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

[steeldragons]

I think the reason for Elves subraces is the long argument about magic & noble elves vs nature elves. In 4e they even split them into different races, but apparently it was too much.

Then perhaps Dwarves and Halflings got their 2 subraces as well mostly as a consequence.

I would imagine so. The ole "What's good for the goose is good for the gander (but only when we say so)" a.k.a. "everything must be Balanced!" shenanigans. "If his elf gets to choose this, why doesn't my dwarf?! It's suboptimal! I don't get the same choices!"

So, yeah. Like I think several of us have been saying, the basic game should introduce the easy/simple Human, Elf, Dwarf, etc. etc... defaults. Then the "standard" game can say your default human is this one, your default elf is this one (High), your default dwarf is this one (Hill), etc... and offer, I suppose in the DMG, "as an option for more granularity/diversity choose A or B elf, C or D halfling..." and, as we've been saying, no reason there shouldn't then be "X or Y humans" to select as well.

Then, I suppose the advanced game can say "Here's 12 kinds of humans, 11 sorts of elves, 10 half-breeds, 9 goblinoids, 8 lizardfolk, 7 planar gits, 6 tauran hoofed-ones...FIIIIIIVE GOLDEN DWARVES...4 Dragonborn, 3 Half-lings, thirty-twooo gnomes, and a parTRIIDge in a pear tree."

 

[tsadkiel]

I think the reason for Elves subraces is the long argument about magic & noble elves vs nature elves. In 4e they even split them into different races, but apparently it was too much.

Then perhaps Dwarves and Halflings got their 2 subraces as well mostly as a consequence.

The halfling subraces are split between TSR halflings and WotC halflings - hobbits and nomadic merry scoundrels, basically. Makes at least as much sense as the elf split.

Dwarves - well, we've always had hill and mountain dwarves, and this is the first time there's been any real difference between them. In my games, I'm drawing influence from the Discworld books - the hill dwarves are the ones who have integrated somewhat with outside society, while the mountain dwarves follow the Old Ways.

 

[Li Shenron]

The halfling subraces are split between TSR halflings and WotC halflings - hobbits and nomadic merry scoundrels, basically. Makes at least as much sense as the elf split.

Good point, although the difference is not that large. Basically one subrace is a bit more stealthy & charismatic, the second is a bit more resilient. Actually for all races, overall something like 2/3 or even more of the racial benefits come from the race, and the rest from subrace.

Eventually, if only WotC would get more flexible with the human race, and grant it a series of options* instead of +1 to all scores, then at least it would set a much better basis for creating human subraces for you own homebrew settings.

* for instance a generalization of the current case like this: "choose a combination of 6 proficiencies or +1 ability score increases (the latter must be all to different stats), and optionally trade 2 of these for a bonus feat". Then it's a piece of cake for a homebrew setting to have fixed sets for each human subrace instead of free choice.

 

[Agamon]

No. Since the dawn of D&D, humans have been given special snowflake status to represent their versatility and highlight that, while the other races are stereotypes, humans are free to be who they want to be.

In oD&D, humans had different classes to choose from, the other races were stuck with one.

In AD&D, they could could be any class, had no level limits and could duel class.

In 3e and 4e, they got an extra feat and extra skills and could pick their attribute bonus, and in 3e they could freely multiclass.

So nothing new keeping them more open to interpretation to allow for the versatility. Maybe in the published campaign settings you could pick a culture that replaces the sub-race idea.