Race Classes:Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
For those who might want to shape their 5e in a bit more Basic/BECM fashion with race-as-classes or those that just want to add afew race-specific archetypes into their existing play, I present to you my completed racial class...stuff.

Constructive comments (and noting blatant mistakes, misses, typos, rules' problems, etc...) always welcome. Playtesting notes also always welcome. Unmitigated praise similarly accepted.

Enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • 5e_raceclasses.pdf
    4.7 MB · Views: 316

log in or register to remove this ad

Gansk

Explorer
This pdf and the alt ranger pdf that you made are giving me lots of ideas for house rules, thank you for your work!

I am curious if you have found a precedent in the PHB where a class feature (other than spell casting) has uses based on level. It seems to me that more than 6 to 8 times a day might as well be an at-will class feature, but I see examples in your work where players may have to count up to 20 uses a day. How many rounds of combat are typically encountered per day based on your experience?
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Well, in my experience, I could easily see 20 rounds of combat within a day...But, I do know that 5e assumes a much lower rate. But then, if we are assuming 2-3 encounters per short rest and each combat to last 2-3 rounds...I think the game assumes 2 short rests per day/before a long rest, which would actually get 6-9 encounters with an average possible range of 12-27 potential rounds of combat. So...20 fits in there kind of handily.

Personally, I'm prone to having 1 short rest per long rest, which would be 4-6 encounters with/or a potential 8-18 rounds of combat. In which case, if you get to a point of having 20 uses of a feature, it is effectively "at will" for you in combat.

Other than spells, I think you're correct. There are not features usable based on class level. Unless you want to count things like Channel Divinity (the number of uses change as the character levels, but it's not an "each level" thing), Sorcery and Ki Points (which, technically are not a "feature use" but accumulating resource), Sneak attack damage (again not a feature "use", but leveling increase)...so there's those.

Also, I tend to count/consider all of the stuff that are "1 + X ability modifier" as increasing through level, since, as the character levels, theoretically, their main ability score in going to increase...thus increasing their modifier...thus increasing the feature's uses [per short/long rest].

Which feature(s) are you referring to, if I may ask? I might have a justification (almost certainly have a rationale) in mind for why I did it that way.

Glad you like the documents. I have others I'm chippin' away at.
 

Gansk

Explorer
Also, I tend to count/consider all of the stuff that are "1 + X ability modifier" as increasing through level, since, as the character levels, theoretically, their main ability score in going to increase...thus increasing their modifier...thus increasing the feature's uses [per short/long rest].

Which feature(s) are you referring to, if I may ask? I might have a justification (almost certainly have a rationale) in mind for why I did it that way.

The 2nd level class feature of the alt ranger is based on level and the dwarven defender stance in this document is based on level. For dwarven defender, I think you can follow WotC's precedent used in Tunnel Fighter, which forces a bonus action to maintain the "stance" each round.

Also keep in mind that "1 to 3+ability score" uses per short rest can easily go up to 20 uses per day at high levels, assuming 2 short rests plus a long rest each day. I would change all of these features to uses per long rest, with the possible exception of Channel Divinity.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
I guess, I'm kind of of the mind that, if you can survive to higher levels, then, yes, you deserve to have your features "at will" [by proxy]. You've grown in power and experience through play and now have the skill and stamina to pull off X whenever you need to.

But at 1st through [I'd go up to around] 8th-10th, where in my experiences practically all play actually happens? You shouldn't be able to "just do it whenever you want." That's a perk/privilege of making it to higher levels, something to work towards, to aspire to :) ...which I thoroughly enjoy and think is a big [and needs to be brought back to a bigger] part of the D&D gaming experience.

Obviously, there are things that a class/subclass needs to be able to do, defining things, out the gate or at will. But a good amount of features [I feel, and 5e's "features gained over the course of leveling" supports], as spellcasters get to increase/accrue power over time, need to be able to do that as well even if they aren't spellcasting/magic related.

So pretty much everything I design is with that in mind.

Obviously, everyone's mmv.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Ah, I see. Yes. The Ranger's Recourse is level + Dex/Wis (whichever's higher) times per long rest.

Yeah I guess...like I said, it being at will for higher level characters doesn't bother me. Matching the "1-3 + ability modifier" just seemed too limited for something that I figured a ranger should be able to use...at least, one round in each combat. I mean, you're right, by the time they are up to 10-12-15th level, you're looking at them being able to use it any round they want...as long as they're not doing something else with that bonus action (or reaction).

For the dwarf defender, that was a little off the wall...but instead of saying you can use it "this many times" saying you can do this "for this long per day." Since it's a 7th level feature, saying 1 + ability mod times per long rest was too limiting...to my mind. If you need to use 1 round this time and 4 rounds the next, it doesn't matter how many times you're using the stance, or for what, as long as you don't exceed your daily total.

I dunno...there's no real precedent for that [limiting a feature by duration] that I can think of off the top of my head. I just thought it worked.
 

Gansk

Explorer
Yeah, I don't play past 15th level either, but if I did it would be pretty annoying to make 20 scratch marks on a piece of paper every session...

Just something to consider in the future - you could use proficiency bonus + ability modifier # of uses and still basically achieve your design goal in a more elegant fashion.

Level # of uses seems too granular for 5e.

Moving on to something else, I don't see much of a precedent for proficiency bonus + advantage on all rolls (example: Stealth for Halflings and Gnomes). Seems like it should be one or the other, not both. Of course a spell could grant advantage temporarily, but class features combining proficiency + advantage permanently seems a little inelegant compared to Expertise.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Yeah, I don't play past 15th level either, but if I did it would be pretty annoying to make 20 scratch marks on a piece of paper every session...

Well, I would probably recommend just jotting down your # and then making slashes as you use them...Save you all of that annoying slashing. ;) In pencil of course, to erase for the next session.

Level # of uses seems too granular for 5e.

I'll grant, other than sorcerer spells known progression (or is it sorcery points?) gaining one-by-one each level, I don't see anything to consider a "precedent" here. But...ya know...it's homebrew rules. It doesn't have to do what the rest of the system is doing...as long as it's not going to "break" anything.

Moving on to something else, I don't see much of a precedent for proficiency bonus + advantage on all rolls (example: Stealth for Halflings and Gnomes).

Probably because there isn't one that I know of. May I ask, why do you think everything needs a "precedent" to justify a houserule?

Seems like it should be one or the other, not both.

Well, I think of it like this...There is natural skill and there is learned/trained/practiced/improved ability. These are "race-classes" after all. The "genetics", if you will, need to be taken into account in the base class. For gnomes and halflings, that most definitely includes small size.

So they, naturally, gain advantage on stealth/hide checks. Any halfling, any gnome, from anywhere, because they're small and easily overlooked (not to mention the typical story fluff of being difficult to find/hidden communities, etc...) is more likely to successfully hide/stealth than other races. That's advantage.

Now, something like the burglar or any halfling or gnome that takes proficiency in the Stealth skill, as per normal rules, then gets to add proficiency bonus to that roll. That means, yes, they will be successful even MORE often than your halfling-/gnome-about-town (and almost certainly on the second roll from advantage). That...just makes sense to me.

As a general parameter for coming up with these kinds of things [again, and always, all of this is "for/to me"]:
Rules/crunch sense + Story/fluff sense = "Yep! That's goes in."

Of course a spell could grant advantage temporarily, but class features combining proficiency + advantage permanently seems a little inelegant compared to Expertise.

That seems...well, completely arbitrary. What is "inelegant" about it? How can rule even be "inelegant"?

But, in comparison to Expertise, expertise just grants you double proficiency bonus. You are better at, literally "have expertise," with skills of choice. It is my view/opinion that halflings and gnomes are naturally better at stealth/hiding. That's not just "extra trained," i.e. doubly proficient.

Does that make sense/am I getting my thought process across?
 

GreenTengu

Adventurer
I think having Dwarfs and Gnomes classes have abilities specifically towards attacking goblins, orcs, ogres and giants and always those things and only those things is handicapping and straight-jacketing the way you can even use them.

Why should Dwarfs be necessarily racially advantaged towards fighting those particular peoples? What if there are no orcs or giants in the game world? What if Dwarfs never encounter Goblins at all in the campaign world because Goblins live out in the Forest, instead they have to deal with those Drow and Illithids all the time.

In fact, maybe the game world or just the region of the game world is such that basically all living creatures are more or less united and instead it is the undead and demons that plague everyone.

There is nothing about the physiology of the races that would have them do increased damage or more accurate attacks against those particular creatures. Even if, in the case of Ogres and Giants, it was about their size being an advantage-- then it would be useful against all Large and Giant sized creatures, not just Ogres and Giants.

Even if you want to argue that it is (bad and crappily reasoned) tradition, it would be an easy enough fix to simply open it up to be more similar to a Ranger's Favored Enemy where one has a list of reasonably equivalent options to choose what makes sense for the particular clan that individual Dwarf or Gnome arises from.
 

Gansk

Explorer
May I ask, why do you think everything needs a "precedent" to justify a houserule?

Not everything, these two things.

Why? Because they are basic mechanics. Every edition of D&D had to devise a system to determine how often a class feature would be used and how it would give a "bonus" if a die was rolled to determine success. 5e adopted a basic design philosophy to address these two mechanics, playtested them thoroughly, and decided that they added to a fun experience.

Can you be creative with these basic mechanics as well? Sure, but I don't see any added value. Personally I would pick an existing class feature in the PHB that accomplishes the desired frequency/bonus, copy that, and move on. The interesting stuff is everything else that you have done, not the choices you make with basic mechanics.

Well, I think of it like this...There is natural skill and there is learned/trained/practiced/improved ability. These are "race-classes" after all. The "genetics", if you will, need to be taken into account in the base class. For gnomes and halflings, that most definitely includes small size.

So they, naturally, gain advantage on stealth/hide checks. Any halfling, any gnome, from anywhere, because they're small and easily overlooked (not to mention the typical story fluff of being difficult to find/hidden communities, etc...) is more likely to successfully hide/stealth than other races. That's advantage.

Here's where the PHB has done it differently. The PHB elf has keen senses. I would assume that is genetic. But they have proficiency bonus to Perception, not "always on" advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks. From a world-building fluff perspective, the goal has been accomplished. And it respects the basic mechanics at the same time.

What is the intent of advantage/disadvantage? For the DM or player to create situations where it would take effect, not for it to be "always on". Does it break or unbalance anything?
No. Is it fun to roll two dice every single Stealth check? IMO not really, because there is no point to Hide in any clever way.

Now, something like the burglar or any halfling or gnome that takes proficiency in the Stealth skill, as per normal rules, then gets to add proficiency bonus to that roll. That means, yes, they will be successful even MORE often than your halfling-/gnome-about-town (and almost certainly on the second roll from advantage). That...just makes sense to me.

As a general parameter for coming up with these kinds of things [again, and always, all of this is "for/to me"]:
Rules/crunch sense + Story/fluff sense = "Yep! That's goes in."

So you want to make these guys super-sneaky, that's cool. Let's do the math.

"Always-on" advantage + proficiency at 1st level (or whatever low level the PC gains proficiency): +1 to +5 (average +3) for advantage, +2 for proficiency = +3 to +7, +5 average
Expertise at 1st level: +4 - not a significant difference, plus the PC can still look for situations that give him or her advantage

"Always-on" advantage + proficiency at 20th level: +1 to +5 (average +3) for advantage, +6 for proficiency = +7 to +11, +9 average
Expertise at 20th level: +12 - is that a significant difference? Maybe, but we don't play 20th level, so it should be good enough. Plus the PC can still look for advantage.

That seems...well, completely arbitrary. What is "inelegant" about it? How can rule even be "inelegant"?

What I mean by inelegant is that it comes off the page as a square peg trying to be fit in a round hole. It immediately prompted the question in my mind, "Why?". That is the only reason I asked these questions, because I want to read more pdfs from you in the future and not have to ask myself why you are making these choices. So thanks for answering.

House rules that scale without you having to write, "At X level, you have one more use, and at X+4 level, you have even one more use!" might be called efficient, maybe that's the word I was looking for.

But, in comparison to Expertise, expertise just grants you double proficiency bonus. You are better at, literally "have expertise," with skills of choice. It is my view/opinion that halflings and gnomes are naturally better at stealth/hiding. That's not just "extra trained," i.e. doubly proficient.

I would contend that the resulting outcome of the rule should take precedence over the connotation of the word "Expertise". You wanted a super sneaky guy, you get a super sneaky guy. No reason to go beyond that.
 

Remove ads

Top