Northern Humans
Just below and above the Spine of the World are the Northern Humans, strong, stout folk. These people are skilled and strong, usually blacksmiths, hunters or farmers. Northern Humans often become fighters and rangers because of their strength and being familiar with the wild. Although they are strong and wise, good education rarely reaches so far up, and many are not taught the correct things. They also have a deep mistrust for the arcane magic, beleiving it unstable and dangerous.
- +2 Strength, -2 Intelligence
- +2 on Spot, Listen Search and Survival Checks
- Proficiency with al Simple weapons, and three martial weapons of their choice.
Seafolk Humans {got it from the Waterworld movie}
After ages of being small floating wooden towns floating at sea, they have finally made contact with dry land. They are now called the Seafolk, as many of their towns still reside on floating platforms off the Sword Coast. They have became quick and sensitive at sea, but are awkward and often do not know what to say around people.
- +2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma
- a +2 Racial Bonus on Swim, Profession {Sailor} and Spot checks
- Proficiency with Coral Armor {Arms and Equipment guide}
There has been alot of talk on the boards about all the elven subraces {there should really just be three: Drow, Moon Elves, and Wood Elves}. It just doesn't make any sense why one race would have so many subraces-unless that race were human. Humans vary, and alot. So anyone who's willing to, post your human subraces here. Try not to make them to far from normal humans, more like area based humans. Include fluff and/or stats.
That's why we've got ethnic groups and abilities that can be reflected through feats. That's why we've got feats such as Education and Arctic Adaption. Why certain human ethnic groups would be genetically stronger/smarter is beyond me.
There has been alot of talk on the boards about all the elven subraces {there should really just be three: Drow, Moon Elves, and Wood Elves}. It just doesn't make any sense why one race would have so many subraces-unless that race were human. Humans vary, and alot. So anyone who's willing to, post your human subraces here. Try not to make them to far from normal humans, more like area based humans. Include fluff and/or stats.
You forgot Sun Elves, which complement the other races. The separation between Wood Elves and Wild Elves was a very stupid one. During 2nd edition they were one elven subrace.
So, no. Please, NO.
Swashbuckling Adventures (7th Sea d20) handles human racial differences by assigning Skills at first level (leaving less 'free' skill points), and then allowing certain region-specific feats and Classes.
Iron Kingdoms, on the other hand, gives you 'racial modifiers' as an option (DMs do NOT have to use them). Take the Kossite for exampl -that race would be pretty darn close to FR's Raumviran (Rashemi).
Kossite
Popular Starting Feats: Point Blank Shot, Track, Two-Weapon Fighting
Optional Ability Adjustments: Con +2, Int -2, Cha -2
Automatic Class Skill: Survival
Skill Bonuses: +2 Racial Bonus on Climb and Craft (any wood-related) checks
Base Height: M 5'7", F 5'1" (+2D10 in.)
There are also automatic and bonus languages, but those are setting-specific. This group would be the equivalent of RW Baltic peoples, and being of Estonian decent, I take umbrage at the -2 Int, and the -2 Cha.
You see the can of worms this opens up? And thats without even getting into people 'of color'.
The other thing is that in 4e ability scores will be more 'open-ended', so something like a +2 at the beginning becomes rather insignificant down the road.
So your Rashemi may get the survival skill for free at lev 1, +2 to diplomacy checks while dealing with nature spirits at level two, a +2 to resistance rolls vs cold at lev 3, a +1 while fighting fiendish outsiders at lev 4, etc, etc...
That would fit in with 4e's design plan of having a character grow with his level (they said they were going to do it with races, but now I hear different).
What would be *really* cool would be to have some sort of benefit for every race/region at each level!
we have a similar system, PC can choose an option so that his race, culture, organization or belief modifies feats, skills, spells etc., also we don't have prestige classes, all unique abilities from them are put into one ''pool'', they can be selected as long as it fits character's history and background, also they can be improved through adventuring, that's not level dependent, it's a DM's decision/reward for good roleplaying
It doesn't have to mean anything racist or the like. But clearly people from different cultures know different things and have different talents depending on upbringing and education.
For example, I daresay I know a little something about desert and bush survival by virtue of growing up in Australia. It's just something you pick up. Like don't bug the snakes and spiders. Now I've never really been to the desert or bush, or had any actual training, which is what feats and skills represent. So a +2 racial bonus to Survival checks made in desert and bush environments or something would make sense. And an older Australian would have a greater bonus due to picking up more info, if you want to have a 4e thing of increasing racial stats.
if your character was a militia soldier and farmer, he might have, say Profession (Farmer), intimidate, handle animal, Knowledge (local) and perhaps proficiency (Pitchfork), in LK's case.
-Of course.
People from a region get racial benefits according to AGE, as well as level. Basically, they get one at lev one (age 15), and a new one every five years or level after that. This would apply to PCs as well, and they would get whichever is higher - their age or their level benefit. For NPCs, that means you could have a 40-year old grizzled warrior who gets SIX of the racial benefits, even if he still fights and has the HP of a level one fighter (which is also unrealistic, but does happen in D&D).
The reason for that, LK, is that D&D is still a game first, and not the RW, and if we were to pile on all those racial benefits at first level, every level after that would seem 'wimpy' by comparison.
BTW, thats Exactly how I've always used skills IMG - I just thought about applying it to other aspects as well. That means that 40-year old fighter would get all the skill points of a level 6 fighter, regardless of his actual level (unless it was higher).
What that does is allow me to get rid of all those silly NPC classes - NPC experts don't need levels, they need SKILLS, and that, to me, was one of the worst design concepts added in 3e. Just add in an age-based skill system and you can chuck that whole section of the DMG right out the window. ;)
The reason for that, LK, is that D&D is still a game first, and not the RW, and if we were to pile on all those racial benefits at first level, every level after that would seem 'wimpy' by comparison.
-Game or not, I just don't think it's realistic. Isn't that one of the current "wars" going on: "Realism vs. simulationism", or something to that effect? I guess I am fairly firmly in the "realist" camp, regardless of the fact that this is a fantasy game.
You can't have it both ways, and I figure its a good compromise to spread some of those benefits out.
If you dislike that so much, then you must REALLY HATE the Savage Species rules of Racial Levels. I never cared for those myself - why is it that you get most of your racial stuff spread over levels? I understand why from a game-balance mechanics point-of-view, but really, what could possibly be sillier then a Minotaur getting more 'Minotaurish' as time goes on?
Thats why I don't allow 'Monster Types' IMG - I don't believe in the entire system of LA.
Right, but with my system of 'Age-leveling', you do get a least some of that. An older person in a culture/race will be much more 'adept' at some of those racial benefits then say, a 12 yr old.
-In certain cases, sure. In certain cases, however, no. In my opinion, there are too many variables to quantify, and justify. That's just my opinion on the matter, though.
If you dislike that so much, then you must REALLY HATE the Savage Species rules of Racial Levels.
-No, no I don't like the idea, but, in game terms, it allows all characters to progress at roughly the same pace.
Thats why I don't allow 'Monster Types' IMG - I don't believe in the entire system of LA.
-Realistically, there's no reason for it. It's just there, rules wise, to allow characters with no LAs to not fall behind. Having played in a campaign with a player who was played an ECL +3 (I think it was +3) creature, at lower levels, where the DM did not use those rules, it was pretty boring. It was mostly the "This character, and everyone else" show.
-In certain cases, sure. In certain cases, however, no. In my opinion, there are too many variables to quantify, and justify. That's just my opinion on the matter, though.
Which is the whole problem when trying to simulate reality - you can't have rules that will be accurate in every situation, unless you somehow managed to apply 'Chaos Theory' to 'Game Theory'. ;)
-No, no I don't like the idea, but, in game terms, it allows all characters to progress at roughly the same pace.
Which is an artificial mechanic, like I said. See above...
-Realistically, there's no reason for it. It's just there, rules wise, to allow characters with no LAs to not fall behind. Having played in a campaign with a player who was played an ECL +3 (I think it was +3) creature, at lower levels, where the DM did not use those rules, it was pretty boring. It was mostly the "This character, and everyone else" show.
Thats why I don't allow it, unless I am starting a game at a higher level, which I usually do. Nearly all of my games have started around level 2 or 3 since 1e, because I felt 1st level characters can't really do anything interesting (especially mages, who cast a Light spell in the very first tunnel, and then sit around doing absolutely nothing for the rest of the session). If the creature's LA falls within my starting level, then Okay, but none of those 'Racial Levels' - I can't be bothered with that crap.
Thast why I don't allow it, unless I am starting a game at a higher level, which I usually do. Nearly all of my games have started around level 2 or 3 since 1e, because I felt 1st level characters can't really do anything interesting (especially mages, who cast a Light spell in the very first tunnel, and then sit around doing absolutely nothing for the rest of the session).
-Heh, my DM, as well as I, myself, do the same thing. In my circles, characters usually start off at Second Level, just because I hate First Level.
In my current game, however, my sons wanted to start at lev 1, so instead I 'accelerated' their leveling in the first couple of sessions. Now they are still fairly weak (lev 3), but at least Cormyrian Farmer w/pitchfork won't give them a run for their money in a fight. ;)
Now they are still fairly weak (lev 3), but at least Cormyrian Farmer w/pitchfork won't give them a run for their money in a fight. ;)
-Hey! Hey! Hey! Do you even know what level Cormyrian Farmer with Pitchfork #2 is? He's an Epic Level Commoner, by this point!
Shouldn't that make him at least a 5th level Shadow-Heckler by now?
Oh wait... thats right... you said he was an epic level farmer at this point.
So I guess he plants epic 'spell seeds' now. ;)
So I guess he plants epic 'spell seeds' now. ;)
-Exxxactly...
Shadow Farmer can be a PrC.
We really ought to write up a 20 level farmer class, just for laughs. :D
-Commoner progresses to Level 20, doesn't it?
You know, the only sub-race I think I would give different stats to would be Neanderthals... not the stupid ones from Frostburn...
Whoever wrote that was a moron.
Those things would be more along the lines of Homogigantus.
You know, the only sub-race I think I would give different stats to would be Neanderthals...
-Neanderthals aren't Humans, though. They wouldn't be a subrace, since they are a totally seperate species.
Those things would be more along the lines of Homogigantus.
-I was going to make a joke with that, but then I stopped.
This open a dangerous can of worms; imagine a racist DM...
So, no. Please, NO.
A racist DM can already let his bigoted imagination run wild in any direction he would like it to. And of course, his players would likely share his beliefs (those who don't would hopefully decline to play a game with him).
This is like a discussion in Astrid's Parlor from a while back on whether or not books should have paragraphs in them about preventing sexism in the game or towards players. A sexist DM is likely to ignore such advice anyway.
You see the can of worms this opens up? And thats without even getting into people 'of color'.
Because of the real world baggage that is associated with it, I find the idea of human "subraces" (or "subhumans" as a racist person might put it) to be rather unsettling.
However, see my post above.
Players: "Jes like last week? Ye-HAW!!!"
Your above post made me think of a bunch of Reneck, CC... I mean KKK guys playing D&D (something that would never happen, because it requires being able to read), and the DM says "Hey boys, how about 'nother linching tonight? What say I send you fellers off to hang some of them thar good fer nuthin' 'orcs'?
Players: "Jes like last week? Ye-HAW!!!"
*chuckles...a bit* And if a bunch of people want to play a game that incorporates real-world racists concepts, there is nothing to stop them from doing that. Which is why I believe we can't worry about such people.
Wow...I dont even remember posting this thread...I was probably tired. What had come over me, I dont know.
-Wasn't even that long ago. I don't remember when I post in things that date back months, but a few days...?