D&D 5E Human Subraces

GX.Sigma · Sep 28, 2012

I like the idea of Humans as the most diverse race. That is, all Wood Elves are the same, all High Elves are the same, all Dark Elves are the same--but all Humans are different. So to me it doesn't make sense to have sub-races of human, because all humans are one race, but each individual is different. They are together in their diversity, while the other races are sundered by their homogeneity.

Mechanically, I like human being the simplest race while being a viable choice for all character types, and I think the + ability scores definitely does that (though I agree it raises unfortunate implications).

gweinel · Sep 28, 2012

Well, i would love human variants to be expressed mechanicaly. An arctic mountainous human and a desert nomad are more different than a mountain dwarf and hill dwarf and maybe at the same level with the drow and normal elf. I can't see why to not have some kind of differentation.

I am not sure if this differentiation should be based on enviromental factors or cultural ones. I would say that should be a compination of both.
Also, in my opinion, i think there should be a neutral mechanism that defines all the humans.

So, my proposal would be the human race to have a +1 to a stat of the players choice and the other abilities to tied to the specific human civilization. So, if we are talking for an arctic theocracy the the humans there could have a cold resistance and maybe a trait that match the god or the godess they believe.

Having said that i can see this works better as a module in which unfolds a list of environmental and cultural abilities.

As core mechanism i wouldn't mind the extra specialty that was mentioned above.
In any way i dispise the current human trait.

Li Shenron · Sep 28, 2012

Olgar Shiverstone said:
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.

I'm not a fan of human subraces either.

I totally agree with your last sentence.

That said, I am not against mechanical distinctions for subraces, even humans.

What would really be great to see disappear is ability score modifiers used to differentiate subraces.

I want races to be differentiated by ability score modifiers relative to humans, which means humans should get no bonus or penalties. Dwarves being genetically tougher (Con bonus), Elves genetically nimbler (Dex bonus) and some other race genetically smarter (Int bonus) and so on.

And I want subraces to be differentiated on purely cultural levels, e.g. skill bonuses representing training that all members of the culture automatically receive as part of their education. Hit Points / Hid Dice increase is also fine here, as a representation of tougher physical exercise resulting from lifestyle.

But I'd prefer bare (average) ability scores to be just defined by genetics, although also I wouldn't want them to increase by level by the way.

Bluenose · Sep 28, 2012

Subraces, no. Definitely not. Forget the idea.

Cultures, yes. A good thing. They don't have to be more specific than Civilised (city based), Barbarian (village based), Nomad (mobile) and Primitive (technologically backward). And that should open up different backgrounds, or at least different parts of a background. A civilised Noble should understand how to behave at court, how to manage lands, perhaps have some academic skill. A barbarian Jarl can speak inspiringly, bargain with foreigners, and act as a judge. And nomad Chiefs and primitive Leaders have their own particular set of skills.

Yora · Sep 28, 2012

"Ho about, no!" - Dr. Evil

Jester David · Sep 28, 2012

Genericly replying to some comments.

Potential Racism
Definetly a concern if you make human Subraces. Which is why I suggested very generic environments. You want them to be broad categories unrelated to culture or ethnicity. Everyplace has "city folk" and "country folk"
Which is why I went to Dragonlance as my example rather than the many ethnicities of Greyhawk.

Backgrouds Instead
On paper this is good,except in execution there are two problems.
Firstly, backgrounds are very much secondary skills or occuations and seldom where you were raised. They're what you do for a living.
Secondly, Backgrouds have to be options usable for all the other races. You can't add a bunch of human-only where-you-were-born human backgrounds.

Quickleaf said:
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

Except backgrounds and specialites are optioal sub-systems. So they can't be used.

jrowland · Sep 28, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
Genericly replying to some comments.

Potential Racism
Definetly a concern if you make human Subraces. Which is why I suggested very generic environments. You want them to be broad categories unrelated to culture or ethnicity. Everyplace has "city folk" and "country folk"
Which is why I went to Dragonlance as my example rather than the many ethnicities of Greyhawk.

Funny/Sad true story:

I had just finished a game of D&D where a war council of differing races met to discuss a possible alliance. I met my friend at a bar and we got to talking about racism. This was soon after the rodney king riots and I lived in So Cal at the time...I forget what the whole conversation was, but at one point I said the following:

"Black people have a different take than us humans."

I meant whites, not humans. It was a D&D-addled tongue slip and not meant in a racist way ("elves have a different take than humans" is fine, eg). My friend still gives me a hard time over it.

So yeah....Human sub-races are a bad idea in D&D.

Adding an environmental background is a better idea (Barbarian, Cosmopolitan, Country, desert, mountain, etc)

Quickleaf · Sep 28, 2012

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]
No problem, my suggestion wasn't intended to be prescriptive for Wizards of the Coast. I can understand why they designed the human race as they did, and most playtest reports haven't found it disruptive. I was speaking to the GMs of ENWorld who don't care for the design implications and would prefer a variant; I'm confident most of us do use or will use backgrounds/feats in our playtests.

I'm A Banana · Sep 28, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
Everyplace has "city folk" and "country folk"

Ah, so you replace racism with classism. "You see, the reason we live in cities and you live in the backwoods is because we're better suited to it than you. See, you're SUPPOSED to be poor dirt farmers. And we're SUPPOSED to be urban elites. It's in our natures!"

No no no no no no.

Any way you slice it, dividing the human race into "subraces" is potentially vastly problematic. Because unlike any of our fantastic species of never-existing human-esque critters, humans actually exist, and any division you put on them in the game is going to be interpreted (even unfairly) as something the designers believe about humanity to some degree.

Being human is not about what you are, it's about who you are. In a fantasy setting where the lines between "archetype" and "stereotype" are not nearly as boldly drawn as they are in the real world, that's even more true. You cannot say anything about a group of humans that is going to be a fair generalization. The stuffiest of stuffed-shirt noble jagoffs can come from a cowplop farm, and the ragingest barbarian who ever swung an axe could've been born with a silver spoon in her mouth. You can say "dwarves are stout," and sure, what with their Con bonus, you can see that. You shouldn't be able to say the same thing about humans. Even a category of humans. The fantasy archetype of humanity is variety, possibility, potentiality, and flexibility.

While I'm all for cultural signifiers, even mechanically (in Backgrounds, for intsance), dividing people into mechanically distinct "from birth" groups is not something that D&D can in general get away with.

As always, you should do what you'd like in your own games, and if that means adding human subraces, well, whatever. I think it should be fairly easy for you to do so. I DON'T think these should be official. There's nothing but problems in dividing up people like that.

CAFRedblade · Sep 28, 2012

I think the current playtest rules of +2 to one stat, and +1 to all others is a bit of over compensation compared to the sub-races.

I think I'd be happy with a +2 to one stat, +1 to another, and an extra specialty.

As noted elsewhere, backgrounds are more for what is your day to day job/training when not adventuring, so not as relevant as the specialty.

I'd suggest granting an extra feature from the PC's chosen (primary) class, but I don't know how that'd break things for various classes off the top of my head.
eg. the fighter gets one extra Lvl 1 trick from another Combat Style...
A mage gets an extra cantrip.. so forth..