On Subraces...

[Remathilis]

Simple question: do you use subraces?

Longer question: for a long time in my D&D days (from 2e on to @ 3.5) I used and allowed subraces of PCs. I liked the idea of gray elves and stout halflings. Using 2e's Complete Books and 3e's MM/Savage Species, I kept with the tradition.

However, after Eberron came out (and suffering from Post-Realms subrace burnout) I didn't allow subraces in my game, except for some obvious ones (drow, duergar). I mostly ignored the rest.

But of recently, my thoughts have drifted back to them. How many people use sylvan elves, forest gnomes, or deep dwarves? More importantly, how many people allow PCs to PLAY them?

 

[Jack99]

Vote yes, but the correct answer would be "not yet, but planning to".

I am in the process of creating my own subraces (or rather variant races) using One Bad Eggs Hardboiled Cultures. As they discover them (it's pretty much an unknown world), more races will become available in case someone should die permanently.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I put, "Other" since well it depends and changes on setting and other things.

In general though for both Subraces and Races if there isn't some reasoning/commingling/history then they are on rocky ground with me. A subrace that has more connection with the rest of the world, etc. and doesn't just exist is on better ground then something that feels disconnecting from the rest of the setting.

In general, I think with my subraces besides for ones where it is thanks to extremely intense reasons for the differences. Such as the difference between Elves, Eladrin and Drow. I would probably allow some subraces but it be less actual physical differences and more you can choose to have specific feats like special training with a weapon, skill bonuses, etc.

As for allowing people to play them, well I guess my above statement sorta answered that, and that is a yes.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

I put, "Other" since well it depends and changes on setting and other things.

In general though for both Subraces and Races if there isn't some reasoning/commingling/history then they are on rocky ground with me. A subrace that has more connection with the rest of the world, etc. and doesn't just exist is on better ground then something that feels disconnecting from the rest of the setting.

In general, I think with my subraces besides for ones where it is thanks to extremely intense reasons for the differences. Such as the difference between Elves, Eladrin and Drow. I would probably allow some subraces but it be less actual physical differences and more you can choose to have specific feats like special training with a weapon, skill bonuses, etc.

As for allowing people to play them, well I guess my above statement sorta answered that, and that is a yes.

I like how the 4E Forgotten Realms book handled the subraces. Just racial feats, for the mechanics. We all know the appearances and cultures by now for the tried and true, and if anyone wants to designe their own campaign's subraces, it's easy to provide the fluff you want. You can even use the Realms feats if you want the simple Greyhawk/"Core" subraces, since most are analogous.

 

[Nymrohd]

I like how the 4E Forgotten Realms book handled the subraces. Just racial feats, for the mechanics. We all know the appearances and cultures by now for the tried and true, and if anyone wants to designe their own campaign's subraces, it's easy to provide the fluff you want. You can even use the Realms feats if you want the simple Greyhawk/"Core" subraces, since most are analogous.

Fully agree. A simple feat or two is all you need for a subrace. If some subrace is too complex, you could do a Dhampyr like bloodline. If I am running a campaign that uses them, then I'll use them as well. And since I am planning to bring my homeworld back at some point I may well have to create a couple of feats for my own subraces as well. They are not bad as long as they are not abused (and sure FR has a tons of subraces, but it has the lore to support every single one of them).

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Edit: strange partial double-post glitch..

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Fully agree. A simple feat or two is all you need for a subrace. If some subrace is too complex, you could do a Dhampyr like bloodline. If I am running a campaign that uses them, then I'll use them as well. And since I am planning to bring my homeworld back at some point I may well have to create a couple of feats for my own subraces as well. They are not bad as long as they are not abused (and sure FR has a tons of subraces, but it has the lore to support every single one of them).

Man I felt let down with those Dhampyr feats.. That was briefly exciting to see and then nope. But that's a whole different topic.

Back closer to the topic, I know I'm in the minority on this, but I also think half-races should be handled with feats, not as full racial write-ups, just like subraces.

 

[Nymrohd]

I'd say yes to this, but in 3.5 they changed half-elves quite a lot, and Eberron took them and gave purpose to the new stats. So I cannot see them sharing too many stats with either elves or humans without ruining it for my favourite characters from house Lyrandar.

 

[Wormwood]

I like how the 4E Forgotten Realms book handled the subraces. Just racial feats, for the mechanics.

Yep---my favorite surprise in that book.

I don't really consider Drow to be a sub-race anyway---they're differentiated enough for warrant their own write-up. But sun elves and gold dwarves? Just pick the feat and you're good to go.

 

[drothgery]

Only if there's a very compelling reason why a race has to have different stats. I think 4e's level of subraces -- elves are elves, eladrin, or drow, and that's it -- is about right.