How Much Is Too Much?

[Arkhandus]

I'd say that what you have now could probably be divided in two or three ways, maybe more depending on how you did it. Continent-based supplements could work for introducing a few new races and optional basic classes, but it may be better to split things up into a PH/DMG sort of book like the FRCS is (though maybe without as large of a geography section, maybe just give one or two maps, like one geographic and one political, and a brief few paragraphs describing each region), then make a monster book that has some new creatures as well as some or all of the extra playable races (as well as any of the extra, optional, basic classes that are common amongst those races), and so on.....

Well, anyway, I would suggest that your first setting book have the 9 races that cover the most bases in your setting (i.e. 1 psionic-focused race, 1 arcane-focused race, 1 naturalist/primitive race, 1 race that models medieval european cultures well, 1 chinese/japanese-styled race, 1 african-styled race, 1 india-styled race, 1 arabic/middle-eastern styled race, and 1 technology-focused race, just as an example setup). So for instance, your setting guide/core rulebook for the setting might have the following races, which provide a good spread of human-like, Monster Manual-like, and exotic races:

• Humans (just like the core) {european-styled perhaps}
• Elves (more plant and tree inclined than core elves) {naturalist}
• Dwarves (more technology inclined than the core) {technology-focus}
• Reytaur (tauric deer with a natural affinity for the stars) {arcane-focus}
• Plyaer (crystalline humanoids with psionic aptitude) {psionic-focus}
• Rasune (mute anthro foxes in charge of keeping secrets) {chinese/japanese-styled perhaps}
• Nyth (humanoids who hunt with natural animalistic shapechanging abilities) {african-styled perhaps}
• Sintou (anthro snakes who are natural charmers and empaths) {india-styled perhaps}
• Toren (truth finding minotaurs) {arabic-styled perhaps}

You didn't give much in the way of details to describe some of the races, so there's little indication of what sort of Earth-culture each race might resemble for reference purposes, and there's not much description of what some races look like (Nyth, Nekshe, Rathe, K'tan).

As some folks already mentioned, some of the races seem like they'd be better presented as NPC races, rarely used for PCs. Your K'tan, Leikin, Lussen, Telek, Sizumi, Nin, Dren, and Nekshe seem like they might fit this mold, so would be good for introducing in a monster book as monsters with rules for playing as optional player-races. Or perhaps you might make a book like Savage Species that includes all of these as new monsters that could be played by PCs at the DM's discretion.

• Seikar (war focused non-swamp dwelling lizard folk)
• Zaven (tree-gliding tribal anthro cats)
• Sanun (wanderlust filled anthro bears)
• K'tan (tauric slightly hive minded thri-keen)
• Peophin (dolphins who can shapechange into a humanoid form)
• Leikin (anthro wolves cursed with 'humanthropy')
• Lussen (amorphous blobs with natural illusion abilities)
• Rathe (gargoyle like creatures)
• Telek (mercantile flightless anthro birds)
• Sizumi (disease spreading ratmen)
• Nin (anthro bat with natural darkness powers)
• Dren (low-powered dopplegangers)
• Nekshe (plant creatures whose powers change with the seasons)

As for classes, some of the suggestions already made by others sound good and could work well. I would make the Archer, Gladiator, Guardian, Knight, Samurai, and Tech Warrior into special paths of developing a Fighter, by simply modifying the Fighter core class a bit. I'm assuming the Knight is focused on mounted combat, otherwise add a Cavalry path as well. Also, make the Barbarian a path/kit for the Fighter to further compact the list of core classes, and make some of the usual Barbarian class abilities into feats that can only be taken by Fighters with the Barbarian path/kit. Have their list of bonus feats be limited by their choice of advancement path, chosen at 1st-level in the Fighter class. Perhaps, give them a path-related special ability at 1st-level and every four levels beyond that, at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th-level. As long as these are each equal to a feat, it shouldn't overpower the fighter (it's normally kinda weak as a class, really).

Also, base the Fighter's class skill selection and weapon/armor/shield proficiencies on their path selection. For instance, the Samurai path might forego shield proficiency and heavy armor proficiency, but its 1st-level path ability might be extra powerful, granting say a +2 or +3 dodge bonus to AC when wearing light, medium, or no armor. The Gladiator path might be similar, foregoing medium and heavy armor for perhaps one exotic weapon proficiency of choice and a free Toughness feat in their stead. I assume that the only thing that differentiates a Tech Warrior is skill in wielding firearms and other gadgets, and skill in maintaining/repairing such?

For similar purposes, I would make the Ninja and Swashbuckler into paths/kits for the Rogue core class, offering slight changes in their class abilities if they choose those paths. I.E. taking the Swashbuckler path may alter the Rogue proficiencies and give some AC bonuses in light or no armor, replacing most Sneak Attack improvements with said AC bonuses, while diminishing the base skill points from 8 to 4 in exchange for some swashbuckling bonus feats and acrobatic/seafaring abilities.

Likewise, compact the Death Warrior a path/kit for the Necromancer core class, the Totem Warrior a path/kit for the Shaman core class, the Sorcerer a path/kit for the Mage or Bard core classes, and the Ranger a path/kit for the Champion or Druid core classes.

Anyway, with those out of the way as paths/kits, here are my suggestions for your core rulebook/setting guide. There are 15 classes here, but depending on how you design some of them, a few more might be compacted into paths or kits for other classes. 12 or 14 classes would probably be a good number.

• Artificer (creators of Magi-Tech items) {might be suitable as a Bard, Mage, or Rogue path/kit depending on how you explain/design it}
• Bard
• Champion (to replace the Paladin with something general)
• Cleric
• Druid (sans wild shape) {might be suitable as a Cleric path/kit}
• Fighter
• Mage (to replace both the core sorcerer and wizard, elemental caster)
• Monk {might be suitable as a Champion, Fighter, or Rogue path/kit if you alter it from the PHB Monk}
• Morpher (where wild shape went to, with of course, more options) {might be suitable as a Druid, Mage, or Shaman path/kit}
• Necromancer (think Diablo, not the magic school) {might be suitable as a Cleric or Mage path/kit}
• Psion
• Psychic Warrior
• Rogue
• Shaman {might be suitable as a Cleric or Druid path/kit}
• Summoner (a touch or research, summon later caster) {might be suitable as a Cleric, Mage, or Shaman path/kit depending on you design and explain it}

 

[Desdichado]

I think trying to peg a number is foolhardy. There's no magic number of "this much is too much" for either classes or races. Develop what you can develop well and strongly, and don't throw in extraneous ideas just because they're "cool stuff." You'll end up with a very patchwork setting that feels (and most likely is) poorly thought-through if you do that. That said, I certainly have my preferences:

• I prefer fewer races rather than more. I think the number of races in a typical D&D setting already is absurd, so you'll fight a very hard uphill battle to convince me that the gaggle of races you've listed above is really integral and important to the setting as a whole. My preference is for no more than about half a dozen races, including ones that are obviously meant simply to be NPC races -- the bad guys, so to speak. I don't mind sub-races to give more variety, but even then, I prefer culturally differentiated groups, not stat-differentiated ones. Any more than that, and you really will struggle to give each race a place in the setting that really is vital, important, and adds character.
• I don't mind a few variant core classes. I despise the idea that core classes should be generic classes only and any actual flavor should be captured in a prestige class. I'm also at a loss to explain where that idea came from; certainly it's not consistent with core D&D rules, that really only have, depending on how you count them, three or four core classes that are generic, out of a total of eleven.
• Still, that being said, it does appear from first glance that you really like to just toss in options. That will, IMO, dilute any coherency or flavor that your setting may have, and instead turn it into something that is sprawling, makes little sense, and is ultimately quite boring.

 

[MatrexsVigil]

Wow!

Wow, I'm away from the boards for little over two hours, and I get all these many! Thanks a lot!

I am now strongly favoring the paths within a single class idea, mostly for the fighter but also for several of the other classes. This seems to be a good idea, something both d20 Modern and Monte Cook both did very well with adapting. I wouldn't mind people picking up my book and thinking 'Oh cool!' when they saw this option for the different classes.

Honestly, with this more basic approach, the class count could be dropped down to a very small number. Plus, this allows for extreme character customization. However, how would I handle letting a character take two different 'classes' of fighter (or whatever the case may be) in order to 'multiclass' as a guardian/archer or a knight/samurai?

To go into more depth with the races...

Like most campaigns, each race was created by a different god to exhibit the god's personal portfolio. The god of Technology created the dwarves to be his builders and inventors. The god of Plants created the elves to be warders of the forests, jungles, and other heavily planted areas. The god of Commerce created the Telek to be his merchants, etc., etc. The only reason I was reluctant to spread out the races among different books was because I felt that doing so would make it look like only several of the races were favored and held more power within the world.

However, almost all of the races are of equal proportions. Although, many races are only found on certain continents or within certain regional areas. Splitting them up now seems to be a good idea.

It also seems to be a better idea to let the 'core' book focus on the largest, most civilized, and most populous continent. Sure, give details about the other continents but only enough to give plot hooks, general information, and a want to learn more.

-P.C.

[Note: I'm more than willing to go into more depth with people who are willing to converse one on one with me. I'm a bit shy on the boards.]

 

[I'm A Banana]

It also seems to be a better idea to let the 'core' book focus on the largest, most civilized, and most populous continent. Sure, give details about the other continents but only enough to give plot hooks, general information, and a want to learn more.

And there ya go!

Also, don't be surprised if you can fit ALL of those you don't cram into the Core into a single Monster Manual-style document. I mean, there's only 7 core races, but goblins, centaurs, bugbears, merfolk, etc. (which are apt for some campaigns, but not others, as races) have all the info needed for their race in the MM. Similarly, some of the more elusive or foriegn races in your campaign can be done in the same way -- as monster entries.

And then you can link up the classes that these creatures favor to their species in the same document. So, if there is a race that is good at being an artificer, you can include the race (monster-style) and the artificer class next to each other in a book.

 

[Steverooo]

For the races, I'd get rid of all the tauric ones (they don't do well underground, on stairs, etc), all the flying/gliding ones (for the same reasons), and the Bloboids (sure, some people like to play Dralasites, but how many?). You can then pare down the humanoids by which inhabit the continent.

On Classes, I immediately saw that Samurai and Ninja can be separated out... Do Druids and Shamans inhabit the same regions? Knights and Barbarians? If not, you can pare them down, as well.

Anything that's the same as the PHB version you can leave out, as well.

 

[Urbannen]

I like all the different classes and races. However, you will be playing ThunderCats, not D&D. (Hey, wait, D&D is the same as ThunderCats now!)

 

[frankthedm]

hmm too much anthro, you planning on running this at a furry con or something?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

[font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]With aspirations to actually publish a homebrew setting of my own, I've come to a dilemma. I have twenty-two races (only three are of the 'core kind' - human, elf, and dwarf) with most being original and of the ECL kind, along with twenty-eight base classes. This is obviously too many to contain in one core book, along with everything else. What do you think are better numbers?[/font]

My group found itself with this same issue; our solution was to only indicate how to apply a race as well as all "universal" classes (Fighters, Rogues, etc.) in the Core Book and to place races and "regional classes" (Monks, Shaman, etc.) in the territorial gazetteers. This allows all the information to be available in its relevant location instead of all smashed together within a single volume. For instance, when someone asks, "what kind of characters are allowed?", the response can be, "We're in Duroomba", and thus any Race (who's ECL is equal or below Party level) and Class listed (or described) in the Duroomba Gazetteer is a suitable character.

Putting it all together leads to situations of: "Can I play this?" "No, they're in Daelovium." "Can I play this?" "No, they're in Ling Tu." "Can I play..?" After a while, it was clear that a reorganization was clear.