NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TrippyHippy" data-source="post: 6485590" data-attributes="member: 27252">Back in the play test days, it was mooted that the various Races and Classes would be categorised by how common they were in the D&D multiverse. This was criticised as categorising for the sake of it, as well as taking away the DMs ability to choose what they wanted themselves. There is still an element of it in the Races on offer - the common four (Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Human) and the rest which are uncommon. In your games, do you restrict Races and Classes in this way? What breakdown do you use and why?For me, I like to mix things up a bit: The only common Race is Human, with the combined communities of Dwarf, Elf and Halfling being just a fraction of the Human population. Gnomes would be about the same level as these three also. Half Elves would be exceedingly rare (based on unlikely unions between Elves and Man). Independent Half-Orcs (that aren’t considered as just being Orc mongrels in a pack) would be relatively rare, but Orcs themselves would be common for me - so they wouldn’t be as rare as other half breeds if Orcs go on a rampage! Dragonkind would be part of a dying breed in my worlds, so rare, although I could imagine them being more plentiful in ages past. Teiflings and Aasimar (how can you allow one but not the other?) would be extremely rare - moreso than Half Elves or anything else. For Classes, I’d consider the Common Classes to be Fighters and Rogues. Then it get’s tricky! Paladins ought to be significantly more rare than Fighters, but actually nothing like as much as the uber-rare ‘chosen ones’ of previous editions. In the current edition they are basically fighters who have undertaken a specific oath - and so a bit more common. There would also be a fair amount of Rangers in my worlds too, although again, much less than Fighters. Barbarians are particularly tricky - as they seem to be a cultural variant rather than a calling still - but I could see them as a sort of equivalent to Paladins - a champion of tribal cultures rather than civilised ones. As such, I could see them as matching the numbers of Paladins/Rangers combined, with the assumption that barbarian lands might match civilised ones for population (think of all those Orcs!).If you are including them, Monks asceticism would be a slightly more common undertaking than Clerics direct-line-to god theism in my view, and Druids would probably be dominant solitary figures in their own territories.I feel Warlocks (although frequently living in shadows) would actually be of the same numbers as scholarly Wizards - it’s an easier path than study! - but Wizards’ numbers are more transparent and registered. Depending on how you look at Bard Colleges, I think these could be more frequent as a folkish oral magical tradition. I would make innately magical Sorcerers exceptionally rare however, and indeed might just restrict them as Dragonborn only (for Draconic sorcerers at least). In order: Fighters/Rogues - CommonBarbarians/Rangers/Paladins - UncommonBards/Wizards/Warlocks/Monks/Clerics/Druids - RareSorcerers - Very rareHow does it break down for you?</blockquote>

Verification