D&D 5E Are humanoid mono-cultures being replaced with the Rule of Three?

[jayoungr]

Elves didn't have curved swords in Tolkien. That's a Weta-developed concept, likely originating mostly from Alan Lee and/or John Howe as they were trying to portray gracefulness in Elven cultures. Tolkien mostly depicted his elven swords as similar to how swords are written in the Norse Sagas, the Finnish Kalevala, and the Irish Cycles.

You beat me to it. Tolkien nerds high-five!

But FWIW, I also agree that

Humanoids don't need to have real-world-esque layers and complexity, because they're not real world.

They're not real world, and they're also not a novel or movie. I think it's fine to just sketch the monoculture as the baseline and then let each table and player decide whether they're going to lean into it, play with it, play against it, replace it, add to it, or none of the above. Stress the options instead of trying to pre-make them.

But that's just me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but then you get "Here are 3 cultures for each of 50 subraces" and you end up with a setting book that is 300 pages of cultures at 2 pages per subculture.

No, that’s the opposite of what I’m saying, instead of more cultures and subraces, make the cultures themselves more diverse. Talk about cultures in terms of generalities instead of absolutes, and then be sure to actually show examples of exceptions to those trends.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

If you've read the descriptions of those cultures, it seems extremely likely that they will, in fact, change the Drow features. Certainly the surface-dwelling ones are likely to lack the long-range infravision and sunlight aversion, and they may well have different spells.

Would Plant Growth be too on the nose for Lorendrow? How about Major Illusion for Aevendrow?

Do you think they will have weapon profiencies?

For those that don't think these will either be races or subraces, think about how they just did 3 new races (not subraces, races) of Dragonborn, a new type of Kobold, and a new type of Hobgoblin. New subraces/races/subsubraces of Drow are no stranger or less likely then that, especially if they plan on making a big deal about it.

 

[Marandahir]

No, that’s the opposite of what I’m saying, instead of more cultures and subraces, make the cultures themselves more diverse. Talk about cultures in terms of generalities instead of absolutes, and then be sure to actually show examples of exceptions to those trends.

I don't disagree with this. And I don't think WotC do either. Drizzt and Jerlaxle are both exceptions to the Udadrow regime that turn the concept on its head in very different ways. I'd love to see more Udadrow-raised characters break the mold, and not by being dual-scimitar wielding CG Rangers.

 

[Marandahir]

If you've read the descriptions of those cultures, it seems extremely likely that they will, in fact, change the Drow features. Certainly the surface-dwelling ones are likely to lack the long-range infravision and sunlight aversion, and they may well have different spells.

Maybe, but I doubt they'll be "these are the Lorendrow features, replace x Drow features from the Player's Handbook if you're playing a Lorendrow." FAR more likely they'll say, "these are alternate features that are suggested for characters of Drow heritage that may not have been raised in the same circumstances as those assumed by the Player's Handbook." Much like Tasha's does.

 

[Xeviat]

If you assume your d&d setting is a small region, and not a whole world, then there's a reason that 3 subraces are also the three subcultures in your setting: they're the cultures dominant in that region of the setting!

The English can make stereotypes about the scotts, the welsh, the irish, and the french because those are the people in their neck of the woods. I've always assumed that's what's going on with the different subraces in the phb.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Maybe, but I doubt they'll be "these are the Lorendrow features, replace x Drow features from the Player's Handbook if you're playing a Lorendrow." FAR more likely they'll say, "these are alternate features that are suggested for characters of Drow heritage that may not have been raised in the same circumstances as those assumed by the Player's Handbook." Much like Tasha's does.

Or they will do them up like the 3 new Dragonborn races.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't disagree with this. And I don't think WotC do either. Drizzt and Jerlaxle are both exceptions to the Udadrow regime that turn the concept on its head in very different ways. I'd love to see more Udadrow-raised characters break the mold, and not by being dual-scimitar wielding CG Rangers.

Yeah. Really what I want to see more than specific characters who break the trend is for the language the books use to talk about different races/subraces/etc. to be more generalized. And I do think they’re starting to do that. It’s just a bummer that the core books are kinda stuck coming off more absolute.

 

[Marandahir]

Or they will do them up like the 3 new Dragonborn races.

Again though, the standard Dragonborn is perfectly acceptable as is from any of those backgrounds, and especially from the Chromatic backgrounds (due to the purely elemental breath weapons). Those aren't new Dragonborn races, they're different ancestry features that can better model your connections to Chromatic, Metallic, or Gem dragons. They're not even cultures like the Aevendrow and Lorendrow - they're just choices you can make. They're also Unearthed Arcana, and it's yet to be seen if they've been received well by the broader D&D playtesting community to even make it into a published book.

 

[Minigiant]

I like the rule of three unless another number makes more sense (genasi, half races).

A lot of races already have 2 surface subraces and an underdark version.

Currently I am pondering an old school style where each humaniod subrace can only be one class/subclass. 3 subclasses seems to be the right number to offer the right amount of variety and flavor.