Hi everyone.
I have been labouring away for many months on reverse engineering the system for creating races. The article also includes example races and (in a clearly labelled spearate section) extensions to the system designed to braoden the range of races. I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to my 'under construction' and 'example races' threads. Here are the dropbox links to the pdf and the excell sheet.
EDIT: New links. These were updated on 15/08/2015. Early comments below refer to the older version. Version 1.01 incorporates some material from responses below. On 21/08/2015 version 1.02 of the pdf posted with improved formating, added out of copyright cover illustration.
EDIT 05/09/2015. New Links. Version 1.03 Tidied up version. No changes to design system except the limit on number of feats made explicit. Gorbel reworked, dragon abilities now all priced for LA (no change in LA, keen smell was accidently omited from Black bear this has now been corrected, writing generally polished a bit.
EDIT: New links. Version 1.04: Centauroids clarified, Tiny races corrected and rules for Tiny damage clarified, Brass dragon can now fly at JL.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfd6dx7iiim4g4x/5e%20unusual%20races%20point%20build%20104.pdf?dl=0
and spreadsheet
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yzilg1hmdc0mewe/5e%20Design%2020.xlsx?dl=0
Hi! I started reading of the document and want to discuss a few points:
1) p15- unarmed weapons reduction is up to "large" cost. In the table later it is 7 points. But now your races examples are 5p at 5th level ex: half-ogre.
2) p18- the price of hit dice is the old d8=5.5, d10=6.5 etc even if you otherwise reduced the cost by 1 ex: d8= 4.5
3) A level is 10.5 to 11.5 points has we discussed earlier but why the 5th level only worths 8.5p ?
And where i disagree...
4) I count the first extra attack for 8p and the other fighter's as 6p. You just count it as a d8, so a mere 4.5p . I consider it too low
5) Regen: On a previous post, I rated as 8.5p he off-battle regenation feature (to totally heal between battles) and 2.2 per Hp per round during battles. I told you it may be too oow because of a morale bias: an opponent may consider not attacking a foe than cannot be harmed. But there is a mitigation point: the troll weakness worths -25% of the cost but the troll weakness it really DM dependant. I think the ability may cost a LITTLE more, not 10x like posted earlier.
6) You have races like the fog giant with LA 8, JL 11. Why 3 levels ? And why only 6d12 ? It is definitely opposite to my own level-by-level approach.
7) I still think the lesser traits should be the weapon/armor ones, has these are likely to be get by the player at the class 1st level or otherwise non very powerful ex: elf longsword gives d8 instead or d6 to a mage... Mountain Dwarf get armor training ... but the race is fit to fight anyway...
But overall, even if we have with different philosophy of design, your method is still the best to me 
.
Glad to hear you are reading the article. Peer review is the best way to improve and clarify. I’m going to respond to your comments in no particular order over a series of replies as time allows. It may also take a little longer because my mental endurance for this project is all but spent. This has been a very large amount of work at a time when I was also completing a PhD thesis. I breathed a sigh of relief when the ‘final versions were done. To revisit it now is becoming a little depressing. Looking now I can see I ‘rushed’ that version out somewhat, it still is labeled DRAFT!
I will eventually release a version 1.01 which will include any changes made in response to your comments.
Item 2: The prices on the tables are correct, the prices on page 18 are an oversight. I will update page 18 to match the new prices.
Iten 3 What is a level worth?
The short answer is it depends on which level.
The LA table is based on the total value of a PC at any particular level.`
How the LA table was made
At LA 1 to 4 each adds 11pt (pt=LA x 11+12). At LA 5 or higher pt=10.5 x LA +12. These formulas approximate the total value of a typical PHB PC at a level. The shift from a mean of 11 to 10.5 at fifth level causes an abrupt step change at 5th level in this table because levels 1 to 4 are effectively devalued from 11/level to 10.5/level at 5th level rather than a gradual decrease.
Item 6: Fog giant fun.
The first thing is bare in mind two core principles I used. Firstly, that over time as much as the PCs capability as possible should be determined by class, therefore LA should be as low as possible while keeping the core features of the race.
Secondly, an LA is worth a number of levels but is not built in ‘chunks’ like an equivalent number of class levels is.
As stated on page 19 “For some creatures the referee may feel that an adult starting without the trait is stretching credibility. If this is the case feel free to raise JL to at least the level where the trait is gained.”
The LA represents when the race is worth as much in points as a core PC in this case level 8. Note that this is the race trimmed down to core traits to keep the point total and LA as low as we can. However, the Huge trait has a level requirement of 11th level. Therefore for Huge to be allowed the fog giant must start at 11th hence 3 levels in classes. Why is Huge not allowed to 11th? That’s due to the damage output of Huge scale weapons as discussed at length in the article.
OK What about the HD? Remember an LA value is not a collection of levels, it is a single entity worth as much as a number of levels. Therefore each LA doe not have to have a HD. I’ll also refer you to the explanation on page 18 of the article reproduced below:
“Without racial HD you risk creating a ‘glass cannon’ race with great powers and/or attacks but likely to be killed in one blow by a typical encounter for the level. The PHB clases have at least 1d6HD and 1d6 or 4hp per level but no more than 1d12 0r 7hp per level. The minimum HD for a LA race needs to keep pace with this. The die type for racial HD is determined by size as for monsters. The number of HD must be within the limits below. Personally, I keep HD close to the minimum below, that way odd races can join at lower levels and the character’s class determines how much of a combatant the PC is (just as for Core PHB races).”
Item 4: I make the value of the extra attack 5.5pt for the multiple reasons behind all damaging attacks explained in detail in the article (eg. Pages 6,16, 19, and the attack tab of the Excel file).
You have come to a different conclusion regarding the extra attack price from your own analysis.
You are right about the d8. The equivalence to a d8 HD is another oversight from the re-pricing of the HD. Extra attacks should be replaced with a d10 HD not a d8. I have updated my version of the article replacing the d8s with d10s
I will give some comments. I appreciate the effort and find pretty interesting what you tried to do. Some comments I have.
1-) My main one is that you tried to make every race balanced with the same point cost, which I don't think that actually happens. The races probably vary in 1 or 2 points from each other I would say, maybe even more. Take the Advanced Race Guide from Pathfinder for example, they have an official Race Building System in the Advanced Race Guide, and if you look, the Dwarf is an 11RP while the Half-Orc is a 8RP.
2-) I wouldn't consider Darkvision a lesser trait or something that is there just for flavour. It gives solid benefits.
a) If you are in a dungeon or infiltrating a dark place and everyone has darkvision , for example, the party can move stealthly. If someone doesn't have darkvision, they will have problems moving stealthly, since they will need a light source and light can be easily spotted from a distance.
b) If someone doesn't have darkvision, he will need a light source in dark places. This can be easily solved with the Light cantrip, yes, but if he doesn't have access to it, he will need to hold a torch which will take one of his free hands. Then he won't be able to use a two-handed weapon, or a sword and a shield or two weapons.
3-) About the Hill Dwarf +1HP/level, you should consider the following. If they had given him a +2 Ability Score Increase to Con, the race would gain a +1 HP and a +1 Con Save. Having +1 just to HP would be like having a half Con Modifier Improvement. The only advantage I can think of this: if you reach the Ability Score cap of 20, you will be able to have HP as if you had 22 Con.
Nettocap: Just quickly, if I don't assume all races are equal my method cannot work. Without that assumption there is no mathematical way to use the printed evidence in the books. I would be reduced to guesswork like everyone else. My method is discussed at length in the article. We can postulate that different races are worth more or less but with WOTC's fanatic dedication in striving for balance (they do fail
) I don't believe the WOTC in house point values would differ much if at all. Whether races should be worth differing amounts, well that's another argument that us fans will forever debate and never truly resolve.
I started out with no zero point traits but the allowed values for some traits shrank and shrank as more evidence was added until the only value left was zero. I happen to agree with you but the evidence is WOTC does not. That said limiting the number of 0pt traits effectively gives them a very small value anyway. All this is already discussed at length in the article.
I will look at your '3' but even if you are right HP prices are so embedded in the sheet and article that changing them represent tens of hours of work so I'm not doing that at this stage. Mictrepanier, is still finding stuff I missed from the last major change, HD prices.
Mictrepanier.
Item 7: Let’s agree to disagree.
Based on some of the most direct evidence from the PHB a weapon proficiency is worth 1pt or less and the combinations of weapon profs presented in the individual canon races must add up to non-zero amounts of points.
Direct evidence from the PHB tells us weapon and armour proficiencies are not zero point traits. It all starts with the Rossetta stone of the human race. I’m going to recap a bit for others following this thread.
I started by setting +1 to an ability score = 2pt.
Standard Human is +1 for 6 abilities x2pt = 12pt. So a race is worth 12pt.
The variant human is two +1 ability scores (4pt), a feat, and a skill.
The Skilled feat is three skills. So a human variant with Skilled feat is two +1 ability scores (4pt) and four skills. 12-4 = 8pt left, 8pt divided by 4 skills is 2pt per skill. A feat is worth three skills or 6pt (at first level).
Now we have the price for a feat at first level =6pt.
The Weapon Master feat is +1 (2pt) to an ability score and four weapon proficiencies. Since 0pt x 4 does not equal 6pt - 2pt = 4, a weapon proficiency cannot be worth 0pt. A free choice weapon proficiency at first level must be worth 1pt. This is clear-cut there is no other solution. A free choice proficiency is the most valuable kind so this is also the upper limit.
If we continue fitting known evidence for all the races and feats it becomes apparent that some weapon proficiencies can’t be 1pt with the points left over after known items, but similarly cannot all be zero either if all canon feats are solved to be 6pt and all canon races solved to be 12pt. Remember also, a weapon proficiency can’t be more that 1pt. While the solution for Weapon Master is the only one, for weapon profs priced less than 1pt on my table other solutions may be possible using a differing values between 0 and 1pt where at least some of the weapon profs are not zero. An acceptable solution is one where all races are 12pt and all feats 6pt.
A similar situation applies to armour proficiencies.
Catodon wrote:
Catodon wrote:
Catodon wrote:
I see your point about the Darkvision and the spell. I’m going to add two boxes of text as follows:
House-rules ethos
In the end some of you are going to disagree with some of the values presented here. Even in Part 2 where I am deriving values from evidence in the PHB I cannot account for the reality of your group and how you play. As with the canon works or anything else, if you want to change anything here, do it!
Darkvision
Many feel Darkvision is too useful to be 0pt. After-all there is a Darkvision spell and spells are worth points. I felt the same way. As I proceeded with the analysis I tried to keep some point cost on Darkvision but then I processed the Half-Elf. This race contains a total of +4 to ability scores (4 x 2 = 8pt) and 2 skills (2 x 2 = 4pt). The prices for skills and ability scores come straight from the Human Variant ‘Rossetta Stone’. 8 + 4 = 12, no points left over for the other traits. Since the other Half Elf traits, Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, and Extra Language, aren’t going to be negative they all must be zero. I guess that WOTC’s designer’s felt that with so many way to circumvent normal darkness available Darkvision just wasn’t that much of an advantage.
Let me try to help you with the Dwarf.
TP = Trait Points = the Meta Value a trait is worth.
About Tool Proficiency, I think that, in general, they are worth half or mayber 3/4 of a Skill Porficiency, sometime they are worth nothing. Although there are some exceptions. For example, Thieves Tool are worth the same value of a Skill, the Dice Set Tool Proficiency are too much of a flavor to be worth anything.
The Tool Proficiency the Dwarf gains are the type I would classify as half Skills, becauses its usefulness really depends on the kind of game being played and on how the DM will use them in game. But, I will use your logic and prove it costs the same as a Skill. Here comes:
I disagree with you with the cost of the Light Armor and Medium Armor proficiency in the Mountain Dwarf. Why the +4 to LA and the +2 to MA? I would say that: Lght Armor Prof. is just there to justify the Prof. in Medium Armor, so it's a Lesser Trait and costs nothing. After all, if your are taking this race for the Armor Proficiency you are probably a Caster and you won't want to invest a lot in Dex. Now you have the Mountain Dwarf costing: +2 STR = +4 Traits Point and Medium Armor costing +4 Trait Points. The evidence for this is: Feat costs +6 first level, Medium Armored gives you +1 STR (+2) and Medium Armor (+4). The extra +1 to STR costs another +2 in your logic.
If the Mountain Dwarf costs 8, the base Dwarf must cost +4. The Martial Weapons, as you say, costs +2, so the other +2 must come from other Trait. I would say this trait is the Tool Proficiency, since the other, by your logic and evidence are obvious Lesser Traits.
The Hill Dwarf must also costs +8. The +1 Wis cost +2, so the +1 HP must cost +6. How can we get to this value? +1 to HP is equivalent to gainning +2 to Con without the Con Saving Throw benefit. But usually, the main reason someone invests in Constitution is to get better HP, so HP is worth more than Con Saving Throw. The +2 to Con would be worth +4 TP, but it must cost +6 in your logic. Can we make it make sense? if you think about it, a Dwarf can start the game with the main benefit of a +4 Con. And, if you take the Point Buy System, the higher the Ability the more it costs to get another +1, it doubles its value after certain point. So the first +1 costs +2, let's say the second in the same ability costs also +2, the third costs +4 (the double) and the fourth costs +4 as well, in total, starting with a +4 Con would cost 12 TP.
Back to the Hill Dwarf the first +2 to Con are already payed in the Base Dwarf. So, he gains the equivalent of another +2 to Con, in the logic above, it should costs +8 (12 - 4). The Hill Dwarf would cost +10, not allowed if we assume that the Tool Proficiency costs 2TPs. So the +1 to HP must cost 6 TPs. It makes sense, since +1 to HP is not the same thing as a +2 to Con, but it has its main benefit, which would be around 75% its value.
To verify the information above: The Tough Feat level 1 costs 6TPs and gives +2 to HP. So, a +1 to HP should cost +3TPs right? A +1 to HP is the equivalent of +2 to Con withou the Saving Throw benefit.
+2 to Con costs +4TPs
+1 to HP costs +3TPs
So, +1 to HP costs 75% the +2 to Con level 1.
These maths are making me crazy..
The only problem I have is that the Tough Feat gives the equivalent of a +4 to Con level 1. As i said up there, +4 to Con should cost +12 in my logic. So, if my statement about the HP cost being 75% of +2 Con is right, the Tough feat is worth +9TPs.
Maybe, that's because the Tough Feat doesn't actually give any Con at all, it's a little less worth.
The Hill Dwarf has a +2 to Con and +1 to HP = 75% of the benefits of +4 Con (+2 HP and +1 ST)
A Human with Tough 1st level would have just +2 to HP = 50% of the benefits of +4 Con (+2 HP and no ST)
Well.. I hope it helps in some way =P.
Interesting work. The thoughts on Tool Prof are especially interesting. My method requires all canon races to be solved for 12pt exactly and all feats for 6pt exactly. This allows me to calculte the value of some traits based on left-over points for some races and feats and includes a massive amount of cross-checking further pinning down many trait values. However, the hp price solution I came up with is not entirely satisfying.
EDIT: I have given the link to the Excell sheet. If anyone has a program to read it then they can do a save as before messing around with stuff to see how thier ideas change other races and feats.
Mictrepanier Item 5: I have halved Regeneration’s price. Note this trait is rated ‘!’ indicating the price is little more than an educated guess.
Item 1: Page 15 is in error. As explained on page 17 the unarmed weapon discount is of slightly higher magnitude than the price for Size. Bigger Sizes are reduced in price due to the disadvantage of more foes being able to attack you at in melee. This reduction does not apply to the discount on natural attacks. Note also that it is envisioned that not all of this discount need be used. Hence the examples including the Half Ogre (a measly 1d2 bludgeoning). The offending paragraph on page 15 now reads…
Unarmed damage is NOT scaled this way. Unless bought as a separate trait unarmed damage is 1 bludgeoning. This is required because of the pricing of low Tool Use Size. Note though as described in “Tool Use 3+ and Size” below Big creatures with good hands can upgrade Natural Attacks for free as shown on the table in that section. This is also an example of why this is a system for referees not players, yes you can upgrade natural attacks for free but you should also use restraint and choose a ‘sub-optimal’ natural attack damage if natural weapons are not thematically important to the race. When building a Large or bigger race I recommend purchasing the following minimum damage levels for an ‘unarmed strike Tiny 0 damage, Medium or Small 1 damage at not cost, Large 1d2, Huge 1d4, and gargantuan 1d8. Since the damages for Huge and Gargantuan are equal to other Simple Weapons (1d4 or higher) a Natural Weapons proficiency should also be purchased.
I have been tinkering with a setting based on old British fairy tales (not the Grim stuff) and this tinkering is spitting out some new material. Here's one.
Black Bear, Awakened
** ½
STR +2 {3-20}, DEX +0 {3-20}, CON +1 {3-20} INT +0 {3-20} WIS +1 {3-20} CHA {2-14)
Traits: Medium Tool Use 2 Beast (I -3.25), Natural armour AC11+DEX (I 2), Speed 40ft (X 1), Climb speed 30ft (I 2), Perception skill (P 2), Natural weapons proficiency (X 0.25), Bite 1d6 piercing and claws 2d4 slashing (F 2.5). Total 12.5
Lesser Traits: Common and one free choice language. The ability to communicate with bears.
Links to new version now in first post!!
This is all extremely helpful, thank you for your hard work! And to those who have also contributed and kibbitzed to fine tune what's been done. I'm working on designing a new campaign setting with multiple new and variant races, having a baseline to work with will make the process much easier. I'll post some examples when I eventually get around to the mechanical creation process.
A question though: what is the value of a flat +1 to Armour Class, like we see in the 5E Warforged? Using the 12 point rule, it would seem to be worth 6-7 points (+2 attributes = 4 pts, living construct/immune to disease 1-2 pts?).
The problem of the Warforged, as it was released in the Unearthed Arcana, is that he is a Playtest Race. So he may not be balanced.
I would guess that the Living Construct aspect is something they tried to put as flavour. But it has two great benefits: You doesn't need to breathe (so you can stay underwater as much as you like for example), you don't need to eat and you don't need to sleep, so you and probably your party, can never be taken by surprise sleeping. At the same time they sound strong, these benefits are also circumstantial. You can play a whole campaign without them playing a big role.
AC bonus are hard to come and getting a free +1 can be pretty strong if you combo with the right Class Traits. I think it has a high value. So, my guess, is that the Living Construct aspect was thought as a Lesser Trait. The +1 to two attributes costs +4TPs, so the +1 to AC must cost around +8TPs. But again, it is a playtest race, so hard to tell =P.
I think your analysis is correct; not needing to breathe, eat, or drink, and immunity to disease, are all interesting flavour, but practically speaking, they don't offer any extraordinary benefit. Diseases are typically not difficult to cure, and aren't really all that common in normal play, so that's situational, too.
A flat +1 to AC under any circumstances, though, is a very strong benefit. It does seem like that could be worth 8 pts.
Direach: I look forward to seeing your material when it is ready and hopefully hearing how the new races perform at the table.
Warforged Unearthed Arcana: a flat +1AC is very rare (I can't think of any in the PHB). I'm surprised they did this. I shied away from this in my trait list instead opting for set natural AC+dex that does not stack, like draconic bloodline and barkskin. I think nettocap's price of +8pt is probably right. As a final note I did not analyse any Unearthed Arcana stuff as evidence because of its playtest status.
Blog? What do people think of my posting this article as a blog? I would follow up with new material (races, feats, campaign ideas etc).Do the blogs here attract much readership? I have never made a blog.
I am mostly finished with one race, but it needs fluff added for context, and the subrace options I have are currently boring. I need to tweak them a bit to make them more fun and distinct.
I was considering the +1 AC bonus for my stone man race, but it seems too problematic; I'm gonna give that a pass. I've got a fun idea for integrated armour for them that will work fine, and not cause any mechanical or balance headaches.
I don't know how much attention a blog will get, I've never done one myself. Might be easier to keep posting stuff here, if you start getting a lot of feedback, then a blog might be useful. As long as you archive everything you've worked on, you can always post it somewhere if you want to.
Here's my first homebrew race for my nascent campaign, working title "World of Dusk". Pardon the wall of fluff, but while I'm getting input on the mechanical balance of the race, I might as well get input on whether the fluff is sufficiently explanatory.
The basic concept is "sapient, playable red panda". Southern pakari look like red pandas, northern pakari look like raccoons. They're analogous to halflings in my setting.
Pakari
The pakari are an unusual species of mammal native to the Far Lands. They are similar in general appearance to terrestrial red pandas and raccoons, although they are larger and smarter than either of those species. Pakari have nimble hands with opposable thumbs, and are capable of standing and walking upright for as long as they wish (although they prefer to run on all fours). In the wild, they are primarily arboreal, scampering up and down trees in search of leaves, fruit, eggs, mushrooms, and other sustenance. They are active by day, and sleep in hidden dens at night.
Pakari are unique in that they are capable of gaining sapience through proximity to other sapient species. They frequently “adopt” travelers and adventurers, and by spending time with them, they grow to become fully intelligent creatures with their own personalities. The process by which this occurs is not well understood, but appears to be some form of low-level telepathy (which also permits pakari to communicate with their bonded friends). It usually takes 4-6 months for a wild pakari to bond with other sapients; by the end of this time, the pakari is itself fully sapient and capable of independent thought. At this point the pakari is considered “acclimated”. A pakari raised from birth by other sapients will be acclimated from the start.
Acclimated pakari are capable of becoming adventurers, and often do so. They love to explore and travel, and especially love new foods. Most adventuring pakari are rogues or fighters, but sometimes they pursue other careers. It is exceedingly rare for pakari to demonstrate enough patience and composure to learn magic, maybe less than one in a generation, but it has been known to happen.
An acclimated pakari shares a powerful bond with its chosen friends, combining love, friendship, and protectiveness into a single powerful impulse. There does not appear to be an upper limit to how many people a pakari can bond with, but they typically bond with no more than 10-15 people at a time. The amount of time it takes for a pakari to bond with someone varies greatly; it can take days, weeks, or months, but on rare occasions pakari will bond with someone almost immediately.
Pakari cannot speak, and have no specific language of their own. However, acclimated pakari can easily make themselves understood to their bonded friends (and any other acclimated pakari) through a combination of low-level telepathy, vocalizations, and expressive hand gestures. They can learn to understand most languages, and can manage to communicate simple ideas to others by succeeding at a Charisma (Performance) check.
Pakari fear isolation and captivity. Prolonged isolation from other sapients will gradually return an acclimated pakari to a wild state, although they are generally not fully aware of the transition. This does not bother them half as much as being separated from their friends, however.
Being animals, pakari face difficulties that most other adventurers do not. Regardless of whether they are acclimated, pakari are often treated as nothing more than amusing pets. Merchants tend to think all pakari are thieves, and usually will not do business with them. Equipment can be hard to come by, since most gear is not made to pakari scale. In Imperial territories, pakari are considered vermin, and have no rights or even recognition as sapients. Even acclimated pakari are at risk of capture, imprisonment, or death in most cities, Imperial or not. Nevertheless, they fearlessly go where their friends go, and use their quick wits and reflexes to get out of any trouble that arises.
Ability Score Increase. Your Dexterity score increases by 2.
Age. Pakari grow to adulthood in two years or less. Acclimated pakari can live to be approximately sixty years old; wild pakari rarely live past 25.
Alignment. Pakari are carefree, impulsive, and often reckless. Most acclimated pakari are of chaotic alignment, and lean strongly towards good.
Size. Adult pakari stand about three feet tall, and average about 40-50 pounds. Your size is Small.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 25 feet.
Elusive. You have advantage on any Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll made to resist a grapple. Additionally, you can move through the space of any creature that is of a size larger than yours.
Natural Acrobat. You are proficient in the Acrobatics skill.
Keen Senses. You are proficient in the Perception skill.
Unarmoured Defense. Pakari will wear vests, belts, pouches, and packs, but they dislike restrictive armour. You have an unarmoured defense equal to your Dex + Wis bonus (southern) or Dex + Con bonus (northern).
Climbing Claws. Climbing does not halve your speed.
Languages. Pakari can learn to understand most languages, but are very rarely literate. Acclimated pakari have no difficulty communicating with their bonded friends, but others are unlikely to understand the pakari's vocalizations. You can understand Common and one other language of your choice, and can communicate with any party member as if conversing normally. Communicating with unbonded NPCs requires a successful Performance skill check to convey a simple message.
Southern Pakari
Southern pakari have red-orange fur shading to dark brown or black on their legs and bellies, and white markings on their faces. They have very lively dispositions, love attention and playing, and are very sociable creatures. Southern pakari and the Selenec have a great deal of mutual affection, and many Selenec merchants have a pakari companion (or vice versa).
Ability Score Increase. Your Charisma score increases by 1.
Strong Stomach. You have advantage on saving throws against poison, and you have resistance against poison damage.
Northern Pakari
Northern pakari have grey-brown fur with darker fur on their legs, with ringed tails and a distinctive “bandit mask” of dark fur on their faces. They are less social than their southern cousins, preferring the company of those they've already bonded with, and are often suspicious of strangers. They frequently bond with members of the Harada tribes, who consider them good luck, and messengers of the spirits.
Ability Score Increase. Your Constitution score increases by 1.
Cold Adapted. You have resistance to cold damage, and are naturally adapted to cold climates.
Under the hood:
12 point base for race creation.
+3 to stats = 6 points
Small = -2
Move 25 = -4
Elusive (combines Halfling Nimbleness with skill advantage under specific circumstance) = 6
Skill proficiency x2 = 4
Unarmoured Defense = 1
Climb at full speed = 1
Languages/bonded telepathy = lesser trait, 0
Strong Stomach = 0
Cold Adapted = 0
Here's a little something I've been tossing around...
Children
This template can be applied any Medium sized tool use 3 or above race to represent a child character.
Ability Scores: first apply the adjustments for your race then the following as well.
Str -1 {3-11}, Dex +1 {3-20}, Con -1 {3-11}, Int +0 {3-20}, Wis +0 {3-20}, Cha +0 {3-20}.
Traits: Change Size to Small. Add Lucky as per Halfling.
Growing up. During a downtime a player can announce his character is no longer a child. When this occurs the template is removed i.e. the character raises Str and Con by 1, reduces Dex by 1, loses Lucky and the limits for Str and Con become the usual {3-20}. The PC is then Medium.
Children need a big fat hit on INT. If only to reflect their worthlessness as knowing facts, i.e. lore checks. Anything that a kid gets right is purely by accident or because it was in Minecraft.
Catodon wrote:
New Version 1.04 now linked in first post
Centauroids clarified, Tiny races corrected and rules for Tiny damage clarified, Brass dragon can now fly at JL
Catodon wrote:
Ok I think I got something so it'll function kind of like Goliath's stone endurance but instead of choosing when it happens it triggers when you hit half HP rounded down. Then during the beginning of the turn after reaching half HP you roll a d6 or a d4 with a con modifier and you regain that much HP and must take a long rest before it can activate again. Will need to work out some leveling perhaps so it scales to late game.
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
I'm just going to post how I would word the traits I would reword. Notes are in italics
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
Ginjiro wrote:
userZynx_name wrote:
Ginjiro wrote:
Well here we are near the end. I've be keeping an up to date version on RPG Geek and Scribd but I don't forsee any big changes now. Please find links to latest version which includes a few minor clarifications and removal of a slashing damage resistance from Drakon. A huge thanks to everyone who has provided feedback or shared thier new races here. I'll be on RPg Geek, RPG Net, and enworld as either Catodon or Coronoides.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdixd898zxxfvch/5e%20unusual%20races%20point%20build%20105.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcwtk3ubwiab1tk/5e%20Design%2021.xlsx?dl=0
Catodon wrote:
Will be but slowly racking up the 10 posts I need to post links 
This may take a while because I have slow post rate.
Catodon wrote:
Hit ten posts but will delay a week or so and start with version 1.06 which will contain flumph clarifications. My name there is Coronoides
Catodon wrote:
Here a new approach from Rfkannen
: monster features as sub-class abilities...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?447997-Monstrous-race-subclass-combinations-Trolls!-Slaadi!-Yuan-ti!-Harpies!&p=19913325#post19913325
mictrepanier wrote:
Catodon wrote:
Yeah, the only other problem I see with his idea is that you won't get the full suite of features if you don't grab that class at all (eg Harpy Warlock). One solution to that problem is to make Prestige Classes for those races instead. I might go make an account over there to discuss that more.
On another topic, will you be doing a major update when the SCAG comes out Catodon? Perhaps a Version 1.1?
Probably not for a number of reasons:
1) THe SCAG is not book I would use at my own table because I write my own adventures and worlds, the amount of pages in the book that will be useful to me is too few for it to be worth spending my money on. A free/cheap players guide like EEPC would negate this issue.
2) Looking at the SCAG table of contents I don't see much more race mechanics being in there.
3) Psychologically I'm about done with this project and right now don't have the enthusiasm needed to incorporate new data into the model. I'm much more interested in using the tool to produce new options for the games and worlds I want to run.
Catodon wrote: