|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 7:41PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
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.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 8:09PM
#12
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 8:18PM
#13
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 11:41PM
#14
|
- Biohazard Barbie, on sale now!
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2005
|
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
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 1:52AM
#15
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 2:47AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 4:16AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Half-humans as human subraces is logical for me.
Another aspect of the higher adaptability of humans.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 4:24AM
#18
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 4:24AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 4:57AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
