D&D General consideration on sapient folk having two distinct base cultures?

[Mind of tempest]

we all know the elves with their wood and high elves, gnomes and their rock and wood gnomes but I had a realisation, humans, even in the real world had more or less two district live styles thought out our history if you really boil it down, settled and nomadic both of which feature on most of the major continents.

is this a good thing to somewhat lean into when making a setting or am I just wrong again?

 

[MarkB]

Featuring some nomadic cultures among the various other agrarian, urban and industrial cultures seems fine.

Leaning really hard into it and making this a defining distinction so that all humans are primarily defined by whether they're one or the other would be going way too far.

Making it a specifically human trait not shared by other races would be just bizarre.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Go on. Suggest formally dividing humans into subraces. See how it goes.

I'll be over here in a fireproof bunker.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Go on. Suggest formally dividing humans into sub-races. See how it goes.

I'll be over her in a fireproof bunker.

It's not as tough as you make it out to be, if you just use the word 'culture' instead of 'subrace'.

There are already games that have mechanics allowing you to access different skills or proficiencies or whatever duriing character creation depending on your culture.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Featuring some nomadic cultures among the various other agrarian, urban and industrial cultures seems fine.

Leaning really hard into it and making this a defining distinction so that all humans are primarily defined by whether they're one or the other would be going way too far.

Making it a specifically human trait not shared by other races would be just bizarre.

no, I mean that all sapients have a two version divide.

Go on. Suggest formally dividing humans into sub-races. See how it goes.

I'll be over her in a fireproof bunker.

I was never a fan of that I want only one race of elf these days.

 

[Tonguez]

Isnt that what Backgrounds are for? Agrarian v Nomad

My preference would be to turn all racial abilities in to Feats and then have one Heritage entry per race

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Runequest (at least v6) had starting skills dependant on culture (nomadic, barbarian, primitive and civilized). I'd advise against reusing the names in a published setting.

The problem is... how would that fit in 5e ? Skills are provided by character class and background. I don't think the skill systems in 5e is detailed enough to make room for an extra skill proficiency or expertise as the distinctive racial background (and it would only be useful for the characters designated to use that skill anyway. I'd advise against giving ASIs as it's frowned upon nowadays between fantasy species, so doing that within humans is certainly too dangerous.

What's left, as a mechanical distinction, for a divide between nomadic and settled? Maybe you could select a feat for flavour? But being Mounted Combatant because you were raised among Mongols doesn't help a spellcaster or a rogue that much...

 

[MarkB]

no, I mean that all sapients have a two version divide.

This doesn't seem like a good place to put such a divide (if there even is such a place). That would require all nomadic cultures to be fundamentally similar to each other, while at the same time being fundamentally different from all non-nomadic cultures. I don't think either of those things are true, and attempting to make them defining characteristics of a fantasy setting is likely to result in some deeply problematic issues.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This doesn't seem like a good place to put such a divide (if there even is such a place). That would require all nomadic cultures to be fundamentally similar to each other, while at the same time being fundamentally different from all non-nomadic cultures. I don't think either of those things are true, and attempting to make them defining characteristics of a fantasy setting is likely to result in some deeply problematic issues.

I mean as a baseline, at the planetary level most places are fairly similar at the micro-level they really are not.

 

[Faolyn]

Runequest (at least v6) had starting skills dependant on culture (nomadic, barbarian, primitive and civilized). I'd advise against reusing the names in a published setting.

The problem is... how would that fit in 5e ? Skills are provided by character class and background. I don't think the skill systems in 5e is detailed enough to make room for an extra skill proficiency or expertise as the distinctive racial background (and it would only be useful for the characters designated to use that skill anyway. I'd advise against giving ASIs as it's frowned upon nowadays between fantasy species, so doing that within humans is certainly too dangerous.

What's left, as a mechanical distinction, for a divide between nomadic and settled? Maybe you could select a feat for flavour? But being Mounted Combatant because you were raised among Mongols doesn't help a spellcaster or a rogue that much...

I think you can hack it. First, I'd give choices. For instance, say that all human cultures automatically have Prodigy or Skilled as a choice, and then each sub-culture grants one or two other options--like Mounted Combatant or Mobile for your Mongol example. Or make up new feats for each culture. As long as there's a choice, you won't have the problem with someone getting stuck with a useless feat.