5E Human Subraces
+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: Human Subraces

  1. #1
    Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Read 31 Reviews
    Doctor WhoD&DWotC EvacueeEN World EN5iderRavenloft

    Block Jester David


    Human Subraces

    In the playtest package humans are the only race without a "subrace" despite being the most diverse and adaptive race. And, because they're less of a "hook" for the race and racial powers humans get very blank bonuses.

    What about changing that? Say, taking a page from Dragonlance and having "civilized" or "barbarian" humans. Give one a bonus to mental skills and the other a bonus to physical skills. Add new powers accordingly, such as hardiness or wilderness survival powers for one and others suggesting intelligence and decadence.

    The names are flexible. "Urban" and "nomadic" would work. As would "urbane / erudite" and "wild / rural".

    It instantly adds some distinction to humans. The suggestion of story and world building. Humans aren't all identical
    There are the savage Cimmeria and the softer south folk. There are the Northfolk and the southern people beyond the wall. The hardy barbarian tribes of the traders from Ten-Towns. There are the rough Germanic folk or the culture Romans.

    Read my webcomic & blog at:

  2. #2
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Los Angeles, California
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Greg K

    I want to see sample templates
    Aquatic: Live on the ocean
    Grasslands (Prairie, Savannah)

    Nomad, Desert
    Nomad, Grasslands
    Nomad, River

    Rural ('Civilized' farmers and herders)

    However, I want to see the subraces gone and the above as things that can be applied to any race.

  3. #3
    Please no -- take the idea of human subraces, and kill it with fire.

    Different human cultures should definitely be in the game, but they don't need to be mechanically distinguished. If the human race options are done consistent with prior approaches to make humans the "versatile" race, you should have choices sufficient to adjust to what you want, without having that choice baked in. Let something in the game be non-mechanical, please.

    Humans shouldn't simultaneously be the "versatile" race and at the same time an "optimized" race based on a bunch of subraces.

    And in case you ask, I'd be fine without non-human subraces, too. Mountain dwarves and wood elves can be culturally but not mechanically distinct from hill dwarves and high elves as far as I'm concerned.
    Last edited by Olgar Shiverstone; Friday, 28th September, 2012 at 02:46 AM.

  4. #4
    Pathfinder's tried to do this, and they gave it a good go, but ever time I look at their take on the subject I find myself coming back to the bonus feat/skill. One of 3e's little bits of genius was humans; a bonus feat and skill points gives you all you'll ever need out of a race (whereas 2e humans were often a mechanically suboptimal choice). There's no need to mess with this. Stick with what works.

  5. #5
    I still say that humans should have a sizable list of racial traits that they choose from. Cultures, then, can be described as preferring particular traits.

  6. #6
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Quickleaf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Honolulu, HI
    Read 5 Reviews

    Block Quickleaf

    I don't get 5e's superman "everything you can do I can do better" take on humans: +1 to all stats, and +2 to one of your choice. However, I don't think sub-races is a wise move. Instead, if I was going for humans as the most adaptable race I might do something like:

    +1 to a stat of your choice
    A bonus background of your choice
    A bonus feat from a specialty or talent from a class

  7. #7
    Hydra (Lvl 25)

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Tony Vargas

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    In the playtest package humans are the only race without a "subrace" despite being the most diverse and adaptive race. And, because they're less of a "hook" for the race and racial powers humans get very blank bonuses.

    What about changing that? Thoughts?
    While I like the idea from a strictly game-design perspective, it could be tricky to sell in a corporate environment. Fantastic species are one thing, statting out groupings of humans differently by (sub)race is another can of worms entirely. You might get away with it if you stick to cultural differences in made-up fantasy-setting cultures - that bear /no/ slightest similarity to any RL culture...

  8. #8
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Read 2 Reviews

    Block Stormonu


    Personally, I'm cool with human subtypes and I've set up a few in my own homebrew - each is slightly distinct as their "evolution" has been influenced by one of the gods of my world.

    Aegyptian - patronized by Shame, Queen of Amberos.
    Aharati - patronized by Lorius, Lord of the Winds.
    Aztec - slaves to the will of Tzuchamus.
    Dhoric - patronized by Dhorian, Overlord of Amberos.
    Ghan - patronized by Titanicus, Lord of War.
    Randese - favored of Visha, the Protectoress.
    Skierian - blood-tainted followers of The Dark One.
    Ubunti - taught by Belli, Lord of the Natural World.
    Nippon - patronized by Gosend, Master of the Self.

    and, the Afarian - which comprise the rest of mixed-blooded humanity.

  9. #9
    It would make sense to do it the way you outlined it. Basing it around lifestyle (urban/woods/sea/whatever) as Greg K described rather than appearance is logical and should be inoffensive. It would probably even add some cool options.

    Unfortunately it wouldn't be worth the hassle it would cause. After seeing all the outrage over proposals for implementing even the most simple and obvious variation among humans mechanically (average male strength is higher than average female strength), I think WOTC would be crazy to put this in their books. They'd end up spending more time and resources trying to put out the firestorm than they would developing the game.

  10. #10
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Connorsrpg's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    1 1/2 Hours North of Merric B ;)
    Read 4 Reviews

    Block Connorsrpg

    Wouldn't different Backgrounds be enough to differentiate? I like the initial idea, but I would apply those to Backgrounds, not subraces.

    Humans could get a bonus BG (but that would make 3 for a thief).

    I liked 3e & 4e bonus skills and feats.

    For 5E I reckon a bonus Specialty would be ideal. This really plays on their adaptability. Also, if the player wants more skills, they can take Jack-of-All-Trades Specialty.

+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Do you have human subraces in your campaigns?
    By Emirikol in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Thursday, 25th September, 2008, 07:51 AM
  2. And here they are... Official Human 'Subraces'
    By Tarril Wolfeye in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Monday, 3rd January, 2005, 05:34 PM
  3. Help with Latin names for sci-fi human subraces
    By John Q. Mayhem in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Wednesday, 19th May, 2004, 12:39 PM
  4. Polymorph any object :human to uber-human?
    By nahualt in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, 12th May, 2004, 08:07 AM
  5. How much do you use subraces?
    By Li Shenron in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Friday, 12th September, 2003, 01:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts