D&D 5E Human Subraces

Shadeydm · Sep 29, 2012

Setting specific human subraces can be really cool (suel etc.) but human subraces in the PHB just sounds like a terrible idea imho.

I'm A Banana · Sep 29, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
No one mentioned wealth but you. The "king of the north" might still be "ruralite" while a poor guttersnipe would be an "urbanite".
The only implication is that people living off the land, who need to cut lumber, haul water, till crops, and work to survive might, just might, be more physically fit on average than those in a city who rely on other skills.

First, a division by civilizational complexity is inherently a division by wealth. Relative wealth within that category may be different, but measured as an economic trend, complexity yields more extracted value.

In other words, even the Grand High Poohbah of Dirt Farmers is still selling his crops upriver for that guttersnipe to buy (or steal) FROM him, in the hopes that some of that centralized wealth the guttersnipe has access to (or can steal) comes back to him. Cities can't exist without rural populations, and rural populations are thus economically lower on the foodchain than anyone in a city (even a guttersnipe). The flow of capital is up the chain there.

Second, it's not true that country folks are necessarily more fit on average than city folks. It's a stereotype. The game doesn't need to support that stereotype.

As I said elsewhere, we can dump the "subrace" terms for humans and call it "origins" or "region" or "heritage".

....or "Background"....?

The intent is more to make humans more mechanically interesting, to make the stat boosts of the other races more appealing, and to make humans as diverse as all the flavour says they are.
Eventually WotC will want alternate humans in the game, be it from the shadow plane or the like. And it would be nice if there was an easy mechanical way to swap out human racial traits.

Sure. And when they do, perhaps subraces will be something the game can explore, when they are fully and obviously ensconced in make-believe magic land where people can create darkness because someone in their family once got herpes from a osyluth and where neandertals can walk among us as caveman stereotypes since that has nothing to do with actual people.

But lets steer away from the "Oh! The Laboring Class is naturally suited to doing Labor in the fields! And it is only right and just for those born to the Manager Class to direct them! It is their Natural Talent!" kind of implications. I get that fantasy is stepped in those implications already, and maybe individual games will be, but I don't think they need to be enshrined in the basic rules of the game.

Backgrounds? Sure. That's just character history.

Subraces? Nope. That's what your character is. And humans -- especially in a fantasy setting -- are the ones who can be anything. They are not defined by what they are. They have the ability to shape their own fate. So it shouldn't matter where they're from. You can be born to a dyanstic legacy of rulers and administrators and still be a better ranch-hand than you are a lord. You can be born in a barn with the cows and you can still be a better king than you ever will be a farmer.

gweinel · Sep 29, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Subraces? Nope. That's what your character is. And humans -- especially in a fantasy setting -- are the ones who can be anything. They are not defined by what they are. They have the ability to shape their own fate. So it shouldn't matter where they're from. You can be born to a dyanstic legacy of rulers and administrators and still be a better ranch-hand than you are a lord. You can be born in a barn with the cows and you can still be a better king than you ever will be a farmer.

Ι can't give you experience point but you convinced me.

What i had in mind when i wanted different human cultures to be expressed mechanically was not to separate, to make claims that one is better than another or to make stereotypes. I wanted exactly the opposite. The thing that i had in mind was to enrich through differentiation.

As it stands now the human racial ability is blatant and homogenize the humans. It is exactly the opposite from the versality that the designers advocates. From the playtest:

Humans are the most adaptable, flexible, and ambitious people among the common races. They have widely varying tastes, morals, customs, and
habits.

Jester David · Sep 29, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
....or "Background"....?

Again, Backgrounds don't work as well since they have to apply to all races equally, and the other races already have some culture built in. And because Backgrounds have the feel of "professions" or "secondary skills" more than 4e Backgrouds. They're larger thn just "where you grew up".

gyor · Sep 29, 2012

As long as one stays away from real world races, Black, White, Yellow, Red, Pigmies for example and kept it to fantastic subraces that have existed in previous editions it will be fine.

Subraces of human like Neanderal, Alantean (the aquatic race of human), that evil human race from Book of Vile darkness don't remember thier name, Deep Imaskari for example.

Races that are branches of humanity, but not so far removed as to be a seperate species.

GreyICE · Sep 29, 2012

gyor said:
As long as one stays away from real world races, Black, White, Yellow, Red, Pigmies for example and kept it to fantastic subraces that have existed in previous editions it will be fine.

Subraces of human like Neanderal, Alantean (the aquatic race of human), that evil human race from Book of Vile darkness don't remember thier name, Deep Imaskari for example.

Races that are branches of humanity, but not so far removed as to be a seperate species.

Then don't call them humans. Here, I've invented a name. "Demi-humans." This handles all the fantastic races under a nice label, and keeps away from the term "subrace" being applied to humanity.

My god man, they took MASS EFFECT and said it was a RAPE SIMULATOR. We live in the age of irresponsible reporting, you CANNOT publish something like subraces for humanity even if it somehow AVOIDS being racist (which it has like an 0.01% chance of doing). Remember when they brought back the -1 Strength for women thing as a joke in one of the polls and their forums nearly exploded and melted down from the angry voices? That was a bad joke on an internet poll and they had to issue a formal apology.

WotC cannot afford to do subraces of humanity and will never ever do so. The ages of people sending letters to Dragon Magazine explaining how women aren't as suited to be adventurers and thus deserve stat penalties and ACTUALLY GETTING THEM PUBLISHED are dead and gone.

I'm A Banana · Sep 30, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
Again, Backgrounds don't work as well since they have to apply to all races equally, and the other races already have some culture built in. And because Backgrounds have the feel of "professions" or "secondary skills" more than 4e Backgrouds. They're larger thn just "where you grew up".

I don't think humans have a monopoly on being "urban" or "rural." I see no reason a dwarf can't be a socialite and a halfling can't be a farmer. I also don't see why those things can't be represented in a Background ability -- the format certainly can support it.

gweinel said:
As it stands now the human racial ability is blatant and homogenize the humans. It is exactly the opposite from the versality that the designers advocates. From the playtest:

I'd generally agree that human racial abilities are a little lackluster. In fact, I'd say the same about most of the racial abilities -- they aren't quite defining enough. Could use some work. I don't think "subraces" are a solution, but I'm on board with the need for something a little different.

Personally, for humans, I'd play up their versatility and their adaptability and their ability to shape their own fate by maybe giving them a +1d6 they can add to a given d20 roll in a day, in addition to some other stuff (like +1 to an ability score of their choice). Maybe a bonus for doing things they don't otherwise receive a bonus on (penalty-negating?). Or something similar. Something active, anyway. Racial abilities should be something that get actively chosen during play, IMO, if race is to be something that "matters."

TrippyHippy · Sep 30, 2012

I'd absolutely welcome D&D adapting the four 'Cultures' of Runequest for the Human Race.

Barbarian
Civilised
Nomad
Savage

Possibly change their names, or whatever, but bringing in a bit of cultural interest into the Human characters is more important in making them cool to play than just giving bland, universal bonuses to stats.

Bluenose · Sep 30, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
Again, Backgrounds don't work as well since they have to apply to all races equally, and the other races already have some culture built in. And because Backgrounds have the feel of "professions" or "secondary skills" more than 4e Backgrouds. They're larger thn just "where you grew up".

No, I don't think it has to work like that. Sure, your background might be "Noble". But what a noble does will vary from culture to culture, race to race. An Elf Noble shouldn't be the same as a Dwarf Noble, nor should they be the same as a human Noble from a nomadic culture.

Fazza · Sep 30, 2012

I agree with those that said there shouldn't be subraces. I also think +1 to everything with an extra +1 to anything if very powerful, in a one shot I ran all 3 players chose human(dual wielding fighter, warlock and sorcerer) one I know took it because he had mostly odd stats so it evened him out, this player likes the way humans are set up, I personally can't stand it. But I'd like to see more suggestions of what could be offered as an alternative.

I know they are looking at simplicity and modularity so extra feats and skills are a no go here. I think a flexible +1 achieves the diversity the race is meant to represent and keeps ability scores for playable races level(everyone gets a +1 somewhere). Coming from 4e one of the things I always remember about humans was the Ardoit Explorer paragon path, which basically gave you more uses and more flexible uses for your action points(for those who don't know you could spend these to take extra actions in a turn EDIT: Actually I was wrong about this it may be a feat that let you use them multiple times in an encounter) so I would like to see essentially an action point mechanic just for humans but just 2 a day(no milestone tracking), halflings already have a similar trait to this in lucky and the fighter in the original playtest package had exactly this so I don't think 2 extra actions a day for humans throws things off too much.

Also the old classic is +1 to saves, is this a good representation or just sticking to old ideas that didn't work? I didn't play 3.x but I liked the boost to defenses in 4e

I'm a bit stumped on what traits they could have that don't relate directly to combat(like dwarves' stonecunning and elves' keen senses)