Human Subraces

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
In the playtest package humans are the only race without a "subrace" despite being the most diverse and adaptive race. And, because they're less of a "hook" for the race and racial powers humans get very blank bonuses.

What about changing that? Say, taking a page from Dragonlance and having "civilized" or "barbarian" humans. Give one a bonus to mental skills and the other a bonus to physical skills. Add new powers accordingly, such as hardiness or wilderness survival powers for one and others suggesting intelligence and decadence. 

The names are flexible. "Urban" and "nomadic" would work. As would "urbane / erudite" and "wild / rural". 

It instantly adds some distinction to humans. The suggestion of story and world building. Humans aren't all identicalThere are the savage Cimmeria and the softer south folk. There are the Northfolk and the southern people beyond the wall. The hardy barbarian tribes of the traders from Ten-Towns. There are the rough Germanic folk or the culture Romans. 

Thoughts?
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

In the playtest package humans are the only race without a "subrace" despite being the most diverse and adaptive race. And, because they're less of a "hook" for the race and racial powers humans get very blank bonuses.

What about changing that? Say, taking a page from Dragonlance and having "civilized" or "barbarian" humans. Give one a bonus to mental skills and the other a bonus to physical skills. Add new powers accordingly, such as hardiness or wilderness survival powers for one and others suggesting intelligence and decadence. 

The names are flexible. "Urban" and "nomadic" would work. As would "urbane / erudite" and "wild / rural". 

It instantly adds some distinction to humans. The suggestion of story and world building. Humans aren't all identicalThere are the savage Cimmeria and the softer south folk. There are the Northfolk and the southern people beyond the wall. The hardy barbarian tribes of the traders from Ten-Towns. There are the rough Germanic folk or the culture Romans. 

Thoughts?



Are these racaial distinctions with actually mechanical differences - or are these cultural differences in skills and flavor - and thus better handled through backgrounds.

Carl
In the playtest package humans are the only race without a "subrace" despite being the most diverse and adaptive race. And, because they're less of a "hook" for the race and racial powers humans get very blank bonuses.

What about changing that? Say, taking a page from Dragonlance and having "civilized" or "barbarian" humans. Give one a bonus to mental skills and the other a bonus to physical skills. Add new powers accordingly, such as hardiness or wilderness survival powers for one and others suggesting intelligence and decadence. 

The names are flexible. "Urban" and "nomadic" would work. As would "urbane / erudite" and "wild / rural". 

It instantly adds some distinction to humans. The suggestion of story and world building. Humans aren't all identicalThere are the savage Cimmeria and the softer south folk. There are the Northfolk and the southern people beyond the wall. The hardy barbarian tribes of the traders from Ten-Towns. There are the rough Germanic folk or the culture Romans. 

Thoughts?



Are these racaial distinctions with actually mechanical differences - or are these cultural differences in skills and flavor - and thus better handled through backgrounds.

Carl


It can go either way.
Halfling subspecies seem very different but dwarves and elves are all cultural and where they grew up. Why are humans different? 

Backgrounds are also bigger now than "raised in the desert", less of just origins and more professions.
Plus, backgrounds don't touch stats and you'd expect barbarian tribes and wildlings to be a little sturdier than city folk. And it makes nomadic wizards and the like inherently more rare and interesting. It's not necessarily unoptimal but less easily made. 

And, more importantly, it's a story hook to hang mechanics onto beyond "+1 to all stats". 
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

There are not subraces of Human...there is restricted genetic difference caused by inbreeding. 

That out of the way you might want to roll 12d6 inches + 2 feet which will give you a height range of 3'-8' for humans. The Ansu Scale is the degree of deamonization, mistreatment and bigotry experienced by those who are  different from the acceptable norm. To determine where you are roll for the Average height of your community and roll for your height - the further you are from the acceptable average (taller or shorter) results in a parabolic shift in the way you are regarded by your fellow humans. The shorter are more likely to be hated and bullied while the very tall are feared. Its why we have legends of dwarves and giants. These were the outcasts of our own race.






Human Height: roll 12d6 inches + 2 feet
 
The Citadel Megadungeon: http://yellowdingosappendix.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-citadel-mega-dungeon-now-with-room.html
Desert Humans
Forest Humans
Islands Humans
Mountain Humans
Plains Humans
Swamp Humans

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

There are not subraces of Human...there is restricted genetic difference caused by inbreeding. 


Completely and indisputably true in the real world.

In a fantasy world?

Why would humans be different from the other races.  If there are subraces of dwarves and elves - why wouldn't there be subraces of humans? 

Or do you argue that there are no subraces, period.

Carl

Elves had aquatic elves, Silvanesti, Qualinesti, Kagonesti, Dark Elves, Gray Elves, High Elves, Avariel (Winged Elves) and more.

Dwarves had hill dwarves, mountain dwarves, gully dwarves, deep dwarves, sundered dwarves, Duergar (Gray Dwarves), and others.

Gnomes had rock gnomes, Svirfneblin (Deep Gnomes), Tinker Gnomes, Forest Gnomes, and more.

Halflings had Hairfoot, Stout, Tallfellow, Kender (yes, Kender fell under Halflings in the 2E Complete Gnomes and Halflings book), Athasian halflings (cannibals), Furchin (arctic halfling), and more.

Hell, even Thri-Kreen had Trin, Zik-Chil, and Zik-Trin  

We've had half-races such as half-elf, half-dwarf (Mul), half-giant, and half-ogre. 

Why humans can't have "sub-races" is beyond me, D&D-speaking.   
Personal opinion...

Human subraces are a very...difficult subject to deal with as humans are real and therefore any attempt to codify subraces in game mechanics can potentially lead to accidental racism.

Depicting fictional cultures in non-mechanical terms is the best compromise, in my opinion and one taken several times in campaign setting books. 

All around helpful simian

Elves had aquatic elves, Silvanesti, Qualinesti, Kagonesti, Dark Elves, Gray Elves, High Elves, Avariel (Winged Elves) and more.

Dwarves had hill dwarves, mountain dwarves, gully dwarves, deep dwarves, sundered dwarves, Duergar (Gray Dwarves), and others.

Gnomes had rock gnomes, Svirfneblin (Deep Gnomes), Tinker Gnomes, Forest Gnomes, and more.

Halflings had Hairfoot, Stout, Tallfellow, Kender (yes, Kender fell under Halflings in the 2E Complete Gnomes and Halflings book), Athasian halflings (cannibals), Furchin (arctic halfling), and more.

Hell, even Thri-Kreen had Trin, Zik-Chil, and Zik-Trin  

We've had half-races such as half-elf, half-dwarf (Mul), half-giant, and half-ogre. 

Why humans can't have "sub-races" is beyond me, D&D-speaking.   



I can tell you why - but it doesn't mean I agree with it 100%..

1)  Human subraces cuts awfully close to racial identity in the real world. When subraces are suggested, people almost always suggest collections of racial stereotypes from the real world.  In the real world, these are purely cultural distinctions and it is offensive to some to suggest differences in mechanics such as ability scores.  This is not true of fantasy races because they don't have real world equivalents and thus don't carry real-world weight.

2)  Human subraces are often social constructs tied to the world's setting - far more than is the case with subraces of the other races.   Most DMs can see that dark elves or mountain dwarves have a place in their setting.  A subrace like the Fflok only makes sense if they are part of their setting.


The advantage of taking those populations that are clearly distinct from normal humans - but who are descended from them one way or the other as the 'human subraces' is that it a) avoids number 1 by being purely fantasy in origin and b) avoids number 2 by representing distinct groups whose differences go far beyond pure culture.

In this view - the human subraces are:  The githyanki and githzerai, the skulks, shades, etc.  Perhaps even Tieflings.  They are mostly human and share a human origin - but they are no longer typical humans.    (And they are not necessarily all playable races  and likely none - except maybe tieflings -will be 5N core).  Although it would be awesome if they included a gith or a shade (for example) as a human subrace option.

The hybrid races such as half-elf and half-orc could also be included in this view (I like the idea myself) but do not need to be. 

Carl
Yes, making "sub-races" of humans and tying them to real-world cultures is a recipe for disaster, not to mention a hot-bed of lawsuits aimed at WotC.

Perhaps "subraces" isn't the best word. Perhaps "Racial Variants" would be more appropriate and PC (no pun intended). Mountain-folks, arctic-folk, sea-folk, and such as that, presented as backgrounds or "themes" with different skills complimenting their distinctions. Feels better, in any case. 

If you did want to go with true human sub-races, then you would, as Carl said, need to make purely fantastical in nature. The half-races are great examples. 
humans can't have "sub-races" is beyond me, D&D-speaking.   



What the other posters have noted for reasons all still apply in a general sense, but there are human subraces in D&D 3.5.



  • Aventi – aquatic sort of human. Stormwrack.

  • Aquatic Human – another aquatic sort of human. Unearthed Arcana.

  • Sea Kin – semiamphibian human.  Races of Destiny.

  • Skulk – stealthy human. Races of Destiny.

  • Ilumian – magical multiclass-loving human with glowy symbols. Races of Destiny.

  • Sharakim – shadow human. Races of Destiny.

  • Underfolk – underdark human. Races of Destiny.

  • Deep Imaskari – magical underdark human. Underdark.

  • Neanderthal – self-explanatory. Frostburn.

I use cultural different humans in my game world. I give them bonuses depending on their "racial" differences. It adds to the game but wotc does not have to build anything in for me. Just give me a interesting human race to build off of and I'm happy.
Elves had aquatic elves, Silvanesti, Qualinesti, Kagonesti, Dark Elves, Gray Elves, High Elves, Avariel (Winged Elves) and more.

Dwarves had hill dwarves, mountain dwarves, gully dwarves, deep dwarves, sundered dwarves, Duergar (Gray Dwarves), and others.

Gnomes had rock gnomes, Svirfneblin (Deep Gnomes), Tinker Gnomes, Forest Gnomes, and more.

Halflings had Hairfoot, Stout, Tallfellow, Kender (yes, Kender fell under Halflings in the 2E Complete Gnomes and Halflings book), Athasian halflings (cannibals), Furchin (arctic halfling), and more.

Hell, even Thri-Kreen had Trin, Zik-Chil, and Zik-Trin  

We've had half-races such as half-elf, half-dwarf (Mul), half-giant, and half-ogre. 

Why humans can't have "sub-races" is beyond me, D&D-speaking.   



I can tell you why - but it doesn't mean I agree with it 100%..

1)  Human subraces cuts awfully close to racial identity in the real world. When subraces are suggested, people almost always suggest collections of racial stereotypes from the real world.  In the real world, these are purely cultural distinctions and it is offensive to some to suggest differences in mechanics such as ability scores.  This is not true of fantasy races because they don't have real world equivalents and thus don't carry real-world weight.

2)  Human subraces are often social constructs tied to the world's setting - far more than is the case with subraces of the other races.   Most DMs can see that dark elves or mountain dwarves have a place in their setting.  A subrace like the Fflok only makes sense if they are part of their setting.


The advantage of taking those populations that are clearly distinct from normal humans - but who are descended from them one way or the other as the 'human subraces' is that it a) avoids number 1 by being purely fantasy in origin and b) avoids number 2 by representing distinct groups whose differences go far beyond pure culture.

In this view - the human subraces are:  The githyanki and githzerai, the skulks, shades, etc.  Perhaps even Tieflings.  They are mostly human and share a human origin - but they are no longer typical humans.    (And they are not necessarily all playable races  and likely none - except maybe tieflings -will be 5N core).  Although it would be awesome if they included a gith or a shade (for example) as a human subrace option.

The hybrid races such as half-elf and half-orc could also be included in this view (I like the idea myself) but do not need to be. 

Carl




Actually those non humans are the Human Subraces...its why we dont look at Tyrion Lanister and see a Halfling or a Dwarf but when we see a hundred Tyrion Lanisters - Foul mouthed Halfling/Dwarf subrace comes to mind. Tyrion Lanister put the fling in Halfing.
The Citadel Megadungeon: http://yellowdingosappendix.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-citadel-mega-dungeon-now-with-room.html
The advantage of taking those populations that are clearly distinct from normal humans - but who are descended from them one way or the other as the 'human subraces' is that it a) avoids number 1 by being purely fantasy in origin and b) avoids number 2 by representing distinct groups whose differences go far beyond pure culture.

In this view - the human subraces are:  The githyanki and githzerai, the skulks, shades, etc.  Perhaps even Tieflings.  They are mostly human and share a human origin - but they are no longer typical humans.    (And they are not necessarily all playable races  and likely none - except maybe tieflings -will be 5N core).  Although it would be awesome if they included a gith or a shade (for example) as a human subrace option.

The hybrid races such as half-elf and half-orc could also be included in this view (I like the idea myself) but do not need to be. 

Carl


I did the bolding and some snipping.
You have my suggestions for Human subraces. 
+1

Find a non-offensive term for Pure-blood, then throw the other Half-demis in there. Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Mul, 3/4lings... ect... or leave that last one out... yeah...
Plane-touched could either be Human subraces, or could be a race family their own, with subraces for what Plane touched them, possibly Genasi as well. As, depending on edition, Tieflings may not require human to be the mortal component.  However, 4E, Turathi Tieflings are definately a Human sub-races.
The Gith races may also fit. Or may be their own parent family. Depends on how far warped they are considered.

Actually those non humans are the Human Subraces...its why we dont look at Tyrion Lanister and see a Halfling or a Dwarf but when we see a hundred Tyrion Lanisters - Foul mouthed Halfling/Dwarf subrace comes to mind. Tyrion Lanister put the fling in Halfing.


Imping ain't easy. 
I swear, I have never felt as inspired to play a Halfling as when Peter Dinklage does.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.

Having the half breed races show up as human subraces was my immediate thought after looking at the packet. I hope they do this.


I don't see any problem with other subraces making it into the human racial pool as long as they are actually distinct. I agree that drawing cultural boundaries and expressing them as attribute bonuses is probably a mistake, but there's no reason you can't have humans who live high in the mountains having different abilities from those that live at sea level. Environments do create differences without genetics, even if they're not so large that we can call them different races.


But hey, D&D is the world on steroids so maybe those environmental differences do make races in D&D. I could buy that.

Half-humans as human subraces is logical for me.
Another aspect of the higher adaptability of humans.
 
My game world is mostly human dominated.

Because of this the majority of player races are different human races, corresponding to the different cultures in the world.
If I remember correctly there are 8 human races currently.
They all have different ability scores and racial abilities.

I created them as actual races, not as subraces, but I allow anyone playing a human to use the PHB standard human instead if they want to, if they want to be atypical for their culture.

Human subraces cuts awfully close to racial identity in the real world. When subraces are suggested, people almost always suggest collections of racial stereotypes from the real world.  In the real world, these are purely cultural distinctions and it is offensive to some to suggest differences in mechanics such as ability scores.  This is not true of fantasy races because they don't have real world equivalents and thus don't carry real-world weight.



Human subraces does not need to have real-world equivalents.

I do understand that this is a sensitive subject for some people, so it should not be in the core rules for PR reasons..

But really..   someone not-offended by giving different ability scores to halflings and elves should not be offended by the notion that real world humans probably also have ability score differences..   
Specifying what those differences actually are is of course kind of sensitive.

In my world I actually have optional gender difference rules for ability scores aswell (for humans, elves dont have any)
I like the idea I read in Ivory Sword, where Humans have free will, but Dwarves, elves etc, have Natural will.
That's why dwarves, elves etc break up into races when they change the environement the live in, but Humans pretty much stay the same and wander wherever they like.  Their will and desire isn't tied to the place they were made to inhabit.

It also explains racial weapon choices in a way. 
That is why I prefer humans to be represented as different societies, such as wild folk, city folk, etc. because it expresses the one thing that makes human unique in reference to how they group or socialize, where the other races are much more structured and rigid. Perhaps sub-races is a bad term to use overall, maybe use someting like ancestries or lineages.
I really don't like the idea of dividing humans by regions because as crazy_monkey and others have said there is just too much potential of describing real-world cultures and doing it insensitively.  Every arctic culture I've seen has looked like Inuits or Finns.  Every desert culture looks like Arabs, Aztecs, or Bedouins.  

I much prefer CarlT's approach that human subraces are magical alterations.  Tieflings, Gith, half-elves, half-orcs, mul, skulks, elans, half-giants, etc.  Heck, I've made campaign settings in which all the races -- dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. -- are altered humans

Regional dwarves and elves are all right because they are fantasy creatures and we can assume that they are physically and metaphysically altered by the terrain in which they dwell.  But humans are not.  For humans to stop being akin to real-world humans, there should be a supernatural explanation.
Birthright had different human groups and it work fine imo.
Human subraces are a very...difficult subject to deal with as humans are real and therefore any attempt to codify subraces in game mechanics can potentially lead to accidental racism.

Depicting fictional cultures in non-mechanical terms is the best compromise, in my opinion and one taken several times in campaign setting books.


Agreed,which is why I suggested it as genericly as possible. Everywhere was "city folk" and "country folk" and there are lots of places (farms by big cities, small towns) where people could choose to be either. It's not ethnicity but theenvironment you were raised. 
And it would leave a mechanical gap for other human sub-species if needed depending on the campaign setting. So they could still be human. 


Backgrounds 
The other go to comment is splitting people into two camps is that it conflicts with backgrounds. Except it totally doesn't.
On paper backgrounds woud work,except in execution there are two problems. 
Firstly, backgrounds are very much secondary skills or occuations and seldom where you were raised. They're what you do for a living. 
Secondly, backgrounds have to be options usable for all the other races. You can't add a bunch of human-only where-you-were-born human backgrounds
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

I have been playing with the idea of human 'sub races'

Human

Base Movement: 30 ft
Size: Medium
+1 to any two ability scores

Base Human
+2 to any ability score
Versitile: select one bonus skill

 - this makes it easy to say for your campaign - the humans of the wildlands get a +2 to their Constitution and take the Survival Skill as their bonus skill while the humans of the Great City get a +2 to their Charisma and take Streetwise as thier bonus skill, etc

Half-Elf
+1 to Charisma
Elven Nature:  Half-elves gain advantage on saves against the magical sleep and anything that causes the charmed condition.
Two-Worlds: Half-Elves are concidered human and elf for the purposes of requirements or effects based on race

Half-Orc
+1 to Strength
Orcish Tenacity: Once per day, if a half-orc is dropped to 0 hp they immediatly gain 1d8+ constitution modifier temporary hit points, these temporary hit points are lost after 1 minute. 
Two-Worlds: Half-Orcs are concidered human and orc for the purposes of requirements or effects based on race 

I have not decided if these are balanced compared to the other races yet 
My preference is to make a single fill-in-the-blank cultural subrace for humans that DMs can tailor to their settings. This "subrace" would grant Weapon Familiarity, a bonus trained skill, and a bonus language. This leaves it up to the individual DM to be as culturally in/sensitive as they like.

Genuine human subraces would, as others have said, be fantastically altered in some way (planetouched like Tieflings/Aasimar/Deva/Genasi or Aquatic Humans that can breath underwater, Subterranean Humans that have Darkvision, etc).
Just adding my thoughts on this:



  • I like Human's defined more by Region or Culture, but otherwise the same Stat-wise.

  • I think that half-Human hybrids can be considerd the Human Sub-races and fit very nicely in most settings.  Explains Eberron's Khoravar very well, as well as the Tieflings of post-Spellplauge Faerun.  CarlT and Wrecans post really sold that for me.

  • I really like the explanation that Elven, Dwarven and other Sub-races are metaphysical adaptions to their environment.  I've never liked the prolific tendency to rename and alter the core races for splatbooks, but it makes a lot of sense when looked at in this manner.


 
Just adding my thoughts on this:



  • I like Human's defined more by Region or Culture, but otherwise the same Stat-wise.

  • I think that half-Human hybrids can be considerd the Human Sub-races and fit very nicely in most settings.  Explains Eberron's Khoravar very well, as well as the Tieflings of post-Spellplauge Faerun.  CarlT and Wrecans post really sold that for me.

  • I really like the explanation that Elven, Dwarven and other Sub-races are metaphysical adaptions to their environment.  I've never liked the prolific tendency to rename and alter the core races for splatbooks, but it makes a lot of sense when looked at in this manner.


 




I have always thought that humans as a species should be versitile, but individually it varies.  That is why I like the idea of humans getting getting +1 to two ability scores, +2 to one, and a bonus skill.  In my campaign I would design a whole bunch of regions where humans could come from and define them from there - basically your region would give you your ability score bonuses and bonus skill (i.e. the nomadic horse riders of the plains would get +2 to Wisdom, +1 to Dexterity, +1 to Constitution, and the Animal Handling Skill and the primitive tribesmen of the marsh would get +2 to Constitution, +1 to Dexterity, and +1 to Wisdom and the Survival Skill, while the Seafaring Islanders may get +2 to Dexterity, +1 to COnstitution, and +1 to Charisma and the Professional Lore (Sailor))

Basically humans become this very varied and versitile race but still constrained by the region they come from.

 
humans can't have "sub-races" is beyond me, D&D-speaking.   



What the other posters have noted for reasons all still apply in a general sense, but there are human subraces in D&D 3.5.



  • Aventi – aquatic sort of human. Stormwrack.

  • Aquatic Human – another aquatic sort of human. Unearthed Arcana.

  • Sea Kin – semiamphibian human.  Races of Destiny.

  • Skulk – stealthy human. Races of Destiny.

  • Ilumian – magical multiclass-loving human with glowy symbols. Races of Destiny.

  • Sharakim – shadow human. Races of Destiny.

  • Underfolk – underdark human. Races of Destiny.

  • Deep Imaskari – magical underdark human. Underdark.

  • Neanderthal – self-explanatory. Frostburn.




That's actually exactly what I thought of when I first read this topic. I'd love to see those guys back. But as for actual human races as subraces... No. That could get really ugly really fast. It'd be better to tie those things into Background so that we could use them for other races as well.
You can divide humans by region, you just have to do it purely by adaptive features.

Desert humans get fire resistance. Arctic get cold. Forest get poison. Mountain gets lighting. Island humans counter spells. :P

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I have always thought that humans as a species should be versitile, but individually it varies.  That is why I like the idea of humans getting getting +1 to two ability scores, +2 to one, and a bonus skill.  In my campaign I would design a whole bunch of regions where humans could come from and define them from there - basically your region would give you your ability score bonuses and bonus skill (i.e. the nomadic horse riders of the plains would get +2 to Wisdom, +1 to Dexterity, +1 to Constitution, and the Animal Handling Skill and the primitive tribesmen of the marsh would get +2 to Constitution, +1 to Dexterity, and +1 to Wisdom and the Survival Skill, while the Seafaring Islanders may get +2 to Dexterity, +1 to Constitution, and +1 to Charisma and the Professional Lore (Sailor))

Basically humans become this very varied and versitile race but still constrained by the region they come from.



I'm going to have to agree with everything this post says. It's spot on about have versatile humans can be while allowing the DM to individualize humans in each region. You can even have your human players defend where they are from based on their stat increased if you want, or just keep it as a unique case.
You can divide humans by region, you just have to do it purely by adaptive features. Desert humans get fire resistance. Arctic get cold. Forest get poison. Mountain gets lighting. Island humans counter spells. :P


I see what you did there ;)
I really don't like the idea of dividing humans by regions because as crazy_monkey and others have said there is just too much potential of describing real-world cultures and doing it insensitively.  Every arctic culture I've seen has looked like Inuits or Finns.  Every desert culture looks like Arabs, Aztecs, or Bedouins.  

I much prefer CarlT's approach that human subraces are magical alterations.  Tieflings, Gith, half-elves, half-orcs, mul, skulks, elans, half-giants, etc.  Heck, I've made campaign settings in which all the races -- dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. -- are altered humans

Regional dwarves and elves are all right because they are fantasy creatures and we can assume that they are physically and metaphysically altered by the terrain in which they dwell.  But humans are not.  For humans to stop being akin to real-world humans, there should be a supernatural explanation.

+1

I much prefer CarlT's approach that human subraces are magical alterations.  Tieflings, Gith, half-elves, half-orcs, mul, skulks, elans, half-giants, etc.  Heck, I've made campaign settings in which all the races -- dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. -- are altered humans


I much prefer this - if anything - for human "sub-races" as well.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Personal opinion...

Human subraces are a very...difficult subject to deal with as humans are real and therefore any attempt to codify subraces in game mechanics can potentially lead to accidental racism.

Depicting fictional cultures in non-mechanical terms is the best compromise, in my opinion and one taken several times in campaign setting books. 



VERY, VERY TRUE!

My suggestion was a "regional benefit" option for humans. Humans will still have their default option, of course, but a regional benefit would essentially act as a subrace for humans, without actually being one. The best part is, like backgrounds, they can be expanded for Campaign Settings easily. We'll see.
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
Personal opinion...

Human subraces are a very...difficult subject to deal with as humans are real and therefore any attempt to codify subraces in game mechanics can potentially lead to accidental racism.

Depicting fictional cultures in non-mechanical terms is the best compromise, in my opinion and one taken several times in campaign setting books. 

To be fair, I don't recall any issues coming up in previous editions when new human races were released. The Deep Imaskari are a prime example.

I don't have a problem with non-magical human subraces in principle. I would prefer to see them tied to groups that have no clear real-world equivilent though. I would also prefer that all subraces were setting specific.  

    

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

i enjoy that so many people are okay with Subraces as long as we just don't call them "Subraces" and instead call them "origins" or "regions". 
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

It makes, if you think about it Jester.  It's considered much more rude in RL to call someone by their supposed 'Race'.  On the otherhand, cultural Identity even within a single country is very important to people.  I myself am Scot-Irish on my Fathers side, and my Mother was born in England.  My maternal Grandmother refused to discuss our Irish heritage, but I myself enjoy the Identity.