D&D 5E Races/Classes - Revisiting Common/Uncommon and Rare

[airwalkrr]

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?

When I get around to running 5e, which I hope to do soon, I will be going back to running Greyhawk for the first time in nearly 10 years. (I have been running Eberron in 3.5/Pf ever since the campaign setting was released because I like it, and my first love, Greyhawk, just never felt right with 3e rules.) For me 5e seems to fit the milieu of Greyhawk with minimal tweaks. I want to model it after the respective rarity of the races and classes in 1e AD&D (having to make a few compromises of course). With that in mind, I have the following ideas in mind:

• Common Races and Classes: Dwarves (hill), elves (high-not including gray and valley), halflings (lightfoot), and human (Flan and Oeridian-no special mechanics) are the most common adventuring races throughout the Flanaess, and are thus unrestricted. Likewise, clerics, fighters, rogues, and wizards are the most common adventurer classes found throughout the Flanaess, and are thus unrestricted.
• Uncommon Races and Classes: Dwarves (mountain), elves (high-gray, wood-sylvan), halflings (stout), humans (Baklunish and Suloise-no special mechanics), gnomes (rock), half-elves, and half-orcs are uncommon adventuring races. Likewise, bards, druids, monks, paladins, and rangers are uncommon adventuring classes. As a rule of thumb, I will probably allow no more than half of the party to consist of these races or classes. Also, an uncommon race + uncommon class = a rare character (see below) and may be subject to further restriction. As a side note, if assassins are ever added as a full-fledged class to 5e, I would likely include them as an uncommon class for my 5e Greyhawk.
• Rare Races and Classes: These either did not exist in 1e AD&D or were rare as player character options because they did not appear as options in the 1e AD&D Player's Handbook. (Note, I included bards as uncommon above because, although the prerequisites in 1e were steep, they were still included in the 1e AD&D PH.) Dwarves (deep aka duergar), elves (high-valley, wood-grugach, dark-drow), humans (Olman and Rhenee-no special mechanics), and gnomes (forest) are rare races, either because they are xenophobic (valley elves, grugach, Olman, Rhenee, and forest gnomes) or typically very evil (duergar and drow) in the Greyhawk campaign setting. Likewise, barbarians would be rare because they were not in the 1e AD&D. Sorcerers and warlocks are rare classes, almost unheard of in the world of Greyhawk and certainly oddities. As a rule of thumb, I will probably allow no more than one of these in the party, and it would have to be agreed upon by all players at the table because the very presence of these races and classes are likely to have significant role-playing consequences.
• Restricted Races: Dragonborn and tieflings would generally not be allowed. Dragonborn never existed in 1e AD&D Greyhawk (not to my knowledge anyway), and tieflings would be assumed to be minions of Iuz or worse, and thus have the worst role-playing consequences for the group. Unless the campaign and story specifically called for it, these races would not be available to player characters.

I am flexible as a DM and willing to talk things out, so if a player requests something unusual and had devised a very good and campaign-appropriate explanation for it, I may allow it. But in general, the above would be my guidelines, and I would not deviate from them very much.

Now the way you played Greyhawk might have been very different. But I am an avid Greyhawk and 1e AD&D fan and feel the two go together like a hand in a glove, so these guidelines seem to fit the setting very well to me. This is all for the sake of the campaign setting and milieu. I honestly have no problem with the balancing mechanics of the races and classes as written in the 5e PH. But for me, there is more to the races and classes than mechanics. The role-playing consequences and setting rarity of the races and classes is important to establishing the right tone. Encountering a forest gnome or a drow should be a very unusual event in Greyhawk. If I were running Forgotten Realms or a very cosmopolitan campaign setting of my own design, for example, I would probably be very permissive of the races and classes I allowed.

 

[SirAntoine]

Steeldragons' was the best post I've ever read. I wish I could be in his campaign.

 

[steeldragons]

Steeldragons' was the best post I've ever read. I wish I could be in his campaign.

Wow! That is quite a compliment. I don't know that anyone has ever said that before. lol. Thanks a lot. You made my day.

 

[SirAntoine]

Wow! That is quite a compliment. I don't know that anyone has ever said that before. lol. Thanks a lot. You made my day.

You're welcome! I look forward to your next post about classes.

 

[Minigiant]

For my Six Kingdoms setting, It would be a bit hard to do as one charts as the setting is based on 4 continents with 6 major kingdoms and several minor unallied governments.

The Northern Continent is just The Kingdom of the Arctic Dwarves. The Arctic Kingdom is a dwarven kingdom at war with the fire, frost, and hill giants. The entire dwarven race has been geased by the king to fight in the war. Stout halflings, humans, and rock gnomes do all the farming and logistics as no dwarf can leave without slowly going insane.

The continent of Valey has 3 main governments. Ord and North Athia are mostly humans and a few half elves. The Three City States of the Elves is just Elves and a few half elves. Since orcs are a composite race in the setting, you fine some half orcs all over there.

The continent of Tordo has 4 main nations. Rattata is gobliniods, halflings, and humans. Sanidia is humans and halflings. Wu is just human, elves, half elves, and exalted humans. Ironwood has a little bit of everyone.

So Common, Uncommon, Rare just doesn't work. In the North, you can't take two steps without seeing a dwarf. Everywhere else, zero dwarves.


Common Everywhere not banned: Human, Halflings

Uncommon: Elves (non-drow)

Rare due to discrimination: Half Orcs, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Gnolls,

Rare due to low population: Half elves,

Rare due to isolation but high population: Dwarves, Dragonborn, Tieflings, Goblins, Drow

Rare due to almost all living on another plane: Aasimar, Minotaurs

Rare due to isolation and population: Warforged

 

[steeldragons]

Best get to it then, hadn't I? hahaha.

Well, for classes, it's the same as races with a bit of [MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION] 's reasoning on the breakdown...a desire to maintain [what seems to be referred to these days as] an "AD&D" sensibility, even though a Fighter or Thief is going to be hugely more common than a spell-casting Cleric or "Wizard."

Keep the Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, Unique definitions we used for races in mind.

Location is important and impacts everyone. The Mage-lands of R'Hath, of course, see a higher per capita of Mages [wizards] and specialists (though in 5e all wizards are specialists, which I do not care for). "Barbarians", as a class, are restricted to a human culture (the Gorunduun Tribes, mentioned in the previous post), and so are uncommon anywhere outside those lands and more rare the farther from them you go. There will be more druids found in the south, where the center/largest holding of the continent-wide organization of the Ancient Order is, and more rural communities are likely to follow/practice a druidic religion, than other regions of the continent. There are some racial and other homebrew classes not available to all people everywhere.

But, obviously, everyone engaged in a life of adventuring [PCs] travel everywhere, so most things are up for grabs...with a bit of backstory worked up for how/why your character arrives at the place the game is starting/party is gathering. But things are going to vary from place to place.

So, again, for a World of Orea "typical" mid-sized town in a human region/kingdom -for this we'll say the Freelands which is the "default"place I tend to start campaigns, simply because is does allow for the most diverse populations and professions- PC Classes:
Common: Fighters [Champion], Thieves [default Rogues], Clerics, Mages [the PHB "Wizard" of Orea, though all mages eventually take on some spontaneous casting, and thus all Orean Mages are partial "sorcerers"]
Uncommon: Fighters [Battlemaster], Rogue: Assassins [in the PHB, but remember the "No Evil PCs" rule at our table], Rogue: Arcane Tricksters, Illusionists*, Enchanters, Diviners, Conjurers, Druids, Rangers.
Rare: Fighters [Eldritch Knight], Evokers, Transmuters, Abjurists, Bards, Thaumaturgists.
Very Rare: Paladins, Monks, Necromancers, Psychics, Warlocks**
* All specialist mages shift 1 category more Common, in terms of occurrence and reaction/treatment within the wizard-nation of R'Hath.
**Having skipped 4e, Warlocks have never yet had an appearance in Orea. But given the number of creatures in the multiverse who would a) have the power to pact with/create warlocks and b) would be willing to do so, I think making them of a rarity comparable to the chosen divine warriors of the gods makes sense.

Barbarians, the Orean race/class (not the PHB's, but still a class option for PCs), are Uncommon in regions immediate adjacent to the wide steppes and tundra of "Gorunduu" and Rare everywhere else.

Sorcerers, as a class, do not exist on Orea. This is, again, because Mage PCs already gain spontaneous casting [via houserule] and have since before the Wizard/Sorcerer split was ever in a PHB. Largely skipped 3e, as well, so I've never had/seen cause to make room for them in my campaign world.

That's everybody from the PHB, right? Bbn, Brd, Drd, Ftr, Mnk, Pal, Rog, Rgr, Wlk, Mag [Sor + Wiz = Orean Mage]. Yep. That's it.

I really like airwalkrr's thing about, if you are uncommon race AND class, you shift to the next category. Or, say uncommon race + rare class...you become Very Rare. I guess that's always been how we fluffed stuff at my table, just never thought of it/put it in those terms before. Makes sense. I'll be using that.

Also a fan of your limit to "no more than half the party can be uncommon [or more rare]." Another unspoken trend of my table, though I think as long as humans make up a minimum of 25%, I'm ok.

 

[SirAntoine]

Well, that was another excellent post, Steeldragons. I think you have risen everyone's knowledge about the different rarities for PC races.

What has gotten you to try 5th edition, if I may ask?

 

[steeldragons]

"try it"? Nothing yet.

I mean, my interest in the new edition began here with all of the talk, and what ifs, articles and playtest info of what they were trying and wanted to try/achieve. That all sounded like, after not playing the last 2 editions, 5e would be something to give a looksee/might get back into the swing of a D&D I would enjoy. And almost everything I've seen so far has been. And the stuff I haven't cared for or have my own setting stuff already in place is easily enough avoided or altered without disrupting the whole system.

I have the books (well, the Basic rules pdf, PHB & MM. I still need to hunt down a DMG) but not the group to play. I would/will be interested in doing so when the opportunity presents itself.

Til then, my 1e/2e (+a few 3e elements) mishmash homebrew and campaign setting can continue to give me the D&Ding pleasure it has for these past decades.

 

[SirAntoine]

"try it"? Nothing yet.

I mean, my interest in the new edition began here with all of the talk, and what ifs, articles and playtest info of what they were trying and wanted to try/achieve. That all sounded like, after not playing the last 2 editions, 5e would be something to give a looksee/might get back into the swing of a D&D I would enjoy. And almost everything I've seen so far has been. And the stuff I haven't cared for or have my own setting stuff already in place is easily enough avoided or altered without disrupting the whole system.

I have the books (well, the Basic rules pdf, PHB & MM. I still need to hunt down a DMG) but not the group to play. I would/will be interested in doing so when the opportunity presents itself.

Til then, my 1e/2e (+a few 3e elements) mishmash homebrew and campaign setting can continue to give me the D&Ding pleasure it has for these past decades.

It's quite similar for me. When they announced they were going to do a 5th Edition I was coincidentally visiting wizards.com, and I said to myself why not try to follow what they did and give them feedback? I wanted to playtest the game, but I couldn't form a group. I barely managed to try it in the end, briefly playing online with a few other people. So I don't quite feel I've really tried it, but would be happy to play it if I could find a DM. I mostly skipped 3rd and 4th edition like yourself, and share your enthusiasm for heroic, good-aligned campaigns.

 

[Staffan]

Only time I ever thought about rarity of races and classes was when I toyed with making my own setting back in early 3e. One of the ideas I had was that the main advantage "civilized" races had over "savages" (orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc.) was wizardry.

See, the idea was that sorcerers exist naturally, but in very small numbers - you need to have a certain gift in order to become a sorcerer (of course, any player who wanted to play one would have had that gift). But wizardry is a regular skill. Sure, it's a hard skill that requires a good head and lots of training, but that's far easier to come by than the small percentage who have the gift for sorcery. And thus, access to relatively common magic would be one of the main advantages humans and their allies would hold over humanoids.