Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 12:10 PM	So, I've been seeing quite the rally against subraces on this board, for whatever reason (personal hatred, unconditional hatred, valid concerns, worries, whatever your reason is). I personally am neither for or against subraces (I like my options, but if they're not there, then eh, I make due), so this activity has me quite curious. Which leads me to wonder: Isn't it a bit hypocritical of everyone to hate subraces, yet a good batch of monsters (which are all over Eberron) have subraces out the wazoo? After all, a fire giant is just a (albit stronger) offshoot of a hill giant, in the same way a wood elf is just an offshoot of a regular elf. Scrags, war trolls, cave trolls, and normal trolls are another example. Different enviorns produced different variations on a common theme. And don't get me started on dragons...They've got a subrace for every enviornment, including planar ones. So I must question...Isn't this a bit (well, more than a bit) hypocritical to show such hatred of subraces, while simultainously supporting so many variations on various creatures?
talion09 03-03-06, 12:34 PM	Giants and Dragons are monsters that do have a lot of "subraces"... but if the DM doesn't want to use all 12 (?) types of Dragons in the MM, then he doesn't have too, it isn't like Dragons are a common occurence in Eberron anyways, right? Same thing with Giants. Aside from a few hill giants in Khorvaire, Giants are mainly located in the wilds of Xen'drik. So if the DM doesn't want to use 6 types of giants, he can just stick with 1 or 2 types to represent the fallen giant empire and leave it at that. There is also a far larger (no pun intended) difference between the subraces of giants than between say, the elf subraces (excluding drow). Compare the differences between a wood elf and high elf, and then do the same for storm giants and hill giants. I think a key difference is that most of the monsters you list as examples aren't designed or intended to be player races, even in eberron. The exposure they get during a campaign is totally up to the DM. So if the DM wants to use them all, or use none of them, it is up to him, and has little impact on the campaign. There is a big difference between a DM not using a certain monster that he doesn't particularly like or that doesn't fit into the adventure, compared to a DM not allowing PC's to use subraces that are presented as an integral part of the campaign setting in the PGtE.
Tom McCarthy 03-03-06, 12:48 PM	Small flaws that rarely are 'on camera' don't break the game. But focus the camera on it, and the flaws become significant. Different dragons or giants don't bother me. If they have a game mechanic flaw, it's not important because either the PCs don't fight them, or the fight only lasts 5-10 rounds. If a relatively obscure PC race, subrace, class, or prestige class is flawed, again it is no problem till one of my PCs take it. But then, maybe it becomes a big problem very quickly after that. So opening the door to ever expanding options for players is something I choose not to do. But even more than that, if the majority of DMs say that the players are making subrace choices because they are optimal for game mechanics reasons and not for roleplaying or storytelling reasons, it sounds like subraces don't serve the game.
Good Agnostic 03-03-06, 12:49 PM	My impression from reading the posts is that the distaste shown here comes from the warping of character generation. Each race has pro's and con's which make using them as a specific class harder or easier. That creates role playing opportunities and real flavor. However, if you can just basically pick a subrace to match whatever class you want (e.g., wood elf versus sun elf), then you are min/maxing with race to what appears to be an unacceptable degree. I don't think I would characterize anyones posts here as hatred, but just a devotion to the original intent of the game designer - no PC subraces. Of course, there are rules for making all the monsters you are talking about PC's as well. I'm guessing that players and DM's in those campaigns have no compunctions about using subraces. Our group doesn't use monster PC's or subraces for PC's, but that's just us. I'm sure there are people out there having a great time with a sun elf raised by Drow on an airship in the Mournland. :)
PoeticJustice 03-03-06, 12:50 PM	It is not hypocritical. It is barely even a related issue. Fire Giants and Scrags aren't PC races. Whisper Gnomes and Wood Elves are PC races. With that appellation comes the necessity of having a diverse society, outlook, and history that is emphasized within the context of campaign. Fire Giants are a one-shot encounter or at best a recurring villain used by the DM to create interesting and diverse encounters. Parties aren't likely to deal with Fire Giants more than once, but the wood elf is in the party until he dies, bringing the need for full wood-elfiness with him. Some would argue it's not that big a deal, and that a characer's heritage need not be emphasized THAT much. And if the wood-elfiness is not needed, then why is he playing a sub-race at all? If you want to play a generic wilderness loving feral elf, what's to stop you from running a normal elf that way?
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 12:57 PM	That creates role playing opportunities and real flavor. However, if you can just basically pick a subrace to match whatever class you want (e.g., wood elf versus sun elf), then you are min/maxing with race to what appears to be an unacceptable degree. I'll never understand how choosing a race that matches up well with a class (be it sun elf and wizard, half orc and barbarian, or human and any class in the game) is considered "unacceptable". Or does everyone play half orc bards and sorcerers, and I'm just not noticing? :D Second, I've also never understood how race and class created any sort of roleplaying, or indeed, say anything about a character except in the absolute broadest possible strokes. The player is the one that supplies everything, the mechanics are only there to back up what you're saying. But thats just my view on it...
talion09 03-03-06, 01:02 PM	... Of course, there are rules for making all the monsters you are talking about PC's as well. I'm guessing that players and DM's in those campaigns have no compunctions about using subraces. Our group doesn't use monster PC's or subraces for PC's, but that's just us. I'm sure there are people out there having a great time with a sun elf raised by Drow on an airship in the Mournland. :) Well, just to offer a differing experience, my usual gaming group doesn't use subraces (well, we did when we played FR, since its written into the setting), but we do use monster races as PC's sometimes. The key difference in my mind (I'm one of the rotating DMs) is that monster races don't infringe on the "niche" or central concept of the core races. For example we have a player currently playing a centaur barbarian from the Eldeen Reaches. Unusual choice, but it didn't step on the toes of the character playing a Valenar warrior.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 01:02 PM	It is not hypocritical. It is barely even a related issue. Fire Giants and Scrags aren't PC races. Actually, it's not "barely related". It's the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if they're a PC race or not, the fact is still that I've seen quite extreme disfavoring of any sort of subrace, yet the same people are content to let everything a player can't be to have a billion and one "It's just like me, except with fire/water/air/electricity/darkness/light/because I live on a hill/etc.". creatures running around. And it's more than that...It's not so much the fact that "Yes, a GM doesn't have to use fire giants", it's more of "the world accepts that there are fire giants, by it's own design.". And most people accept this. But mention "subrace", and people foam at the mouth in a real life impression of barbarian rage. And yet, what are all of these monster variations, but subraces? Even warforged have subraces (scout, titan), and technically, every shifter is a subrace based on it's ancestry...Which is where the hypocrisy comes in. There can be giants, dragons, and more of every stripe, and it's A-OK. But a dwarf who lives deep, deep, deeeeeeeeep underground and has never seen light is a blasphemy against the entire setting?
AvonRekaes 03-03-06, 01:03 PM	It is not hypocritical. It is barely even a related issue. Fire Giants and Scrags aren't PC races. I think this is the exact kind of hypocrisy the OP was talking about. Environment subtypes like Scrags are okay for monsters, but not for PCs? In the context of "campaign ecology" if monsters can have wildly divergent subraces due to environment, what is your reason for the common races not having them? That's the hypocrisy.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 01:07 PM	I think this is the exact kind of hypocrisy the OP was talking about. Environment subtypes like Scrags are okay for monsters, but not for PCs? In the context of "campaign ecology" if monsters can have wildly divergent subraces due to environment, what is your reason for the common races not having them? That's the hypocrisy. Avon understands the point perfectly. Thank you for stating it so clearly, where I possibly failed in such a respect. :)
Ryuu_Tenshi 03-03-06, 01:43 PM	My main gripe with subraces is that there's just too many of them and it seems kinda pointless. Like, you have an underground, woodland, and aquatic version of practically everything. Why? Why can't you just have the normal race, but living in that setting? In some cases, I DO see a point to subraces. For instance, Dreugar and Drow. Both those races are seperated by hundreds of generations of living underground under vastly different conditions (Or, in Eberron's case with the Drow, living on an entirely different continent with a totally differnet lifestyle for hundreds of generations). It's not a minor difference like, "These elves live in the woods and are like, TRIBAL! :o " And aquatic humanoids? Don't get me started. Blururghghg. I know I should NEVER bring evolution into DnD, but... no. Just no. There's no logical reason for there to be aquatic elves. There's no GAME reason to have aquatic elves, becuase you already have stuff like merfolk that perfectly fills the role of the mysterious beautiful being living in the water. Now, I also don't have a problem with subraces in general, if there's a good reason for it. For instance, Psiforged. Warforged are constructs. They may be living constructs with souls, but that doesn't change the fact that they were made, not born. So there could be any number of modifications and alternates. Maybe psionics can't occur in living constructs without special modifications. Tada - reason for there to be psiforged. Or the dozens of Shifter bloodlines. Shifters are related to lycanthropes, and there's LOTS of different sorts of lycanthropes. The bloodlines reflect that mix of werewolves and werebears and tigers and rats and so forth and so on. And before you get all uptight about how lycanthropes shouldn't have subraces either, realize that those all have a place in actual earth mythos, so it's not just, "Another shapeshifter, BUT DIFFERENT! :o " I guess it's more like, I don't mind subraces if there's a good reason for the subrace to exist in the world. In the cases of almost ALL the Halfling, Elf, Dwarf, and Gnome subraces, there's no reason for them to be and especially no reason for them to be in Eberron, which is largely homogenous. If you WANTED to, you could find a reason for Valenar elves to be a seperate subrace from Arenal elves, but there's no point, IMHO. The only thing I'd do is change the favoured class (Valenar would get the same abilities, just Ranger as a favoured class, and I might change the Aerenal to Necromancer or Cleric rather than just Wizard) In the case of Dragons, I think there IS a good reason for there to be more dragons than just one type and colour. For one thing, in mythology (again, I like to draw from existing sources for my stuff) there are many different kinds of dragons with differing personalities. For another, the dragons are all more different than just "Dragons that are wild and live in the woods!" For another thing, if EVERY dragon was a Red dragon, or a Green dragon, it'd get rather boring rather quickly. (I think I'm starting to rant and should stop here...) Finally, we come to the problem of humans. Humans are the only race without a subrace that I know of, and I guess you could try to count Kaleshtar and Daelkyr half-bloods as human subraces. But if you start counting them as subraces, you could then get into trying to count half-elves as a human subrace. And then, you realize that biologically, pretty much every humanoid up to and including orcs are subspecies of human anyway. So... no, I have no conclusion. MEH.
Jetty 03-03-06, 02:00 PM	In my opinion, it boils down to one fact only. Keith said that he personally does not like the use of subraces, so no "true Eberron lover" wants to have anything with them either. :) It does not matter to the fans, what Keith's reasons are, if they have the same playing style (which is hard to find since they have not played together), and whether or not it is published in a sourcebook. Otherwise there would not be these discussions in Eberron's boards but it would belong to the main DnD board, right? :) And I am not saying there are not people outthere who do not have other reasons too, but this issue just seems too overinflated here. ;)
igotsmeakabob!! 03-03-06, 02:07 PM	Reading through all of this, I would have to agree with Ryuu's post most. I'm more on the side of unnecessary subraces. To me, a Fire Giant and a Hill Giant are as different as elves and drow, dwarves and duergar. They're so different that I don't count either as a subrace. They're their own race. Yes, a wild elf is an elf but... its so unnecessary and.. I don't like the "you want to be an elf barbarian? Alright, play the wild elf so you have the stats for it!" outlook. If a PC wants to play an elf barbarian he plays a regular elf, with all the advantages and disadvantages, and just writes up his backstory. I loved Eberron as soon as I read the ECS, but one of the huge chunks of sweetness was that it was created to be free of the hundreds (exaggeration) of PC subraces. Sure, as a DM I could easily say 'no, I just don't like that, you can't use it'. But I like have a justification for my rulings. The subraces are built into FR, but not into Eberron. Wrote a little more than I intended to but.. eh. Have fun with it.
(Psi)SeveredHead 03-03-06, 02:25 PM	So, I've been seeing quite the rally against subraces on this board, for whatever reason (personal hatred, unconditional hatred, valid concerns, worries, whatever your reason is). I personally am neither for or against subraces (I like my options, but if they're not there, then eh, I make due), so this activity has me quite curious. Which leads me to wonder: Isn't it a bit hypocritical of everyone to hate subraces, yet a good batch of monsters (which are all over Eberron) have subraces out the wazoo? After all, a fire giant is just a (albit stronger) offshoot of a hill giant, in the same way a wood elf is just an offshoot of a regular elf. Scrags, war trolls, cave trolls, and normal trolls are another example. Different enviorns produced different variations on a common theme. And don't get me started on dragons...They've got a subrace for every enviornment, including planar ones. I don't use fire giants, or forst giants, or sun giants, or sea giants, or plains giants, or space giants, or Jedi giants, or half-dragon/half-giants, or any of that nonsense. Simply hill giants and eldritch giants. There's no space for all those types. Nor do I use a zillion types of troll. They aren't necessary, either. So I must question...Isn't this a bit (well, more than a bit) hypocritical to show such hatred of subraces, while simultainously supporting so many variations on various creatures? And do you know if people support all these monster types? I'm not seeing a lot of support or hatred for the zillions of types of golems, giants, etc in posts on this forum. At ENWorld, they had two threads on this issue recently. One was about least-liked monsters, and one was about subraces. In the first, the multitudes of giant types drew ire, but to be fair, there are so many monsters to hate for so many reasons :D Still, I saw no support for any kind of subraces except dragons. The other was specifically about subraces; it drew one supporter out of fifteen posts - everyone else hated subraces. Even warforged have subraces (scout, titan), and technically, every shifter is a subrace based on it's ancestry There's three types of warforged you've listed, not a hundred, and the titan hardly counts. (It's not a living construct, it's a monster, could not be mistaken for a warforged, it has a low Int, and isn't a PC race. I wouldn't allow WF scouts to be a PC race, either.) The WF Titan is as similar to a warforged as a giant is similar to a humanoid. As for the shifter, it's called feats and they're all mixtures of different lycanthropes. Any shifter can discover a facet of their heritage by taking a new shifter feats. Shifters don't go around saying "I'm a razorclaw shifter, you can tell because of my green eyes, because I'm from the cold northwest edge of the Eldeen Reaches were we have our own civilization", etc. In my opinion, it boils down to one fact only. Keith said that he personally does not like the use of subraces, so no "true Eberron lover" wants to have anything with them either. That and the FR hatred going around here. (FR has lots and lots and lots of subraces. Someone tell me why a fey'ri isn't just a tiefling elf?) But I also think there are lots of people who never played or DMed FR who got tired of all the subraces.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 02:31 PM	(FR has lots and lots and lots of subraces. Someone tell me why a fey'ri isn't just a tiefling elf?) But I also think there are lots of people who never played or DMed FR who got tired of all the subraces. 1: Lots of inbreeding along with magical experimentation. 2: That might be...But in that case, why would they complain? Subraces only really exist in FR, discounting the one or two variations in the MM, at least one of which originally came from Greyhawk anyway. Not to mention most people who complain about FR subraces don't even realize most of them began as distinctly different in the first place (especially the elves, all of which arrived from different planes of existance, settled distinctly different areas around the world, and were literally the first race to walk FR, if I recall correctly).
(Psi)SeveredHead 03-03-06, 02:49 PM	1: Lots of inbreeding along with magical experimentation. *Shudder* I'll remember that if I ever see someone playing a fey'ri :D 2: That might be...But in that case, why would they complain? Subraces only really exist in FR, discounting the one or two variations in the MM, at least one of which originally came from Greyhawk anyway. They complain is the "subrace menace" travels to Eberron, however. Not to mention most people who complain about FR subraces don't even realize most of them began as distinctly different in the first place (especially the elves, all of which arrived from different planes of existance, settled distinctly different areas around the world, and were literally the first race to walk FR, if I recall correctly). Ah... good olf elf hatred. In this case, my own. They're better craftsmen, spellcasters, warriors, smarter, resist alcohol better and now I find out they were the first race to walk FR. I knew about their disparate origins, but why do elves from different alternities get different stats when humans for different alternities do not? Actually, I'd be annoyed if the humans got different stats anyway :) And this isn't the case of all elven subraces on FR. I don't like them because a lot add nothing to the setting. Space elves (or whatever the Cha-boosting elves are) or lythari add nothing useful to the setting, except to fulfill an author's fantasies about elves. Whisper gnomes add nothing to Eberron except ... why the heck were they invented? I don't even see them as munchkin, so it probably wasn't powergaming that led to their invention. They were just dropped into the setting for no good reason, and of course don't align properly with Keith Baker's well-crafted explanation for why gnomes have a right to exist in the setting. A lot of them are munchkin (like the above-mentioned space elves). I don't like elven subraces in particular because there's so many of them.
Belabras 03-03-06, 03:01 PM	Alot of it comes down to game mechanics: Subraces are generally used by players to find just the right mix of stat bonus and racial abilities for the particular class they want to play, often at the expense of the flavor attached to that race. That extra edge isn't generally necessary, and I think a lot of DMs feel it leads to players thinking more about build and less about character, something that makes for a rather dull and dry game. Monster subraces exist for various reasons in terms of flavor, but mechanically they exist so the party doesn't have to fight the same thing over and over again. It's a question of enjoyable encounters -- 3 encounters with a band of hill giants is likely not as fun as 1 encounter with an ogre warband, 1 encounter with hill giant bandits, and 1 encounter with an evil cloud giant sorcerer.
talion09 03-03-06, 03:01 PM	Well, since the case of sub-races in FR came up (and also in Greyhawk), I have a question that is only slightly off topic: Did the different cultures of dwarves and elves in Krynn get subraces in the 3.0/3.5 update, or was it like the ECS, and it was just cultural differences between hill dwarves and mountain dwarves instead of stat bonuses. Same question for the three main cultures of Elves (I'm not even going to try and spell them, lol) Basically, how were different cultures of elves/dwarves handled in Dragonlance? I figure this is at least kinda relevant, since I think Krynn might be the closest WoTC world to Eberron in this regard.
(Psi)SeveredHead 03-03-06, 03:29 PM	Well, since the case of sub-races in FR came up (and also in Greyhawk), I have a question that is only slightly off topic: Did the different cultures of dwarves and elves in Krynn get subraces in the 3.0/3.5 update IIRC the 3.0 MM had subraces. Even if the FRCS didn't say anything about statistical differences between elven and dwarven subraces, a DM could decide to add them to his campaign. From this PoV, there was nothing wrong with what the FRCS did. (I certainly don't recall subrace crunch, other than drow, being discussed anywhere in the FRCS. But I lost mine a while ago.) New FR books started going into more detail about subraces, though. or was it like the ECS, and it was just cultural differences between hill dwarves and mountain dwarves instead of stat bonuses. I don't recall any statistical differences in 2e. At least, not at the start. Seeing how rockseer elves (hated them!) got different stat mods in 2e, I woudln't be surprised if other races of elves got different stats in some 2e splatbook. Same question for the three main cultures of Elves (I'm not even going to try and spell them, lol) You mean FR elves, or Eberron elves? Basically, how were different cultures of elves/dwarves handled in Dragonlance? There are seven clans of dwarves in DL. Of these, one were called "hill dwarves" and were the default PC dwarf option. At the beginning, there were no significant mechanical differences between one type of dwarf and another. I think one clan of dwarves could be wizards (which other dwarves couldn't) but that was about it. Mechanical differences may have arised later, however. I do know the DM for a short-lived DL campaign I was in let two of us play Kagonesti. I think they had different stats than other elves in the 3e book. While I wanted to be a Kagonesti, I just used the stats for regular elves. The other player was a barbarian. Kagonesti are the same thing as "wild elves" from other campaign settings. So yeah, it was very optimal for him :rolleeyes: The funny thing is, I knew more about Dragonlance than the other player.
nastynate 03-03-06, 03:36 PM	While I myself don't use sub-races, I can't see why it should be a problem if you want to. Come up with a good reason why, place them where they fit into your story, and presto! If I did use them I might have better suggestions for how to incoperate them, but since I don't it'll have to be up to you folks who do. I have heard people suggest they could be linked to manifest zones which is pretty reasonable in my eyes. Therefor if you think it'll make your campaign better to allow sub-races then go for it. More power to ya! I don't use them because they are imbalanced (just my opinion), and encourage players to choose races based on mechanics rather than where they fit into the campaign, but my personal taste should have no bearing upon other people who don't play with me. I'm all for min/maxing, but I don't want people playing wood elves simply because they make great revenant blades. Orcs from the Shadow Marches don't get wisdom bonuses despite the fact they have druidic traditions. Culture and region of origon have everything to do with role-playing, and almost nothing to do with stats. I prefer to keep it that way.
PoeticJustice 03-03-06, 03:40 PM	I think this is the exact kind of hypocrisy the OP was talking about. Environment subtypes like Scrags are okay for monsters, but not for PCs? In the context of "campaign ecology" if monsters can have wildly divergent subraces due to environment, what is your reason for the common races not having them? That's the hypocrisy. That's not Hypocrisy. They are two entirely different animals. I accept the existance of Fire Giants and Bronze Dragons because they make for interesting encounters. I deplore PC subraces because Ihappen to think they are a cheap way of manipulating your stats to play a character at maximum efficency. The role of a PC subrace and Monster subrace serve two entirely different purposes. That's why I can accept the incongruity. If you're looking for an answer within the suspension of disbelief, then consider the following: The PHB presents 7 different races of humanoids, and only three (humans, half-elves, elves) can interbreed. I posit that giants and dragons, with their myriad abilities, are no more related to one another than an Elf is to a Dwarf.
Beleriphon 03-03-06, 04:04 PM	I think this is the exact kind of hypocrisy the OP was talking about. Environment subtypes like Scrags are okay for monsters, but not for PCs? In the context of "campaign ecology" if monsters can have wildly divergent subraces due to environment, what is your reason for the common races not having them? That's the hypocrisy. Fair enough, scrags and what not are just as fair as aquatic elves. As for environmental types, every race could have them, they just don't need totally different stat bonuses to jusity that. Now Fire Giants and Storm Giants are two different things. They are two different creatures both of the Giant type, they are not subraces of the giant. Claiming as much is like saying that elves, humans and dwarves are subraces of Humanoid. From a game stand point subraces are designed to allow a player to take an elf, keep all the cool elf stuff, and make an effective fighter. Thats terrible metagame thinking, dwarves make subpar sorcerers, and halflings don't make terribly good tank like fighters. Suck it up buttercup, you want an elf, you get stuck with a -2 to Constitution and thats that. I like the fact that Eberron differeniates between the different groups within each race by presenting distinct cultures for each of them. Nobody would confuse a Valenar elf and an Aerenal elf as the same, but mechanically they are identical. In Forgotten Realms the Valenar would in all likeliness have different stat bonuses, which work for that setting. Eberron presents things differently. I like that. One final thought. Subraces are presented in the following way: As original creature X, different in way Y. A scrag is a subrace since it does this, very little else in the Monster Manual presents anything in the same way. None of giants go: as giant, different in way Y, nor do the different dragons have a base race, each one is different and separate on their own.
Euangelion 03-03-06, 05:01 PM	Let me ask this question: what's the difference between playing a wood elf just for the strength bonus versus playing a half-orc just for the strength bonus? Personally, I see no difference. Or how about this one: aren't all the PC races apart from humans really just sub-races of humans? When you get right down to it, could you not say that elves are really just agile but fragile forest humans, dwarves are sturdy but unpleasant mountain humans, and gnomes are hardy but weak hill humans, in other words? Heck, they're all humanoids. Sometimes I think we should just go to the system in Unearthed Arcana where every race is just a kind of human instead of separate races and end this insipid debate.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 05:09 PM	From a game stand point subraces are designed to allow a player to take an elf, keep all the cool elf stuff, and make an effective fighter. Thats terrible metagame thinking, dwarves make subpar sorcerers, and halflings don't make terribly good tank like fighters. Suck it up buttercup, you want an elf, you get stuck with a -2 to Constitution and thats that. So it's less "metagame thinking" to be an orc barbarian instead? Or human? Or (insert race here that doesn't get a penalty to a needed stat and a boost to one the class barely uses)?
Beleriphon 03-03-06, 05:17 PM	So it's less "metagame thinking" to be an orc barbarian instead? Or human? Or (insert race here that doesn't get a penalty to a needed stat and a boost to one the class barely uses)? It is metagame thinking, all character creation is, but subraces are only there to allow characters to keep the benefits of a base race, but not the penalties. If you want to be an elf barbarian be a barbarian, but with the elf stats. You aren't as good as the dwarf of the half-orc, but hey you're elf, you have other things you're good at.
Tevin Kevlak 03-03-06, 05:48 PM	Fair enough, scrags and what not are just as fair as aquatic elves. As for environmental types, every race could have them, they just don't need totally different stat bonuses to jusity that. Now Fire Giants and Storm Giants are two different things. They are two different creatures both of the Giant type, they are not subraces of the giant. Claiming as much is like saying that elves, humans and dwarves are subraces of Humanoid. From a game stand point subraces are designed to allow a player to take an elf, keep all the cool elf stuff, and make an effective fighter. Thats terrible metagame thinking, dwarves make subpar sorcerers, and halflings don't make terribly good tank like fighters. Suck it up buttercup, you want an elf, you get stuck with a -2 to Constitution and thats that. I like the fact that Eberron differeniates between the different groups within each race by presenting distinct cultures for each of them. Nobody would confuse a Valenar elf and an Aerenal elf as the same, but mechanically they are identical. In Forgotten Realms the Valenar would in all likeliness have different stat bonuses, which work for that setting. Eberron presents things differently. I like that. One final thought. Subraces are presented in the following way: As original creature X, different in way Y. A scrag is a subrace since it does this, very little else in the Monster Manual presents anything in the same way. None of giants go: as giant, different in way Y, nor do the different dragons have a base race, each one is different and separate on their own. Uhh, no. Hill Giants and Fire Giants are subraces of Giants... that's why they're called Giants. There are plenty of other races that still have the Giant type but are not giants in the sense of being a "Giant". As for subraces of elves, dwarves, and the like there already are some in Eberron such as Half-Elves (see MM page 102 under the Elf entry and DIRECTLY under the SUBRACES heading) as well as Drow and much like Half-Orcs... so, why are these subraces any different than say, Duergar or Wood Elves? Because people who play a Wood Elf might choose a martial class (such as Ranger, their favored class) instead of a casting class or skill monkey class? Or is it because Keith Baker (who does not own the rights to Eberron) said he didn't want subraces? That doesn't make a lick of difference and that's why Wizards (who does own the rights to Eberron) provided player's and DM's alike rules for implementing subraces into Eberron... so, suck it up buttercup.
6457890 03-03-06, 05:54 PM	I think most people dislike subraces for what people make of them. If a pc gets a wood elf sorcerer, has a good background, and explains why is he so different from the rest, well i would let him play it gladly. But if he only gets it to min/max a class, say a ranger, has no explanation and has no background flavor to it; its just wrong and i wont allow it. People hate sub-races for the second reason. And most players like to min/max because who doesnt want to be the biggest, meanest, strongest guy eva? I myself think that sub-races should not be such a big deal, because theyre only there to ADD flavor. If your characters use it to substract flavor, then dont add em. Also in eberron its even more weird because of the dragonmarks, and since theyre all from the same plane and the world is not so big, its hard to place the subraces. I personally HATE aquatic thingies. Use water breathing spells, use merfolk, anything you want, BUT DONT put aquatic thingies... that makes the swim skill so mundane...
EvilDrPuma 03-03-06, 06:00 PM	So I must question...Isn't this a bit (well, more than a bit) hypocritical to show such hatred of subraces, while simultainously supporting so many variations on various creatures? So I must question...Isn't this a bit (well, more than a bit) trollish to make blanket inflammatory accusations over metagaming trivia?
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 06:09 PM	It is metagame thinking, all character creation is, but subraces are only there to allow characters to keep the benefits of a base race, but not the penalties. If you want to be an elf barbarian be a barbarian, but with the elf stats. You aren't as good as the dwarf of the half-orc, but hey you're elf, you have other things you're good at. And here I thought 3rd was supposed to be the beginning of "All options should be viable". Metagaming aside (because honestly, everything in D&D is metagaming. You choosing what spells you know is metagaming, when you get down to it), is there a compelling reason an elven barbarian should be effectively handed two low blows (penalty to Con, and a bonus to Dex, which hits the one stat a barb needs above all others, and gives a bonus to the one stat barb's never give a damn about)? How is that in any way balanced with a, say, half orc or human barb? All it does is ensure no (sane) player will make an elven barbarian. It's like a half orc bard: Why bother? For "uniqueness"? Whats so unique about being bad at everything your class is supposed to be good at? Is it the fact people don't expect a half orc bard that makes it unique? In which case, why are you trying to peddle such a horrible cliche as unique (or worse, actual depth)? Why gimp yourself for the sake of story? Or is the idea that all venues should be mechanically viable (the whole point of the vaunted "balance" many people seek) completely alien and obviously shrouded in "metagaming" and "0MG T3H MUNKIN N0 RACE SH0LD HAV3 AN 0PTION TH4T MAKES IT G00D FOR A CL4SS THAT G0ES AG4NST TH3 0NE TRU ELF!" raging against the machine? And I really hate having to use elves as the example, especially considering dwarves, halfling, gnomes, and orcs have just as many (if not more) subraces each, spread over the various sourcebooks for FR (and generic books).
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 06:15 PM	So I must question...Isn't this a bit (well, more than a bit) trollish to make blanket inflammatory accusations over metagaming trivia? Isn't it far worse trolling to make a comment like this? What was the whole point of the thread? Hypocrisy. ;) More seriously...No, it's not trolling to make "blanket accusations", in cases where the accusation is a currently highly debated topic on the boards, especially given the recent release of a book which specifically introduces such a topic to the board in the "hot seat" until the next book arrives and introduces the next "Watch the entire board rail on this" subject. In other words, I don't consider it trolling at all. The board is currently alive with multiple subrace debates, and I felt like adding another facet of the oft-repeated verbatim and endless discussion. This hasn't been covered yet on the board that I've seen, so I am curious as to why various monster subraces are A-OK (even with the designer of the setting), yet other subraces are apparently completely verboten and incite rage at the mere mention. I do find it extremely hypocritical, which is why I opened the topic for discussion.
PoeticJustice 03-03-06, 07:14 PM	you were beginning to thin my resolve, and yet... Why gimp yourself for the sake of story? Or is the idea that all venues should be mechanically viable (the whole point of the vaunted "balance" many people seek) completely alien and obviously shrouded in "metagaming" and "0MG T3H MUNKIN N0 RACE SH0LD HAV3 AN 0PTION TH4T MAKES IT G00D FOR A CL4SS THAT G0ES AG4NST TH3 0NE TRU ELF!" raging against the machine? I find this distasteful. Half-Orcs make AWESOME BARBARIANS. Elves do not. If you want to play an elf barbarian, you need to be prepared to suffer the lack of constitution. Furthermore, in the grand scheme of things I think you'll find the +1 attack and damage bonus and the single hit point lost to be not that bad at all, if you're playing a cool character. You're thinking is diametrically opposed to my own. I don't believe every race should be equal at everything, even if that means cutting out subraces. So suck it up, buttercup.
Wrathamon 03-03-06, 08:02 PM	It is metagame thinking, all character creation is, but subraces are only there to allow characters to keep the benefits of a base race, but not the penalties. If you want to be an elf barbarian be a barbarian, but with the elf stats. You aren't as good as the dwarf of the half-orc, but hey you're elf, you have other things you're good at. I would really love to see proof of this? If I am not mistaken, Wood Elves get the - to con just like normal elves. I look at it as variety. When I first saw Moon Elves and Sun Elves in FR, I just thought hey Moon Elves look cooler and left it at that. Elf subraces started back in LORD OF THE RINGS and has been a tradition ever since. So, no it was not created as some metagaming mechanic for you to min/max your hero. But, I guess you dont like Prestige Class es either... they are just sub-classes of the core ones anyways right? I personally dont like a ton of subraces and I thought it was refreshing that the Eberron Campaign book didnt have them. That it was supporting the Core books more than the secondary sources. But, I also like how they allow for other material to be used and help the DM and players fit it in. If you dont like it... dont use it. It's like listening to Howard Stern... if you dont like him, turn the knob. You have the power in this situation. I know I did in my game. I just use the Core books and the setting works fine. My friend uses all the secondary books, and guess what it works fine.
Ohtar Turinson 03-03-06, 08:26 PM	Elf subraces started back in LORD OF THE RINGS and has been a tradition ever since. Sorry, this just bugs me... the difference between the Avari and the Quenya are (phyiscally) no more different than between different groups of people. There is a variation, but there's variation in isolated groups of people in real life. Well... That, and the Quenya had seen the light of the trees, which had supernatural effects on them- but that was a dramatically different sort of thing than the elvish races in FR, for the most part. The problem with the Elven Subtypes of FR and others is that they give cultural stat bonuses. Sun elves are wizards? Give them a +2 to int! Nevermind that there's no physical reason. That's what irritates me about that. Wood Elves are supposed to be athletic- so assign high scores to physical scores, don't give them special bonuses for cultural things like that. Instead, change their skill bonuses and things like that because they were trained differently. Even favored class, maybe, though I see Keith's point about those favored classes being what "comes naturally" (elves are a magical people, so magic comes easily to them; halflings are light and quick, so even a hunter from the plains can learn easily, etc.). On topic for the main thread... Giants of different races aren't subraces- they're just a bunch of massive humanoids. A fire giant can't breed with a frost giant. A hill giant and a storm giant aren't going to be having any little giant kids. They can't. They are different races that have superficial similarities (that is, they're really freakin' big humanoids). As to scrags, and all the other weird aquatic variations? The original poster is right. That does seem stupid. I tend to just ignore those myself, especially since I don't run aquatic games. As to dragons races... mostly tradition I suppose at this point. But dragons are magic monsters, first and foremost, so there is some logic for weird variations; they were created at the dawn of time through magic. Honestly, I'd see them as like the giants, but I'm not sure about the racial deal with these interbreeding. They'd use magic to support the process if they do it at all I think.
Wrathamon 03-03-06, 09:55 PM	The problem with the Elven Subtypes of FR and others is that they give cultural stat bonuses. Sun elves are wizards? Give them a +2 to int! Nevermind that there's no physical reason. That's what irritates me about that. You keep bringing up FR... like they started it. Gray Elves and High Elves go back to 1st edition. Gray had a + Int (I believe Gray had it to both, but I dont recall at the moment) High had a + Dex They were based off of Lord of the Rings elves... hell LotR has more subraces of elves that D&D. Some with different qualities, others like you said would be the same practically. To just name a few the Vanyar (Fair Elves) Noldor (Deep Elves) Teleri (Sea Elves) Sindar (Gray Elves) Laiquendi (Green Elves) Nandor (Silvan Elves) You can go on about the differences between Eldar, Avari, Calaquendi, Moriquendi and Umanyar all day long, but in the books some were different and much more powerful - which was mostly similiar to blood lines... like the Dunedain from a Dunlending become farther away from the people of the first age and the light of valinor. D&D had Hobbits at one point. So when Gygax and crew were making D&D they most likely used a lot of middle earth as a basis to make races and subraces. I remember Mountain Dwarves and Hill Dwarves in first edition also. I agree with someone above that because Keith mentioned it now its a dirty word. Again I am on the camp of there are too many freakin elves... but I am like that when I read lotr also. Some people like to make their elves in Middle-Earth have +2 dex, while others have a +2 Wis or +2 Int. To make them different and easily shown as different other than one has gold hair and one has black and they speak a different language. It's a game its nice to have mechanical differences. Anyways, what is the big deal by providing more options for people? You dont have to use them.
Edymnion 03-03-06, 10:32 PM	I'll just say this. Has anyone that has been in a game where the DM freely allowed subraces *EVER* seen a player take a subrace and *NOT* play them as the class they are built to be? Has anyone ever seen a Gray Elf Fighter? Racial bonus to intelligence means more skillpoints, which a Fighter hurts for, and yet how many people ever took that option, instead of just twinking out to be a Gray Elf Wizard? DMs use monster subraces to create interesting encounters for the players. The players use subraces to squeeze out every last ounce of mechanical power they can get. I have no problems at all with using as many subraces as the players want to use. But only the flavor. If you want a super smart elf, then roleplay a super smart elf, and put more points into Intelligence (I strictly use Point Buy). If you are a good player and just want a subrace for the right reasons, not getting the mechanical bonus is a moot point. If you're just trying to be a munchkin and you're picking your subrace just to make your character stronger, then you don't deserve to be able to use them in the first place, IMO. Monsters are not in the PCs control. Monster subraces are not going to let them be munchkins and twink out their PCs. But if I did allow monster characters (and in Eberron, I do, goblins and hobgoblins are valid races in my Eberron game), I would not allow any subraces for them. For example, there are no Blues in my game. If you want to play a psionic goblin, then play a goblin and take a psionic class, you don't need a specially designed psionic race to do it with.
LuciferNietzsche 03-03-06, 10:33 PM	There is most certainly hypocrisy regarding subraces, and much more than that, but we'll stay on topic. People don't like subraces most probably because it's too "real world". Some may not realize that's the reason, and some probably do and won't admit it. But I'm sure that very few have singular reasons apart from that. Now, this is further hypocrisy because many of these same people use the real world to justify why things like guns don't exist in Eberron or D&D in general. The real truth is that they use the game, or the real world, to justify what THEY want and prefer, over all others. It's completely about convenience. Having a huge variety of the same type of monster gives the monsters the advantage, and by proxy, the DM. Allowing subraces gives the players an equal or even slightly greater advantage, and so these types of DMs disallow their use. These kinds of DMs often want their players to have fun, but universally see themselves as competing against the players and that as a DM they have to "win". Again, these individuals may not realize it, and certainly won't admit it anyway. Further, these same individuals try to push their opinions on others as being the "right" way. They claim they're merely expressing opinions, when their statements are full of phrases that can only be taken to mean that anyone who does otherwise is wrong or stupid. These kinds of individuals, by implication, tell all others that if they're not doing it THEIR way, they're doing it the wrong way. And once again, never will they admit it, even if they happen to realize it. Subraces of both monsters and PC races are something that's inherent to the game. No one's obligated to use any of it, but their presence does not detract from the game itself. If people wanna use them, great, if not, that's great too. But it's up to individual DMs and players to decide, it is NOT the place of anyone on these boards to say, unequivocally, that one thing or another is absolutely wrong when it's an inherent part of the game.
treehouse916 03-03-06, 11:19 PM	I'm not personally a huge fan of certain subraces - actually, it's just two in particular that I don't like - the gray elf and the wood elf. I don't like them because they have unbalanced abilities. That's it. One of the most creative character builds I've seen in a long time is based off of a subrace. In my homebrew campaign, one of my players is a wild elf ranger/barbarian/sorcerer who is going into darkwood stalker. Nearly every single level he has taken has been for a good roleplaying AND powergaming reason (including darkwood stalker, which fits him like a glove even though I haven't thrown orcs at them in five or six levels). The build is solid, and he's a vital asset to the party as well as a very interesting personality. Now, I personally avoid subraces, because I'm relatively new to the hobby (three years playing and DMing now) and all of the core races are still pretty fresh to me. I still haven't played a half-elf, gnome or halfling, for example. But I don't see any problems with most subraces from a mechanical standpoint. They have kind of overdone it with the elves, but elves are a very popular race, so naturally that demographic is going to be catered to. Picking a race (or subrace) that suits your build is not munchkinizing. Purposefully making bad mechanical decisions does NOT make you a better roleplayer, either. And believing that you cannot be both a good roleplayer and a powergamer is a very limited viewpoint, anyway. The best sorts of gamers, in my opinion, are the ones who can blend both of those things flawlessly into their character concepts.
Hellcow 03-03-06, 11:26 PM	The thing is... I don't dislike subraces. What I dislike is use of subraces when there is no need for them. I feel that D&D, quite frankly, has too many intelligent creatures, both humanoid and monstrous, and that all too often culture gets lost beneath racial abilities. Just as human cultures can be radically different without people from Alaska getting a Con bonus and people from Kentucky getting a Wis bonus, I wanted Aerenal and Valenar to be focused on cultural differences, not making them entirely different races. Now, I said "when there is no need for them." My point is that if you want to use a subrace, go ahead. But THINK about it. How did it develop? Where? Why does it possess the unusual abilities that it does? What impact has it had on the world? What sort of cultures has it spawned? For example, let's look at the drow of Eberron. They aren't simply "Elves who lived underground and developed darkvision and spell resistance as a result." They were (at least according to common legend) elves magically altered to serve the giants as assassins, penetrating caverns and other areas too small for the giants to breach. Their darkvision and spell resistance were traits grafted onto them for this purpose. And they aren't simply "Drow". They are sulatar, umbragen, qaltiar, and more. The firebinders and the Children of Vulkoor are mechanically identical, but are as different from one another as the Aereni are from the Tairnadal. What about whisper gnomes? MY inclination is not to use them, not because I think they're overpowered or because I can't control my players... but because I think they are unnecessary. I think that they detract from the normal gnomes, who prove that you can be stealthy and sly without having a racial proclivity for it... and furthermore, I think that if they exist, they'd be desperately sought after by all the various intelligence agencies of Khorvaire. But let's say I decided to use them. The issue then comes to the questions above: what can I do so I feel they BELONG? Just to spin off two very different ideas off the top of my head: Whisper gnomes are born when a gnome child is conceived in a manifest zone tied to Mabar when Mabar is coterminous. These creatures are known as the "Children of the Shadows", and in Zilargo they are often spirited away by the Trust as soon as they are born, so they can be raised in the service of the nation. Whisper gnomes born in other parts of the world are often seen as freaks and outcasts, touched by Khyber and feared by their parents; some are abandoned, while others grow up in this atmosphere of fear and resentment and are all too often tainted by it. They are not a true-breeding race, and have little in the way of unique culture; they are rare and mysterious, viewed with fear and suspicion by the pure-blooded gnomes. Whisper gnomes are a creation of Mordain the Fleshweaver, who has surrounded his keep with a gnome nation... a nation that now struggles to survive amidst the monsters of Droaam. They have memories and legends stretching back hundreds of years, but testimony of the monsters suggests that they have only been around for less than a decade. How powerful is Mordain really? Why would he do such a thing? Anyhow, I could go on, but the point to me would either be to give them a role in history or to explain why they haven't made an impact. Perhaps they are descended from pureblood Zil gnomes who turned to the worship of a rakshasa rajah thousands of years ago; legends of these silent feral killers can be found in the records of the Dhakaani empire, and they are feared by gnome and goblin alike. But with all that said, I would rather stick with as few races as possible and focus on cultural differences as opposed to magical differences. Gnomes can be sly and sneaky without having silence as a magical ability... and for me, personally, it makes them more interesting if they are sly and sneaky WITHOUT the magical ability. I think an elf barbarian is interesting precisely because he's not as strong as the half-orc. What sort of a barbarian culture would the swift but frail elves produce? How would it be different from that of the burly, stolid orcs? To me, it's all about culture. So... how does this relate to the original poster's question about monsters and subraces? Simple. There's too many monsters. I've never said I like the number of monsters and monstrous variations in D&D. I like to give monsters the same treatment as I do PC races. If they are as intelligent as humans, I want them to have civilizations like humans. Hence the goblins and the orcs. I don't feel the need to include every aquatic race under the sun; I'd rather focus on a few and develop them deeply. Giving players variety in challenge is part of a game. And to that end, I will cut myself some slack as a DM. Xen'drik, Khyber, and the Mournland can all offer the "Strange magical forces are at work" excuse. Sure, there's a lone city of Abeil in Xen'drik. You'll never see them anywhere else, and they've never spread beyond it, in spite of the fact that abeil are superior to humans in most respects and seem like they should breed at a fast rate, soon spreading out and conquering the world. But it's like Tarzan and the Lost City of the Bee People; when folks go to Xen'drik, I'm expecting them to suspend their disbelief a bit. But then I'm going to KEEP the abeil in that lost city... you won't find them just hanging around villages in Breland. Fire giants, storm giants, hill giants? As has been noted, the difference between a hill giant and storm giant is pretty severe. Second, I don't personally use natural evolution as an explanation for the multitude of giants... and I don't use every new giant type that comes around the bend. Don't expect to see a sand giant in my personal campaign. I work to make the giants that I do use as different as the Aereni and the Sulatar - not just different races, but different cultures, each with their own reasons to exist and flavor beyond their abilities. Goblinoids (as another one that's come up)? I don't consider them subraces. I consider them three separate branches of the evolutionary tree that happen to coexist. Gorillas, chimps, and spider monkeys that have evolved symbiotically. What I like with the goblinoids of Eberron is exploring how they have evolved TOGETHER... how the three similar-but-distinct races have been bound together, serving different roles within the Dhakaani Empire (and then looking at places like Droaam, where this relationship is shattered). Dragons? I don't consider draconic colors to have anything to do with evolution. Dragons are creatures of magic. Their colors are an expression of their magical and elemental nature. You could make the same case for a moon elf and a wood elf if you want, and if that works for you, that's great. To me, dragons are tied to the primal forces of the world - and their color is an expression of this. But to summarize, I don't feel "Oh, it's all OK for monsters." I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for monsters a little more using tricks like Xen'drik and the Mourning simply because it serves a game purpose. But whether it's monsters or PC races, to me the issue is to try to justify the reason to add the thing to the world, to consider its impact on the world, and to consider its history and make it somehow more than just a collection of stats. WHY are there fire giants? What are they like? How many different fire giant cultures are there? What role did they play in the history of Xen'drik? If you want to add Wood Elves to the game, you should obviously feel free; I simply encourage you to ask these same questions, and to make them a significant part of the world as opposed to just being there because, well, elves who live in the woods are stronger than those who don't.
Ryuu_Tenshi 03-03-06, 11:40 PM	... Keith basically said what I was trying to say in my post, only much better and more coherently. Probably because he's Keith, and stuff. ... *hides*
treehouse916 03-03-06, 11:56 PM	Note that Hellcow's post is not a blanket 'don't use X material in Eberron' statement; it is a caution to think about the extra things you add, so you can find logical places for them. Which I think most people can agree is a pretty swell idea. I'm going to play devil's advocate with you for a minute Hellcow, if you have the patience for it: What about whisper gnomes? MY inclination is not to use them, not because I think they're overpowered or because I can't control my players... but because I think they are unnecessary. I think that they detract from the normal gnomes, who prove that you can be stealthy and sly without having a racial proclivity for it... So by that same logic, do you think that half-orcs should not exist, because they detract from gnomes who prove that you can be a raging barbarian without having a racial proclivity for it? Or is this simply an interspecies evolutionary quibble of yours?
Ohtar Turinson 03-04-06, 12:40 AM	You keep bringing up FR... like they started it. Honestly, I never played Grayhawk. I started with FR, moved to homebrew, to planescape and eberron. I use FR as an example, nothing more. I actually like Faerun for a lot of things. Good variety in locations, easy to develop things for. They were based off of Lord of the Rings elves... hell LotR has more subraces of elves that D&D. Some with different qualities, others like you said would be the same practically. To just name a few the Vanyar (Fair Elves) Noldor (Deep Elves) Teleri (Sea Elves) Sindar (Gray Elves) Laiquendi (Green Elves) Nandor (Silvan Elves) post abbreivated for brevity I would say that the difference in power is, in D&D terms, in level. There's no proof that the Vanyar are physically better at anything than the Noldor... just that they're more pious. The things tolkien mentions are cultural differences, not physical from what I recall. I just think that it makes more sense in D&D to treat the races the same way humans are, without multiple subraces with different statistics. ::shrugs:: As was said, it doesn't matter really. I just don't use them for the most part. Oh and Wrath, if you're sure that I'm wrong about something on tolkien, could you PM me with the page reference? I doubt we're going to agree, but I'd like to know anyway.
(Psi)SeveredHead 03-04-06, 05:00 AM	I would really love to see proof of this? If I am not mistaken, Wood Elves get the - to con just like normal elves. No, they get +2 Con. But then apply the Con penalty. So, compared to humans, they have the same Con (and more than other elves). I look at it as variety. When I first saw Moon Elves and Sun Elves in FR, I just thought hey Moon Elves look cooler and left it at that. Yeah, they're decent cultural groups, like the difference between Valenar and Aerenal. Elf subraces started back in LORD OF THE RINGS and has been a tradition ever since. Of these, the Vanyar never come to Middle Earth, the Noldor are too rare to be a "PC race" and everyone else is a Teleri. Have you read the Silmarillion?
Neverwrong 03-04-06, 09:22 AM	About metagaming, if you were a small, weak humie, fairly smart and agile, would you train yourself to be a sword wielding fighter or a rogue? If you are of a race that is weak, small, but agile, wouldn't you be a rogue? You wouldn't try to be raging axe-wielding brute would you? It doesn't make sense from the character's point of view. Min/Maxing a race isn't stupid, because if a race is inhernently better at something, it is more likely to do that thing than something it is weak at. Or something. If a subrace has a reason i'm Ok with it. I'm no ok with it if all it has is an excuse.
Hellcow 03-04-06, 10:06 AM	So by that same logic, do you think that half-orcs should not exist, because they detract from gnomes who prove that you can be a raging barbarian without having a http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=343749racial proclivity for it? Or is this simply an interspecies evolutionary quibble of yours? A perfectly fair question. A few points in response: Eberron was always designed with the PHB races in mind. Half-orcs are in the PHB. They’re at the foundation of the core rules. Heck, they were in first edition. Whisper gnomes were not. Removing half-orcs requires a change to the PHB. Not adding whisper gnomes just means holding to the PHB. On that note, Eberron is a fantasy world. It’s D&D. I’ve been playing D&D for 28ish years myself, and I LIKE dwarves, elves, orcs and the like. Sure, you could pull everything away and just have very distinctive human cultures. But that’s not what I want from D&D. I LIKE having different races. I just don’t want to have so many that they blur together. I like having a limited number that are fairly distinctive. Most of the PHB races are fairly distinctive. The half-orcs are the strong dumb guys. The elves are fast, fragile, good at magic. The dwarves are solid and gruff. The halflings are small and sneaky. But wait… whisper gnomes are small and sneakier. So in many ways it’s the halfling who’s most impacted by the whisper gnome, who’s as fast as the halfling and has lots of sneaky bonuses as well. Once the elves can be strong, or smart, or tough… you lose those distinctive elements. Half-orcs have a distinctive place in Eberron. The orc race has a significant role in history. The arrival of humans in the Shadow Marches and the evolution of half-orcs as the bridge between human and orc has lots of interesting possibilities. Orcs are part of the world; humans are part of the world. Half-orcs explore the interaction between them, and to me this is worth exploring. By comparison, what do whisper gnomes bring to the table? What do wood elves give that normal elves don’t? The Valenar are great warriors without being unusually strong as a race; why does the world need elves that are stronger than humans as well as faster? And as I said before, how do these strong elves fit into the world? What impact have they had on history? Another thing about subraces like whisper gnomes in particular is that they are SO well suited to a particular task: they are made to be sneaky rogues. As neverwrong points out, it makes sense for a halfling to be a rogue. But he could also be a wizard. And there’s nothing wrong with him being a fighter: he’s just going to want to adopt a fighting style that takes advantage of his speed instead of relying on his strength. The half-orc may make a good barbarian, but he’s just as good as a fighter, and doesn’t make a bad cleric despite his Cha penalty. This isn’t a problem with most subraces, but there are a few that are completely geared to be “The elf/dwarf/whatever that does this”. I don’t mind a class that has a natural knack for something – halflings make good rogues – but I’d rather not have a race so specialized that you’re a fool if you take anything beyond one class. As you say, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t use subraces. That’s the whole thing. If you and your entire gaming group love wood elves, you should use them. Because it’s a game, and the point is to have fun – if wood elves are the key to you having fun, for goodness sake, use them. All I’m saying is to think about them and how they fit into the world. To have a reason for using them aside from “I want the strongest elf possible.” Personally – and this is me personally, not any sort of mandate about the world - I prefer to use fewer intelligent beings but to go into as much detail on them as possible. Yes, we have drow. Drow are a subrace. I not only use drow, I use them in my most recent novel. But I’ve done everything I can to make drow distinct from elves, to explain their presence in the world, to develop their history, and to highlight that they are a diverse race with multiple cultures, not simply a monolithic force – again, you’re not simply drow, you’re sulatar, umbragen, qaltiar, and so on. Just as if you’re not just an orc, you’re Jhorash’tar, Ghaash’kala, Tharashk, Marcher, and so on. I just don’t want to see a multitude of subraces undermine the idea of distinctive cultures within a race. As a side note, my feelings about subraces extend to RACES. I don’t personally use goliaths, raptorians, and other optional races. Not because I don’t think that they are cool, but because I like to focus on a smaller number of creatures. But again, if you want to use moon elves, goliaths, or whatever, you should. That’s why they’re discussed in the Player’s Guide. This isn’t a RULE, and it never was; the rule is that there’s a place for whatever you want in Eberron. It’s just a personal preference of mine – and one that I’m happy to set aside if you come up with a good, flavorful idea for how the race/subrace fits into the world.
treehouse916 03-04-06, 10:16 AM	Thanks for the response, Hellcow. No further questions (from me, anyway) :) For the record, though, I agree with you.
allenchan 03-04-06, 02:38 PM	the rule is that there’s a place for whatever you want in Eberron. Quoted for emphasis.
Edymnion 03-04-06, 04:17 PM	hell LotR has more subraces of elves that D&D.Yeah, except that they were ENTIRELY flavor based subraces. A sea elf was just an elf that lived by the sea, they were not physically differant from any other elf in any way. There was a dark elf in the Similarion, and he was called that only because he lived in dark woods and didn't like sunlight. He was still an elf, he still looked like every other elf in the world, and he still had stats like every other elf in the world. Tolkien subraces were entirely flavor based.
(Psi)SeveredHead 03-04-06, 04:52 PM	Yeah, except that they were ENTIRELY flavor based subraces. A sea elf was just an elf that lived by the sea, they were not physically differant from any other elf in any way. There was a dark elf in the Similarion, and he was called that only because he lived in dark woods and didn't like sunlight. He was still an elf, he still looked like every other elf in the world, and he still had stats like every other elf in the world. Tolkien subraces were entirely flavor based. I'm afraid I can't agree Edy, though I'd like to. Noldor (at least nobles) frequently had abilities like mind reading. The son of the "Dark Elf" (the Dark Elf's wife was a Noldor noble) inherited her ability to read minds. Despite all the various elven cultures in Tolkien, there were only ever three Tolkien elven subraces, and only two can be found on Middle Earth. Of these, the Noldor are rare. (The only Noldor seen in LotR is Galadriel. Arwyn or maybe Elrond might be part Noldor, though. I haven't memorized that family tree. Yet.)
Beleriphon 03-04-06, 06:32 PM	I'm afraid I can't agree Edy, though I'd like to. Noldor (at least nobles) frequently had abilities like mind reading. The son of the "Dark Elf" (the Dark Elf's wife was a Noldor noble) inherited her ability to read minds. Despite all the various elven cultures in Tolkien, there were only ever three Tolkien elven subraces, and only two can be found on Middle Earth. Of these, the Noldor are rare. (The only Noldor seen in LotR is Galadriel. Arwyn or maybe Elrond might be part Noldor, though. I haven't memorized that family tree. Yet.) Something to keep in mind is the Galadriel, specifically, is nearly 20000 years old. Thats working from the timelines in the Silmarillion. At that point I expect a highly magical creature to develop all kinds of wonky abilities. As for why I don't use subraces, they don't strike me as fitting overly well into a setting. In FR most of the subraces are explained reasonably well as to why they exist. Taking a sun elf from FR and dumping it into Eberron so you can have a whoop ass wizard doesn't seem right.
Euangelion 03-04-06, 10:11 PM	Sure, you could pull everything away and just have very distinctive human cultures. But that’s not what I want from D&D. I LIKE having different races. I just don’t want to have so many that they blur together. I like having a limited number that are fairly distinctive. For the record, I actually agree with this (even considering my previous post). I just don't want anyone to be told that if they choose to include a subrace like wood elves in their Eberron campaign that they're no longer playing "authentic" Eberron, especially when the same motivations are at work when someone picks a wood elf for particular stat bonuses as when someone select a half-orc for its particular stat bonus.
LuciferNietzsche 03-04-06, 10:45 PM	I can see the point of keeping a low overall number of races for the purposes of maintaining cultural distinction. I think though that this really only matters in Eberron. When it comes to an overabundance of species, FR is just a meaningless grab-bag of garbage...Greyhawk is just vanilla pudding...and everything else is done just because it COULD be done. I think an interesting variation, for those that want certain subraces, without unnecessarily cluttering the world of Eberron, is to substitute a specific subrace of your choice in place of a core race. For instance, instead of using normal elves for the Aerenal and Valenar, pick an elven subrace. You don't have to change the culture at all, but maybe you think their way of life should have a different effect on them. My general explanation for subraces, when they're worth putting in at all, is that they're usually isolated communities, rare and relatively unknown. Beyond that, they're sometimes mutants or I come up with alterations to the story that fit the specific subrace, much like Keith suggested. Admittedly, it's something of the easy way out, but there's so much opportunity in Eberron, sometimes it's necessary.
Euangelion 03-05-06, 08:14 PM	I think an interesting variation, for those that want certain subraces, without unnecessarily cluttering the world of Eberron, is to substitute a specific subrace of your choice in place of a core race. For instance, instead of using normal elves for the Aerenal and Valenar, pick an elven subrace. You don't have to change the culture at all, but maybe you think their way of life should have a different effect on them. This is a really interesting idea, and one I hadn't thought of. Makes you wonder if there's any subrace of a core race that's really more Eberronian in flavor than the core race...
MysteryGilgamesh 03-06-06, 12:08 PM	This is a really interesting idea, and one I hadn't thought of. Makes you wonder if there's any subrace of a core race that's really more Eberronian in flavor than the core race... If I were honestly going to shove any subraces into Eberron, I'd do it roughly like this: Wood/wild elves as Valenar, and grey/sun as Aerenal. That would be the most obvious choice for me, considering the relative difference between their socities and goals, and their ways of life. The halflings would definately not be the PHB variety for the tribal, dino-taming types, but I'm not too buffed up on halfling subraces, so I dunno if they have any that better suit the rough and tumble life. But the normal "We're built to be rogues!" halflings definatly don't fit with the tribal types, in my eyes. Normal, "citified city-folk" halflings would be the PHB versions. The dwarves, well...I honestly don't know what would fit for'em. As written, they're pretty much the same old dwarves to me: Gold grubbing miners/warriors turned tradesmen. For the "half X" races, I'd leave'em as is. Well, okay, I wouldn't, because mechanically, they're both subpar, but there's never been a real fix for either of'em. Gnomes are fairly simple. Regular gnomes for most of them, and Whisper Gnomes for the Trust. After all, if you're gonna have a super double secret gnome mafia, you might as well use the gnomes that are the stealthiest, most secretive gnomes around.
DoveArrow 03-06-06, 05:11 PM	This is such a multifaceted issue, I don't know exactly where to begin. I, personally, don't have an aversion to using subraces. As long as they feel like they have a place in the world, then that's all right with me. For example, I don't see any problem with allowing someone to play a half giant from X'endrik. What I do have a problem with is subraces that don't seem to have a place in Eberron. For example, I would never allow a sun elf in my campaign, because it detracts from the gothic feel of Eberron elves. Meanwhile, regardless of what anyone says, some subraces just belong in Eberron. For example, if you allow sahuagin, and you admit that they can sometimes be born with the appearance of sea elves, then it seems logical that there are, in fact, sea elves (and yes, I've read Keith Baker's response in the AKB thread. However, while I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Keith and his various contributions to the D&D community, I don't always agree with everything that he says and this is one of those things that I don't agree on). Lastly, while I think some subraces may have a place in Eberron, I feel that I have the last say on how the players use them. For example, if a player wants to play a character with the stats of a wood elf, I would allow it, but I would make it clear that the character has the appearance of a regular elf and have them play a Valenar elf. Now does that mean I have any less respect for someone who says that they don't allow subraces? Not at all. The ECS says that the Valenar elves are just regular elves, and nowhere does it mention anything about half giants, sea elves, or the like. Meanwhile, Keith has expressed his opinion on subraces multiple times, so I think it's perfectly justified if someone decides not to include them in their game. Nevertheless, I personally don't see a problem with allowing subraces into the game on a case-by-case basis.
The Dreaming Duck 03-06-06, 06:28 PM	For example, if you allow sahuagin, and you admit that they can sometimes be born with the appearance of sea elves, then it seems logical that there are, in fact, sea elves. It's one possible answer. But it's certainly not the only one. In the Cthulhu mythos, deep ones can be born with human appearance, becoming deep ones later in life. As it stands, we know very little about the life-cycle of the malenti. Given that we've heard nothing about sea elves in the setting - that they seem to have had no impact on history, no contact with or influence on the existing cultures - I prefer to say that the malenti are magically bred by the sahuagin to serve as ambassadors. Combining a face that is far less frightening to humans with an extended ability to survive on land, a malenti serves a valuable role even if there are no sea elves in the oceans. I'm with Hellcow on this. Anyone who wants to use subraces should, especially if they work to develop the role the race plays in the world... developing a long history of the conflict between aquatic elves and sahuagin, the trade relations between aquatic elves and the surface world, and so on. Personally I prefer to avoid the Mos Eisley cantina flavor that can come from a multitude of races, or the sense that any elf warrior should be a wood elf and any member of the Trust should be a whisper gnome. As it stands, virtually all societies need soldiers; the elves can't just say "We've got bad Con and no Str bonus... forget it, we're all wizards." The end result is that they are better suited to high-Dex, light-armor styles of combat... making an elf army very different from an orc/half-orc army. An elf just doesn't make as good a brute strength fighter as an orc does. Me, I like that. When someone says "There's a band of elf soldiers in the town" you can jump to some conclusions. If you not only add in high-strength wood elves, but make them indistiguishable from high elves, it means that I no longer know what to expect. Buuuut... that's just how I roll (dice, that is). Hellcow hit the key point:it's a game, and all that really matters is that you enjoy yourself. If that means using subraces, use 'em.
DoveArrow 03-06-06, 07:31 PM	It's one possible answer. But it's certainly not the only one. In the Cthulhu mythos, deep ones can be born with human appearance, becoming deep ones later in life. As it stands, we know very little about the life-cycle of the malenti. Given that we've heard nothing about sea elves in the setting - that they seem to have had no impact on history, no contact with or influence on the existing cultures - I prefer to say that the malenti are magically bred by the sahuagin to serve as ambassadors. Combining a face that is far less frightening to humans with an extended ability to survive on land, a malenti serves a valuable role even if there are no sea elves in the oceans. Personally, if I were going to do away with sea elves, I would just ignore the part about 1% of sahuagin being born with the appearance of a sea elf. After all, the SRD says that it only happens if there is a community of sea elves within 100 miles of a sahuagin community. No sea elves means no anomalies, pure and simple. However, as DM, I don't want to limit my options like that, which is why I leave them in my game. On that note, while I grant you that there is no reference to the sea elves having any impact on history, there also isn't any mention of aasimar having any impact on history. Does that mean that they don't exist? Lastly, I think you make a good point with your Cthulu mythos reference. I'll keep it in mind.
The Dreaming Duck 03-06-06, 07:56 PM	However, I figure if I ever decide to use sea elves in my campaign, why should I feel limited like that? Never said you should, DA. Read my post again: I said that your answer was a perfectly logical answer... but not the ONLY logical answer. The existence of malenti among the sahuagin could justify the existence of sea elves. But there's lots of other possibilities. The sahuagin are descended from elves twisted by the forces that destroyed Xen'drik. The ruins of Shargon's Teeth are in fact remnants of cities that sank in the cataclysm. Occasionally those elven genes resurface, producing the malenti. The sahuagin are masters of mystical eugenics, and have intentionally produced the malenti to serve as spies or ambassadors - a role that they can accomplish all the better if there are aquatic elves in the world, but not one that requires aquatic elves. This is backed up by the existence of the four-armed sahuagin. Do these exist because of the existence of some other four-armed race... or have they come to exist because they have value to the sahuagin? In the AKB thread, Hellcow said "You are what you eat" when discussing the malenti. Given that the sahuagin worship the Devourer, the idea that they create the malenti by eating elves appeals to me. I'm not trying to limit your options: on the contrary, I'm saying that requiring aquatic elves to exist in order to use malenti is itself a limitation, and I'm saying that you shouldn't feel bound by it. (And yes, I'm aware that the MM says you have to have aquatic elves to have malenti... but again, if I want to use malenti, why should I feel limited like that?)
Euangelion 03-06-06, 08:04 PM	There was, a long time ago somewhere, a "Get ready for Eberron" thingy that promised fully developed undersea societies including sea elves, IIRC. The reference to Malenti perhaps is a legacy of those plans. I'll look around for the reference, but it's so old now I'm not sure I'll be able to find it.
The Dreaming Duck 03-06-06, 08:06 PM	On that note, while I grant you that there is no reference to the sea elves having any impact on history, there also isn't any mention of aasimar having any impact on history. Does that mean that they don't exist? Not at all... but on the other hand, because of their nature you can potentially have aasimar without having an aasimar civilization, or by placing that aasimar civilization on another plane. With that said, my point is that if I was going to put an Aasimar civilization on Eberron, I would do one of three things: Come up with an explanation that explains why it has had no impact on the world: like the inhumans of the Marvel Universe, the Aasimars have lived in a hidden city, far from the eyes of humanity. Give the Aasimars a minor impact on the world. There could easily be an Aasimar community in Adar, but the humans of Khorvaire would know nothing about it. Still, if they go to Adar or get involved with the fight against the Dreaming Dark, they will learn that the Aasimar have played an important role in the fight. Completely change the history of the world to give the Aasimar a significant role. If I want to have an Aasimar city in Thrane, I'll come up with a story about the role it played in the Last War, the impact it's had on the Church of the Silver Flame, and in other ways change the world so it really makes sense with the level of involvement I want for Aasimars. It's my Eberron, so I'll make it feel like it. That's my only point on sea elves. If I use them, I'll GIVE them a place in the world... but I'll try to make it a meaningful place.
Kid SixXx 03-06-06, 08:56 PM	Well, I personally don't think this thread is as much about sub-races, as it is about the vocal aversion to suggestions about sub-races from so-called "Eberron purists." Otherwise, there would be no strong words like "hypocrisy" being thrown around. I think what needs to be realized is that not everyone who posts here is going to welcome the "Where Do I Put The Wood Elves?" thread with open arms. People who enjoy the setting as written will naturally point to the ECS and answer the previous question with, "Nowhere, because there are no subraces." This is when the shouting wars start. It is a metagame issue and it has nothing to do with the alleged subject of the hypocrisy, that being sub-races. It is about validation & deciding who should have the right-of-way when ruleslawyering occurs. There is no hypocrisy whatsoever. The fact is that the ECS originially provided for only cultural differeneces in the basic player races much to the delight of many members of the D&D community. There are no player sub-races in the original concept of the setting.. period.. The Drow aren't even treated a sub-race in the setting, and Half-Orcs are included because they're a PHB player race. Eberron has a rather unique setting niche for the Orcs, IMHO. The original setting also comes with the "If it belongs in D&D.." clause that everyone loves to quote, for the folks that cannot sleep through the night without saying "Wood Elf" or "Warlock" at least once per day and wish to import whatever game element into the setting that they deem appropriate. Quite a few folks enjoy the "no sub-races" flavor concept (myself included) and that has no bearing whatsoever on what monsters they chose to use, or the issue of sub-races or sub-types of monsters in general. The question being asked shouldn't be whether or not people like sub-races: it should be whose opinion should bear more weight in ruleslawyering. That, IMO, is the crux of the matter. Let's not beat around the bush with this hypocrisy jazz and circular logic about "You don't like elf sub-races, therefore you must also hate different types of giants or dragons. Otherwise you're a hypocrite" If you're going to accuse someone of having an elitist attidute concering the setting materiel, then go ahead & do it. It doesn't stop Sarlax from doing it whenever Edy pulls out the "enough elves already" soabox. :D I personally don't care who uses sub-races & who doesn't because their decisions don't affect the way I do business and visa versa. I also don't think that there should necessarily be a "right way" of doing business, either. The sooner that both sides figure out that there is enough room for both opinions & that said opinions should be expressed as respectfully as possible, the better this board will be. Now that I've finished being all gruff and grumpy, I'm going to get me some Butter Pecan ice cream.
Edymnion 03-06-06, 11:35 PM	It doesn't stop Sarlax from doing it whenever Edy pulls out the "enough elves already" soabox. :DOh thanks for reminding me, I need to get that resurfaced. I wore the top down from too much use. ;)
Sereno 03-07-06, 10:34 AM	What bugs me the most about the whole sub-races situation is why it isn't "universal." Why do elves, the LONGEST lived race, have all the sub-races but most others have only one or two? Why aren't there "dark" (and I don't mean African!) humans who live deep underground, and "wild" humans who are stronger and faster, and "silver" humans who are smarter and less robust? Where are the smart/weak dwarves, and the strong/stupid halflings, and the wise/charismatic half-orcs? It just seems that there's a perfect min/max'ers elf for any class (or class combination).... Personally, the emphasis on culture, apart from mechanics, in Eberron is a breath of fresh air in D&D.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-07-06, 12:59 PM	What bugs me the most about the whole sub-races situation is why it isn't "universal." Why do elves, the LONGEST lived race, have all the sub-races but most others have only one or two? Why aren't there "dark" (and I don't mean African!) humans who live deep underground, and "wild" humans who are stronger and faster, and "silver" humans who are smarter and less robust? Where are the smart/weak dwarves, and the strong/stupid halflings, and the wise/charismatic half-orcs? I believe dwarves come in the number 2 slot for the amount of subraces, only having 1 or 2 less than elves, with gnomes/halflings only 1 or 2 subraces behind that number, and orc's 1 or 2 behind that, which gives all of'em at least 5 subraces, if I recall correctly. Never hear anyone complain about it like they do elves, though. As for human subraces, there was one in the BoVD, one in Magic of Incarnum, at least one in Races of Destiny, and technically, aasimar, tieflings, shifters, changelings, half elves, and half orcs can be considered human subraces (and counted as completely human, with a single feat from RoD).
igotsmeakabob!! 03-07-06, 01:15 PM	What bugs me the most about the whole sub-races situation is why it isn't "universal." Because I think I'd puke. There'd be no reason to use any of the regular races (not wholly true). In my experience, when subraces are available, people eat them up. Then again there aren't too many subraces. Mainly elven subraces. So you don't see a whole party of them because not everyone wants to be an elf. But............... agh. Just agh. If there were subraces for everyone we'd never see a regular human.
Sereno 03-07-06, 02:14 PM	I believe dwarves come in the number 2 slot for the amount of subraces, only having 1 or 2 less than elves, with gnomes/halflings only 1 or 2 subraces behind that number, and orc's 1 or 2 behind that, which gives all of'em at least 5 subraces, if I recall correctly. Never hear anyone complain about it like they do elves, though. Well, I must be out of touch with the materials ... I had no idea there were that many dwarf subraces (I can only think of one with mechanical differences: duergar). Aren't the "shield" and "gold" dwarves of FR fundamentally the same? Likewise with the gnomes and halflings ... where the heck are all these subraces coming from? :) As for human subraces, there was one in the BoVD, one in Magic of Incarnum, at least one in Races of Destiny, and technically, aasimar, tieflings, shifters, changelings, half elves, and half orcs can be considered human subraces (and counted as completely human, with a single feat from RoD). I don't really count half-anythings are sub-races ... they're more like templates to my mind. Especially on Eberron where half-elves (Khorovar), shifters, and changelinges are true-breeding races. But, I see your point.
DoveArrow 03-07-06, 02:51 PM	Give the Aasimars a minor impact on the world. There could easily be an Aasimar community in Adar, but the humans of Khorvaire would know nothing about it. Still, if they go to Adar or get involved with the fight against the Dreaming Dark, they will learn that the Aasimar have played an important role in the fight. One of my players asked me if he could play the only aasimar in the world and asked me to come up with some reason for why this should be. While I haven't yet introduced the concept into my game, I have this idea that the reason he's the only aasimar is that he's part of some strategem developed by a group of overzealous celestials that have decided to move their battle on Shavrath to the Material Plane. Though his character doesn't know it yet, the celestials expect him to play some part in this battle (probably as a leader of the battle, or something). I'll probably open a thread about it at some point, but so far, it hasn't played a major part in my campaign, mainly because I'm still musing over it.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-07-06, 06:22 PM	Well, I must be out of touch with the materials ... I had no idea there were that many dwarf subraces (I can only think of one with mechanical differences: duergar). Subraces (a decently comprehensive list including FR, the Races of X series, the BoVD, not including PHB races): Dwarven: Grey, gold, dream, arctic, urdunnir, wild. Elven: Wild, wood, sun, grey, star, drow, sea, avariel. Gnome: Deep, chaos, whisper, forest. Halfling: Jerren, ghostwise, strongheart. Orc: Grey, mountain, orog, sharakim. Human: Azurin, skulk, mongrelfolk, sea kin, underfolk, vashar, elan, illumian. Human actually has the greatest number of subraces, if only by virtue of a feat in RoD which makes a primarily human-decended race (half elves/orcs, aasimar, tieflings, genasi, and more) count as human rather than it's normal racial type. If you count that, they have the most subraces. If you don't, elves and humans tie for first place (8 subraces each, 9 if you count half elf as a subrace for both races!), dwarves in a close 2nd (6), with orc and gnome tied (4 apiece), and halfling with the least amount (3). If you count previous editions, then humans come out with the most subraces, if you consider things such as mul's (half human/half dwarf breeds), and more.
Beleriphon 03-07-06, 06:40 PM	Well, I must be out of touch with the materials ... I had no idea there were that many dwarf subraces (I can only think of one with mechanical differences: duergar). Aren't the "shield" and "gold" dwarves of FR fundamentally the same? Nope, Gold dwarves have different stat bonuses. As for halfling in FR, at some level it makes sense, they keep the stat bonuses, but give them different abilitie, for example losing the thrown weapon bonus and getting something else in return. As for why elves seem to be universally used as the subrace whipping boy it has something to do with the fact that they have so many subraces that aren't specifically included in as part of a campagin setting.
Euangelion 03-07-06, 07:08 PM	Subraces (a decently comprehensive list including FR, the Races of X series, the BoVD, not including PHB races): Dwarven: Grey, gold, dream, arctic, urdunnir, wild. Elven: Wild, wood, sun, grey, star, drow, sea, avariel. Gnome: Deep, chaos, whisper, forest. Halfling: Jerren, ghostwise, strongheart. Orc: Grey, mountain, orog, sharakim. Human: Azurin, skulk, mongrelfolk, sea kin, underfolk, vashar, elan, illumian. Human actually has the greatest number of subraces, if only by virtue of a feat in RoD which makes a primarily human-decended race (half elves/orcs, aasimar, tieflings, genasi, and more) count as human rather than it's normal racial type. If you count that, they have the most subraces. If you don't, elves and humans tie for first place (8 subraces each, 9 if you count half elf as a subrace for both races!), dwarves in a close 2nd (6), with orc and gnome tied (4 apiece), and halfling with the least amount (3). If you count previous editions, then humans come out with the most subraces, if you consider things such as mul's (half human/half dwarf breeds), and more. You forgot the tallfellow and deep halflings and the deep, mountain and duergar dwarves from the MM. (Edit: which, I suppose, puts the dwarves ahead of the elves)
LuciferNietzsche 03-07-06, 08:55 PM	90% of the world is about hypocrisy. People sometimes like to claim other silly things just to avoid admitting that. Simcity calls it the NIMBY factor. Not In My Back Yard. It's a condition in which individuals want or need a particular thing, but refuse to deal with the responsibility of that thing. The problem is that so-called "Eberron Purists" aren't just saying they disagree or don't like a particular idea, they're saying people cannot or should not do the things they don't like. They're calling people wrong for doing what they want to do with the game. Some of these individuals thinly veil their accusations with false statements like, "But it's your Eberron, do what you like." They don't mean it, and it always comes after they've called multiple individuals stupid, essentially. I'm not saying these individuals aren't entitled to their opinion, but honestly, when someone asks, "How can I make this work?" Informing them of how wrong they are, or telling them they shouldn't do it in the first place is NOT helpful. That's what people complain about, and I think they should complain. When I ask what I can do to accomplish something or make something more like what I want in my game, I want input on that. I don't want to hear why I shouldn't, or CAN'T do it. I don't want to hear how what I'm going to do ruins Eberron. I've already considered that, already talked to my players about it, and decided that it's still worth doing. After that, what I want is what I asked for, ideas and suggestions on how to accomplish my goals. I don't want people telling me I'm a bad DM or player for wanting to do certain things with Eberron. As long as I and my group like it, it doesn't matter whether others do. It's come to the point where in cases where I might start a thread, I'll be tacking on (No Eberron Purists) to the thread title. Just like when I play FF 11, I ban most American players from my parties.
memorax 03-07-06, 09:01 PM	90% of the world is about hypocrisy. People sometimes like to claim other silly things just to avoid admitting that. Simcity calls it the NIMBY factor. Not In My Back Yard. It's a condition in which individuals want or need a particular thing, but refuse to deal with the responsibility of that thing. The problem is that so-called "Eberron Purists" aren't just saying they disagree or don't like a particular idea, they're saying people cannot or should not do the things they don't like. They're calling people wrong for doing what they want to do with the game. Some of these individuals thinly veil their accusations with false statements like, "But it's your Eberron, do what you like." They don't mean it, and it always comes after they've called multiple individuals stupid, essentially. I'm not saying these individuals aren't entitled to their opinion, but honestly, when someone asks, "How can I make this work?" Informing them of how wrong they are, or telling them they shouldn't do it in the first place is NOT helpful. That's what people complain about, and I think they should complain. When I ask what I can do to accomplish something or make something more like what I want in my game, I want input on that. I don't want to hear why I shouldn't, or CAN'T do it. I don't want to hear how what I'm going to do ruins Eberron. I've already considered that, already talked to my players about it, and decided that it's still worth doing. After that, what I want is what I asked for, ideas and suggestions on how to accomplish my goals. I don't want people telling me I'm a bad DM or player for wanting to do certain things with Eberron. As long as I and my group like it, it doesn't matter whether others do. It's come to the point where in cases where I might start a thread, I'll be tacking on (No Eberron Purists) to the thread title. Just like when I play FF 11, I ban most American players from my parties. Very well said LuciferNietzsche.
allenchan 03-07-06, 09:59 PM	Human: Azurin, skulk, mongrelfolk, sea kin, underfolk, vashar, elan, illumian. Forgot the Deep Immaraski (sp?); the Underdark humans. Edit: And Neanderthals, also a human subtype. Midgard and Glacier are other types of Dwarves (frostburn) RE LuciferNietzsche: Agreed. But the term Puritans is a bit of a misnomer, imo. I think Fundamentalists is a bit more accurate.
The Dreaming Duck 03-07-06, 11:25 PM	The problem is that so-called "Eberron Purists" aren't just saying they disagree or don't like a particular idea, they're saying people cannot or should not do the things they don't like. That's a ridiculous generalization. No one can stop you from doing what you want. I don't ever expect my opinion to matter more than yours. In this thread already, I've explained why I don't use subraces. But I've not only said that you should do so if it's what your group enjoys, I've given multiple examples of how I would it if I changed my policy. I've tried to put thought into those responses, and for you to say that my statements are false and hypocritical isn't even a "thinly veiled" insult - it's just an insult. You are absolutely right: If you post a thread that says "How can I put warlocks in Eberron", you shouldn't have to deal with people saying "Warlocks don't belong in Eberron." It should go without saying that if people think warlocks don't belong in Eberron, they shouldn't post in your thread. But this isn't that thread. This thread directly challenges people who don't like to use subraces to explain their policy and how and why it does or does not extend to monsters. This is a thread calling on those purists to defend their position. I have done that - all the while continuing to respect YOUR right to disagree with me. When you start a thread titled "How do I use Whisper Gnomes in Eberron" - I don't belong there. But here, YOUR attitude is the one that's out of place. The poster was asking Eberron purists to defend their beliefs - and here, it's your dismissal of our prefered style of play that is rude and uncalled for. I don't think you're stupid. I don't think what you're doing ruins Eberron. And personally, I'm not going to post on threads specifically relating to your style of play and tell you that what you're doing is wrong. Kindly extend me the same courtesy.
Splendide 03-07-06, 11:34 PM	I'm sorry to hear that people expressing a preference for Eberron to follow the original ideas and concepts that attracted them to the setting have offended so many of you. <SNIP> FYI, the reason why I am anti-subrace is because they just dilute the awesome versatilities of the core race.
The Dreaming Duck 03-07-06, 11:50 PM	Forgot the Deep Immaraski (sp?); the Underdark humans. Edit: And Neanderthals, also a human subtype. Midgard and Glacier are other types of Dwarves (frostburn) And this is exactly why I don't like subraces. Not counting the orcs, we're talking about 40-some subraces here. If one takes those 40 subraces and gives them each two to three distinctive cultures to call their own, the world's becoming a lot more crowded. Is it unrealistic? Honestly, I don't care. This is a fantasy game, not a biology class. Despite LM's accusations, I don't believe that it's "stupid". But in my mind, it creates a very different feel. If we've got 40-odd subraces... plus changelings, shifters, half-elves, half-orcs, and any other humanoid races you want to throw in - the streets of Sharn end up looking like Mos Eisley. And my players are going to be struggling to remember the cultural differences (if there are any) between all of the different races. That may be exactly what you're looking for. If WotC didn't think it was a good idea and appropriate for D&D, they wouldn't be putting new subraces & races in all their new books, and people wouldn't keep buying those books. There are no right or wrong answers, there's only what you and your players enjoy. But it's not what *I'm* looking for. I like being able to say "You seen an elf" and not have my players say "What kind?"... and the same thing holds true for dwarves, halflings, and humans. I don't thing it's WRONG to use subraces: but it makes the world a far more complicated place and makes it more difficult (for me, at least - YMMV) to add the the cultural depth each race deserves. I feel the exact same thing is true of monsters. I've never used a grimlock, locathah, yak folk, sand giant, forest giant, or gem dragon. I've never even used troglodytes; kobolds and lizardfolk are enough for me. Does that mean that I think these races are stupid? No. It's just that I prefer to use a smaller number of creatures and to focus on their culture and place in the world in more depth. I don't do it because no Eberron sourcebook has ever placed gem dragons: I do it because I don't like gem dragons, and would rather focus on the core colors and really develop them in depth. So to answer the original poster, as someone who doesn't like to use subraces in Eberron, I see no hypocrisy in my position... because I also dislike the vast array of sub-monsters. Anything can fit in Eberron, and you should use every monster and subrace in the books. But just because it can fit doesn't mean it has to... and I will continue to leave 90% of the monsters and races out of my campaign. Is this keeping Eberron "pure"? No. Because if an Eberron sourcebook came out tomorrow putting gem dragons in Sharn and insisting that every adventuring party have at least one goliath, neanderthal, or whisper gnome, I'd ignore it. To me, this isn't a question of "How you have to play Eberron": it's simply how *I* play Eberron, and I see no hypocrisy in what I do.
Orion Polaris 03-08-06, 02:02 AM	Ignore this.
Nimrud 03-08-06, 03:14 AM	Hypocrisy! Puritans! Fundamentalists! How emotional. The vehemence of the "I want to use sub-races so you can stuff your Hypocritical Fundamentalist Puritan ideas where the sun don't shine" crowd really surprises me. Why is this such a big deal? So people don't agree with you. Just disagree right back and offer your own ideas and vision about why Eberron should include sub-races or whatever. If your ideas and vision are more attractive, people might be swayed to your view. It is hardly necessary to call people names. It just looks like you don't have any useful ideas or arguments. The argument about what should or should not be in Eberron, or how a certain sub-race or whatever should fit into Eberron, is about aesthetics, not Truth or Freedom. Not Truth because it is a matter of preference. This is acknowledged by even the most rabid Eberron "purist" I've seen on the boards. By and large most criticisms of sub-races (for example) are framed on aesthetic grounds i.e. "This doesn't fit into the original vision of Eberron" rather than "This is the verifiable objective Truth: There are no subraces in Eberron". Not Freedom because you are always free to use the campaign setting as you please in your game. Again, a point acknowledged by all. It is just ridiculous to cry: "You are oppressing my freedom of choice by your Puritanical comments!" There isn't really any pressure to conform to the "purist" vision of Eberron, unless you are pressured by good ideas. ;) And if you don't like somebody else's aesthetics, say so and give your reasons why your aesthetics are better. So here's the challenge: Instead of protesting that the Eberron setting specifically allows you to use everything published by WOTC, present arguments as to why PC sub-races as a concept is as elegant and appropriate to the Eberron setting as using PC core races only. Words like "hypocrisy", "Puritanism", and "Fundamentalism" contribute nothing to this discussion and just shows up a lack of any real ideas about the real issues.
Hellcow 03-08-06, 03:53 AM	present arguments as to why PC sub-races as a concept is elegant.... Actually, I'm honestly curious about this. I don't want to threadjack, but if you have a moment, post your answer in this thread. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8643017#post8643017)
Beleriphon 03-08-06, 04:08 AM	Again: There's no right or wrong here. Nothing's stupid, nothing's going to ruin Eberron. So take a moment to tell me why additional races and subraces make the game more fun for you! In Forgotten Realms I like the subraces because they have a cultural reason for being there, and if you follow the novels a number of them aren't native to Toril. Moon elves and Sun elves for example were are one point extraplanar. To look at Gold dwarves vs Shield dwarves one has existed in the Great Rift since there were dwarves, and the others off in the mountains to the north. Both have cultural reasons for being different that are built into the history of the setting. For me just throwing in subraces because we can seems silly, if there is a functional, logical in game reason for a subrace to be included than thats fine by me. To look at Eberron the Valenar and the Aeranl aren't different enough, yet, to be subraces. They were, until recent history, the same people with slightly different views about honouring one's ancestors. To make one or the other a subrace doesn't make sense to me, nor does adding some elven subrace deep in the Eldeen Reaches. By all accounts elves came from Xen'drik so some long lost race of elves that aren't at all like other elves doesn't jive with me. Again I'd like to reiterate subraces for me are about making logical sense about why a group of people are different from their cousins of a different subrace, and it has to fit the setting in a way that makes sense.
Anguirus23 03-08-06, 10:46 AM	Maybe psionics can't occur in living constructs without special modifications. Tada - reason for there to be psiforged. Ah, Ryuu, you know I hate to contradict you, but...no. YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY PSYCHIC WARRIOR WITH ADAMANTINE BODY AWAY FROM ME! Hypothetically speaking. Now, there seems to be a great deal of excitement over subraces lately. I can't say I've ever exactly been fond of the myriad elves, but I actually like most FR subraces because they are well-integrated and, for the most part, interesting. Still, I respect Eberron's choice to step away from that as it created its society. The PHB races really are entirely sufficent for a campaign world to be interesting. It's the fervent dislike of anything that smacks of subrace that I don't get. The drow are pretty darn different from elves, not to mention that they are classically "D&D." Ditto for the svirfnebli and the duergar...they all do a good job of "an entirely alien culture just similar enough to us to be really creepy!" There's a terrific scene in R.A. Salvatore's FR novels where, having allied with one another and routed drow on the field of battle, the dwarven and svirfneblin commanders meet and just don't know what the heck to make of each other, other than that they just stuck their necks out for each other against overwhelming evil. (And if you will permit me to editorialize, Eberron could use some non-Zil/Zil-like gnomes. Further, I'd take light-blindness away from orcs and keep it with the underground races and make it impossible to get rid of.) Now, if those guys can be considered different, then the different varieties of giant and dragon certainly, to me, qualify as distinct and interesting. Different habitats, demenors, anatomy, everything. The humanoids are more similar to each other than the giants are, so how are the giants subraces of each other when elves aren't a subrace of humanity? This has become a semantics argument, not "hypocrisy." And I'm sorry, but if ANYTHING in D&D is a subrace, it's kalashtar. (Empty vessels, too.) They are humans, only bound with dream spirits so that they have slightly different game statistics. Now, they are far more interesting than "wood elves" but that doesn't change anything. So in conclusion...look to see if it's interesting, not if it's a "subrace," before you let it into your game or your Eberron. IMHO.
Kreistor1 03-08-06, 02:01 PM	Splendide said: I'm sorry to hear that people expressing a preference for Eberron to follow the original ideas and concepts that attracted them to the setting have offended so many of you. And yet, here's Hellcow asking everyone their opinions. He is the creator of the original ideas and concepts, and he hasn't said, "We intended no subraces in Eberron." Case on point: In the ECS, you will find many references to Elf. But where does it say Elf = High Elf. The Elves rebelled against the Giants and left for Aerenal. But where does it say, "There were no Wood Elves when the rebellion occured." Without the "High" Elves is a superset of all elf types, not an indicator of only one type. The giants had millenia to manipulate the genetics of their slaves. Subraces could have been intentionally created during the Age of Giants, not just a natural genetic mutation. But to get to that point, you have to start with an open minded "What could have created the subraces, if they exist?" mindset, instead of "How can the subraces not exist?" If nothing could have created them, then obviously they don't exist. It's the difference between looking for a truth and looking to justify your position. I can see why people don't want to include subraces. But culture is not a valid reason. Culture is not based on race: culture is based on location. Cultures forced into close proximity will adopt aspect of nearby cultures, until they become indistinguishable. There are places that try to prevent that (France's baby naming laws, for instance), but ultimately, the drive to fit in causes people that look different to act the same. Only through active efforts to maintain a culture can a people prevent that. So, though some may not want Grey Elves or Wood Elves or whatever included due to a lack of knowledge of their culture, all I have to say is they have the same culture as the other elves they live beside. They're smarter, stronger, dumber, or weaker than other elves, but essentially they are elves and near enough to be identical. You can give Wood Elves the more violent natures they had in AD&D, or make Grey Elves the most human and most arrogant of the elves as they were, but it's not necessary. It's only as complex a task as you want it to be. And, ultimately, I want +Int, +Wis, and +Cha races as options for my players whihc means I must go beyond the PHB. I find it hard to look at the PHB races which allow powergaming based on Str, Dex, and Con, but somehow skew my mind such that powergaming based on Int, Wis, and Cha is so much worse, epsecially when the DMG says the mental stats are not viewed as being as powerful as the physical stats. So, at the very least, I allow subraces just to allow players the option of races with synergy to the casting classes, not just those with synergy to the physical classes.
LuciferNietzsche 03-08-06, 09:15 PM	People still seem to be failing to get that general disagreement on issues in Eberron is not, and never has been, the problem. The problem with the "Purists" isn't that they disagree with anyone. It's that they're telling other DMs they CAN'T do what they want to do in their own games. They tell everyone, occasionally subtly, that the purist way is the only way. They don't say they BELIEVE it ruins Eberron, they say it DOES ruin Eberron. They're not expressing their opinion in disagreement, they're expressing their points of disgreement as indisputable fact. THAT'S the problem. Now, just for the record, I tend to view Eberron purists as those who hold to what they feel is the intent of Eberron, claiming that to do otherwise defeats the purpose of playing in the setting. On the other hand, those who stick, word-for-word, to the information in the books aren't purists, they're just rules-lawyers, and irritating as they can be, they're useful sometimes. Purists are NEVER useful, period.
Nimrud 03-08-06, 10:04 PM	The problem with the "Purists" isn't that they disagree with anyone. It's that they're telling other DMs they CAN'T do what they want to do in their own games. They tell everyone, occasionally subtly, that the purist way is the only way. They don't say they BELIEVE it ruins Eberron, they say it DOES ruin Eberron. They're not expressing their opinion in disagreement, they're expressing their points of disgreement as indisputable fact. THAT'S the problem. Actually, that CAN'T be the problem. The point is NO point of view about a certain interpretative vision or idea about a work of fiction CAN be expressed as "indisputable fact". It can ONLY be opinion because it is a statement about aesthetics. Now THAT is a fact. In other words, you can only interpret the "purist" view about Eberron as opinion, however strongly he or she might express it. If you get that, then you realise that the worst a purist can do is to thumb his nose at those who don't "get" the original vision of Eberron (in the "purist's" view of course), and some do of course, being human. This perceived intellectual snobbery (subtle or otherwise) is what I think really offends the non-purist camp, and provokes them to say things like "purists are never useful". Not because purists present their views in absolute terms. But because some people feel "looked down upon", and that makes certain types of people very angry. Be that as it may, I think aesthetic interpretations of Eberron are valuable. Not everything has to be about game mechanics and stats. These have their place. I like crunch, I enjoy it. But I like fluff too. To me, a campaign setting is an art form in which integration of imaginary history, geography, economics, culture, race and game mechanics is crucial to make the world a believable one so that another art form, collaborative role-playing, can take place in that context. For that reason, I find that even negative opinions about using sub-races etc. on grounds of flavour is informative. I want to hear views about what people think doesn't fit and why, because integration is what is key to me. I don't necessary agree, but these views don't threaten me. And I think there is a place for discussion of these views even where they are unwelcome, like in threads about "Tell my DM I can use a <insert +2 stat subrace> in Eberron". Indeed, it sometimes takes provocation to get the best out of people. Of course, it also sometimes produces the worst from people, but I will take the good with the bad. But what I don't agree with, is telling people to shut up because you are tired of listening to their views.
Beleriphon 03-09-06, 01:14 AM	Now, just for the record, I tend to view Eberron purists as those who hold to what they feel is the intent of Eberron, claiming that to do otherwise defeats the purpose of playing in the setting. On the other hand, those who stick, word-for-word, to the information in the books aren't purists, they're just rules-lawyers, and irritating as they can be, they're useful sometimes. Purists are NEVER useful, period. I think alot of the problem is that people aren't railing against you trying to integrate different aspects, in this case subraces, into the game. Its them railing again WotC trying to say these thing ARE here for what should always be presented as optional material (the optional Races of X books for example). Some folks say that they should always be taken as optional, which is true, but I prefer to have things in a rule book use the word optional just to be clear. As to purist never ben useful, I could say the same thing that people that want to change things aren't useful since they have no idea how the default game setting works, having never played it. Both are statements are unfair criticisms of people's preferred style of play, and aren't really warranted.