D&D 5E So How Many Different Kinds of Elves Can There Be? A Thread on Subraces

[Mistwell]

The differences were strictly cultural. One group lived in cities but went back to the forest. That might not even be enough to count as a cultural group (but they're effectively a different country), and that's certainly not enough to be a subrace.

Why is it that a cultural difference is not enough to justify a subrace in D&D?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Why is it that a cultural difference is not enough to justify a subrace in D&D?

I think it boils down to this: should culture result in mechanical differences, like different ability score bonuses? If yes, sub-race. If no, no sub-race.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why is it that a cultural difference is not enough to justify a subrace in D&D?

Cultural groups among humans aren't enough to justify a subrace in D&D.

 

[variant]

This was actually done in the FR, with regional human feats in FRCS. Humans from Lantan could take a feat that gave them cantrips, because it was a really "magical" area. Humans from certain areas could take a feat that gave resistance to disease (those areas had been hit by a plague), and maybe from one area could take a feat to give resistance to cold environmental conditions. (That's even weaker than resist cold 5 though, so I wonder if anyone ever took those feats.) Alternatively, D&DN-style backgrounds could cover this sort of thing. A "woodsman" background doesn't sound very urban. A "city rat" background doesn't sound very rural. But most PCs are likely to take backgrounds like "soldier", "noble" or "scholar" instead. These have their own implications. (Nobles are pretty much both urban and rural, having country estates and spending time in their local capital.)

I don't think background feats then or even backgrounds now can cover it. Racial bonuses are advantages and abilities that is a inherent of the people he comes from, not what the individual has done with his life. He could be descendant of a people that have lived in a magical area for thousands of years and be a woodsman, noble, or scholar.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't think background feats then or even backgrounds now can cover it. Racial bonuses are advantages and abilities that is a inherent of the people he comes from, not what the individual has done with his life. He could be descendant of a people that have lived in a magical area for thousands of years and be a woodsman, noble, or scholar.

I don't think that's enough to have a subrace. Otherwise it can get ridiculous. You can be a halfling who has lived in a city on a cliff over a magical swamp, modified by shadow, transmutation and water magic, and are descended from a tribe of civilized magic-resistant halflings who survived a series of plagues. Making a subrace for that is ridiculous. Making a subrace for each of those things is also ridiculous. (Such halflings actually exist on Athas, everything up till after the word "civilized" anyway.)

 

[variant]

I don't think that's enough to have a subrace. Otherwise it can get ridiculous. You can be a halfling who has lived in a city on a cliff over a magical swamp, modified by shadow, transmutation and water magic, and are descended from a tribe of civilized magic-resistant halflings who survived a series of plagues. Making a subrace for that is ridiculous. Making a subrace for each of those things is also ridiculous. (Such halflings actually exist on Athas, everything up till after the word "civilized" anyway.)

You say it is ridiculous, but you never say why it is ridiculous.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You say it is ridiculous, but you never say why it is ridiculous.

Some things should be obvious.

 

[Mistwell]

Cultural groups among humans aren't enough to justify a subrace in D&D.

Why not, and why "among humans"?

We've established prior editions had sub-races based on purely cultural differences. We've also established there is demand for some sub-races based on cultural differences. And we've established rules are capable of handling such sub-races without problems. So why not?

And "it's obvious" isn't an answer. It's not obvious. I am not understanding your objection, because you're not explaining your objection. You're just objecting.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't think that's enough to have a subrace. Otherwise it can get ridiculous. You can be a halfling who has lived in a city on a cliff over a magical swamp, modified by shadow, transmutation and water magic, and are descended from a tribe of civilized magic-resistant halflings who survived a series of plagues. Making a subrace for that is ridiculous. Making a subrace for each of those things is also ridiculous. (Such halflings actually exist on Athas, everything up till after the word "civilized" anyway.)

I assume you mean the rhul-thaun, which are a race of halflings distinct from the normal Athasian halfling, and occasionally manifest "major mutations" as an effect of their proximity to the swamp? I'm not sure what you're arguing here; rhul-thaun are a subrace different from Athasian halflings (as well as "normal" halflings), and they are actually so variant that some individuals are functionally their own subraces.

 

[Nellisir]

One thing I like about keeping background (societal role) and subraces distinct the potential to combine them. If background = subrace, then you can have an elven noble, or a wood elf, but not a wood elf noble. Dwarves can be mountain dwarves, or hill dwarves, or dwarf artisans, but not mountain dwarf artisans. In general, actually, three levels of complexity seems to work for me. Race - subrace - background = Class -subclass - path/style/circle/tradition/oath