D&D 5E Should Humans get subraces in 5e?

[Li Shenron]

All the core races except the Human have 2 subraces to choose from. Some non-core rares also have them (Dragonborn at least, although not explicitly presented as subraces).

This is practically not an optional rule for individual PCs, i.e. you have to pick a subrace, unless you want to have something less than others PC.

1) Do you think there is room in 5e for Human subraces?
2) Do you think they could be made differently from the other races so that the subrace choice is optional?
3) Do you think that focusing on cultural features of Human subraces rather than physical features would be enough to avoid controversies?

edit:

Regarding the last point, I mean to present Human subraces for instance in the form of generic cultural (but not genetic) archetypes: e.g. "Seafaring humans", "Mountaineers humans", "Nomadic humans". And then mechanically, offer features and bonuses that only represent differences in lifestyle, culture and experience, but neither physical nor mental attributes.

 

[delericho]

I don't think so. I suspect any attempt at putting human subraces into D&D would be controversial (because of the 'racism' angle, whether warranted or not). Even if, as you suggest, those subraces are things like 'seafaring', 'mountaineering', and 'nomadic', I think the accusation would still be made, even if only because the artists will have to depict members of those races and will have to use some sort of real-world ethnicities to do so.

(I accept that "avoiding controversy" is a lousy reason not to do this. But this is a really big controversy, so...)

 

[steeldragons]

See, I think it could very easily be done. While you're probably right, [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] , that some people would get up in arms...cuz, let's face it, it's D&D and some types of people will whine/cry/argue about any-blessed-thing they can, a simple one liner (with art) stating and showing that these subraces are not intended to nor, in any way, make racial assumptions, should keep most rational people at bay.

I was thinking even less "generic" than Li's. But using something like "nomad" or "tribesman" and then showing a "Hun-like" mounted archer, a native american-style "plains-hunter/tracker", or a "masai-esque" spear and shield warrior. Even a nordic-looking "barbarian" whose tribe wanders the tundra following herds of game could be a "nomad."

Take a more "high civilization" slant and show a Romanesque senator, an Egyptian-style scholar, Persian or Summerian-like warriors, an asian-looking courtier/noble, a central/south-american looking priest, etc...

Hold them all up as examples of what a DM/player/particular table or setting can do with the human "subrace." How can anyone take exception to that? And those that do, well, can be ignored since they're obviously not rational.

Human subrace 1: Nomad/Tribesman: +1 to X ability score (I'd wager Dex. or Con.). Their own language ["Common" becomes the second language which PCs are assumed to have learned/know somehow]. And 2 skills from the following list: Tracking, Riding, Nature [indigenous environment] Lore, Animal Handling, Survival, or xyz whatever.

Human subrace 2: Urbane/Cosmopolitan: +1 to X ability score (I'll say Int. or Cha.). Select 1 extra language [likely something spoken by a large minority or neighboring realm with whom a lot of trade is conducted]. Pick 2 skills from the following list: Diplomacy, Appraisal, Political/Law Lore, History [civilization of origin] Lore, or xyz whatever.

You get the idea, whatever will match whatever the non-human subraces get. Obviously, they wouldn't have darkvision or anything 'supernatural" (though I could see nomads, perhaps, having a limited lowlight vision), but some kind of low % chance for the Cosmo human to know some lore about something, or a bonus to a particular kind of save or something like that...enough to feel like a different "human" without any "uber" abilities/skills that would feel unearthly/inhuman.

I think it's entirely doable. I don't believe they will do it. But they certainly could...and homebrewing something comparable to the non-human subraces seems like a snap.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No.

Cultures are not races, and should not be confused as such. IMO, many of the non-human sub-races are simply cultural variations and should be deleted.

 

[The Human Target]

I agree with Olgar.

Plus there is a difference between not doing something to avoid controversy and not doing something because it actual might be racist or at least a bit sticky.

 

[Emerikol]

While I agree that they are cultures, I believe that nurture is as important as nature in developing a person. I like the idea of human subraces but I agree perhaps they'd be controversial. As a DM, though I've been using them for some time.

 

[herrozerro]

shouldn't those just fall under backgrounds?

 

[steeldragons]

No.

Cultures are not races, and should not be confused as such. IMO, many of the non-human sub-races are simply cultural variations and should be deleted.

While I certainly agree with you that cultures are not "races", as far as the game is concerned and you yourself note, the "sub race" differentiations for non-humans are basically cultural. Race and culture have always been fairly intertwined in D&D, from the first "elves live in forests, use bows, and -by their highly magical nature & culture- get to cast magic-user spells" and "dwarves live in mountains and hills, hate goblins and orcs [soooo much they get an attack bonus against them] and -by their decidedly non-magic nature & culture- get +x against magic saves."

The elves who have established a civilization around tracking and bows (and wearing green) vs. magic and lore (and wearing flowy robes) or the dwarves who have nations in/under the mountains vs. the ones who live on the hills or the farming halflings with hairy feet who live upriver from the fishing (or gypsy or whatever) halflings that wear shoes aren't different species...different genuses [geni?] maybe is arguable, but that's more for individual tables/DMs to decide.

So, I guess where I'm coming from/looking at it, if the non-humans are getting those [predominantly cultural] options...and we all know/have to accept they're not going to get deleted from the game...then why shouldn't humans get equivalent options?

 

[DEFCON 1]

For the regular game, I don't see a need. Humans are the baseline around which all the other races are placed in relation to them. Two human sub-races means two baselines, which defeats the purpose.

That being said... if a particular setting didn't use humans as their baseline-- or if the setting was so human-centric that most (if not all) other races weren't in the world... having variations of humans (either cultural or physical) shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. If it adds something to a setting, then go ahead and add them to that setting book.

But for the base game, nah. I don't think its necessary.

 

[Li Shenron]

Cultures are not races, and should not be confused as such.

Well but then, D&D races are not races either. They are in fact species.

But subraces are a less clear concept. There's no particular reason why subraces should imply genetic differences.

I don't think there is much evidence to say that Mountain Dwarves and Hill Dwarves aren't simply different cultures. Even their stat differences could be the result of giving different emphasis in training different physical/mental qualities, instead of being genetic (although it's easier to see them as simple genetic differences).

If you stress the natural/genetic interpretation of stat differences, then I understand why you don't want to see them among Human subraces. But then, this is the reason why I mentioned the option of writing Human subraces that don't have stat differences.