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

[Faolyn]

The real trick here is to posit a nomadic human culture without slapping on the wealth of awful colonial tropes that usually apply. A nomadic culture that can hold it's own against more industrialized nations though? One that isn't defined by less-than terminology? That's a strong idea.

Magic is the great equalizer here. In D&D, you generally don't need mines, refineries, or factories to cast spells. DMs should be willing to think about value-equivalent material components that nomadic or lower-tech people could use in place of the few costly components that might be too difficult for them to reproduce.

Edit: @Fenris-77 ninja'd me here, including phrasing. <shakes fist>

 

[Ixal]

Magic is the great equalizer here. In D&D, you generally don't need mines, refineries, or factories to cast spells. DMs should be willing to think about value-equivalent material components that nomadic or lower-tech people could use in place of the few costly components that might be too difficult for them to reproduce.

Edit: @Fenris-77 ninja'd me here, including phrasing. <shakes fist>

Not really. Most magic requires higher learning, a variety of spell components and special materials to write spellbooks. So even in that regard nomadic cultures have a disadvantage.

 

[Remathilis]

Didn't Forgotten Realms do something in 3.5 with regional feats? Pathfinder had some distinct cultural groups of humans as well. Its not exactly what you are talking about, but it might be a good place to look for ideas that have already been printed.

Weellll.... That's where it gets dicey...

Both Golarion and Forgotten Realms tried to diversify by adding "ethnic equivalent" groups of humans that resemble various ethnicities in the real world. Some people have taken issue with the notion that these groups should have any mechanical impact at all. For example, The Shou are the group of people who live in Kara Tur and closely resemble Asian peoples. Now let's say you get some up some sort of Regional Feat system where people from Kara Tur (humans, elves, tabaxi, etc.) can choose feats that give them unarmed attacks, bonuses to diplomacy, or bonus to dealing with spirit-type creatures. You'd think that since they are optional and not tied to being Shou, it would okay (a non-Shou who group in Kara Tur could take them, and a Shou raised in Waterdeep cannot) but you're still giving the bulk of the people who live in Shou (since they are the majority of the people in Kara Tur) some pretty specific mechanical/cultural traits (good at martial arts, diplomatic/polite, knowledgeable about spirits). Thus, it's still possible such systems might appear as insensitive.

Can that needle be threaded? Maybe. I dunno, Smarter people than me will need to see if it's possible.

 

[Remathilis]

Not really. Most magic requires higher learning, a variety of spell components and special materials to write spellbooks. So even in that regard nomadic cultures have a disadvantage.

On the other hand, you have sorcerers, druids, nature priests, and other non-wizards that could even the score.

 

[NotAYakk]

In my next campaign (tm), there is a split between "people of the road and wall" and "people of the tree and sky" in much of the world.

The world is extremely dangerous. These two represent different survival strategies.

"Road and Wall" harness of the power of ley lines and nodes to ward settlements and transport routes against the dangers of the world. They hang horseshoes over doors, bury sacrifices in the cornerstone of building foundations, and have periodic shrines along roads you really, really should make offerings at.

"Road and Wall" is about using the rules of magic in this world to make a structure that allows relatively puny humanoids to survive. They are "lawful" on the alignment axis; the position of the crown is more important than the king who inhabits it to most.

"Tree and Sky" live in more direct symbiosis with local "primal" spirits. They form personal relationships with such spirits, and live in constant negotiation. The waxing and waning powers of their allied spirits lead to them picking up and moving location.

"Tree and Sky" isn't about rules, it is about relationships. They are "chaotic" on the alignment axis; the leader who is chief is more important than the position of chief to most.

High intensity agriculture is fueled by ley line junctions. So the people of the wall and road build small, walled settlements with intense, magically boosted agriculture surrounding them. Then long, thin connections along somewhat warded paths (the road) to other settlements.

Most of the world is occupied by people of the tree and sky, at a far lower density.

Now, this is the pattern of "Continent #1". The oceans, and Continent #2 and #3 differ a bit.

So, under this, Humans who are people of the "Wall and Road" vs Humans who are people of the "Tree and Sky" are going to be distinct (but non-monolithic) cultures.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Isn't it the 3 cultures.

The main culture
The breakaway culture
The dark culture

• Dwarf
  • Main- Mountain
  • Breakaway- Hill
  • Dark- Duergar
• Elf
  • Main- High
  • Breakaway- Wood
  • Dark- Drow
• Gnome
  • Main- Forest
  • Breakaway- Rock
  • Dark- Deep
• Halfling
  • Main- Lightfoot
  • Breakaway- Stout
  • Dark- Ghostwise
• Human
  • Main- Medieval/Feudal
  • Breakaway- Renaissance/Rebirth
  • Dark- Pre-Medieval/Barbaric/Dark
• Orc
  • Main- Warhammer Orc
  • Breakaway- Warcraft Orc
  • Dark- Tolkien Orc

Have you ever seen a setting with properly integrated hill dwarves which I still have no idea about beyond being similar to mountain dwarves?

halfling really have very little difference between the two players handbook options so I doubt the count.

there are no orc options listed only one.

 

[Faolyn]

Not really. Most magic requires higher learning, a variety of spell components and special materials to write spellbooks. So even in that regard nomadic cultures have a disadvantage.

Not so much. First off, wizardry is only one type of magic, and the only one to require spellbooks. None of the other spellcasters in the game (with the exception of eldritch knights and arcane tricksters, who both learn wizard magic) require spellbooks. So even if for some reason the nomadic society had no wizards, they'd still have bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks, plus all those magical barbarian, fighter, and rogue archetypes that aren't outright spellcasters.

Secondly, there's absolutely no reason why a spellbook has to take the form of a book. It could take the form of a set of inscribed runestones, quipu, strips of inscribed leather, beaded thongs, or anything else like that.

Thirdly, while many spells require costly components that can't be waved away with a focus or component pouch, most of those components aren't things that require a city to make. Some of them can be made through non-techy means. Materials or finished components they can't easily obtain they can buy or trade for from other people.

Looking at the list of spells that need costly components and there's a bunch they probably wouldn't need anyway (arcane lock, plane shift) and a whole bunch that just involve crushed or whole gemstones. Plus, those components are for PCs anyway (who are adventuring and thus going into places where they can obtain the components), and the DM can easily say that a nomadic-culture NPC uses different materials for their spells.

 

[Faolyn]

• Orc
  • Main- Warhammer Orc
  • Breakaway- Warcraft Orc
  • Dark- Tolkien Orc

I have absolutely no idea what the difference between those three are. Other than one has a space version that puts red stripes on things to make them go faster.

Probably it would be better to have warrior orcs (not necessarily violent raiders--could be mercenaries, or maybe they war amongst themselves more than with other people, or maybe they engage in mock battles) and non-warrior orcs who ranch or mine or whatever. Since Tolkien orcs were corrupted elves, the dark orcs should probably be the type that are basically possessed by Gruumsh into being the violent raiders.

 

[Scribe]

Not really. Most magic requires higher learning, a variety of spell components and special materials to write spellbooks. So even in that regard nomadic cultures have a disadvantage.

It doesnt have to though.

 

[Ixal]

Not so much. First off, wizardry is only one type of magic, and the only one to require spellbooks. None of the other spellcasters in the game (with the exception of eldritch knights and arcane tricksters, who both learn wizard magic) require spellbooks. So even if for some reason the nomadic society had no wizards, they'd still have bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks, plus all those magical barbarian, fighter, and rogue archetypes that aren't outright spellcasters.

Secondly, there's absolutely no reason why a spellbook has to take the form of a book. It could take the form of a set of inscribed runestones, quipu, strips of inscribed leather, beaded thongs, or anything else like that.

Thirdly, while many spells require costly components that can't be waved away with a focus or component pouch, most of those components aren't things that require a city to make. Some of them can be made through non-techy means. Materials or finished components they can't easily obtain they can buy or trade for from other people.

Looking at the list of spells that need costly components and there's a bunch they probably wouldn't need anyway (arcane lock, plane shift) and a whole bunch that just involve crushed or whole gemstones. Plus, those components are for PCs anyway (who are adventuring and thus going into places where they can obtain the components), and the DM can easily say that a nomadic-culture NPC uses different materials for their spells.

If you desperatly want to make nomadic cultures viable you can of course change everything in the setting that is also obtainable by them.