D&D 5E The Race Docket: What Races do you want to see first for 5e?

[The Crimson Binome]

Humans, with Half-Elf and Half-Orc as sub-races
Elves, with both ranger and wizard subraces
Dwarves
Halflings
Orcs
Goblins

...and that's it. Those represent the core races, to me.

I guess they can throw in warforged, tieflings, and aasimar if they really want to, since those are the common D&D-specific (non-generic-fantasy) races.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem with human subraces is that if you make them too distinct, with game-affecting modifiers, you may run into allegations of racism and racial stereotyping...

I know, but the key is to differentiate them culturally but not genetically.

Clearly, if human subraces follow the trite race design idea of ability score bonuses, it's doomed to border racism.

But it would be very dumb to follow that route, when the game provides dozens of other ways to differentiate characters, and the other races already show plenty of examples!

For instance... if you grant one human subrace proficiencies in some skills, weapons, armors, tools, languages, saving throws, 'luck' abilities, or even some magic or other stuff borrowed from classes, how the hell can someone claim it's racist?

 

[Tuft]

For instance... if you grant one human subrace proficiencies in some skills, weapons, armors, tools, languages, saving throws, 'luck' abilities, or even some magic or other stuff borrowed from classes, how the hell can someone claim it's racist?

For example, if you give a subrace a bonus to thievery, you touch upon some racial slurs...

 

[Li Shenron]

For example, if you give a subrace a bonus to thievery, you touch upon some racial slurs...

Then don't.

 

[Zatsuku]

As far as races go, I don't want them to add more. I just want them to fix humans, make them more unique rather than just better at all the ability scores than everyone else, that bugs me so much.

 

[Tuft]

Then don't.

The point is that it is much easier to say e.g. playable goblins have a bonus to thievery, or playable pixies are childlike and happily dancing, than to assign those qualities to human subraces. Such a simple distinction as to make one subrace more martial and another more magical, may be seen as making one brutish and the other intellectual.

 

[Raith5]

I know, but the key is to differentiate them culturally but not genetically.

Clearly, if human subraces follow the trite race design idea of ability score bonuses, it's doomed to border racism.

But it would be very dumb to follow that route, when the game provides dozens of other ways to differentiate characters, and the other races already show plenty of examples!

For instance... if you grant one human subrace proficiencies in some skills, weapons, armors, tools, languages, saving throws, 'luck' abilities, or even some magic or other stuff borrowed from classes, how the hell can someone claim it's racist?

Cant this kind of diversity (of social class, geography, cultural background etc) be better captured in backgrounds?

 

[Li Shenron]

The point is that it is much easier to say e.g. playable goblins have a bonus to thievery, or playable pixies are childlike and happily dancing, than to assign those qualities to human subraces.

Are you sure? Think of this: add a humanoid race into your setting, that is great at being merchants, bankers and enterpreneurs (represented with skill proficiencies or other special bonuses and abilities).

Option 1: make it a human subrace, without ability score modifications, and without cosmetic features (no specific skin color etc.).

Option 2: make standard Goblins be such race, or a subrace of Goblins, or another demihuman race.

Which of the two options smells of anti-semitism?

---

My wish about human subraces in the DMG is mostly to just have a small system in the DMG, which really could better be a more general system for creating races and subraces, and that would probably avoid the whole possible "D&D has races so it's racist" accusation.

That doesn't imply that there must be example subraces provided. The DMG could provide the system, and leave each DM to use it as they see fit.

Even if examples are provided, the most important thing is that for the human subraces (because apparently nobody thinks that having elven or dwarven subraces is "racist" in the least) all references to physical/mental differences are avoided, as well as sensitive issues (as you mention, thievery is one of them, perhaps alignment could be another).

Still, there's a lot of room left: I don't see how having seafaring humans, mountaineer humans, nomadic humans, forest humans, desert-living humans etc. must imply to define skin color or facial features and ability score bonuses/penalties.

Design tip: presentation goes a long way, so if instead of presenting these as "human subraces" they would call them "human nations" or something like that, the issue would be already diminished.

 

[Li Shenron]

Cant this kind of diversity (of social class, geography, cultural background etc) be better captured in backgrounds?

No. Backgrounds are social roles, and as such are individuals. If you create a "Slubberwong humans" background, this kind of implies that all or most of the Slubberwong humans have it. Where are their artisans, merchants, soldiers, priests etc. then?

But of course, what you can do with a background is in fact to say that "in our world, the Slubberwong Humans are a nomadic race so the Guide background is the most common among their kin" and so on.

---

Anyway... my human subraces wish was a response to "which races would you like to see in 5e". In any case, it won't be in the game, so no reason to hijack the thread, move along...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

First? Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Half-Elves and Tieflings. Followed closely by Dragonborn and Warforged. Of the dozens of PCs I've seen since the dawn of 2E, virtually all have been of these races (Tieflings have been surprisingly popular from the moment they were introduced, and not at all with the angst/emo crowd like some facile fellows like to suggest).

I've seen what, two Halflings in that time (one in 1993, one in 2012)? And zero Gnomes (of any kind). I've seen two Githzerai, two Goliaths, three Goblins, three Kobolds, and four Minotaurs (of various kinds), so that makes those equally or more popular than Halflings, for my money, and infinitely more important than Gnomes, which to me seem to the most sacred of sacred cows in D&D. Speaking to players over the years, I've never even come across a story where someone was playing a Gnome (though a fair few involving Halflings).

I'm sure we'll see some twee Gnomes in 5E, of course, but I will be rolling my eyes pretty damn hard if they're in the PHB, not DMG, where they belong!