What is the justification for all of these sub-races? "Oh, elves are magical creatures" or some such. They spend a couple hundred years somewhere, and suddenly there is a new, physically different race that just pops up? Same with the dwarves, and the gnomes, and halflings, and every other race to have playable sub-races. A new breed comes out every time you turn around. Either somebody is inbreeding these guys for floppy ears, or else these races are actually bacteria that mutate at random.
I'm not saying that all sub-races are bad. Having mechanical differences for races based on where they live is bad. An elf in a tree, an elf in the wilds, and an elf in a library, they're all still the same damned elf. At the very most, their racial weapon profs have changed (so a desert elf might have scimitars instead of longswords, or spears instead of bows). Drow, are a good sub-race. They have a legitimate reason to be different. Aquatic Elves, are good, since they're different enough to nearly be an different species. Same with the Avarial. These all have clear physical differences, so they deserve mechanical changes to their base stats that are different from the basic PHB elf.
If the places these elves/dwarves/whatevers lived was enough to cause physical changes to the race, why not to the humans that have been there just as long, if not longer? This makes no sense. One of the shortest lived races--and therefore the most capable to change over time-- stays EXACTLY the same, while the longest lived races--hence the slowest to change--pops out a new sub-race with every book to come out.
This isn't good for the game. This is a marketing ploy to make people buy new books because they have "The Ultimate Elf Wizard Race!" in them. But how many times have you seen somebody that thought they just absolutely could not play the character they wanted if it wasn't for a particular sub-race, and then played it just like any other member of the race?
DMs, get immunizations for your group by putting down the houserule of "no sub-races" in your game. If a player wants to play a sub-race, tell them they must use the mechanical stats from the PHB, and they have to roleplay the different racial background of their character. An elf is an elf, a dwarf is a dwarf, and a gnome is a gnome. The only differences between them are cultural. Unless the sub-race is actually that, a sub-race with a different morphology, they do not deserve ANY change in hard racial modifiers.
The point is that subraces can have a place in the campaign world if used correctly. What's good enough for Tolkien is good enough for you. In order to combat a powergaming problem, and perhaps to show these subraces as differences in culture more than physical makeup, I might second the recommendation that their stats be kept pretty much similar, perhaps with changes in the racial weapon proficiencies or skill bonuses; let the subracial-ness be carried by the flavor, just as with human "subraces."
Furthermore, you grossly exaggerate the problem in your rant. I know of two places to find elven subraces in WotC material: the Monster Manual and the Forgotten Realms (which, I remind you, is campaign-specific). They hardly "pop out a new subrace with every book to come out." Races of the Wild will undoubtedly have more, but that's only to be expected; Races of Stone had gnome and dwarf subraces.
Simply getting rid of subrace elves because each appeals to a different class is asinine. The reason subraces are included is because new D&D (3.0 and beyond) is about giving players options. If those options include playing a grey elf wizard because it's strictly better than playing a standard elf wizard, then so be it. Canning the entire thing just punishes those few dedicated players who actually want to play a feral wood elf or a haughty grey elf or a deranged dark elf. It also hurts the Dm, who, when creating his homebrew campaign, may decide he wants aberration fighting gold dwarves (which actually make a lot of since in Eberron, your favorite world, for the Mror survivors of the Daelkyr onslaught, instead of the standard hill dwarf.
I know Keith Baker, your hero, says that "Just because some elves live by a river doesn't mean the should have different stats." I think Keith's wrong. Cultural and geographical differences can create an individual completely unlike an otherwise identical person in another part of the world. You are residing in Tennessee, based on your account info. Do you talk as one who lives in Boston? Are you as accustomed to the cold as one from New England? Is the job market in Boston the same as Chattanooga?
If it is, then you are right, any elf should have the same proficiencies, languages, and stats as any other elf, at least until they begin taking classes, but we both know that Southerners and New Englanders talk completely different, that jobs and educational opportunity is different in the south, and that the weather, on a whole, is a lot warmer south of the mason-dixon line.
Now imagine if you lived in Nepal. How much different would you be from the person you are right now? How about India? or France? or Australia?
People are different; they are a reflection of their surroundings. I see no reason why elves are any different from men in this regard.
Respectfully,
PoeticJustice
Without actually posting any real-world examples, think of two radically different groups of Humans-- think of the physical differences, the cultural differences, and the differences in how these groups survive in their environments. Think of the different environments in which these groups of Humans have evolved. Now, with this broad and wondrous variety, all Humans in D&D, which often mimics these real-world ethnic and cultural groups, share the same mechanical traits.
The less compelling point, of course, is the balance issue inherent-- there seems to be an Elf designed to be best at every single core class. In such a world, why are there other races? Why is the world not simply populated with the different competing tribes of Elf?
I think the solution to the "sub-race" issue is to simply allow different Favored Classes for different "sub-races" of Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, or Halfling. Maybe swap out some weapon proficiencies. That is enough to show, mechanically, that they belong to different cultures, leaving the roleplaying differences to the actual roleplay.
For radically different sub-races, such as the Drow, I can see the point. Drow could, conceivably, be different enough from surface Elves that they would have different abilities. However, in my own games, I limit this difference to a change in Favored Class, and the application of a template (Night-Adapted, from Dragonstar Galactice Races). When combined with roleplaying Drow as a different kind of Elf, they are certainly distinct enough that the players know the difference-- and the only characters who confuse the two are ones whose players do so deliberately.
Canning the entire thing just punishes those few dedicated players who actually want to play a feral wood elf or a haughty grey elf or a deranged dark elf. It also hurts the Dm, who, when creating his homebrew campaign, may decide he wants aberration fighting gold dwarves (which actually make a lot of since in Eberron, your favorite world, for the Mror survivors of the Daelkyr onslaught, instead of the standard hill dwarf.
No, you can still do that. Its called roleplaying. If you are incapable of playing a wild elf without having a mechanical basis for it, I would say you rely on mechanics as a crutch just so you can play a stereotype and feel all warm and fuzzy about it.
I know Keith Baker, your hero, says that "Just because some elves live by a river doesn't mean the should have different stats."
Um, for the record, I have had elf-itis threads on the boards since we were still using the old boards. This has nothing to do with Keith.
Do you talk as one who lives in Boston? Are you as accustomed to the cold as one from New England? Is the job market in Boston the same as Chattanooga?
And how is any of that tied to physical differences? Everything you said is nothing more than pure roleplaying. Unless you think that speaking with an accent or being accustomed to the cold is basis for a whole new subrace?
If it is, then you are right, any elf should have the same proficiencies, languages, and stats as any other elf, at least until they begin taking classes, but we both know that Southerners and New Englanders talk completely different, that jobs and educational opportunity is different in the south, and that the weather, on a whole, is a lot warmer south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Now imagine if you lived in Nepal. How much different would you be from the person you are right now? How about India? or France? or Australia?
Again, you are listing things that are purely social, which means roleplaying.
People are different; they are a reflection of their surroundings. I see no reason why elves are any different from men in this regard.
Exactly! And in D&D, ALL humans have exactly the same mechanical stats. The human monks in Tibet have the exact same racial stats as the African tribesmen as the American Indians. All the differences are purely social, and are just roleplaying.
Elves, dwarves, halflings, and everybody else should be just the same as the humans in this regard. Same physical being, with social differences. Change up minor things like favored class, racial weapon profs, but there is ZERO reason why anyone needs to be physically different to the point they are essentially an entirely new race just because they come from different societies or locations.
I think the idea of a certain species living in two different climates or terrain types should cause what are really genetic changes on a pretty vast scale. If the baseline genetics of the race (elves in this example) give them, in game terms, a +2 Dex -2 Con, why does living near a glacier suddenly make them healthier and stronger, but with less agility and less likable and perceptive (+2 Str, -2 Int and Cha)?* How does living in a different region suddenly turn elves into half-orcs?
From a game standpoint, why devise a race of "barbaric" elves that are more or less the same as an already present base character race? Just so that one modified race can be as good of a Barbarian?
After a while, it comes to the point that character race is irrelevant. Just choose your character class, give yourself a bonus to one ability that you will use a lot with that class, and a penalty to an ability you won't use much, then give yourself a few skills, weapon proficiencies, or bonus feats that will aid your class choice further, and just roleplay the fact that your Wizard character with identical statistics to another player's Wizard is an Elf, but his is a Dwarf. That isn't the kind of game I want to play in, but it seems that the game is headed that way.
I'd much rather play in a game where the forest elf and the glacier elf are statistically the same (and the half-orcs and dwarves are statistically different), but roleplayed differently to accentuate cultural and regional differences. A barbaric glacier elf may behave similarly to a barbaric glacier half-orc (or even a barbaric glacier halfling), but is still biologically an elf.
*Note, I'm just making these numbers up, not basing it off of any elven subrace I've seen...although there probably is one out there!
1. Lost Elves were the ones who never moved to the home of the gods.
2. Sindar, High Elves.
3. Noldor, great cratfsmen, better than those bearded ladies called dwarves
4. Teleri, Sea Elves, they aren't mermaids they just live near and love water.
However, on this basis, all four are not subraces. They are all tribes of elves of different skills. So, I like Elvish subraces, but I think the ones from the Monster Manual are plenty.
subraces of humans. We should have human subraces like mer-men and others. Ancient Worm - in Tolkien the wood elves aren't a subset of gray elves. The gray elves are however a sub set of the Eglath which are a subset of the sea elves that you listed.
Interesting and fun subraces can be created without mechanical differences.
Cultural and geographical differences can create an individual completely unlike an otherwise identical person in another part of the world. You are residing in Tennessee, based on your account info. Do you talk as one who lives in Boston? Are you as accustomed to the cold as one from New England? Is the job market in Boston the same as Chattanooga?
If it is, then you are right, any elf should have the same proficiencies, languages, and stats as any other elf, at least until they begin taking classes, but we both know that Southerners and New Englanders talk completely different, that jobs and educational opportunity is different in the south, and that the weather, on a whole, is a lot warmer south of the mason-dixon line.
Now imagine if you lived in Nepal. How much different would you be from the person you are right now? How about India? or France? or Australia?
Yes, but couldn't you also take someone from France, teach him English and then drop him into Chattanooga? Would there be some sort of severe problem? Would the Frenchman not adapt to the area?
All subraces deal with is flavor and slight variations. Just because one elf calls himself Grey doesn't mean that he's (on the average) any smarter than your PHB elf - you'd probably scoff at a human who called himself grey and said "Gimme a +2 Int." Just because one spends a great deal of time in the woods, it shouldn't mean that he's (on average) any stronger than your PHB elf; we wouldn't expect this from a tribe of humans who lived in the woods forever. This should be reflected by your character placing a higher stat in Strength or Intelligence, and not by picking a subrace to try and tweak the ultimate elven wizard or ranger.
Exactly! And in D&D, ALL humans have exactly the same mechanical stats. The human monks in Tibet have the exact same racial stats as the African tribesmen as the American Indians. All the differences are purely social, and are just roleplaying.
Elves, dwarves, halflings, and everybody else should be just the same as the humans in this regard. Same physical being, with social differences. Change up minor things like favored class, racial weapon profs, but there is ZERO reason why anyone needs to be physically different to the point they are essentially an entirely new race just because they come from different societies or locations.
Actually, for all their cultural difference and the vast gulf of differences between us, I'd consider Asians, Africans, and Caucasians as different subraces of the Human Race.
You have to look at it in a different way from you're used to Edy. You think there's one pure race of elves and a bunch that mutated from the norm for whatever reason. It's not like that. There's no blanket standard. Core D&D assumes this in the rules to avoid overwhelming new players and to keep things simple, but in FR there are many disparate people that share certain similarities (elfishness) but have different specific abilities to reflect their environment.
Asians, for whatever reason, have a better ear for music that Americans. Why? Who knows? They just do. Grey Elves are smarter than the average elf. Why? Who knows? They just are. Kenyans run farther and harder than any other people on earth. How? Could be genetics or environment, but as a rule, they just run faster than anybody else. Doesn't stop anyone else from excelling, but for whatever reason, people native to and having ancestry from that region are really good at running.
All the subraces are not just there to keep munchikin fanboys happy. Elves should change based on where they live. Good old survival of the fittest. An elf that has a trait that allows him to survive better in the tree will survive and others may not. Then the elf's family may have this trait. This goes on until the entire elf population in that area has the trait. That's were you get your subraces.
You are describing evolution. Evolution demands certain things. First and foremost, you must have a need that is great enough for your group to change. In other words, it must be either leaving those who do not have the desired physical traits infertile, or it must be killing them. That usually means you must be dependant on an area.
Seeing as all of these elven "subraces" (aside from drow) can travel amongst each other--and they are capable of having children with humans, too--any evolution is impossible on such a scale as is needed. Any change would happen only very, very slowly, and it would happen to *all* of them, not just a select group.
The drow are the only subrace of elves that actually make sense. They are dependant on an area, they have no contact with other races (that they can have children with), and their society kills off those who are weak. Logically the elven subraces make no sense. Of course, the change could be magical in nature, but as far as evolution goes...
This does not hold true for Drow or Aquatic Elves since the Drow have not intermarried for millenia and the Aquatic Elves are probably magically changed.
Actually, for all their cultural difference and the vast gulf of differences between us, I'd consider Asians, Africans, and Caucasians as different subraces of the Human Race.
You have to look at it in a different way from you're used to Edy. You think there's one pure race of elves and a bunch that mutated from the norm for whatever reason. It's not like that. There's no blanket standard. Core D&D assumes this in the rules to avoid overwhelming new players and to keep things simple, but in FR there are many disparate people that share certain similarities (elfishness) but have different specific abilities to reflect their environment.
Asians, for whatever reason, have a better ear for music that Americans. Why? Who knows? They just do. Grey Elves are smarter than the average elf. Why? Who knows? They just are. Kenyans run farther and harder than any other people on earth. How? Could be genetics or environment, but as a rule, they just run faster than anybody else. Doesn't stop anyone else from excelling, but for whatever reason, people native to and having ancestry from that region are really good at running.
But, mechanically, all of these people use the exact same race for a basis, human. We don't have Human, Asian or Human, African as subraces to take. The differences you describe can all be explained through cultural influence. Do Asians typically do better in educational centers than Americans? Yes, they do. But that is because there is intense social pressure, from society and from the family, to excel in this area. In game terms, they would all have a regional feat that makes knowledge skills class skills, like Education. A group of people that are renowned runners aren't that way because they're a different sub-species than anyone else, its because there is a strong social pressure for them to all take Run as their lvl 1 feat.
These sorts of things are all cultural. They are better in areas because their culture pressures them to be better, and they take the appropriate feat/skills to make that happen. It doesn't mean they are genetically better at it (aka they are a different subrace).
The reason? Because WotC and TSR didn't want to get their pants sued off of them for discrimination, so they shifted it over to "monster" races for that sort of thing. Ever wonder why white elves are good, and black elves are evil? If you pulled that stunt with humans, the game would have gone bankrupt from lawsuits ages ago. As is, it's fine.
Really, the game has been highly hypocritical on this matter since day 1. Every single excuse it uses as to why we don't have human subraces in the game, with mechanical differences inherent to the race, can be applied just as easily to all of the races. Yet it isn't. Human is human, yet elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, everybody else, despite having longer lifespans and therefore much slower reproduction, spreads out into a million and one subraces without difficulty.
Skin color is not a basis for a new subrace.
Social customs is not a basis for a new subrace.
Living in a different area is not a basis for a new subrace.
Wanting to play Race X with Class Y more efficiently is not a basis for a new subrace.
You want to play a wild elf? Fine, put more points into Strength and Constitution, take Barbarian as your first level class, and do some roleplaying. There is absolutely no reason why ANYONE needs a new subrace in order to roleplay. It is a crutch, nothing more. And if you don't learn to walk on your own, but are always relying on a crutch to get by, you will never learn to walk, much less to run or jump.
You know, I have a serious urge to start a game where the only options for Race/Class are Human stats, and the 3 Generic Classes from Unearthed Arcana. EVERYTHING else would have to be roleplayed. Want to be an Elven Paladin? Fine, roleplay being an elf, take levels in Warrior and Spellcaster, and roleplay the holy fighter. You do not need an elf race to do that, you do not need a paladin class to do that, you don't need anything but imagination and an open mind.
Many (perhaps most) cultural anthropologists have agreed that the concept of different races among humans is a social construct rather than a biological one.
There are numerous web articles to this effect on this subject. Consider the teaching resource from cartage.com (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/IdeaofRace/IdeaofRace.htm), which ends:
The old "three-race" model has been discarded by science, as has the idea that "racial" differences are linked to intelligence and behavior. Some noted scholars have suggested that the concept of race should be dropped altogether; others propose "ethnic group" as a more accurate term for human differences.
"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."
American Anthropological Association, 1998
Of course a fantasy discussion may make any claim it wants, but please be sensitive when attempting to draw real life parallels.
Thanks.
I don't mean to anger you or hurt your feelings, but this thread seems void of anything but complaints. If its not please enlighten me.
Sub-races of playable races are wrong. They spend a couple hundred years somewhere, and suddenly there is a new, physically different race that just pops up? Same with the dwarves, and the gnomes, and halflings, and every other race to have playable sub-races.
Yeah, that doesn't make much sense, especially with dwarves and elves, as many of the "originals" may still be there.
There are very big differences in our physical traits just throughout the United States. For example, males in Northeastern Pennsylvania (where I live) are, on average, 4-6 inches taller than the average male height across the country, while females tend to be 2-4 inches shorter. We are also less prone to feeling the damaging effects of extreme temperatures of any sort, because our bodies naturally adapt. People whose families have lived here for generations tend to have the highest natural 'ability' to withstand extreme weather. We regularly have summers with temps of 100+ degrees and 100+% humidity while we have winters with subzero temperatures. I can walk around in 40-degree weather in shorts and a no-sleeve shirt without problems. My mother, on the other hand, who grew up in California, and now lives in Arizona with my stepfather, wears sweatshirts when it's 60-70 degrees outside, as does my stepfather and his parents, who have lived in Arizona all their lives. That's a pretty big difference, based entirely on region. People in my region also tend to get sick a lot less often under the same conditions as others from different regions.
So it's not the other races that have too many. It's the humans who don't have enough.
Someone from a glacial region might have +4 to Fortitude saves to endure cold, +2 to Balance checks on frozen surfaces, and +2 to Survival checks in arctic or alpine environs. In extreme cases, cold resistance 2 may merit consideration.
Someone born in a desert might have +2 to Fortitude saves vs dehydration, +2 to Survival checks in the desert, and an additional +2 to Survival checks to find water.
Someone from an area dominated by dragons or other large aerial predators might get +4 Spot and +4 Hide vs. flying creatures and have Spot and Hide always be class skills.
Someone hailing from a big, open country with few creatures usable as mounts might get Run and Endurance as bonus feats (and kick tail in footraces as a result).
Someone who grew up in a big city where the dominant language is tonal and the politics are heavy might get +1 to Listen, Perform (all musical), Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Knowledge (local) to reflect perfect pitch and urban socialization.
You can have flavorful mechanics without getting into subrace-itis. If it's that big a deal, give people a free regional/background feat at 1st level in addition to their usual feat(s). Of course, the NPCs get them too...
Note: I haven't fully considered the balance of the above hypothetical regional feats, but they are intended to be worth about 2-3 general feats apiece, and more interesting if less minmaxable than +2 abilX/-2 abilY.
Human the ultimate expression of the destructed order that is progress. We un like animals do not adapt to our environments we make our environments adapt to us. We build roads houses we need not to be different since we are masters of the natural world and not part of it.
Elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halfings have a stronger connection to the nature. They are like animals in that sense. A wolf that lives in the frozen north will be adapted to cold thicker fur distict look a larger stocker body. The same wolf in the desert is lighter in build skinny, extremely short and physically looks much different than the wolf of the north. The same is with the other races the are closer to nature than we are as such they change with it instead of making it change to them.
This is my theory take it as you will.
Skin color is not a basis for a new subrace.
Social customs is not a basis for a new subrace.
Living in a different area is not a basis for a new subrace.
If you're going to count out all influence of social custom, physical appearance, and geographical difference from having an inherent influence on an individual, I'm going to assume that nothing, in the entire world, has any influence on the basic abilities of any creature anywhere. In that case, why should a wolf have Improved Trip? Why should a Dwarf treat an Urgrosh as a martial weapon? Or Gnome a hooked Hammer? Why should a halfling get a bonus to thrown weapon attacks? Or a Gnome to Illusion magic? How does an elf gain proficiency in longsword? You get the idea...
I don't buy the social pressure argument. Kenyans are good runners because of an adapted genome and years of living at high altitudes, IMO, not because they all have run. No, I don't think those conditions give them the run feat.
I never said anything about Asians being better at school. I said they have an affinity for music. National Geographic just surveyed music students at the Eastman school of Music in New York between keys of music as easy as telling the difference between colors. They found that 63 percent of all Asian students enrolled had an understanding of something called true pitch-- essentially the ability to differentiate - compared to a mere 7 percent of non-Asian students with this ability. Asians are simply better at it than anybody else, as general principle. It goes beyond having ranks in perform. It has to, because surely if one were to dedicate their education to music they'd max out ranks and take skill focus, right? At least, I would.
Other than those factors, the only other option is a bonus to charisma, which, according to edy's reasoning, shouldn't deviate from a numerical mean often enough to create a 56 percent gap between two different ethnic groups unless there was some sort outside influence(perhaps a racial bonus to charisma). Under Edy's reasoning, all groups would have the same amount of members able to hear true pitch, but they don't.
This similar situations leads me believe that Grey elves are smarter than elves in general. They just are, in the same way elves are more dexterous than people in general. AND, even those that agree with edy's points must concede that just because subraces aren't good for them doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile for DMs that want to supplant the default race for a subrace.
We can't assume that all races are the same, with cultural trends leading members to put points into different abilities varying by ethnic group? The reason being that, if one were to do that, they would not be able to max out any given stat. The highest base elf constitution would be 16, making him less hardy than an equivalent human or halfling, and barely more hardy than the average dwarf. It would be impossible to make a wild elf by putting more points in different stats for this reason, so edy's system is impossible.
Lastly, if you wanna throw out EVERYTHING in the game but NPC classes and humans, fine, but I think that kills a great part of the game. Playing an elf means not having to blow points on generating a high dex. Same thing for dwarves and constitution. It's fun. It's not a crutch for roleplaying; it's a tangible reminder for players that elves are faster and dwarves are hardier.
On the other hand, who says you need to use them all in the same setting? Just because they're all there doesn't mean they exist in the same world. Maybe one setting uses the PH Elf as the only race of Elves.. while another setting uses only Wild Elves. Just because there's a ton of subraces doesn't mean they necessarily ARE subraces, you know what I mean? They could be taken as variants on a theme to be used at the DM's discretion. But on the whole, I still think there are a bit too many, in general. And not just of Elves.
Keep that in mind while reading the following:
Edy, I think you're looking at this a little backwards. Perhaps the problem isn't that other races get "sub"-races, the problem is that humans are so incredibly plain in D&D. There are no cultural variations in place. Relics & Rituals: Olympus (a very good book) suggest a way to rectify this by giving all humans the option of having ability modifiers based on the "City-State" they hail from. It's only a vague concept if you were to try to apply that to some of the bigger settings out there.. but the idea is sound.
Besides, the argument you're making basically breaks down the entire racial system anyway. Think about it: Humans, who can be of really any build/culture/whatever - get no modifiers. So why give Elves modifiers? Let the player put his stats that he rolled wherever he thinks they are most appropriate to his character. And then you can apply that to ALL races. Pretty soon every race is Human--just roleplayed differently. If that's what you want, okay. But it's not what most people want, I'd wager.
And your arguments basically lead to that fact that if Humans who live in trees don't get +2 Dex -2 Con, then Elves definitely shouldn't either, right? What's the difference? And then you could say all Elves have -2 Con +2 Dex because that's a racial thing. They're born like that. Fine, but what about an Elven nation with a longstanding tradition of warfare? A penalty to Con doesn't fit. And then we fall into the "all races should be the same as humans because all creatures of a race have the capacity to be totally different from one another."
It's a problem you really can't solve unless RACIAL modifiers are removed and CULTURAL modifiers are implanted. But as the game stands, sub-races are the only way to make certain ideas fit MECHANICALLY because that is important. You can roleplay up and down until you're blue in the face, but playing a Hunter-Warrior Wild Elf from a harsh, unforgiving desert still doesn't "feel" right with a -2 Con. See what I'm saying? But yeah, they still go way too far.
(And someone mentioned Tolkien. Be aware that he had about 40 different "subraces" of Elves but they were more "cultural" than "subrace." And many of those were different names for the same peoples and stuff. It gets REALLY confusing to look at the genealogy and such of Tolkien Elves.)
For Endymion, I agree that a half dozen subraces is silly. I'm all for creating "deep" races, like Svinerflin and Duergor and Drow. These races are distinct both culturally and physically from their surface counterparts and they have the advantage of being separated by a large barrier so there's a tiny pinch of logic in their divergence.
As far as there being a difference between a wood elf and a high elf, or there being a difference between a human from Thay and a human from the Dales, that's where regional feats come in. Really, regional feats are a GREAT way to create mildly different cultural groups and they accomplish the roleplaying and mechanical desires of players and DMs.
Example Halflings:
The halflings from the southern region are the lightfoot and use standard traits and then there are the tundra halflings because the north is mostly cold.
What's the difference between the two? Favored Class and a skill change. To fit the environment for adaptation.
HOWEVER:
Powergamer: i r t37 1337est gamer eva! i will t3h play a wizadr and be a gray elf cuz they get tehe int boost!!!!111!!!
No. Wrong.
Subraces for min/maxing is bad, for min/maxing is the devil, don't let it ruin your game (and for those of you that do min/max, that's ok... as long as everyone in your group is ok with it.. and it also isn't the reason the game was played... but several things have degenerated that way as well
)I have four elf subraces... BECAUSE two were originally created...The Selzvold and Elf but were very similar... the latter being a little physcially better... the silver elves got tainted by the magic of a dark vile deity and became outcast... the magic took its toll and another race appeared... when the selzvold saw this... half of the race left due to seeing what magic does and have since then (thousands of years of evolution) have degenerated to be adapted to the woodland simple lives of the Dragontail elves... they haven't made a written language, they dont have schools... they're taught through intuition... and no other subraces of elves.
Example 1:
Avariels are VERY different from other elves, since avariels have wings, they live very differently, have a different diet and live lives that are almost entirely separated from the rest of the world, and they have lived that way for centuries.
Example 2:
Ghost Elves, who have been tortured, experimented on with magic and alchemy, forced to fight in arenas to supply entertainment, who've been subjugated by demons, who have lived in Hell for god knows how many centuries and who now live on the ethereal plane in hiding and secrecy are different enough.
Example 3:
High elves and a gray elves are not different enough. As far as I'm concerned, they barely even qualify for one of the regional feats in the post above. They live in the same places (more or less), have the same diet, the same physical description, the same proficiencies, backgrounds and society.
Besides, if you have mature players, then munchkinism should not be an issue at all. And if you have completely immature and stupid players, then that's another issue entirely. I don't know how to solve that one.
[Disclaimer] Just my opinion, of course. You're free to disagree, as always. [/Disclaimer]
1) How could all these subraces evolve so fast?
Come on. Elves were created by Corellon Larethian, dwarves by Moradin. If the gods chose to create a gazillion subraces, who are we to argue about it? There's no reason (except personal taste) to apply real world standards here.
2) Why aren't there human subraces then?
Humans are already as adaptable as possible. In some sense, each individual human is a subrace of one, since he can pick whatever feat and skill he wants (including background feats, etc.) There's really no point in having mechanically different human subraces. Other races having subraces is just an attempt to get in on the flexibility that humans already have.
I think the way the rules are currently set up is good. There's a small number of core races available for people who prefer the challenge of working with limited choices, and there's a plethora of supplemental races available for people who want a lot of options. As long as you don't have both types of people playing in the same group, it's no problem.
jaelis
People are different; they are a reflection of their surroundings. I see no reason why elves are any different from men in this regard.
Respectfully,
PoeticJustice
I don't believe I could have put that any better.
Cheers
Please tread carefully with this topic if you want to draw comparisons with "real life" race issues.
Many (perhaps most) cultural anthropologists have agreed that the concept of different races among humans is a social construct rather than a biological one.
There are numerous web articles to this effect on this subject. Consider the teaching resource from cartage.com (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/IdeaofRace/IdeaofRace.htm), which ends:
The old "three-race" model has been discarded by science, as has the idea that "racial" differences are linked to intelligence and behavior. Some noted scholars have suggested that the concept of race should be dropped altogether; others propose "ethnic group" as a more accurate term for human differences.
"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."
American Anthropological Association, 1998
Of course a fantasy discussion may make any claim it wants, but please be sensitive when attempting to draw real life parallels.
Thanks.
Although I realize that I may be banned for saying so, I feel I have to say that I feel your post is somewhat misleading.
First, the "old three race model" has not been "discarded", but more accurately it has been updated and expanded through further genetic research. There are more than three races.
Second, while it is true that the concept of race has been under attack from many high profile individuals and groups in the past few decades, it should be noted that there are many current studies that do not support this view.
"Race Linked to Genetic Markers
CHRISTOPHER WINDHAM
Wall Street Journal, 02/01/2005
In the latest study to wade into the question of whether race is a biologically based category or a socially constructed label, scientists at Stanford University claim to have found that 326 genetic 'markers' -- segments of DNA -- can be used to cluster people into four groups, with each group corresponding to common racial categories: white, African-American, East Asian and Hispanic.
For more than a decade some geneticists and anthropologists have argued that race isn't biologically real and therefore shouldn't be used in medical research and clinical practice. The argument is based on the fact that, for
thousands of years, humans have been marrying and having children with people of different ancestry, with the result that everyone's genes come from the same big, humanwide pool.
The mapping of the human genome and growing interest in race-based pharmaceuticals have stirred the debate in recent years.
The study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, involved 3,636 people enrolled in a large trial on the genetics of hypertension. To see whether genetic markers correspond to the standard racial categories, the scientists first analyzed the volunteers' DNA, identifying which genetic markers they carried. They then used a computer program to cluster people based on genetic similarities; those who shared genetic markers were grouped together. Finally, the scientists compared those groupings with the volunteers' self-identified race. The result: people who considered themselves white had been grouped by the computer, based on their genetic markers, in one cluster, while people who consider themselves African-American had been grouped in a second, different cluster. The same held for Hispanics and East Asians. Only five people had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the racial or ethnic box they checked at the outset of the
study.
"People have argued that race and ethnicity are purely social categories," says Neil Risch, the study's lead author, who is director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, San Francisco. "We've shown that socially defined ethnic categories correspond with genetic categories." The findings are convincing because of the large number of genetic markers -- 326 -- used to cluster the participants, he says. "
LINK HERE
Of 3,636 people in the Stanford University study, 5 genetically did not "match up" with their declared racial group. That means that the centuries old racial categories have an accuracy rate of 98.1375%.
"Race" as it is popularly known corresponds with the term "sub-species" in Zoology. They are capable of interbreeding, but are identifiable and distinct.
The fact that there is a powerful movement to deny the existance of race has more to do with ideology and politics than it does with hard science and empirical data.
Here are some more links
Scientists have published data on over one million crucial DNA variations in three racial groups, paving the way for "individualised" medicines.
Racial Determination (FBI forensics)
"...it is clear that race does mean different things to different people. In the context of forensic anthropology, the term race is unambiguous." - Stan Rhine, PhD
"Some HLA antigens are found almost exclusively in specific ethnic groups."
Although I can't imagine how what I've posted could be construed as offensive, I assure you that none of this is meant to disparage anyone or group in any way.
Now back to your regularly scheduled anti "millions of elf subraces" thread. ;)
What I like about sub races is that they allow you to fulfill a character concept without sucking, or being penalized, and do it in a (mostly) balanced way.
For example: I have this really great idea for an Elven Barbarian. However, playing a Barbarian with the PHB Elf would be a bad idea from a mechanical standpoint. Same thing goes for a Half Orc sorcerer, Dwarf Bard, etc...
However, a particular sub race might make what was a mechanically inferior class/race combination into something good. It removes the fact that you can be penalized for playing a particular concept, which can be painful.
As it stands now, the only race in the PHB that has Wizard as their favored class is the Elf. However, Humans, Dwarves, Half-Elves, Gnomes and Halflings all make better Wizards than the Elf does. Only the Half-Orc does it worse. So you are essentially punished for playing an archetypal character.
The flip side to all of this is that it seems silly that every race has half a dozen sub races, except for humans. Even if the difference is small, like maybe a skill bonus or a bonus to heat resistance or what not, I think small bonuses that differentiate between humans would be fun.
I admit that sometimes sub-races get on my nerves, such as when every wizard is a grey elf because of the intelligence bonus, but we must remember that this also happens with base races. I am currently playing in a group as a gnome warlock and all the warriors (a fighter and a barbarian) chose to be half-orcs just because of the strength bonus. What I am saying is that not all power gaming is caused by sub-races, basic races are responsible as well.
I agree with you that the proliferation of subraces is foolish. The most compelling point, in my mind, is that of flavor and gameworld consistency-- Humans from every plane, from every culture, and from every far-flung corner of the world, are mechanically identical. They have the same ability scores, the same class selection, and the same racial abilities.
I don't know where you are all coming from saying that there aren't any subraces of humans in D&D. I can think of about nine right off the top of my head:
1. Standard Humans (PHb)
2. Half-Elves (PHb)
3. Half-Orcs (PHb)
4. Neanderthals (Frostburn0
5. Kalashtar (Eberron Campaign Setting)
6. Shifters (Eberron Campaign Setting0)
7. Changelings (Eberron Campaign Setting)
8. Inspired (Eberron Campaign Setting)
9. Illumians (Races of Destiny)
For example: I have this really great idea for an Elven Barbarian. However, playing a Barbarian with the PHB Elf would be a bad idea from a mechanical standpoint. Same thing goes for a Half Orc sorcerer, Dwarf Bard, etc...
Okay, so you want to play a Barbarian, and you want it to be an elf. But like you said, elves make lousy barbarians, they just aren't built for that sort of thing. Yet using a Wild Elf makes it all better. So, question, why do you insist that it has to be an elf, even when the subrace you are choosing does away with all the normal elven flavor? I mean, if you want a rude, crude barbarian, why don't you just use a half-orc?
However, a particular sub race might make what was a mechanically inferior class/race combination into something good. It removes the fact that you can be penalized for playing a particular concept, which can be painful.
Again, when the entire race is known for having a glass jaw, and you want to make a bruiser out of them, is it really justifiable to come up with a whole new subrace that is the exact opposite of the parent race, just so you can still claim to be playing an Elf, even though mechanically you're almost identical to a half-orc?
As it stands now, the only race in the PHB that has Wizard as their favored class is the Elf. However, Humans, Dwarves, Half-Elves, Gnomes and Halflings all make better Wizards than the Elf does. Only the Half-Orc does it worse. So you are essentially punished for playing an archetypal character.
Only when you multiclass. If you stay in the same base class the whole time, the race's favored class doesn't matter. But still, favored class isn't really genetic. Neither are racial weapon proficiencies. If you want a "subrace", its fine to take the PHB and change up the favored class, some of the racial weapons, etc. When you start changing things like racial ability modifiers, then you have physically changed the race, and you need a danged good reason to justify that.
I mean, just look at real life humans in general. Generally, men have more physical strength. The world's strongest man outclasses the world's strongest woman in pure pound for pound weightlifting. Seriously, look up the world records, and you will see that the women are well below the men. Now, in D&D terms, there is no physical difference in strength between human men and women. However, in the real world, there is a marked difference between the kind of things men and women do based on this sort of thing. In a D&D world, a +2 is a huge difference by comparison. It wouldn't be just being a little better, that race would literally dominate the field in everything related to that stat.
And really, many players no longer come up with a character concept and then fit mechanics to it. They find mechanics and then try to wrap a character around it. As in, they don't decide they want to make an elf wizard, and then go find the subrace best suited for that, they find the subrace with +2 Int and go "Hey, this guy would make a killer Wizard, I'm gonna build one!"
In my own personal opinion, when it comes to the point where your character sheet is filled out before you even know the character's name and personality, then you have just totally missed the point of this game.
The ordinary High Elf seems to act like a Sinda (not a Noldo!)
The Gray Elf looks like an attempt at Noldor, especially the flavor text about living in the mountains.
The Wood Elf is probably a Sylvan Elf.
The Wild Elf might be an Avar.
Avariels, Aquatic Elves, and Drow have no progenitors in Tolkien. I wonder how they got started, actually.
The problem with ability score adjustments for sub-races is that even if there is some difference, the minimum adjustment is +/-2, which is enough to separate races. There's really no mechanic for smaller but significant differences. I think sub-races could be better implemented with skill bonuses and penalties; if I had, say, a Noldo in my game, I would be hesitant to go as far as +2 Int, -2 Wis, but wouldn't have a problem with +2 to all Craft and Knowledge skills and -2 to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive.
"I'm a human! However, I breathe underwater and live in a secret aquatic lair, just like in Waterworld!!!" -
It's almost like people don't want to play another race because they don't like the way they look/exact flavor/whatever, so they decide that they should create a whole sub-race (which then makes the DM incorporate those sub-races into his game, after all, being the only 1337 Gold Uber Elf doesn't really work, does it?) just to fit their own exact tastes, instead of learning to like an existing race.
Creating whole new races is kind of interesting, though.
Disclaimer: Irennicus' bias was heavily involved in this post. He hates Elf-itis.
"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."
American Anthropological Association, 1998
Sorta like there being a 15 point range within a race/subrace, but only a 2 point difference in most cases between different subraces.
For me, I like options. If WotC wants to publish sub-races, I'll buy 'em and enjoy 'em.
What I like about sub races is that they allow you to fulfill a character concept without sucking, or being penalized, and do it in a (mostly) balanced way.
Why do race/class combos where the racial modifiers offer a penalty to the main or an important sub-ability score of the class automatically have to "suck"?
Isn't it possible to have a decent, well-rounded and effective character without starting with the "best stat" for that character maxed at 18?
I can have fun playing a Half-Orc Barbarian with L1 Str and Con no more than 15 each AFTER racial modifiers. Why is the Half-Orc Sorcerer with Cha 14 so bad? (Remember, I'm talking about level 1 here). Sure, an NPC human sorcerer might have a Cha 16 instead, but is the fact that the NPC's spell DC is 1 higher really make that much of a difference?
With ability score increases every 4 levels and magic items and spells to raise abilities, is it that much of a burden on a character? By the mid- to upper levels, most characters (especially spellcasters in my experience) have boosted their "main" stat quite a bit. Does 1 point of difference between the characters at those levels matter so much?
I can understand that some of these choices become really expensive with a point buy system, where the half-orc sorcerer would have to spend points for an 18 Cha to end up with a 16. That would suck. But if the racial modifiers are applied to the base starting score of 8, rather than tacked on in the end, the character only needs to spend two extra points over the points necessary for a human to get 16 in that score (and they don't get a free boost up to 18 for spending enough points for a 16 in whatever ability they get a bonus to).
Mechanically, having all of these different subraces mechanically different as far as ability scores go, but the rest of the "racial features" suite being the same is just catering to powergamers.
Now, I have no problem with races having regional and cultural differences (changing preferred class, racial weapons, or some skill bonuses) but the base ability scores should remain the same.
I think the only time that the subrace should get a different ability score adjustment is when the subraces is so significantly different from the base race that it becomes somewhat divorced from the parent race conceptually.
Drow, for example, are technically elves, but I and a lot of other gamers I know tend to think of them as their own race more than as "just evil dark skinned elves from the Underdark." In cases like these, I have no problem with the subrace getting a different set of ability adjustments, since it has almost become another beast altogether.
Having one nation of forest dwelling elves get +2 Con -2 Int because they are "uncivilized" while another nation of plains dwelling elves get +2 Int -2 Str because they have great universities and study all the time just smacks of players trying to abuse the system. Change the Forest Elf favored class to Ranger. Give the Plains elves bonuses to Knowledge skill checks instead of racial weapon proficiency. Fine. I have no problem with that.
What's good enough for Tolkien is good enough for you.
*CoughIntellectualfallacyCough* *CoughAppealToAuthorityCough* *CoughTolkienIsn'tTheGodOfFantasyCough*
I agree on the premise that mere cultural differences aren't enough to change Stats (Physical or mental). Skill bonii, weapon proficiencies and favoured class, yes. But to change stats you have to change the biology of the race.
The way I'd treat the case of a Desert Elf would be to change the Weapon Prof. Long Sword to Scimitar and Fav. Class to Ranger or Scout. I'd also tell a player that his high stats would most likely go into Con and Dex if he were an "average" Desert Elf (While leaving stat modifiers as they are).
I think my problem with the whole sub race thing isn't that they have so many but they lack logic. If you wanted to take an elf and make them arctic in a way that made sense for living in the arctic -- more lowlight or dark vision, bonus to saves VS. cold instead of enchantment, etc.-- that would be fine with me. The problem is that they the seem to pick a class, give it some bonuses, then give it a place. That bothers me.
Like in the elf barbarian case...
If you're going to count out all influence of social custom, physical appearance, and geographical difference from having an inherent influence on an individual, I'm going to assume that nothing, in the entire world, has any influence on the basic abilities of any creature anywhere. In that case, why should a wolf have Improved Trip? Why should a Dwarf treat an Urgrosh as a martial weapon? Or Gnome a hooked Hammer? Why should a halfling get a bonus to thrown weapon attacks? Or a Gnome to Illusion magic? How does an elf gain proficiency in longsword? You get the idea...
No, you're just taking what I said and exaggerating it to silly extreme.
An elf, dwarf, or halfling that lives on the beach is not going to be physically different from an elf/dwarf/halfling that lives in the woods. Culturally there will be differences, yes. But they will not be genetic. My point was that because one group is considered civilized, and another is considered barbaric (which are artificial constructs that have no real meaning), that is not a reason to make the barbarians be physically different from the civilized ones.
Its already been said in the thread, and is worth saying again, that for the kind of change over time that would be required to explain all of these is evolution, which takes a hell of a long time. And it doesn't work if there is interaction between groups, or when the environment is not lethal to anyone that does not adapt to it. Living on the beach and in the trees is not a radical enough change to warrant the creation of a subspecies. Living underwater, on the top of a high mountain with very little oxygen or underground with no light and lots of digging to survive, those would be legitimate reasons to create a subspecies.
Having a different skin color is not basis for a new subrace, because its just a flavor difference. People with red hair are not a physically different species than people with brown hair. Its just natural variation with a population.
Living in different social levels is not a basis for a new subrace. The peasants are not a differant species from the king. People living in cities are not a different race from those living on farms. People that are civilized are not a different race from barbaric nomads.
Living in superficially different locations is not a basis for a new subrace. People in Hawaii are not a different race than people in Tibet. Same race, same base abilities. One takes ranks in Swim, the other takes ranks in Climb, that's about it.
Social changes create non-physical changes to the race. Elves in the desert may have spears and scimitars as racial weapons instead of bows and longswords. But no elf is born knowing how to use a longbow, its something they are all specifically taught. That sort of regional variation is just that, a regional variation. It doesn't change the physical being of the race at all.
My setting is all based on the world being formed of Matter and Magic. Elves are creatures created by Magic creatures that took Men of Matter and twisted them to form the elves. Elves are to Men fair and graceful, etc, but really just the "bastards" (In the genealogical not disposition sense) of the setting.
If you're going to count out all influence of social custom, physical appearance, and geographical difference from having an inherent influence on an individual, I'm going to assume that nothing, in the entire world, has any influence on the basic abilities of any creature anywhere. In that case, why should a wolf have Improved Trip? Why should a Dwarf treat an Urgrosh as a martial weapon? Or Gnome a hooked Hammer? Why should a halfling get a bonus to thrown weapon attacks? Or a Gnome to Illusion magic? How does an elf gain proficiency in longsword? You get the idea...
You are mixing things. All racial weapon proficiencies are a matter of CULTURE. And as such, are very easy to change. A dwarf that was raised by humans is not going to be proficient with dwarven weapons. They might be easier to wield as they were designed with a dwarf in mind, but that's about it.
The system, in order to be simple, does not specifically say that. Why? because the designers assume the players have a brain.
A wolf having improved trip stems from the way its body is designed, as well as the instincts it is born with, it might not be the best of choices, but that's what the designers made, this isn't a racial weapon proficiency, its a racial NATURAL combat ability. Proficiencies with natural weapons could also be assumed.
As for gnomes illusion magic, I don't know.
An example of how the environment COULD affect a "subrace" (other then looks):
Weapon proficiencies
Favorite class
Like in the elf barbarian case...
Pretty much yeah. A while ago an issue of Dragon (if someone knows which one tell me I can't find the article right now) had some generic "environment" templates that where all either +1 or +0 that I really liked. If you wanted a desert whatever you added the generic desert template. I thought they made a lot of sense for people like myself who like a lot of races but do not want each sub race to be tweaked out +0 LA "barbarian elf."
Although I am not taking sides on the real world race issue I think it is important to mention the term race in D&D and real humans are very different terms. In D&D gnomes are a group of creatures who share a real common history, enemies, culture, and god(s) who over look them. In the real world race means a certain amount of social construct with a common genetic heritage - hairs can be told apart, certain disease are found almost only in certain racial groups/much more common in certain groups. I don't think anyone (strongly hope) that is using the term race to apply to real world people as members of different races is saying they are not members of the human species, simply pointing out that real (and since they can involve life threatening diseases sometimes important) differences BEYOND social constructs.
I don't know where you are all coming from saying that there aren't any subraces of humans in D&D. I can think of about nine right off the top of my head:
1. Standard Humans (PHb)
2. Half-Elves (PHb)
3. Half-Orcs (PHb)
4. Neanderthals (Frostburn)
5. Kalashtar (Eberron Campaign Setting)
6. Shifters (Eberron Campaign Setting)
7. Changelings (Eberron Campaign Setting)
8. Inspired (Eberron Campaign Setting)
9. Illumians (Races of Destiny)
None of those are subraces, however. There are clear, inherent, and flavored reasons for all these differences. Kalashtar are not "Humans that are strong", they are part humans, part orc. While I don't know about Frostburn, all the other books give a good explanation for why a Kalashtar is fundamentally different from a human, springing from a different source and acting differently.
Is this true of Grey Elves? Maybe. I don't see any evidence of it, however.
Come on. Elves were created by Corellon Larethian, dwarves by Moradin. If the gods chose to create a gazillion subraces, who are we to argue about it?... Humans are already as adaptable as possible... Other races having subraces is just an attempt to get in on the flexibility that humans already have.
Rem acu tetugisti, jaelis. You've put your finger on something which the crew seems to be forgetting...
The base worlds of D&D are not evolutionary developments. Oh, I agree that after the creation of the campaign world, a fantasy-type form of natural selection came into being - it's an inevitable consequence of day-to-day life, especially in a world as warlike as your average FRPG. But in the beginning, these races were created - whether by gods or by some other race.
Clearly, (insert name of elven creator here) tinkered with his creation several times whereas (name of human creator here) simply designed a sort of 'all-terrain vehicle' as his mortal offspring and let well enough alone.
Now mechanically and to maintain campaign plausibility, there are good reasons to limit the number of races in a given campaign setting. But don't fall into the trap of thinking from an evolutionary standpoint. While I may believe that life evolved IRL, we are dealing here with a simulated reality in which spitting in church can cause you to spontaneously develop the head of a pig: remember that the D&D cultures may have evolved, but the races themselves are likely to have been made that way.
Also, in terms of genetics and darwinism, elven establishments are nearly all incredibly ancient, whereas human societies are nearly all comparatively young. Thus elves would have countless ages to adapt to their environment. This is in response to the life span argument against evolution.
Besides, who really cares, subraces add flavour to the game for players who want to be able to create PCs that correspond totally to the concept of the character they have without taking a penalty for actually wanting to create an in-depth character.
But at the same time, I would proffer the suggestion that these are all from supplemental books, and they are not things that you necessarily must include. If you think that a sub-race is absurd, don't allow it, but I think that the ideas generated by the brain-trust at WotC, whatever you think of them, is food for thought, whether you like it or throw it out. Personally, I used to play elves all the time, but now, in 3.x with that bonus feat and extra skill point, humans are the *bleep*.
Edymnion, you make some good points, I appreciate what you are striving for, I simply wish you had undertaken to use a less aggressive tone so that more people could appreciate the insightful points you bring up. Good luck with your struggle against elf-itis, thank you for the advice, but I think I will probably continue to savor my sickness. :-)
Originally there were basically two-subraces for the dwarves--hill and mountain--and their main differences were social and cultural. Their mechanical statistics were identical. This has changed with each and every new supplement and edition that has been made.
I have a standing rule in my campaign that only one elf or half-elf can be in the party making the players chose other options. The fact is that if you focus too much on ability bonuses and saving throw bonuses you are not roleplaying but instead roll-playing. I have long since grown very tired and bored of powergamers, monty haul campaigns, and total munchkin gaming. I think that's what this thread is truly about. I know that the majority of new players are more inclined to this munchkin, power gaming, monty-haul crap. So why wouldn't any company sell-it? However I also think that new players would appreciate a more intelligent and carefully thought provoking game which doesn't focus on statistics as much as it focuses on the story.
And to have actual sub-races (species) that are still reproductively compatible and have differing racial adjustments is very odd. Let's face it, ANY racial adjustment is very significant in the real world. But then we aren't talking real world, we are talking fantasy world, where magic can make almost anything happen.
The gods (oh yeah, you remember the all-powerful beings that can screw up everyone's plans with a well-placed lightning bolt?) have the ultimate say in how things work. That most beautiful monkey wrench called divine intervention accounts for the sub-races in my realm. Of course, to be honest, only certain races have been monkeyed with and only in 8 variations. Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Spirit, Void and Magic & Psionic sub-races occur in my campaign. Each touched by the deity that rules the aforementioned element.
It surprises me sometimes how much reality people let bleed into their fantasy games. Saying there are too many sub-races and citing real-world scenarios to back up your point is dangerously close to racism. That's why WotC_Mel was warning this thread. Now, I'm sure that's not your intention (if it is, keep it to yourself), but that's how it can be perceived.
Anyway, this is my belief; The gods have the right to change whatever they want, whenever they want, and however fast or slow they want. I think it keeps players on their toes to introduce a new race in an area they frequent (and before I get screamed at for it, I've only done it twice, both times to excellent outcomes).
Let the yelling begin.
WoT takes this one step further by listing skills, feats, and equipment appropriate to the parent culture. The character receives certain skills as class skills, regardless of character class. He also gains his choice of one of three equipment options, all of which would be considered suitable for his culture.
So the whole 'express the differences between sub-races with skills, feats, etc. rather than with different ability score modifiers' does have merit.
That being said, I think that there could be merit in expressing the difference between sub-races with different ability score modifiers, if the background of the sub-races are handled right.
Grey Elf: Spends a lot of time in study, be it as a mage or scholar. Reduced physical activity, doesn't develop same "dexterity" or "constitution" as "normal" elves. +2 Int, -2 Con.
Wood Elf: Much of his time is spent outdoors, hunting or scouting or fighting off monsters. Less time is spent in "bookwork". +2 Con, -2 Int
Now, this is all off the top of my head, and doesn't take into acount every factor possible, so I could be wrong.
The point is that either option for creating/explaining sub-races could work, as long as the background for the sub-race is done correctly, not just "I want to create an elven sub-race that could work as a barbarian, but doesn't have the penalty to Con".
And, FWIW, I support the right of every gamer to play the type of game he/she enjoys, whether it's deep-immersive role-playing, or hack-and-slash roll-playing, or something in-between (sound familiar? It's in the DMG). I even support the right of every gamer to hold opinions, negative or positive, on each of the types of gaming. But I, for one, am getting a little tired of all the epithets that seem to be flying around the boards: Munchkins, Power-Gamer, and Min/Maxer are just some of them. These styles are not what's hurting the game; making disparaging comments about the styles is what will ultimately drive people away form these boards, and possibly, the game itself. I'm not trying to be dramatic, just honest. If you want to express why you don't like to play a particular style, that's your right. But when you start saying that munchkins and power-gamers are what's destroying the hobby - nuh-uh. There's no evidence - circumstantial, empirical, or whatever - that supports this. You are, or course, free to say what you like as long as it doesn't violate the CoC; however, I think you risk alienating people because you look down on the style of game they like (sort of how jocks used to look down on us geeks for palying D&D). If you like power-gaming, go for it. Deep RPing? Great. Want to build the ultimate warrior to face Tiamat? Luck be with ye, lad.
Other than that, I see the fantasy worlds of d20 as an exaggeration of the real world - and in some people's exaggerations, living in distinct parts of the world means that you develop unique physical adaptations. In the real world, we develop unique culture and social patterns, so is this exaggeration really that bad? I mean, we don't even have more than one "core race" in the real world in the first place, so can we really argue from a "it doesn't really work that way" standpoint against subraces? Not very effectively.
That said, I don't vocalize my opinions on subraces for the same reason that I wish people didn't vocalize their opinions of "Psionics are 'teh broken'" or "Warlocks are munchkin-bait" - to each his own, essentially, and we really don't need to hear how "broken" or how "munchkinized" elements of the game are that -aren't- core elements. (I follow the belief that letting players use races not from the Player's Handbook is not a core action - it may be covered in the DMG, but it's just an option, not a "All DM's must allow players to player whatever in the Monster Manual that they want").
Anyways, enough of the counter-rant. Time to go kill me some elves!
Incidentally, that's why I like Eberron: because it's markedly not Tolkien.
The Grey Elf lives in mountain cities, spending their lives studying, making them weaker yet more intelligent. This didn't happen over night, but is the result of thousands of years of evolution. Thus Grey Elves makes fantastic wizards. High elves lives in forest and spend alot of time on hunting, archery and such, which leaves them less time for studying, and thus they are not as intelligent, but not that soft either.
These subraces will probably have to be isolated in order to breed subraces. As I see it, grey Elves are more similar to the original race, while High elves have taken refuge in great forests to protect themselves against orcs, goblins, dwarves and humans.
Humans are a younger race, and is basically the finished product of evolution in D&D since they can adapt to any climate, class and way of life.
Wood elves from FR are rather silly, as High elves should take that role. Wild elves I like better, since this race has actually devolved and become barbaric. Still, you sure could use high elves' stats for this purpose.
As for the newer subraces from RoS and similar, I don't like them at all. But if people want to buy that trash, then go ahead, I don't mind.
I don't buy the social pressure argument. Kenyans are good runners because of an adapted genome and years of living at high altitudes, IMO, not because they all have run. No, I don't think those conditions give them the run feat.
Asians... have an affinity for music. National Geographic just surveyed music students at the Eastman school of Music in New York between keys of music as easy as telling the difference between colors. They found that 63 percent of all Asian students enrolled had an understanding of something called true pitch-- essentially the ability to differentiate - compared to a mere 7 percent of non-Asian students with this ability. Asians are simply better at it than anybody else, as general principle.
The problem I have with these examples (and they are great examples) is that they still don't clarify whether it's nature or nurture. The first, of the Kenyans, would seem to be a no-brainer. Anyone who follows running knows that they consistently out perform the competition.
But have you ever read anything about the training they do? It's positively INSANE. A decade or so ago the Kenyan Olympic team opened up their training facilities to about a dozen other runners and some reporters but most of the other runners gave up pretty fast. It seems they were running grueling tracks up and down steep, high altitude courses. The standard Kenyan response to reporters was "Yeah, it's tough at first, but you get used to it." Which sounds a lot like Endurance and/or Run to me. Maybe they do have a genetic advantage, maybe not, but what makes them world-class is grueling practice, the same as everyone else.
And as for the Asian music thing, it's pretty well documented that most Asian languages (certainly all of the dialects of Chinese) use both the left and right brain, as pitch and tone are both integral in a way that they simply aren't for Western languages. Perhaps it's also genetic, perhaps not, and I admit I haven't read the article. But it certainly needn't be genetic: simply growing up speaking a literally "musical language" is enough of a reason to develop perfect pitch.
So you want to be a tough, woodsy elf? Be a PHB elf ranger. But you want to be a tough, woodsy elf rogue? Then be a PHB elf rogue - and take Endurance.
-Shaftiel
No, you're just taking what I said and exaggerating it to silly extreme.
So what should happen is every subrace should just be removed. That would make everyone happy, right?
Everyone can be the same elf, everyone can be the same human, everyone can be the same dwarf, etc. Drow, duergar? Those are subraces, lets get rid of those, too. One elf and one dwarf is good enough for every campaign setting.
Why don't we get rid of prestige classes as well? Why don't we also get rid of the other base classes that aren't in the PHB? Who needs those? They're just subclasses. Why can't everyone be the same classes?
I think the whole idea is to have the extra flavour. If you don't like the subraces, then get rid of them in your campaign. WotC isn't FORCING you to use them. Your players (if you DM) can't force you to use them either. Subraces are OPTIONAL rules for a reason. Why is it such a problem for you to work with the optional rules? Give all the subraces the ability modifiers of base elves and work with the rest of the subrace as written.
Its already been said in the thread, and is worth saying again, that for the kind of change over time that would be required to explain all of these is evolution, which takes a hell of a long time.
Who says it has to be evolution? Couldn't it just be adaptation? Also, it could also be seen as taking a short time. They have more life to live so they have lots of time to adapt to their surroundings and the adjustments could be shown, possibly, within one generation. Also, weren't elves supposed to be one of the first races on the planet? They've had much more time to adapt each of their surroundings.
However, there have been different human "subraces," if you will, throughout history. The first, H0mo Habilis (2.2-1.6 million years ago), H0mo Erectus (2.0 - .4 million years ago), H0mo Sapiens Archaic (400 to 200 thousand years ago), H0mo sapiens neandertalensis (commonly called Neanderthals, 200 to 30 thousand years ago), and finally, H0mo Sapiens Sapiens, (200 thousand years ago - present.) There were other Hominoids prior to that, but we shall focus on these 5 for now. By this data, (from http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html), we can see that in the span of about 2 million years we had 5 different breeds of humans, or about a new species every 400,000 years.
Now, most paelantropologists believe that the various Hominoids died out largely from competition from other Hominoids. It's easy to imagine in a fantasy world that the threat of dragons, intervention of other intelligent demi-humans, and magic would have changed this, so those five subraces could have survived to the present era. Now, humans, who are not innately magical, could spawn 5 different species in 2 million years, I fail to see why it is so far fetched that elves, who are generally regarded as having been around much longer than humans and being much more magical, would have numerous different subraces. Even assuming elves have been around for only five times as long as humans (10 million years ago), and giving them 4 times the life span (so they evolve at a fourth the rate of humanity), as well as assuming their magical nature doubles the rate of mutation (rough estimate), Elves would have given birth to 9 genetically different subraces. Ergo, one can conclude that Elves having as many subraces as they do is completely plausible.
So, in summation, give it a rest. Subraces make perfect sense, although I agree there should be mechanically different humans - which there are, thanks to Frostburn's Neanderthals. Arguably, Yuan-ti and Illithids are also mechanically different humans as well. So, if you don't like the subraces, don't use them in your game, and if you do, use them, but stop trying to force you opinion down the throats of DMs and Players everywhere.
That my 2 cents.
However, now you've gone and introduced time into the equation, which simply can't be done. You are assuming that in a world were magic exists and is prevalent, where gods directly influence their underlings, and where other very nonhuman intelligent beings exist, elves will evolve in a very similar manner to humans. Didn't Lolth herself have a hand in speeding up the evolution of her precious drow? For a magically-inclined race, is enhancing themselves direction (via manuals and tomes) enough to affect their off-spring's physical/mental faculties?
This is a role-playing fantasy game. That is the most important fact to remember here, and because there is no clear-cut, singly-defined way to play this game or make a world, blanket statements like "elven subraces are bad" don't hold well. In some worlds I imagine the GM would appreciate the various subraces of all manner of creatures, especially if he's trying to introduce the concept of extreme racism (or would it be speciesism...) in its extremes. Other GMs, like Endymnion I imagine, don't like the concept of wood elf, wild elf, etc., so they don't use that option. Here we have two different examples, both of which proving there is no one way to play the game.
Maybe I just misunderstood that first post and the many following it, but I don't see how this thread is anything more than a glorified rant of one's personal opinion being pushed onto others. No offense meant, but that's how the thread came across to me. Maybe it was the beginning blanket, biased statement "Sub-races of playable races are wrong"...
I think changing a race's stats should only result from something as extreme as being cursed by a god and living in a highly charged magical environment. Coming from a different plane? OK, that is probably workable. But yeah, lives on the other side of the mountain is a poor reason to change a race's stats. I think you can mess with the rest of the abilities a bit, but if you start changing stat adjustments willy-nilly you start entering the realm of new races instead of sub races.
But there is a logical inconsistency at work here. Elves, dwarves, and gnomes all have much longer lives and (presumably) much longer periods between generations than humans. And yet the elves, dwarves, and gnomes have evolved into a rainbow of biodiversity, while humans occasionally display different colors of skin and hair. How did this happen? Did the other races grow up under power lines, or something?
BTW, looks like more new races are on the way.
With a race mod:
1. when using the point buy system, you pay less for really high scores in certain areas.
2. when using the roll for stats system, you are boosting your stats in certain areas beyond what you rolled.
It is true that an elf who exercised for 100 years instead of studying would be stronger, and less smart. However, that elf is still the same kind of elf. What about a sun elf whose back story was that he exercised for his first 100 years instead of studying? He has to pay full price for the different stats.
Keep in mind that the difference is stats represents different UPBRINGING in addition to different genetic material. Yes you might be stronger then average if you come from a line of strong people, you might be stronger then average if you exercised your whole life. And you will be MUCH stronger then average, ie 18 str, if you come from a line of strong people and exercised your whole life. And this COSTS EXTRA in order to keep the BALANCE between the PLAYERS.
The players are not supposed to balance against the world, but against each other. Thus the idea that if you want extreme scores in some areas, you have to pay for them. Being able to just pick a different subrace circumvents the paying for what you get deal. You get an unfair advantage towards other players who DID pay for what they got, because they didn't choose a (sub)race with the exact bonuses they wanted.
Let the yelling begin.
You asked or it.
Evolution happens. The reasons follow:
1) People (of same races) are different from each other
2) Children resemble their parents
3) Not everyone survives or has the same amount of children
These two premises lead to following
4) It is most likely that the most competent members of race have most children
5) The more useful traits become a majority
6) Very lousy traits disappear or become minority
7) This is evolution
Note: Scientific terms weren't used. Anyone of any intellectual capacity should understand that. Genes weren't mentioned.
As to Edymnion's post, some subraces are pretty useless. The environmental varieties in UA have mostly rational changes, they deserve some appreciation.
...Evolution happens. The reasons follow:
1) People (of same races) are different from each other
2) Children resemble their parents
3) Not everyone survives or has the same amount of children
These two premises lead to following
4) It is most likely that the most competent members of race have most children
5) The more useful traits become a majority
6) Very lousy traits disappear or become minority
7) This is evolution
Note: Scientific terms weren't used. Anyone of any intellectual capacity should understand that. Genes weren't mentioned...
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying evolution can't happen. I just think that races (sub-races) can exist through divine tampering. Or through magically crossbreeding (case in point, The Mul). I don't think every race (or sub-race) needs to be justified through evolution (That and long drawn out scientific discussions of genetic make-up in a fantasy-based game tend to rub me the wrong way. Dragons can't fly according to physics, let's trash that next
). That was all I was really saying.That being said, I also agree that this seems to be a rant about someone's personal pet peeve. If you don't want to use sub-races, don't. Some of us enjoy the added flavor.
You asked or it.
Evolution happens. The reasons follow:
1) People (of same races) are different from each other
2) Children resemble their parents
3) Not everyone survives or has the same amount of children
These two premises lead to following
4) It is most likely that the most competent members of race have most children
5) The more useful traits become a majority
6) Very lousy traits disappear or become minority
7) This is evolution
To be fair, strict logic is often... not so strict in the D&D universe. Dragons, after all, should never be able to get off the ground. I am about as vehement a supporter of evolutionary theory in real life as one can get, but for D&D, evolution, in my view, only occurs if the story and world I'm shaping ask it to, no matter what logic says should happen when you have unevenly distributed, heritable features.
You want to play a wild elf? Fine, put more points into Strength and Constitution, take Barbarian as your first level class, and do some roleplaying.
There is absolutely no reason why ANYONE needs a new subrace in order to roleplay. It is a crutch, nothing more. And if you don't learn to walk on your own, but are always relying on a crutch to get by, you will never learn to walk, much less to run or jump.
I absolutely agree with this. We have the rules, we have the imagination. Why make sub-races when you can just play sub-races? Just allocate your stat points different and start acting. Of course you could always talk your DM in letting you take a self-made feat instead of a normal one at level 1, no problem.
Greetings :D
Hmmm... even if you ignored the idea of genetics, as you seem to want to do, the environment in which you grew up in will seriously affect your abilities. Take for instance the wood elf. A wood elf will spend at least the first 100 years of their life running around the forest, hunting, tracking, climbing, swimming etc. It is impossible for this not to have an effect on the elf's strength, hence the +2 to the ability. Just imagine if you went to the gym every day for 20 years or so. In terms of intelligence, how smart do you think you would be if you exercised instead of reading or studying. The same goes for most of the subraces, the mods are all justifiable in terms of culture and environment.
Also, in terms of genetics and darwinism, elven establishments are nearly all incredibly ancient, whereas human societies are nearly all comparatively young. Thus elves would have countless ages to adapt to their environment. This is in response to the life span argument against evolution.
Well said. One thing that I think all of us are missing is that many racial abilities, like stat modifiers, are the modifiers when a member of a race reaches adulthood. All elves shouldn't get +2 Dex, -2 Con. Why? Because not all elves grew up where a High Elf did. Environment plays an important role to shape a person. A dwarf gets +2 Con, -2 Cha because he was brought up that way, not because genetics mark it. Yes, maybe all dwarves have the same genetics. However, not all dwarves lived and grew up in the same way. Social differences account for more than just things such as feats and skills. They affect the way one grows up.
Magical: since that the only races that have sub-races are the 'magical' ones, the ability to adapt is inherent in their make-up therefore only 1-2 generations of living in a different environment/culture is enough to 'adapt' to the settings;
Evolution: the differences represent niche filling and people from one environment/culture won't find someone from a different environment/culture to be suitable for mating;
Divine: the gods created the different subraces;
Role-play: varies but generally a wizard would have come from a culture supporting wizardry and learning while the barbarian came from a culture/environment where survival was the main focus and don't devote time to outside pursuits.
Because I am the DM I have the right to say 'no' to anything I feel is unbalancing, exploit-ish, or I deem implausible. I support role-playing, but I know how un-fun role-playing can be if you feel you are 'stuck' with something you feel is inferior just to justify wanting to role-play (because somehow the message that I feel keeps popping up on these boards is that having a good character is un-roleplayish). If I want to role-play an elven barbarian, why should I get 'punished' for it if there is a sub-race out there that will let me do what I want to do and actually have it work (the simple fact that I wanted to be a elven barbarian should preclude the 'roll-playing' arguments. If I really was 'roll-playing' I would have been the standard half-orc barbarian)? Not all of 'us' role-players want crappy characters to 'justify' our choices. I want my class/race combo to be the best I can get it.
Well said. One thing that I think all of us are missing is that many racial abilities, like stat modifiers, are the modifiers when a member of a race reaches adulthood. All elves shouldn't get +2 Dex, -2 Con. Why? Because not all elves grew up where a High Elf did. Environment plays an important role to shape a person. A dwarf gets +2 Con, -2 Cha because he was brought up that way, not because genetics mark it. Yes, maybe all dwarves have the same genetics. However, not all dwarves lived and grew up in the same way. Social differences account for more than just things such as feats and skills. They affect the way one grows up.
Environment plays a role in where the character places his high stats, not where he gains bonuses from. Growing up in the woods should not bestow an innate statistic bonus to the wild elf; it should be represented by the elf placing his high stat into Str, compensating for the hit to his Con and playing with his PHB elf.
Environment plays a role in where the character places his high stats, not where he gains bonuses from. Growing up in the woods should not bestow an innate statistic bonus to the wild elf; it should be represented by the elf placing his high stat into Str, compensating for the hit to his Con and playing with his PHB elf.
Well this one can go around and around, but I kind of think it goes to the basic issue of them designing a race to fit a class, not a place. I don't have a problem with a race having different abilities, but why exactly does a wood elf get str? So they can be better rangers, or because it seems to make sense for living in woods? An elf who lived in constant battle with Orcs (more so then normal) getting that bonus would make sense getting a bonus to str, but why does the wood elf get it? What do they need to be so strong for? And why for the love of all that is good does a wood elf who is supposed to be the extra nature version of a nature race not have some skill bonus to survival?
I for one was under the impression normal elves lived in woods btw.
Environment plays a role in where the character places his high stats, not where he gains bonuses from. Growing up in the woods should not bestow an innate statistic bonus to the wild elf; it should be represented by the elf placing his high stat into Str, compensating for the hit to his Con and playing with his PHB elf.
Exactly.
As to evolution, of course logic works everywhere. The argument: It is magic, anything can happen; doesn't work because magic has certain rules, also, as described in PHB. And logic works because our mere human mind has very much difficulties understanding something logic doesn't apply to. Perhaps different rules. Are any of my premises wrong? And, elves being chaotic, as their deity, probably should have faster evolution, if something. Change is part of chaos.
Environment plays a role in where the character places his high stats, not where he gains bonuses from. Growing up in the woods should not bestow an innate statistic bonus to the wild elf; it should be represented by the elf placing his high stat into Str, compensating for the hit to his Con and playing with his PHB elf.
So what you're saying is that all high elves put a high stat into Dex? If environment truly defines where an elf places his high stats, shouldn't it then follow that a high elf's highest stat is always what the society deems? So a person playing a high elf fighter shouldn't place his highest stat in Strength, but instead in something the society wants, such as Dex or Int. Society does shape how one grows up. If you live in a first generation society of humans that is entirely closed off from society, and spends every day meditating, would you say that they don't get a penalty to Con? Even though their genetics are the same as other humans--because the society has not had time to adapt--does not mean that they should not get different stats. If a society runs a certain way, then that way will affect how everyone in that society functions.
So what you're saying is that all high elves put a high stat into Dex? If environment truly defines where an elf places his high stats, shouldn't it then follow that a high elf's highest stat is always what the society deems? So a person playing a high elf fighter shouldn't place his highest stat in Strength, but instead in something the society wants, such as Dex or Int. Society does shape how one grows up. If you live in a first generation society of humans that is entirely closed off from society, and spends every day meditating, would you say that they don't get a penalty to Con? Even though their genetics are the same as other humans--because the society has not had time to adapt--does not mean that they should not get different stats. If a society runs a certain way, then that way will affect how everyone in that society functions.
Not all high elves have a high stat in dex; it means that all high elves are innately more dexterous than many other races (and are more frail as well). The other stats are determined by the rolls or the point buy and NOT by innate racial modifiers, and certainly not by lame-oid subraces which are elves tweaked for particular classes.
A group of humans who meditate all day will have lower constitution scores because they didn't go out and dance around in the world. This is represented by Constitution being treated as their low stat, and not due to any innate racial modifier.
Arguments vs Socially-generated Modifiers
1) How do you explain a dragon's ability score modifiers for dragon characters? Are those huge bonuses something they were 'raised' to have or something they were born with?
Arguments vs Racially-generated Modifiers
1) As mentioned above, if an elf spends its entire childhood running around a forest, climbing trees, hunting, tracking, basically being physical in general (rangerish?), wouldn't they be comparatively stronger, more agile, and tougher than an elf who grew up apprenticed to a spellcaster and spent the majority (as in nearly all) of his childhood indoors poring over books and pursuing contemplative and theoretical aims? Conversely, wouldn't this second elf be inherently more learned than the first elf?
This argument of racial vs social ability modifiers brings to mind another very important question on Wisdom and Charisma.
Wisdom is defined by the Player's Handbook as being an awareness of surroundings (-cough-charisma-cough-) and having an understanding of the world and people around the character in question (charisma...again). Charisma, according to the PhB, is defined as the character's physical appearance and personality and how it affects the world around them. As wisdom and charisma, by their respective definitions, are both closely related, who wouldn't receive bonuses to them? Soldiers are always perceived by stats to have lower Charisma, for example, but every soldier I personally know (many of whom have served in battles abroad) have strong will and a good understanding of how the world 'really works'. And about are all able tell tales of their days in the service. And most are pretty darned good at it. Does this indicate a penalty to Charisma? Wisdom? The same can be said for nearly any other profession.
Now, to return to the topic...
Personally, when I play a character or DM, I avoid the sub-races. For me they often only serve to muddle the core concepts of the races. Elves, for example, are lithe and agile with some natural proficiency in magic, craft, and the longsword. Cool. If I want to challenge that, whether I'm running a character or a campaign, I'll do it with a detailed, well-crafted character with a good backstory. No one says you can't be an Elven Barbarian, but isn't it FAR more interesting to use the base Elf and come up with a really solid background to justify that choice rather than just saying "Well, he comes from this whole sub-race of barbarian elves up North."?
And that, to me, is the central problem with sub-races. They seem to generally serve as a crutch for people with unorthodox character concepts to rely on instead of their own ingenuity and storytelling. I also think that they are there mainly for people who just can't get over some of the core races being what they are. Why play an elf who is identical in stats and attitude to a Half-Orc if not to tell a cool story with the character? What, Half-Orcs aren't COOL like elves? Come on. There are a lot more cool stories you can tell even with an iconic race/class match (e.g. Half-Orc Barbarian), than you can by creating/using a sub-race simply so you can say you're still technically an elf (no matter the fact that you've tossed out all that makes an elf an elf, save the long life-span and the pointy ears).
But in the end, the great thing about this game is that it's up to you and your DM. If you want to use sub-races, that's your choice to make, and if it helps you have more fun, that's what's most important. I tend to have more fun without them, but that certainly doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to use them in your game.
Not all high elves have a high stat in dex; it means that all high elves are innately more dexterous than many other races (and are more frail as well). The other stats are determined by the rolls or the point buy and NOT by innate racial modifiers, and certainly not by lame-oid subraces which are elves tweaked for particular classes.
A group of humans who meditate all day will have lower constitution scores because they didn't go out and dance around in the world. This is represented by Constitution being treated as their low stat, and not due to any innate racial modifier.
If a group of humans who meditate all day have lower constitution scores, shouldn't it then be then any person who has plays a high elf puts a high score into what the society deems, such as Int for elves? If you take what you say, we must place our scores according to the society our character grew up in.
1) How do you explain a dragon's ability score modifiers for dragon characters? Are those huge bonuses something they were 'raised' to have or something they were born with?
I'm not going to deny that dragons are inherently powerful/tough/intelligent/charismatic/ etc. However, if there were, say, a group of dragons that spent all their time getting to be better casters, then that would be a subrace of a dragon that had a higher Int bonus and less of a Str bonus. Are there dragon subraces though? That would be weird. Player: I'm playing a gold dragon wizard 3. DM: As opposed to...?
Elves are inherently dexterous. That's why many subraces have additional modifiers to show external social influences. The MM states the social inclinations of the grey elves. They get +2 Int, -2 Str in addition to the High Elf's mods. And other subraces, such as the wild elf, have a vastly different lifestyle to account for the difference in racial mods.
If a group of humans who meditate all day have lower constitution scores, shouldn't it then be then any person who has plays a high elf puts a high score into what the society deems, such as Int for elves? If you take what you say, we must place our scores according to the society our character grew up in.
Indeed; however, that should not an innate bonus that is spread across the board. The humans have a lower constitution score because they spent their time meditating and not being toughened up through living life; the elves are more intelligent because they spent their time in the library.
But this is not the case that all elves are going to be in the library. Some high elves might decide to go to fighter college and get a four year degree in weapon specialization; others might go to seminary and come out a priest of Corellon Lathian. Either way, the fact should remain the same that they are both the same elf racial; it's the differences in stats that make them diverse and interesting.
But this is not the case that all elves are going to be in the library. Some high elves might decide to go to fighter college and get a four year degree in weapon specialization; others might go to seminary and come out a priest of Corellon Lathian. Either way, the fact should remain the same that they are both the same elf racial; it's the differences in stats that make them diverse and interesting.
The fact that a fighter went to college is symbolized by the fact that he took a level in fighter. The class level he gains shows the training he has acquired(In the form of all martial weapons, armor, etc.) This does not mean that he gains this instead of a stat bonus because the training occurred after he matured.
This makes a strong case for the fact that the listed racial ability bonuses can come from genetics (such as a dragon's bonuses), from upbringing (an elf's bonuses) or a mix of the two. In this context racial modifiers represent innate or social predilection towards certain activities while the choices of stat assignments represent the character's pursuit of a given career.
For example:
A. Imagine a young wild elf living with her tribe on the prairie. Whatever her career interests are (assignment of attribute rolls / point buy) she will have to help herd animals, travel long distances on foot, avoid predators and enemies, etc. This makes her not have a CON penalty and even a dexterity bonus. On the other hand this life offers little chance to aquire manners and learn about social intrigue compared to a human child. Placed in human society she will be awkward and lack the ability to command respect. Thus she has a CHA penalty.
B. Imagine a similar young elf growing up in a secluded elven stronghold protected by magic wards. Her daily chores will likely be much different, perhaps attending regular schooling, serving as an apprentice to one of the adult wizards. Books on a myriad of subjects would be readily available and good study habits would likely be taught to the children (+Int). However the safe but small stronghold doesn't provide much opportunity to run, physical chores are done by Unseen Servants, the safety makes it so she doesn't have to be physically prepared to evade enemies and readily available curative magic de-emphasized the development of a strong immune system. (-Con)
Either of them could choose to spend her free time practicing the attributes essential to her chosen career, but the lifestyle itself can lend its own help to (or can hinder) her training.
For example:
Imagine a young wild elf living with her tribe on the prairie. Whatever her career interests are (assignment of attribute rolls / point buy) she will have to help herd animals, travel long distances on foot, avoid predators and enemies, etc. This makes her not have a CON penalty and even a dexterity bonus. On the other hand this life offers little chance to aquire manners and learn about social intrigue compared to a human child. Placed in human society she will be awkward and lack the ability to command respect. Thus she has a CHA penalty.
To counter (to something I think the discussion is geared at):
Imagine a young human living with her tribe on the prairie. Whatever her career interests are (assignment of attribute rolls / point buy) she will have to help herd animals, travel long distances on foot, avoid predators and enemies, etc. This makes her not have a CON penalty (but she is human so no con penalty anyway) and even NO dexterity bonus. On the other hand this life offers little chance to acquire manners and learn about social intrigue compared to a human child. Placed in any other society she will be awkward and lack the ability to command respect. Thus she has NO penalty.
Bolding are my changes. So why does being an human in the exact same lifestyle and raised in the exact same environment have no bonus or penalty?
Imagine a similar young elf growing up in a secluded elven stronghold protected by magic wards. Her daily chores will likely be much different, perhaps attending regular schooling, serving as an apprentice to one of the adult wizards. Books on a myriad of subjects would be readily available and good study habits would likely be taught to the children (+Int). However the safe but small stronghold doesn't provide much opportunity to run, physical chores are done by Unseen Servants, the safety makes it so she doesn't have to be physically prepared to evade enemies and readily available curative magic de-emphasized the development of a strong immune system. (-Con).
We can use the same type of analogy here as well and thus we have 2 humans raised in entirely different environments yet by game mechanics they are identical. But en elf becomes different?
Edymnion, I completely agree with you. Which brings me to my next point: (please don't flame me on this one) Why are the drow dark-skinned? I mean, they live underground. Look what happened to Gollum. When creatures live underground, their skin turns a sickly, pale white. Don't get me wrong; the Drow are cool, but don't you wonder why their skin is so dark? Maybe there is something about their history that gives them this unique appearance, I'm not familiar enough with FR to know, but really.
The original D&D setting had Shadow Elves who were a lot like Drow except they were albino.
But you are correct in that standard D&D elf lore in the forgotten realms has the Drow looking the way do because of their patron goddess and not because it makes any sense. Very early in Faerun's history the Drow actually lived above ground and it has only been about 10,000 years since they went underground.
All the Elf variants discussed in this long thread can be role played. The fact that someone grows up in a certain environment doesn't change the genetic makeup of that person, so no racial +/- should be given based on where they grew up. That's what the variable 3-18 roll is for.
Mutation theory tells us that the faster a generation, the faster the mutation. Ever experiment with fruit flies? They have generations of about 24 hours, and mutate fast enough for high school students to make observations about said mutation.
Elves, on the opposite end of the scale, have generations measured in hundreds of years. AT LEAST 3 times longer than a human generation. How far have you mutated from your grandparents? For most Americans, we life in a COMPLETLY different environment from our grandparents, if not just in geographical terms, then standard of living terms most likely, but you don't see me growing gills because I live by the coast. So if I'm not going to mutate in 3 generations, then elves aren't going to mutate in 3 generations either, and 3 elf generations is probably something like 1000 years...
I'm not arguing for or against elven subraces here, just that one cannot apply our modern understanding of evolution to them. Magic? Ok. Evolution? No way.
A reason sub-races might be necessary: When you're the only role-player in a group of powergamers.
Edymnion, I completely agree with you. Which brings me to my next point: (please don't flame me on this one) Why are the drow dark-skinned? I mean, they live underground. Look what happened to Gollum. When creatures live underground, their skin turns a sickly, pale white. Don't get me wrong; the Drow are cool, but don't you wonder why their skin is so dark? Maybe there is something about their history that gives them this unique appearance, I'm not familiar enough with FR to know, but really.
The reason the Drow are dark-skinned is because after their initial defeat Correlan cursed them to be as black as their hearts are.
All I can say is that there's decades of literature giving legitimacy to sub races. I suggest you start by looking at creation Mythos and proceeding from there if you want "justification" for the races. Furthermore, there is a strong appeal in a fantasy world to play something is that substantially different from real life. I don't think a D&D real-life based game would be fun at all. It's rare that anyone wants to play average, everyday people. Name one single game that encourages that. :-)
Yeah, but what about "elf" screams real life? It's not like we have the Keebler elves running around. We're all commoner or expert 1s and 2s; in D&D nobody plays those classes (at least without good reason). We play in a world of magic and psionics, gnomes and dwarves, dungeons and fricking dragons; I don't think that we have to look to any sort of a subrace* to find our fix and escape reality.
*-and by subrace I mean significant physical deviation from the normal concept of the race. I don't mind if you want to change up the elf's bonus to saves from enchantment to necromancy or their weapon familiarity from longsword/longbow to kukri/shuriken as long as there's a reason. But you don't need several different kinds of elves because one grew up in the woods and the other grew up in the wild and etc. IMO, you could limit the elves to three kinds: the PHB elf, the aquatic elf (who lives underwater), and the drow (who lives in the underdark).
Edymnion, I completely agree with you. Which brings me to my next point: (please don't flame me on this one) Why are the drow dark-skinned? I mean, they live underground. Look what happened to Gollum. When creatures live underground, their skin turns a sickly, pale white. Don't get me wrong; the Drow are cool, but don't you wonder why their skin is so dark? Maybe there is something about their history that gives them this unique appearance, I'm not familiar enough with FR to know, but really.
I believe this link will prove educational. ;)
I personally think different cultures are OK, but they should really be introduced independently and carefully by the DM. For example, your party might travel across the sea and encounter a strange new race of elves, with different skin tones and hair color and whatnot and a different culture to go with it. Nothing wrong with this; it's only when every member of the party comes from a different seldom-mentioned elf kingdom that things start to look ridiculous. Sometimes there should be a limit of one foreigner per party.
Honestly, it's okay if it's genetic. All elves should get +2 Dex, -2 Con. Why? Because they likely have lighter bones, which allows them to move more quickly but creates a weaker skeleton. Dwarves, maybe have powerful muscle and bone development.
A reason sub-races might be necessary: When you're the only role-player in a group of powergamers.
Even if it's genetic, that still gives reason as to why sub-races exist. These sub-races have lived for more than just a few thousand years. Evolution could have then changed them. But the main thing is that a sub-race of elves that has the entire community working to remove their constitution penalty means they are a community without a constitution penalty. A sub-race, that is different from the main race because they lived in an entirely different lifestyle that changed the way they grew up. The score you put into a stat is what your character feels is important. As Ayana put it,
"Either of them could choose to spend her free time practicing the attributes essential to her chosen career, but the lifestyle itself can lend its own help to (or can hinder) her training."
All the Elf variants discussed in this long thread can be role played. The fact that someone grows up in a certain environment doesn't change the genetic makeup of that person, so no racial +/- should be given based on where they grew up. That's what the variable 3-18 roll is for.
Okay, so you put your highest score in strength, and you are a gray elf. That doesn't change the fact that because of your lifestyle you still study more than a regular elf, and stay inside more than a regular elf. The high score you put in is relative to other gray elves, in that your character gets out more often than other gray elves.
Tolkein's middle-earth world would be sorely different if elves had no subraces (read the Silmarillion). It is even my personal belief that the men of Rohan are also physically different than the men of Gondor. Hobbits were highly different dependant on their family heritage, and even had a somewhat distant subrace known as the river people (Golem was one). I surely doubt he was trying to appeal to powergamers (hell, if your character is extremely powerful but you can roleplay him/her admirably, I see no problem there)!
No subraces is mighty fine, but the flavor and feel of subraces is only an improvement.
Tolkein's middle-earth world would be sorely different if elves had no subraces (read the Silmarillion).
Agreed; but the differences in Tolkien's Elves were of appearance and culture, not genetic/ability. The Wood Elves from "The Hobbit" weren't physically different (genetically) from the High Elves of Rivendell, although they looked different.
It is even my personal belief that the men of Rohan are also physically different than the men of Gondor. Hobbits were highly different dependant on their family heritage, and even had a somewhat distant subrace known as the river people (Golem was one).
All true. Gondor's men were dark haired, and shorter than the fair haired men of Rohan. But there was no mention of their strength, constitution, etc being different due to where they lived.
Gollum as a Hobbit is a small twist that is often missed.
No subraces is mighty fine, but the flavor and feel of subraces is only an improvement.
I agree that there should be (and often NEEDS to be) some additional flavor. If someone wants to play an Elf that has weapons proficiencies different than what the book says, and has a plausible reason for it, so much the better. But where I take issue is that same Elf has a higher constitution or strength, genetically (aka bonus or penalty applied to initial scores) than any other Elf.
This sounds more like a rant than an actual well-thought article. Subraces add a wealth of flavor to any campaign world they are included in.
In what way do they add any amount of flavor that cannot be added just as easily by saying this group over here exists, and treating it exactly the same, without giving them new mechanical stats?
Tolkein's middle-earth world would be sorely different if elves had no subraces (read the Silmarillion).
I have read it. Tolkien did not have physically different sub-races of elves. A wood elf, a river elf, and a dark elf were all the same kind of elves, the only difference was where they lived, and what kind of culture they had.
Different cultures had apparently different people because of cultural pressures, essentially, dictating what your lvl 1 feat was. A sub-culture of renowned runners doesn't get a boost to their base speed, they just take the Run feat. A race of expert crafters don't get racial bonuses to Craft skills, they are culturally pressured to max out their ranks in Craft skills instead of things like Knowledge: Cabbage.
There is *NOTHING* a mechanically different sub-race can offer to improve a game that you cannot get just as well with plain old roleplaying skills and skill/feat selection.
Different cultures had apparently different people because of cultural pressures, essentially, dictating what your lvl 1 feat was. A sub-culture of renowned runners doesn't get a boost to their base speed, they just take the Run feat. A race of expert crafters don't get racial bonuses to Craft skills, they are culturally pressured to max out their ranks in Craft skills instead of things like Knowledge: Cabbage.
There is *NOTHING* a mechanically different sub-race can offer to improve a game that you cannot get just as well with plain old roleplaying skills and skill/feat selection.
So what are you suggesting? One "Master Race"? And all you do is max out your skills or choose a feat to make yourself different?
Heck, let's get rid of all non-humans completely! No more monsters, no more other races, no more anything but your "master race." And no more classes... except for commoner.
Because choice is bad! ALL MUST CONFORM!
As far as sub-races go, I use them a lot. In my homebrewing I have often used a race and subrace list as the platform to hinge the rest of my world on. I think that the difference between a race and a subrace is greater than a race and its many cultures. You can simply say "there are those guys that live over there" and use the same mechanical definition for their race type, but a sub-race should be a subset of the race that has undergone significant environmental (natural or artificial) adjustment. Winged elves, and drow are good examples of that. Wild elves, and the differences between high and grey elves are probably the weakest examples.
As elves are the first created race, (yeah I'm hazarding that guess over the dwarves and the halfling) they suffer from that "first try" problem. The idea of subraces was created for the first time with elves, thusly they are not the best sub-race examples. Drow and avariel came much later (both were a part of realms brewing I believe) and are good examples of what a sub-race should be: Significantly different yet still related to the base genetic stock.
How about mystic genetics? I have had some interesting discussions regarding the weight of DNA in the D&D settings. Perhaps the gods are more present in the birth process? A sub-race is mechanically different because a diety decided so. How about a specific subrace of goblin that worships elhonna. It could make an interesting case of debate over what would be statistically different. Worked up a magical ecology one time - you needed to eat, but the protein and vitamins in the diet mean nothing - you needed the energy. Tracking your current state of your six elemental nourishments is actually not that hard, and somehow more satisfying (to me) than the ounce of this and pound of that deal the PHB goes into.
There is *NOTHING* a mechanically different sub-race can offer to improve a game that you cannot get just as well with plain old roleplaying skills and skill/feat selection.
Weapon proficiencies. Sometimes skill boni. Favored class. But stat boosts don't fit, I agree with that.
As an example, there are NOT Woods Humans, Mountain Humans, Plains Humans and Aquatic Humans (and Aquatic Mountain Humans) all with different ability score modifiers. All humans have +/-0 for all abilities.
The consensus is that Elves, regardless of where they live, should get -2 Con and +2 Dex.
Having a -2 con for the longest-lived common humanoid race in the game is incredibly illogical, they obviously CAN'T be frail. A strength penalty or no stat changes at all would be a much better choice.
So what are you suggesting? One "Master Race"? And all you do is max out your skills or choose a feat to make yourself different?
Heck, let's get rid of all non-humans completely! No more monsters, no more other races, no more anything but your "master race." And no more classes... except for commoner.
Because choice is bad! ALL MUST CONFORM!
Apparently several of us posted almost at once.
+1 / -1 to any chosen ability scores.
+2 Racial bonus to a selected skill.
Heredity - Effects can have specific effects targeting your family.
(Technically these should be made pre-character, but I have let more than one player design their own house and name.)
This subrace of every race is available in my games. The idea is STAT BONUS AIN'T ALL THAT!
I would be hard pressed to say whether the stat or the skill bump is more "important" in defining a race.
Didn't 2nd ed elves have a bonus to cha? What makes an elf an elf is not the -2 con +2 dex. Its the type Huminoid (Elf). I concur softly that the grey and high elf subraces are not as well designed, could both use the same stat mod but! Drow (though I'll never allow them in any of my games) are perfectly fine. The differing ability score mods are entirely plausible when thousands of years have separated the bloodlines. Drow - like all good subraces have differing natural environment, different patroning deities, and entirely different upbringings.
As far as "you don't have 'mountin humans' or anything like that" actually - the only reason you DONT is because you haven't taken the time to make them. I know for a fact that DragonLance has always had the Barbarian Human Subrace, and there are settings that have multiple human subraces - I believe there was a d20 setting I saw on the shelves about two years ago.. Ka.. Kal.. something. Ends with "ic" ? but it ONLY had humans. No funky fantasy races, and each one of them had differing ability scores - were they still human? Yep their type hasn't changed - just their ability modifiers.
I understand that Elves seem to have more sub-races then any other species, but.. have ever thought about how funky a setting that took into account real mythical elves into account? The book of Fairie if you will? Nixie and pixe, Sluagh and Bogan, all just elfinn ala De Danan! Only the nobility were considered actual human sized if not even taller (we are talking about the Irish here). Tolkienian elves are just one variant of the real legends - sometimes I wonder if the "elf-itis" is actually a harkening to the source material. Mab was an elf, and so was Oberon. Puck was an elf too, but all three are described intricately different in legends and tales!
So what are you suggesting? One "Master Race"? And all you do is max out your skills or choose a feat to make yourself different?
Why not? Have everybody use Human stats for every race, use point buy, and if you want to be an elf, you put 2 more points in Dex, take 2 out of Con. You don't NEED mechanics to roleplay. You can play a perfectly balanced game if all the PHB races had EXACTLY the same mechanics.
Several game systems, like BESM, use this approach. Everything from humans to elves to giant space mechas use the exact same base stats, and pick different options with their character points. Its very streamlined and incredibly powerful in the options it gives you for building whatever you want. When you stop focusing on being a frickin' munchkin that min/maxes stats and races and just actually PLAY the damned game, you realize pretty quickly that the mechanics don't really matter.
Weapon proficiencies. Sometimes skill boni. Favored class. But stat boosts don't fit, I agree with that.
Now, you see, that's fine. Changing little things like weapon proficiencies and favored class is fine, that's not inherent to the race, they're essentially social extras. Make a desert elf by changing prof with longsword to scimitar, nothing wrong with that. But when you get down to the point of changing ability scores? I mean, come on, the only real mechanical difference between a half-orc and a human is the +2 to strength. And I don't really care how someone tries to pass it off, there should not be a subrace of elf that can stand toe to toe with an uber-buff half-orc for shear brute strength.
As an example, there are NOT Woods Humans, Mountain Humans, Plains Humans and Aquatic Humans (and Aquatic Mountain Humans) all with different ability score modifiers. All humans have +/-0 for all abilities.
Exactly! And yet somehow we manage to roleplay frail little white wizards with long bears, giant buff black guys with huge swords, oriental women with graceful war-fans, and everything else you've ever seen. All without a single mechanical difference between then. But when it comes to elves and dwarves and halflings and gnomes, people seem to think it takes a whole new subrace for each and every thing.
That's just plain wrong.
So the basic Elf race would be just that - Elf.
And you could choose Elf of Lorien, Elf of Rivendell, Wandering Company Elf, etc. (Just an example, using Tolkien lingo).
This would be far better than what's currently necessary: A new subrace just so that a race can have a different favoured class. So the various sub-races seem to be just WotC's way of saying "whoops, well since culture and race aren't separate, we'll just feed you a whole new race for every cultural difference."
I'm babbling, I know. It's late, and I need a cigarette. Ta.
To counter (to something I think the discussion is geared at):
Imagine a young human living with her tribe on the prairie. Whatever her career interests are (assignment of attribute rolls / point buy) she will have to help herd animals, travel long distances on foot, avoid predators and enemies, etc. This makes her not have a CON penalty (but she is human so no con penalty anyway) and even NO dexterity bonus. On the other hand this life offers little chance to acquire manners and learn about social intrigue compared to a human child. Placed in any other society she will be awkward and lack the ability to command respect. Thus she has NO penalty.
Bolding are my changes. So why does being an human in the exact same lifestyle and raised in the exact same environment have no bonus or penalty?
We can use the same type of analogy here as well and thus we have 2 humans raised in entirely different environments yet by game mechanics they are identical. But en elf becomes different?
Imagine a human doing that for a 100 years. They can't, but elves can. Or you say "since this is my character's background, as a human nomad, he will have a high con, but a lower cha"
So there, that's how humans can change their stats from their environment. The difference is that Elves take it to a bit more of an extreme, doing that for a 100 years before going off and adventuring.
A common elf will tend to have the same ability scores as a common human, save that they are more graceful but less muscular. This would probably have to do with elven genetics. Taking Grey Elves off of this, the lack in dexterity of the common Grey is from more time spent studying and being inactive, it retracts from their natural grace. This same study (on a more expansive scale than most other races) lends a naturally heightened intelligence. The reason for a lack of dexterity penalty lends itself to elvish genetics, the natural grace they possess. So, a race of elves that tends to think more than act will still be as graceful as a human, but they will appear to lack elvish grace.
You could then suppose that this represents an easier time training these kinds of traits, and probably a higher level they could aspire to. Thus the heightened starting cap. Because normal elves are naturally dexterous, an elf will excel more easily than a human at feats of dexterity. When that elf actively pursues a life that relies on this skill, they will tend to be able to reach a higher level than a human would. This is a matter of genetics just for how the elf is. The human will still be tougher than an elf however you want to think about that, and could push themselves to be tougher.
This is not to say that a human cannot achieve that same level, it would simply take much more work. A hero for example, could very well be far more dexterous than the common elf. Why? He could be genetically dexterous for whatever reason, or have had a life that reflects this higher skill. It could be a combination of these things. If you have a very tough wizard, it could be that he was simply born tough, but chose a life of study. It could also be that maybe they lived on a ship most of their life and grew hardened from the seas.
I guess I would say that it is all genetic to start, but then the changes are made through the average life style. I remember reading in one of the core books I believe about changing this based on a particular lifestyle, such as a human raised among dwarves having some limited stone cunning but losing adaptability or something similar. If you had an elf live amongst dwarves though, they would probably still be dexterous but without elvish weapons. The stats are genetic, then tempered by lifestyle. The reason the basic MM elvish subraces have differed stats would probably be from that *whole race* living differently and that causing a general trend, not necessarily a full genetic difference. There could still be a human that lived in the woods that could out arm-wrestle every wood elf under the sun. Just in general, the average human would get whooped by the average wood elf.
I think that makes sense... but I am known for losing the points to my arguments somewhere in the middle.
If a DM encounters misplayed alignment he should take steps to cure the problem, the same is true of a character being misplayed by class, faith or race. If racial bonus is as much magical as inherited the player might find the further he slips from his racial nature as defined in the character generation process the more that bonus might degrade or change. The character might find problems when interacting with other members of the same sub race, possibly charisma penalties as the other race members don't feel right about him. Clerical biased characters might find spells of certain types are withheld, quests given etc.
If players are consistently bending a rule to the detriment of the game I as a DM have always found it useful to beat them over the head with it until they learn otherwise.
Showing my age as a first edition player the character generation process in 3.5 creates 3 rd level characters (as were) at first level - that being the case squeezing a further +2 on a prime skill against a -2 elsewhere is neither here nor there.
The Tolkein Bit
The Elves of Tolkein were immortal unless slain, which means that members of the first generation could be living alongside those of the thousandth. It was only those of half - elven stock that could chose to be mortal. Most immortals can spend a few hundred years building their physical attributes and the take a century or two out to develop magical or craft studies. Also being Eternal doesn't mean unchanging.
Some of the Elven designations are sub- races while others are Elvish groups based on activity or geography. To present some of these with different racial abilities is not unreasonable while others would only be differentiated by culture and skills. The most significant sub race of Elves in the context of this thread is the perversion of captured Quendi elves by the Evil demigod Melkor into the race of Orcs. No elven sub races no Orcs!
It should also be remembered that the Elves were not a first try with several versions to get them right but rather the first and in many ways superior first weave in a complex tapestry. Eru got it right and he got it right again when Humans came on the scene - they serve different purposes in his scheme.
Bah, you're going overboard. If you'd bothered to read the entire thread, you would have realized that there is no beef about Elves or variety, only a problem with the multitude of different Elves and their differing ability modifiers. The consensus is that Elves, regardless of where they live, should get -2 Con and +2 Dex. Want to have a different set of weapons due to where you live? Sure. That and all the other things can be role played. But leave the genetics alone.
As an example, there are NOT Woods Humans, Mountain Humans, Plains Humans and Aquatic Humans (and Aquatic Mountain Humans) all with different ability score modifiers. All humans have +/-0 for all abilities.
The conclusion of the OP and many others are incorrectly based on one general assumption-- that elves are JUST LIKE HUMANS. This is the basis for a pointless, illogical argument.
Humans are mundane. They have no innate magic and no innate affinity with anything.... both in game and in real life. That's why you don't see Mountain Humans, Wood humans, etc. Humans struggles to live IN the world, hence their bonus feat.
Animals in real life can be QUITE different and have varying abilities based on the different subspecies. Compare tigers:
* Amur tigers can grow up to 3.3 meters (10' 9") long and weigh up to 300 kilograms (660 pounds)
* Bengal tigers average 2.9 meters (9 1/2 feet) from head to tail and weigh about 220 kilograms (480 pounds)
What about spiders? Look at the various kinds of spiders, each with very different abilities. Some are hunting spiders, some are webspinners, some are somewhat venomous, some are deadly.
Elves are like natural creatures, plus they are innately magical creatures. This combination can explain a VAST difference in elven physiology based on their location and habits. Unlike humans, elves don't struggle to live IN the world they live WITH the world. They develop a special symbiotic relationship with their surrounds that humans can't ever begin to think about having.
Now, combine this symbiosis with extremely long live spans and by the time they are ready to have children, they could literally be their own subspecies. Granted, that's extreme but certainly after two or three generations of adapting and fitting into their environment, their predisposition may have been radically altered.
Think of it another way. Genetically, humans are fixed. They code is immutable and unchangable. It takes thousands (or more) of years for a mutation to become a genetic trait. Elves genetic code is mutable, it can change easily. In this way, elves are adaptable based on external stimuli. Why it is or how it is... who knows... they're innately magical.
Hopefully, that dispels any credence given to the argument that since all humans are created equal so is everyone else in the magical universe. This is a fallacy in the real world to a lesser degree but has absolutely no merit whatsoever in D&D fantasy, where species can literally trace their originals to entirely different planes of existence where physical laws from this universe simply do not apply at all.
3 things.
1. Edyminion's real complaint IMO is that there is an elf that is tailored to gain an ability point Bonus in every character class. From a game mechanic stand point this is wrong. Why bother having other races if the elf does everything better? I have in my hands the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. (And I know there are more elven subtypes than this but bear with me.)
Moon elf No inherent bonus that just makes it "the best" same as PHB
Sun elf +2 int -2 con: best wizard (statistically) Favored class: Wiz
Wild elf +2 dex -2 int: A rouge or a ranger or a monk +2 dex and a - to a trait that the character can circumvent or ignore due to class skill pts
Wood elf: Okay why did they make a half-orc elf? It is arguable a better focused Barb than the H-Orc? or a ranger?
There is quite literally an elf for every season.
2. Why? Why is there no variance among Orc that make them playable Non level adjusted intelligent creatures? No good Orc deity? Orc aren't magical? Or is it because elves appeal to our ingrained standard of American beauty? Blond hair (mostly) blue or green eyes. Runway model build. Cool different ears (Lol). So even if all the races had all the same attributes flat out most people (geeks) would still play an elf. It's their fantasy that they would like to be more like that in real life. But every individual has other goals. I.e. I want to be the strongest most undefeated fighter ever! but man I gotta look cool doing it
Let's have half orc subraces with no level adjustment that gain alternate ability score adjustments that give them the ability to any class? Edyminion is right--varied Elf-dom is silly and simply a marketing ploy to appeal to all the people who wanna be like Legolas (but with a slight twist). What say you to this?
3. As an African-American, I am deeply offended by the posters who continue to state that Kenyans are the best runner and Asians have the best ear for music. I wonder is this thinly veiled racism the standard amongst the people who frequent these boards and among D&D players in general? By that logic, every let's say "ethnicity" has it own genetic bonuses to ability points. So, that being the case, I would gladly play as a *"DARK HUMAN" any day in a D&D game. Let's see, making stereotypes true:
- 2 to intelligence (I'll gladly take that hit for this example)
+2 to Str, Dex, Con (Dark Humans ("Blacks") are more physical that other races marking them as the best athletes on earth, the best at any physical challenge. I.e. NBA, NFL, Golf, the Olympic games.)
+ 2 wisdom (Due to an inherent reliance on faith and tribalism, Dark Humans make the best clerics, shamans and druids.) Disagree? Go to a southern Baptist black church or think for a second of the Voodoo man?
+ charisma (because "Fasheeze my breezy all o' dem wants to be down wit' us.) Dark Humans make the best comedians and singer and they're natural amusing musical influence affects all genres in all categories of music.
Heat resistance 5 (We don't sunburn. Hooray! African descent.)
Treat the Great spear (Complete warrior page154-155) as a martial weapon, and Great sword as an exotic. Lvl add +0.
* Dark Humans are not to be confused with the fallen humans of the Imaskari empire (Races of the Underdark) or the Vasharan humans (Book of vile Darkness).
My point? Humans are humans are humans. We're adaptable but we are one species. Our differences are not nature but nurture. Let's not bring anymore stereotypes into our chosen fantasy realm than need to be, please?
Having a -2 con for the longest-lived common humanoid race in the game is incredibly illogical, they obviously CAN'T be frail. A strength penalty or no stat changes at all would be a much better choice.
[derail]You know, that's exactly how I'm going to use them in my games[/derail]
I've come to be of the mind that there's a good reason for numerous subraces to exist: Because D&D sucks at separating culture and background from actual race. What would be ideal is if the races were basic - with no "weapon proficiencies" or other cultural things. Then you could choose from a list of cultures.
So the basic Elf race would be just that - Elf.
This is precisely the approach I'm using with my race revisions. The cool thing about it is that by separating race from culture, I get to focus on the neat things that make roleplaying an elf different from roleplaying a human. It's not the trappings, but the very natures of these creatures which differ. All the demihumans in my revisions have fundamentally different psychologies than humans do, though they can be human-like in some ways.
Elves are like natural creatures, plus they are innately magical creatures. This combination can explain a VAST difference in elven physiology based on their location and habits. Unlike humans, elves don't struggle to live IN the world they live WITH the world. They develop a special symbiotic relationship with their surrounds that humans can't ever begin to think about having.
Very good points, all! I was looking from a human genetic standpoint, as were many. However if you look at Elves as being quite adaptable due to having mutable genes then the various ability modifiers make sense.
There are certain frogs that change sex, if all are the same sex and they are kept in an enclosed space. Or perhaps it's a certain lizard, I forget. Either way, this shows adaptation of genetic qualities based on environment. If Elves developed this trait then the point is well made for the various ability modifiers to be applied depending on the region the Elf is from.
Well said, DragonsArt.
Second, positive stereotypes about a race are still gross generalizations (and still racist), and should be applied with great care, or, better yet, not at all. The "objective" studies that demonstrate one group's proficiency tend to neglect causational interference (i.e. shared culture, ecology, language, etc) in favor of a base-rate correlation: several people upthread have cited specific counter-examples to the Kenyan and Asian anecdotes that bear out this problem.
Regardless, biological "race" in the sense of skin, hair, and body differences is pretty much a quack concept left over from the days of anthropometry, calipers, colonial conceits, and Spencerian Darwinism. Modern study of genetic ancestry markers--mentioned upthread--do demonstrate ancestry trends, but they hardly match up with our standard ideas of black/white/etc. Depending on how finely one wishes to slice the DNA--the Y chromosome allele mutations, the female-side line back to "mitochondrial Eve," or the base-pair substitutions for codons translated to specific amino acids in key genes--one can generate between three and thirty thousand DNA-based groupings of modern homosapiens sapiens reflecting the genetic diaspora of the ancestral [Ihomo[/i] genus out of Central and East Africa, and not count the "withered branches" of the [Ihomo[/i] clade, such as [Ihomosapien neanderthalis[/i], or the various, more-recently discovered outshoots of [Ihomoerectus [/i] located in Asia. On one extreme, the world can be divided two "races"--the Khoisan (the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert) and everyone else. Furthermore, the science of mapping genetic ancestry is still unperfected and routinely posed with complications to the initial simplicity of their premise of the efficient retention of key codon sequences and base pairs. The very popular "mitochrondrial Eve" hypothesis has taken several dings in the last few years, which calls into question subsequent popular assumptions derived from its logic.
I would really, really, appreciate it if reasoning from real-world racial "logic" was not thrown about: the very concept of "race" has little empirical validity, and is furthermore semantically backloaded with a vast array of ethnocentric, aesthetic, paternalistic, and racist subjective evaluations.