D&D 5E Human Subraces

[Daag]

There shouldn't be any subraces, only cultural identities. I never really understood why all elves can use bows and longswords, all dwarves can use hammer and maces, all halfling can use slings. To me, that's more of a cultural aspect of upbringing.

What about a human brought up by dwarves? Why can't they use axes and hammers if they want to be a cleric of moradin? To me, you should be able to make those parts of the racial traits into cultural traits. So hill dwarves can use all hammers and axes, and a human who was raised by hill dwarves can use all hammers and axes.

So I would give humans +1 to two different stats, and the ability to choose a cultural trait.

As an aside, giving humans a bonus background or specialty wouldn't be a good default rule because that makes those rules elements necessary to run a game with humans. So if someone didn't want to use specialties and backgrounds, it would be harder to take out because humans needs them as part of their rules.

 

[Vael]

To be blunt, when 4e said that subraces were gone, I was quite happy. Seeing it poke its head out as 4e developed was not something I like. I want subraces to DIAF.

 

[GreyICE]

I still say that humans should have a sizable list of racial traits that they choose from. Cultures, then, can be described as preferring particular traits.

This.

Subraces of humans gets into certain real world issues that can best be defined as "marketing nightmares."

It's already bad enough that the good elves all have white skin and live above ground (y'know, where there's sun and stuff) and the bad elves all have black skin and live underground (where, y'know, there's no good reason to have dark skin because it doesn't protect you from the sun). D&D has had to live with that particular little piece of genius for 20 years (I think some of the way they push Drizzt so hard is because he takes the drow away from being 'designated bad guys... all with black skin').

We do not want to open that can of worms. Do it with backgrounds, do it with feats, do it with optional cultural bonuses, but do not do it with 'subraces.' Goes south very quick.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think there could be room for human sub-races. Not ones based on culture, but sub-races based on strains of humanity touched by magic or the gods, etc.

The Numenorean / Dunedain people in Lord of the Rings would be the perfect example. They are clearly human, but they were granted by the Valar a much longer lifespan than ordinary humans as well as greater physical and spiritual capabilities.

 

[Jester David]

Ah, so you replace racism with classism. "You see, the reason we live in cities and you live in the backwoods is because we're better suited to it than you. See, you're SUPPOSED to be poor dirt farmers. And we're SUPPOSED to be urban elites. It's in our natures!"

Only if it's genetic and hereditary. Depending on how it's written, human subraces could be implied to be based on where the person was raised. So a human from a long line of barbarian tribes might still qualify as an "urbanite" human. And it'd be a good idea to have people on the borderlands, the rural farms that aren't quite wilds, be able to pick "wildling" or "urbanite".
And it's not about which is better, as neither is (or, rather, they're better at different things). One side might very well say: "The reason we live in cities and you live in the backwoods is because we're better suited to it than you!" And the other side would reply "No the reason you can't live in the woods is because you're too soft. You need stone walls and cleared plains to feel safe."
As someone who has a whole lot of relatives out in the farms of Saskatchewan, there is a very dismissive attitude towards "cityfolk".

Any way you slice it, dividing the human race into "subraces" is potentially vastly problematic. Because unlike any of our fantastic species of never-existing human-esque critters, humans actually exist, and any division you put on them in the game is going to be interpreted (even unfairly) as something the designers believe about humanity to some degree.

All people do is divide themselves. Westerner or Easterner. Canadian or America. East Coast or West. North or South. Republican or Democrat. Star Trek or Star Wars. Mac or PC. Christian or Catholic. Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America or Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America. 3e or 4e.

It's all we do.

You can say "dwarves are stout," and sure, what with their Con bonus, you can see that. You shouldn't be able to say the same thing about humans. Even a category of humans. The fantasy archetype of humanity is variety, possibility, potentiality, and flexibility.

Except you can... every human is as tough as as dwarf, gaining the same bonus to Con.

Will people get offended? Yes. But as demonstrated by this thread, many people don't even want any culture in races. And even the implication dwarves are stouter or elves are more agile is seen as this suggestion that they're being forced into certain roles, that they're only good at certain things and not others. I think many people would be happy if race was just a cosmetic thing. Which is pushing the silly end of the PC spectrum.

 

[Jester David]

Adding an environmental background is a better idea (Barbarian, Cosmopolitan, Country, desert, mountain, etc)

Which would mean that you could have a desert mountain dwarf and a mountain wood elf. And it would mean giving up actual background of a knight or bounty hunter or thief just to clarify that you're from the deserts.

Unless there was a separate "region of origin" only for humans. Which would be almost exactly what I was proposing only with a different name.
Is changing "subrace" for humans to "region" all it would take to make this okay?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Only if it's genetic and hereditary. Depending on how it's written, human subraces could be implied to be based on where the person was raised.

Dude, it's called a "subrace." The word specifies a genetic, hereditary component, simply by the word. And it mechanically includes things like ability score adjustments and special abilities that are inherently part of your character. AND, it works against the archetype of humans as uniquely versatile. Your origin as a country bumpkin would be welded into your character from birth. Not cool.

And it's not about which is better, as neither is (or, rather, they're better at different things). One side might very well say: "The reason we live in cities and you live in the backwoods is because we're better suited to it than you!" And the other side would reply "No the reason you can't live in the woods is because you're too soft. You need stone walls and cleared plains to feel safe."

I'll take missing the point for 900, Alex.

The idea isn't that it's wrong because one is better than the other. It is wrong because it narrowly defines people. It stereotypes people. Human beings. Which is BAD, even if you're intending it to limit to only imaginary gumdrop magic land and people who never actually existed or could ever exist in a game that only some dorks on the internet play.

It doesn't really matter what in-world explanation you use. The unfortunate Implications would be there either way. You can't avoid them. You call a game mechanic a "sub-race" and you divide humans according to it, you have a corporate entity in WotC saying, "Oh, isn't it fun to pretend that all humans are inherently dividable into little camps based on their level of wealth?"

It's not cool. It's a bit genre-appropriate, but (and I'm sure this won't come as a shock to anyone) this genre can be insanely bigoted. D&D does not need to truck in that as a matter of default gameplay. And WotC would be well advised to steer entirely clear of it themselves.

Except you can... every human is as tough as as dwarf, gaining the same bonus to Con.

Right, but we're not saying a CERTAIN KIND OF PERSON is a given way.

Will people get offended? Yes. But as demonstrated by this thread, many people don't even want any culture in races. And even the implication dwarves are stouter or elves are more agile is seen as this suggestion that they're being forced into certain roles, that they're only good at certain things and not others. I think many people would be happy if race was just a cosmetic thing. Which is pushing the silly end of the PC spectrum.

It's not really a slippery slope kind of thing.

Sub-races are inappropriate for humans.

We can still make up all the imaginary fart sprites we want and define them as however smelly we want to define them as, because they are imaginary and so whatever.

Not so for humans. "Rural" and "Urban" humans actually exist. And they are not defined by what they are.

The only little wiggle room I can see here is if D&D wanted to delve into things like Neandertals or possibly with fantasic human mutants, in which case we fall into imaginary fart sprite territory again and get to define them however we want. But normal humans should not have "sub-races," because normal humans in the real world do not have "sub-races." We have differences, we have culture, we have divisions, we have wars, but we are all human beings in the end, and D&D needs to reflect that.

 

[Jester David]

It doesn't really matter what in-world explanation you use. The unfortunate Implications would be there either way. You can't avoid them. You call a game mechanic a "sub-race" and you divide humans according to it, you have a corporate entity in WotC saying, "Oh, isn't it fun to pretend that all humans are inherently dividable into little camps based on their level of wealth?"

No one mentioned wealth but you. The "king of the north" might still be "ruralite" while a poor guttersnipe would be an "urbanite".
The only implication is that people living off the land, who need to cut lumber, haul water, till crops, and work to survive might, just might, be more physically fit on average than those in a city who rely on other skills.


As I said elsewhere, we can dump the "subrace" terms for humans and call it "origins" or "region" or "heritage".

The intent is more to make humans more mechanically interesting, to make the stat boosts of the other races more appealing, and to make humans as diverse as all the flavour says they are.
Eventually WotC will want alternate humans in the game, be it from the shadow plane or the like. And it would be nice if there was an easy mechanical way to swap out human racial traits.

 

[GreyICE]

No. WotC will never want alternate humans in the game. You notice EVERY TIME they introduce something that might be an alternate human they make sure to make them a brand new race, just to avoid the unfortunate implications.

Origin and history both work, but subraces and humans are never happening. Ever.

 

[Kavon]

I don't get 5e's superman "everything you can do I can do better" take on humans: +1 to all stats, and +2 to one of your choice. However, I don't think sub-races is a wise move. Instead, if I was going for humans as the most adaptable race I might do something like:

+1 to a stat of your choice
A bonus background of your choice
A bonus feat from a specialty or talent from a class

While I agree that the +1 to all stats for humans is not what they should have (the implication being that other races are below average in all areas - but one - when considering ability scores), backgrounds and feats/specialty stuff is optional, so should not be included.

How about taking away the straight +1 to ability scores across the board, make it so that humans get +1 to ability checks instead (in combination with the +1 to any one ability score)?
This might not be quite good enough compared to other races, though, so they might need something else?


As far as the topic: I think it might not be a very good idea (or really necesarry). The whole 'ruralite' and 'urbanite' stuff is basically what backgrounds are for, right?

 

[Shadeydm]

Setting specific human subraces can be really cool (suel etc.) but human subraces in the PHB just sounds like a terrible idea imho.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No one mentioned wealth but you. The "king of the north" might still be "ruralite" while a poor guttersnipe would be an "urbanite".
The only implication is that people living off the land, who need to cut lumber, haul water, till crops, and work to survive might, just might, be more physically fit on average than those in a city who rely on other skills.

First, a division by civilizational complexity is inherently a division by wealth. Relative wealth within that category may be different, but measured as an economic trend, complexity yields more extracted value.

In other words, even the Grand High Poohbah of Dirt Farmers is still selling his crops upriver for that guttersnipe to buy (or steal) FROM him, in the hopes that some of that centralized wealth the guttersnipe has access to (or can steal) comes back to him. Cities can't exist without rural populations, and rural populations are thus economically lower on the foodchain than anyone in a city (even a guttersnipe). The flow of capital is up the chain there.

Second, it's not true that country folks are necessarily more fit on average than city folks. It's a stereotype. The game doesn't need to support that stereotype.

As I said elsewhere, we can dump the "subrace" terms for humans and call it "origins" or "region" or "heritage".

....or "Background"....?

The intent is more to make humans more mechanically interesting, to make the stat boosts of the other races more appealing, and to make humans as diverse as all the flavour says they are.
Eventually WotC will want alternate humans in the game, be it from the shadow plane or the like. And it would be nice if there was an easy mechanical way to swap out human racial traits.

Sure. And when they do, perhaps subraces will be something the game can explore, when they are fully and obviously ensconced in make-believe magic land where people can create darkness because someone in their family once got herpes from a osyluth and where neandertals can walk among us as caveman stereotypes since that has nothing to do with actual people.

But lets steer away from the "Oh! The Laboring Class is naturally suited to doing Labor in the fields! And it is only right and just for those born to the Manager Class to direct them! It is their Natural Talent!" kind of implications. I get that fantasy is stepped in those implications already, and maybe individual games will be, but I don't think they need to be enshrined in the basic rules of the game.

Backgrounds? Sure. That's just character history.

Subraces? Nope. That's what your character is. And humans -- especially in a fantasy setting -- are the ones who can be anything. They are not defined by what they are. They have the ability to shape their own fate. So it shouldn't matter where they're from. You can be born to a dyanstic legacy of rulers and administrators and still be a better ranch-hand than you are a lord. You can be born in a barn with the cows and you can still be a better king than you ever will be a farmer.

 

[gweinel]

Subraces? Nope. That's what your character is. And humans -- especially in a fantasy setting -- are the ones who can be anything. They are not defined by what they are. They have the ability to shape their own fate. So it shouldn't matter where they're from. You can be born to a dyanstic legacy of rulers and administrators and still be a better ranch-hand than you are a lord. You can be born in a barn with the cows and you can still be a better king than you ever will be a farmer.

Ι can't give you experience point but you convinced me.

What i had in mind when i wanted different human cultures to be expressed mechanically was not to separate, to make claims that one is better than another or to make stereotypes. I wanted exactly the opposite. The thing that i had in mind was to enrich through differentiation.

As it stands now the human racial ability is blatant and homogenize the humans. It is exactly the opposite from the versality that the designers advocates. From the playtest:

Humans are the most adaptable, flexible, and ambitious people among the common races. They have widely varying tastes, morals, customs, and
habits.

 

[Jester David]

....or "Background"....?

Again, Backgrounds don't work as well since they have to apply to all races equally, and the other races already have some culture built in. And because Backgrounds have the feel of "professions" or "secondary skills" more than 4e Backgrouds. They're larger thn just "where you grew up".

 

[gyor]

As long as one stays away from real world races, Black, White, Yellow, Red, Pigmies for example and kept it to fantastic subraces that have existed in previous editions it will be fine.

Subraces of human like Neanderal, Alantean (the aquatic race of human), that evil human race from Book of Vile darkness don't remember thier name, Deep Imaskari for example.

Races that are branches of humanity, but not so far removed as to be a seperate species.

 

[GreyICE]

As long as one stays away from real world races, Black, White, Yellow, Red, Pigmies for example and kept it to fantastic subraces that have existed in previous editions it will be fine.

Subraces of human like Neanderal, Alantean (the aquatic race of human), that evil human race from Book of Vile darkness don't remember thier name, Deep Imaskari for example.

Races that are branches of humanity, but not so far removed as to be a seperate species.

Then don't call them humans. Here, I've invented a name. "Demi-humans." This handles all the fantastic races under a nice label, and keeps away from the term "subrace" being applied to humanity.

My god man, they took MASS EFFECT and said it was a RAPE SIMULATOR. We live in the age of irresponsible reporting, you CANNOT publish something like subraces for humanity even if it somehow AVOIDS being racist (which it has like an 0.01% chance of doing). Remember when they brought back the -1 Strength for women thing as a joke in one of the polls and their forums nearly exploded and melted down from the angry voices? That was a bad joke on an internet poll and they had to issue a formal apology.

WotC cannot afford to do subraces of humanity and will never ever do so. The ages of people sending letters to Dragon Magazine explaining how women aren't as suited to be adventurers and thus deserve stat penalties and ACTUALLY GETTING THEM PUBLISHED are dead and gone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again, Backgrounds don't work as well since they have to apply to all races equally, and the other races already have some culture built in. And because Backgrounds have the feel of "professions" or "secondary skills" more than 4e Backgrouds. They're larger thn just "where you grew up".

I don't think humans have a monopoly on being "urban" or "rural." I see no reason a dwarf can't be a socialite and a halfling can't be a farmer. I also don't see why those things can't be represented in a Background ability -- the format certainly can support it.

As it stands now the human racial ability is blatant and homogenize the humans. It is exactly the opposite from the versality that the designers advocates. From the playtest:

I'd generally agree that human racial abilities are a little lackluster. In fact, I'd say the same about most of the racial abilities -- they aren't quite defining enough. Could use some work. I don't think "subraces" are a solution, but I'm on board with the need for something a little different.

Personally, for humans, I'd play up their versatility and their adaptability and their ability to shape their own fate by maybe giving them a +1d6 they can add to a given d20 roll in a day, in addition to some other stuff (like +1 to an ability score of their choice). Maybe a bonus for doing things they don't otherwise receive a bonus on (penalty-negating?). Or something similar. Something active, anyway. Racial abilities should be something that get actively chosen during play, IMO, if race is to be something that "matters."

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd absolutely welcome D&D adapting the four 'Cultures' of Runequest for the Human Race.

Barbarian
Civilised
Nomad
Savage

Possibly change their names, or whatever, but bringing in a bit of cultural interest into the Human characters is more important in making them cool to play than just giving bland, universal bonuses to stats.

 

[Bluenose]

Again, Backgrounds don't work as well since they have to apply to all races equally, and the other races already have some culture built in. And because Backgrounds have the feel of "professions" or "secondary skills" more than 4e Backgrouds. They're larger thn just "where you grew up".

No, I don't think it has to work like that. Sure, your background might be "Noble". But what a noble does will vary from culture to culture, race to race. An Elf Noble shouldn't be the same as a Dwarf Noble, nor should they be the same as a human Noble from a nomadic culture.

 

[Fazza]

I agree with those that said there shouldn't be subraces. I also think +1 to everything with an extra +1 to anything if very powerful, in a one shot I ran all 3 players chose human(dual wielding fighter, warlock and sorcerer) one I know took it because he had mostly odd stats so it evened him out, this player likes the way humans are set up, I personally can't stand it. But I'd like to see more suggestions of what could be offered as an alternative.

I know they are looking at simplicity and modularity so extra feats and skills are a no go here. I think a flexible +1 achieves the diversity the race is meant to represent and keeps ability scores for playable races level(everyone gets a +1 somewhere). Coming from 4e one of the things I always remember about humans was the Ardoit Explorer paragon path, which basically gave you more uses and more flexible uses for your action points(for those who don't know you could spend these to take extra actions in a turn EDIT: Actually I was wrong about this it may be a feat that let you use them multiple times in an encounter) so I would like to see essentially an action point mechanic just for humans but just 2 a day(no milestone tracking), halflings already have a similar trait to this in lucky and the fighter in the original playtest package had exactly this so I don't think 2 extra actions a day for humans throws things off too much.

Also the old classic is +1 to saves, is this a good representation or just sticking to old ideas that didn't work? I didn't play 3.x but I liked the boost to defenses in 4e

I'm a bit stumped on what traits they could have that don't relate directly to combat(like dwarves' stonecunning and elves' keen senses)