D&D 5E Should Humans get subraces in 5e?

[steeldragons]

shouldn't those just fall under backgrounds?

Probably should...But "Dwarf: Mountain or Hill?" and "Elf: High or Wood?" aren't...so why the humans?

 

[Li Shenron]

Two human sub-races means two baselines, which defeats the purpose.

That's the reason behind point 2).

What I had in mind is that Human subclasses would be derived from the current, iper-generic Human race, by substitution of some of the stat bonuses with alternative features (e.g. instead of total +6, the Seafarers Humans might get total +3 plus a couple of unique benefits). The generic Human race may or may not be there alongside the subraces.

However note that "baseline" is something that would need some explanation... certainly the 5e Humans are not exactly a baseline when it comes to ability scores. If you just mean "balanced against", all races should be balanced with each other at the end, it's not that we specifically need one of them to be more of a balance example than the others. And once again, the 3e Human I could still see as being used as a paragon for designing other races, but the 5e Human is not very good for that.

 

[steeldragons]

But for the base game, nah. I don't think its necessary.

Well, yeah. For the "basic" game, I would not expect to see subraces for anyone. No problem there.

But if they're going in the "full/standard" PHB for the other species, then I see no reason not to have them as options/optional/if you wanna differentiate your humans more here's some ideas how in the PHB for humans too.

But then, as you note, I have been differentiating human cultures/nations in my own setting for a long time. So, perhaps it is best left to setting-specific material...but I would then argue, so should the non-human options.

 

[Li Shenron]

shouldn't those just fall under backgrounds?

The problem is that background is an individual's concept. There is still a lot of misconception about what a 5e background represents, but the designers have been very clear many times: it is not about your culture but it is about your profession or role in society, or in other words they are about "who are you, when you are not adventuring" (or in slightly different terms "who were you, before taking up adventuring" - this to take into account that some groups play the game without downtime thus once you take up your class it's only adventures).

Thus "Barbarian" or "Asian" are not suitable concepts for 5e backgrounds, despite the constant attempts by a lot of people to spread the misconception. Just take a look at the current backgrounds, and notice how each and every one of them simply represents "what do you do for a living", not what kind of culture or society you grew up but what kind of role you had(have) within that culture or society (even if some "roles" are despicable or even illegal).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If you stress the natural/genetic interpretation of stat differences, then I understand why you don't want to see them among Human subraces. But then, this is the reason why I mentioned the option of writing Human subraces that don't have stat differences.

You could do that for humans and the other races, but if you do don't call them "sub-races". Just highlight them as different cultural variations that could provide material for different character backgrounds.

I could certainly see a paragraph or two under each race that describes different cultural variations as examples. The halfling nomads of the steppes live in wandering tent cities pulled by herds of ponies while the halflings of the Five Shires live in small pastoral communities built on farming. The Nords of the far north realms are human kingdoms founded on sea trade, fishing, and raiding, while the Bergen culture of central Thayatis are mountain tribes who subsist on herding and animal husbandry and spend the summers in high altitude pastures and migrate to the lowlands for the winters.

But since cultural variations are going to be very campaign-world specific, there should not be a "standard" built into the game. Provide a few examples that fit a "default" campaign assumption, and give players an idea of what their options might be? Sure. Expect that those cultures are the same for every campaign setting? No.

Save race (or sub-race, if you must go there) for distinct mechanical variations that should be expected to be common to most campaign settings. Yes, species is a better term but I think we're stuck with race for continuity of terms.

 

[howandwhy99]

There used to be Caveman and Neanderthal. Those might fit?

 

[Li Shenron]

But since cultural variations are going to be very campaign-world specific, there should not be a "standard" built into the game. Provide a few examples that fit a "default" campaign assumption, and give players an idea of what their options might be? Sure. Expect that those cultures are the same for every campaign setting? No.

Maybe it's best to leave them for campaign settings, as you say. I did have in mind quite "generic" subraces tho, so as not to get too much into the specifics.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I could see human subraces appear in campaign setting for exemple in Greyhawk we could get different subraces for;

Oeridian
Flan
Baklunish
Suloise
Olman
Rhennee

 

[jrowland]

Short answer: No

Long answer: I think there is a need for a choice free, option light, race, and human is it. Adding subraces for humans would be great in my home campaign, and I'll likely do something (along the lines numenorean, dunedain, haradrim, etc in Tolkien's). I did notice that backgrounds are more "Occupational" backgrounds rather than cultural. I think there is space for a cultural background, but I don't know how you would present it. Its something I would like added. My gut tells me they should be something more tied the pillars of exploration and roleplaying (bonds, flaws, etc). Perhaps an additional trait, remove skill proficiency from backgrounds and and make tool proficiency sit in backgrounds and skill proficiencies sit in culture, and some bond/flaw stuff. In any event, I'd like culture to available to all races. Cultrures such as Savage, Civilized, Seafaring, Rural, and perhaps Desert, Mountain, Plains, etc are all things you could bolt onto any race.

Imagine a Desert (Culture) Sun (Sub-race) Elf (race) Artisan (background)...a bit wieldy for basic, but nice for those that want it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Long answer: I think there is a need for a choice free, option light, race, and human is it.

I have to say I hate this particular idea with a passion. For way too long time D&D has lived under the assumption that it was ok to have a simpler class, so that if you want a simple game you play a Fighter, and if you want a more complicated game you play a Wizard. Except that most people want to play a Fighter because they want to fight, and a Wizard because they want to cast spells, and complexity is a separate preference. It took about 34 years for the designers to figure it out. Human as "the light race" is the same mistake. Do we need 34 more years?

Let people choose the Race based on narrative preferences and tactical preferences, not because one is easier to play!

Actually, I agree with you that it would be nice to have an "easy race" option, but not in those terms. Rather, design a Human race that is interesting on its own, and then use the current Human race as "easy option" for every race (it's actually pretty simple: instead of choosing a Race mechanically, you choose the +1 to all stats and then you're free to call yourself a human, elf, dwarf or whatever you want).