really unique human aspect, no race starts with healing now.

Why not?

I think humans are fine (they're still better than ratlings). As noted, the game already comes with several recommendations that will steer newbies away from classes like Human Fighters.

How are ratlings worse than humans?
I seem to recall a ratling duelist of mine that achieved very satisfactory results, what with initial high toughness (20+) and respectable other attributes.
I'd pick a ratling over a human any day.

I'd pick a human bard, monk, wizard, ranger, farmer, or merchant over many other races for the simple fact that they aren't bad at anything, and their high learning plus extra skill gain lets you improve your skills so much faster that early game gets to be easy with them. Plus food pres is one of my favorite skills.

I'd rather see humans with a tiny bit more utility - I literally only pick them for Rangers for the versatility.
On the note of ratlings, I think the nerf to their Charisma needs reversing. Okay, they're giant rat people - but that's reflected in their Appearance score already, and racially they're meant to be quite outgoing and pleasant.

Humans are ok but I would have improve Fighter class instead beacouse its laughtably weak. My first PC's were human fighters and I presumed that this combo will be at least as good as warrior class in diablo 1 :)
After countless of my pc's death's and after reading manual i've realised that fighter is one of the worst meele classes to pick from :)

Duelists are easy mode to be honest. Thank the class, not the race.

What humans lack in almost everything, they make up for with good experience gains, good learning scores, good starting equipment (yes, it matters), Food Preservation, and the best interaction with all shopkeepers in the game.

Humans don't need much to make them appealing. I vote giving Humans something generic and somewhat effective that vaguely ties into their lore/playstyle. Adaptive and generalized, can learn well? Give them better rolls for skills in general, more frequent skill dice increases, have everything guarantee starting at 4d5 at the start of the game. This boon drops off once everything reaches it's maximum, but it does make them a better (maybe the best?) early game race, which would be very cool.

EDIT:: Typo.

Similar to the last thread, it looks like a lot of people feel Humans could use something, but there's little consensus on what.

I can certainly understand disagreeing with my proposed solution. But I think it's bizarre anything thinks humans are anywhere near as good as most of the other races. Their only strong draw to my mind is Food Preservation, which is really nice, but luxury for any class.

For example, Gnomes have almost the same stats but 7 more stat points overall, level faster, live 10x longer, get an extra talent and have arguably better skills (Ventriloquism, Mining and Pick Pockets over Food Preservation and Swimming).

Ratlings are surely better at most melee and missile classes. Also Detect Item Status is a big draw for certain players, especially newbies.

My experience in the Facebook group suggests a not insignificant number of people people ignore these recommendations.

I really dispute the better equipment. Their LE is pretty average (~12; the range is 10-13 excepting Orc and Trolls). I haven't really noticed the shopkeeper thing, I don't think it's much of a draw.

Food Preservation is one of the best skills in the game. Especially for newbies who have trouble with food, it's a real lifesaver. Swimming is a decent newbie-friendly skill to start with as well. I don't think Humans are near as good as most of the other races. I do think Ratlings are overall the worst race. Humans are probably second-worst, though there's specific classes that Humans are pretty decent at. I'm not sure there's any class that I'd rank Ratling in the top 3 choices for.

Sure, but of those 7 stats, 4 are in Ma and 2 are in Ch, which aren't the most useful stats. Humans have the third-fastest leveling rate, behind gnomes and hurthlings but ahead of all other races. I'd happily take Food Preservation over Ventriloquisim, Mining, PP, and Gemology.

I haven't found Ratlings to have particularly impressive stats (though their To is comparable to Dwarves, apparently), and their starting gear is generally pretty bad. They never start with metal armor, so their starting PV is unlikely to be higher than 3 or 4. Humans aren't much better, but they get chain for Fighters and Paladins, and better gear on Barbarians and Archers. Your canonical Human Fighter is considerably better than a comparable Ratling Fighter (in fact, Humans actually make one of the best fighters). I have yet to find any class where I've wanted to play as a Ratling. There's a few that I like playing as Human.

They have only themselves to blame for that. Honestly, I find it kind of weird that people would choose a Human in an RPG. Any genre-savvy player is going to know that Humans are probably not a great race.

[edit]The Le bonus on Humans is pretty substantial. They're only 1 point behind GE, and are quite respectable casters. Humans don't get the best shop prices--Hurthlings do, followed by Gnomes (importantly, both of these races get a 110% modifier against Dwarves--the same as Dwarves themselves, whereas Humans only get 80%).

Human Barbs get to open with an Amulet of Luck(!!!), and a two-handed sword.
Human Druids start out with another spellbook, which is infinitely good!
Generally, humans are generously equipped with good armor, nice boot, and metal caps, which I think is among the best starting equipment, shy of Mist Elves and the occasional platemail Dwarf, at the start of the game, which is where you're the most suspectable to death. It doesn't have much use past the early game, but once again, the early game is the hardest to survive.

I find that Humans generally get one to two more points of learning more than their non-elven peers (excluding Dark Elves), which makes a difference in the immediate and long run, especially when I can trust that they will almost always have 15 learning, and leads to me having higher learning potentials.

If swimming was harder to get, we'd value it more, though pick pockets is even easier to get... I would disagree, Food Preservation past the 60(?) and 90 thresholds never stops being useful... I don't want to make humans a clone of anything else. I want their advantages to be unique and beneficial to the early game specifically, which is why I like my suggestion.

For roleplay and immersion purposes, I REALLY like the thought of humans having courage. It would synergize vaguely with the class abilities that let you attack everyone around you, make early game vaults slightly easier, make forest encounters less deadly, and all in all, it's a skill that has a tangible impact in the game. Healing seems to be the fan favorite, and I think that would be great, too, especially with humans and how quickly they heal scar tissue (on that note, what if humans were immune to the rotting flesh corruption, the appearance losses, that is. Little differences are my favorite). If the guidebook wasn't so adamant on it, I'd suggest giving them Tactics.

@JellySlayer no kidding? Hurthling Merchant new meta? ;o

I think this is the actual problem. A human fighter is terrible. Fighter's DV/PV bonuses should be doubled, that would make everything a bit easier.

Human Fighters start with ~7 PV on average, which is quite playable. They're quite a good race for the class. Not as good as drakes, dwarves, or maybe trolls, but better than the others.

PV doesn't kill monsters, and archery skill for fighter is a joke... classes like assassin ,duelist, barbarian, monk, paladin are way much better classess beacouse they allow you to kill mobs more efficcient and progress in game much faster..

IMHO fighter class is so underpowered and need improvements:

something like:

- lower energy consumption in close combat
- increase critical scores when fighting unarmed
- give chance to stun enemy when fighting with with bare hands

etc...

What do you mean archery skill with a fighter is a joke?? It's an amazing skill, and it's part of what makes a fighter great.

you must be joking... yeah right +4 to-hit and +2 to-damage at 100 archery is surely overkill...
And there are better classes for ranged combat for example... assassin or archer. Many new players choosing fighter class are assuming that they are at least proficient in close combat.

not at all. archery lets you get 2-3 more points in range above your max which in early game can be a life saver. its also the only way to get lightning shot which IMO is the 2nd best talent in the game (after TH) missile combat is crazy powerful and fighters get full advantage of it.

also fighters are way more than proficient in regular melee, they just don't start the game wiping the floor with everything, like a duelist does. they focus on more defensive boosts. also later in the game they get a 10% bonus to critical hits, which is seriously amazing, considering its a better bonus than bracers of war and stacks very well with other sources(via probability as i recently found out).

give me the proof that they are more proficient than assassin (ability to easyly make poisoned quarrels/arrows +30% range and 20% critical hit at 25 level and chance to instakill at lvl 50)
fighters are not much more better ranged fighters than farmers with archery... TBH good bow or sling and some dexterity are better than 100 pts in archery... there are better skills to invest...

Facts:
Fighters are not very good at:

- close combat
- ranged combat
- magic

all that make them very retarded/challenging class...

Why should they be better than an assassin? If you want to play an assassin go play an assassin! A fighter will still have more hp and better defense.

In the meanwhile a fighter is still somewhat better than a farmer because of find weakness skill. But a farmer is better long term than everyone except archers because of Fletchery skill.

Besides when you get improved range with assassin, you don't need it, and there's a talent out there that does the same thing anyways.

I don't know how you think fighters suck at close combat and ranged. Provide some proof that doesn't stink.