How much do you use subraces?

[Li Shenron]

In my campaign, humans are a 'new' race and have had fewer generations than, say, the dwarves... despite their faster life cycle. That, combiend with the human propensity for moving all over, keeps their genes pretty mixed.

Good explanation

 

[Maraxle]

In my campaign, humans are a 'new' race and have had fewer generations than, say, the dwarves... despite their faster life cycle. That, combiend with the human propensity for moving all over, keeps their genes pretty mixed.

In my campaign, elves and humans were created at the same time. However, they evolved differently due to their culture. The elves separated and live in regions that are far from each other. Therefore, they don't get much intermingling, causing them to develop different traits. The humans are more populous than the elves, live in a fairly central region, and commonly mix. There are different varieties of humans, with differences in hair/eye/skin color, average height/weight, diet, customs, etc, but the differences are less pronounced due to the lack of a secluded environment in which to evolve. There are pockets in certain remote regions where sorcerers are more common than other areas, which may point to some future evolutionary paths.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of subraces. IMHO, seemed to me to be a reorganization of stat modifiers and abilities so as to improve or modify them to work in certain race/class combos better.

Also, I'm not a fan of the idea of an "evil" subrace, like the duergar or drow. Then again, I'm not too fond of the practice of developing a new monster from synonyms of existing ones (or using them in different environments: underwater elves, subterranean gnomes, desert lizardfolk, etc.).

I think one of the key things that got to me was the ridiculous multitude of elven subraces in a fellow player's homebrew campaign, as well as the system created to account for "mixed-blood" characters (e.g., half-drow/half-aquatic elves, etc.). Became a bit of a math headache (less so with Skills & Powers ruleset), but still added to the overabundance of elves in any pre-3E D&D game.

For my homebrew, I'm pretty much sticking with the "core" races listed in the PHB. If a player wants his elf PC to look like a drow, then that's fine--stat-wise, the PC's just like a regular (high) elf, but the PC has jet black skin & white hair.

IMHO, I'd prefer to see races for D&D only have racial modifiers based on biological factors rather than social ones. For example, elves would have the stat modifiers, low-light vision, elf blood, sleep immunity, Spot & Listen bonuses, and other such "biological" modifiers, but lose the automatic proficiency with bows and swords, which is more of a cultural thing (i.e., growing up included regular, daily training with these weapons, not some sort of genetic gift that an elf gained in utero). Factors due to cultural backgrounds and such can simply be reflected through character creation--stat placement, selecting certain feats or skills, using certain times of equipment, or even describing the character with certain styles of dress, mannerisms, speech patterns, or physical features.

Jusst my thoughts & opinions on the matter.

 

[Umbran]

But are they any popular?

I don't know if they are generally popular, but I don't use them much. I'd find it a bit of a stretch - with multiple sentient races, there's already a lot of diversity. I don't see as adding more mechanical support to minor variations adds much to my campaign.

As for why humans don't have sub-races, but everyone else does... maybe everyone else is actually a sub-race of humans?

 

[Arnwyn]

Am I one of the few who uses a lot MM's subraces of the PHB races?

Beats me, but our group uses them all the time. We've used them for years throughout the previous editions, and we certainly didn't stop when 3e came around.

On the other hand, we never have used (and never will use) monster PCs.

 

[Desdichado]

i have subraces of humans too. but as defined in the MM. the 1edADnD 1977 MM.

C'mon, diaglo. AD&D? 1977? You're slipping.

I'm ambivalent about subraces, personally. I don't typically use them, but I'm not morally opposed to them, like some I know.

 

[VorpalBunny]

Since I'm running canon FR they exist in my games, and if the subrace is important to the plot of the adventure you bet I use it.

However, if I'm just describing NPCs in my game I find myself prejudiced towards the elven subraces more - "You see a group of sylvan elves walking down the forest path toward you." As opposed to dwarves and halflings which are almost always "dwarves" of "halflings" - "you see a group of mountain dwarves/lightfoot halflings" is something you'll probably not hear in one of my games.

 

[Emiricol]

The 13 Kingdoms (and thus my campaign) makes great use of sub-races, but they are a direct result of the various wars, plots and squabbles of the Gods, before they were banished. Humans *would* have a sub-race, but they weren't so lucky as to be split into sub-races - instead, the original legendary realm of Men was turned into one big undead realm.

 

[Blue Sky]

I used to use the subraces, untill it seemed there was an elf for every class. IMC the PHB races are the subraces (for dwarves, orcs, and elves), so there's no real need to specialize further.

I do use drow, but they were a created race, not evolved.

 

[Davelozzi]

My campaign has:
-no gnomes or monsters races as P.C.s
-wood elves and high elves
-one race of dwares
-one race of halflings (hobbit-like), although I might add a gypsy/kender like subrace.
-six subraces of humans (cultural based, like those in Birthright)

So far out of nine players, all but one (a dwarf) are human, and six out of eight of those humans all belong to the one subrace that is dominant in the local kingdom of my campaign world.