Monster Manual, a Book of Races

At the end of Monster Manual 1 and 2 in 4th edition, you got a couple of races you might wanna play ( MM1 has Bugbear, Gnoll, Goblin, Orc, etc. ) What would be nice is that all creatures have something like that in D&DN Monster Manual.

I remember Savage Species in 3rd was just too annoying to use! In 4th they came with an easy and balanced way to play a lot of different races.

In D&DN, they need to come with the same thing, but, a lot bigger!!! I know you can't play a snake or a Nightmare, but playing an Ogre or a Lizardman would be awesome! On every pages of every, let's say, humanoid creatures, you have an entry to play this race.
I'm playing: Abin Gadon, Halfling Bard Winston "Slurphnose", Gnome Sorcerer Pasiphaé, Minotaur Shaman Eglerion, Elf Ellyrian Reaver (Ranger) DMing: Le Trésor du Fluide (Treasure from the Fluid) Un Royaume d'une Grande Valeur (A Kingdom of Great Value) La Légende de Persitaa (Persitaa's Legend) Une Série de Petites Quêtes... (A serie of short quests) Playtesting: Caves of Chaos We're building the greatest adventure ever known to DnD players! Also playing Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy. Sébastien, Beloeil, Qc. I am Neutral Good and 32 years old.
I'd like to see nearly all of the humanoid races as possible PC races as well.  However, I don't think the MM is necessarily the best place to put them.  Unlike the PHB and the DMG, I don't think there will be a lot of trimming down of monsters in DDN with the exraneous bits put into modules in the back.  I think the DDN MM will look very much like the 4e MM, and that there won't be much room in it for showing monster races as PC races.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I liked how 4E MMs introduced Playable Monster Races and personally, i wish D&D Next handle it the same way. 

Unless they plan to make a Complete Humanoid Handbook of some sort.
What will race rules look like? If they are compact (ie just an ability adjustment and a list of racial abilities) fitting them into the MM entries might be a good idea. That said, what do you do with the human, elf, dwarf, etc entries in the MM?
I hope the rules for races are compact (like Dreamstryder says), but flavorful, meaning they're easy to homebrew, just a few adjustments and maybe a feat or something. This would make it possible to put in it the MM with the monster entry, like in 3.5

I'm not sure if it's financially a good idea for WotC, but I'd LOVE a book like Complete Humanoid Handbook or Savage Species, containing lizardfolk, ogres and also different more obscure races, like Aarakocra, Warforged or Drow, races from all sorts of campaign settings. Since in 3.5 they did publish races multiple times (warforged had a full racial write up in the Eberron campaign guide, in Races of Eberron and a minor write up in one of the MMs), so it could work.  
I liked how 4E MMs introduced Playable Monster Races and personally, i wish D&D Next handle it the same way. 

Unless they plan to make a Complete Humanoid Handbook of some sort.



I agree, I think the way 4e put stat blocks in for playable race versions of most of the humanoid monsters in the Monster Manual is a good way to go. Then they can tweak or add more detail to the more popular races as needed in Dragon articles or a Humanoid Handbook or whatever.
Excuse me if I´m mistaken/wrong, but the stats of humanoid creatures from Monster Manual haven´t been designed to be used like PC races. (Yes, you could use/try it if you want, but the balance of power will not be totally right).

For example if centaur is a PC race, it will need special racial traits for quadruped humanoids. Bariaur of Planar Handbook had it but the centaurs from Monster Manual II 4th ed hadn´t. 

Do rebember the racial traits of kobols from Monster Manual and Races of Dragons weren´t identical.

And always there will be somebody who would like try a powerful monster too much (dragon, genie, outsider..).

Let´s imagine mind slayer PC...and module of racial classes is allowed by DM. What about a 7 monster level of mindslayer +...x levels of wizard, monk, soulknife, batlemind, ardent... or 4 level of grig (small fay) +..

And don´t forget monster "templates" like vampires and werebeasts.

How to get the right balance of power monster and normal PCs? A option would be monster PC could sacrifice something the usual PC hasgot (for example about body slots to use magic item).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

The Monster Manual might not be the best place, as that shouldn't necassarily be a book players should buy or look through. And it eats up space in the book that should be devoted to more monsters and DM resources. 
A big Dragon article might be the best place, with a stack of playable monsters.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Excuse me if I´m mistaken/wrong, but the stats of humanoid creatures from Monster Manual haven´t been designed to be used like PC races. (Yes, you could use/try it if you want, but the balance of power will not be totally right).


In 4e, there were PC race versions in the back of the book.  I believe that's what's being referenced.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

A Monster Manual should be a book for DM but if you were WotC and think Monster Manual with things for PCs (pets, mounts, wizard´s familiars, summoned creatures, monster/racial classes, templates) would be better sold..what would you do?

A don´t forget the books in other languages. For example a new PC race in Dragon Magazine (gnolls) couldn´t be not (officially) translated to other languages. It has happened.

* Monster Manuals of 4th Ed had got a final pages of stats for monster characters, but ...was it for nPCs used by DM?

* A option could be articules from Dragon Magazine and the most popular monster classes would be published in a Dragon Magazine compedium.

* Other option would be create some "generic" monster  classes like dragon, outsider, werebeast, sentient constuct, undead + deathless (from book of exalted deed), giant, troll, fay, genies.. For example you wish a oriental dragon (the lungs). You get the dragon class and add the special optional features for it (like a kit/build/theme). You want playing a werecrow... you get the class werebeast and choose the special features for werecrows. If you choose celestial outsider you must get the celestial outsider features, you can´t get the fiend monster class features.




 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

The 3.5 monster manuals inclusion of "how to play X" was one of the best parts of 3.5. It had stats for tons of races, and let you roll up a charcter. Sure, you didn't see too many Aboleth fighter 5's running around but it was an option. 


3.5 LA and racial HD wasn't the smoothest system, but a clunky system was better than nothing. 4e had a list of races as PCs in a few MMs which was nice, but it wasn't as easy to do for the ones not listed. 


If 5e were smart they would go more towards 3.5 approach on this one

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

No thats if they wanna appease the 3.x fans. Thats far from the same as being smart. LA was a horrible system and wasn't maintained well. The 4e system where each race occupies a more defined designed space is much easier to keep under control.

Furthermore the 4e mm write ups were horrible half-assed heaps of hideous, unbalanced, uninspired, and ultimately unplayable. If wizards does that again I urge them to do a better job of it.
Excuse me if I´m mistaken/wrong, but the stats of humanoid creatures from Monster Manual haven´t been designed to be used like PC races. (Yes, you could use/try it if you want, but the balance of power will not be totally right).

For example if centaur is a PC race, it will need special racial traits for quadruped humanoids. Bariaur of Planar Handbook had it but the centaurs from Monster Manual II 4th ed hadn´t. 

Do rebember the racial traits of kobols from Monster Manual and Races of Dragons weren´t identical.

And always there will be somebody who would like try a powerful monster too much (dragon, genie, outsider..).

Let´s imagine mind slayer PC...and module of racial classes is allowed by DM. What about a 7 monster level of mindslayer +...x levels of wizard, monk, soulknife, batlemind, ardent... or 4 level of grig (small fay) +..

And don´t forget monster "templates" like vampires and werebeasts.

How to get the right balance of power monster and normal PCs? A option would be monster PC could sacrifice something the usual PC hasgot (for example about body slots to use magic item).



Technically yes, they mentioned that the races in the MMs should be decided on by the DM before a player uses.  But really most of them were pretty bland and not really that OP(Not going to start a discussion about it).  Or even those that had a strong ability, or somewhat strong racial power they generally had very little to them and all it would take is for a DM to be aware.  That's why they said to talk to the DM before picking the MM races.

So it really wouldn't be hard, depending on how races are done up in 5e, to include at least a couple.  Personally I like the monster races because they're more unique than most of the races designed for players.

While make all humoids a racial stat block I think is stretching things, they could easily do a few I bet without being crazy powerful.

What I think would work best is maybe put racial write ups in the MM for races that they're seriously considering writing up in the future.  Like how Gnolls and such were monster races until they got their write ups.  Then have a series of dragon articles specifically devoted to racial write ups for monster races.  That way we get a couple in the book for people who want them.  But then the rest would be in dragon articles and people can ignore them if they want, and wont have to worry about book space being taken up.  Then again considering some of the various monsters that've been in MMs, racial write ups for monster races really isn't taking up space. 
No thats if they wanna appease the 3.x fans. Thats far from the same as being smart. LA was a horrible system and wasn't maintained well. The 4e system where each race occupies a more defined designed space is much easier to keep under control. Furthermore the 4e mm write ups were horrible half-assed heaps of hideous, unbalanced, uninspired, and ultimately unplayable. If wizards does that again I urge them to do a better job of it.



... unplayable?  Hardly.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
They are if you have any sense of style.
The best would be a Book of Races, with a lot of playable races! But the entries in the MM would be like those in 4th edition. Just a small guideline to be able to play the race! So we can play these races and, create customized NPC. Then with the book of races, add feats, powers, etc. for those races.
I'm playing: Abin Gadon, Halfling Bard Winston "Slurphnose", Gnome Sorcerer Pasiphaé, Minotaur Shaman Eglerion, Elf Ellyrian Reaver (Ranger) DMing: Le Trésor du Fluide (Treasure from the Fluid) Un Royaume d'une Grande Valeur (A Kingdom of Great Value) La Légende de Persitaa (Persitaa's Legend) Une Série de Petites Quêtes... (A serie of short quests) Playtesting: Caves of Chaos We're building the greatest adventure ever known to DnD players! Also playing Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy. Sébastien, Beloeil, Qc. I am Neutral Good and 32 years old.
They are if you have any sense of style.



Elitist snob much?

Buh-bye.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
A Monster Manual should be a book for DM but if you were WotC and think Monster Manual with things for PCs (pets, mounts, wizard´s familiars, summoned creatures, monster/racial classes, templates) would be better sold..what would you do?
 



This is the big deal for me.  I have bought around 20 books for 4E and not one of them is a monster book since I haven't DMed 4E.  I don't own any of the DMs guides either and the only settings books I own are the ones with a lot of player material.

I hope they repeat that with NEXT, but I am betting they will put a bunch of stuff for players in the DM books since 4E is the only edition that didn't do that.
Around 10 years back there was a book for the Star Wars Roleplaying game called Ultimate Alien Anthology that had like 180 playable races for PCs, and even threw in a few prestige classes and feats in the back.  There were no level adjustments or anything and every species was "balanced" for 1st level PCs (a few weren't, but they were usually pretty easy to spot).  Something like that for D&D would be unreal.

Also, if all the weirder PC race options were put together in one book there could be an appendix or something in the back with rules and/or modules on how to deal with things like quadrupeds, flight, natural weapons, aquatic creatures, etc...

I'd also like to see a module where races get bonuses or penalties to charisma based skills when interacting with different cultures.  In my opinion, the most popular ogre in the tribe shouldn't have low charisma just because the queen doesn't approve of his tables manners, and it doesn't really make sense for a 3ft tall gnome to be the main spokesperson when in minotaur lands just because his minotaur companion has 9 charisma.  I'm sure some people wouldn't be crazy about that, but that's why I typed module. ;)
* Would you like a new "Council of Wyrns" to play dragons PCs? It would be like a mixture of Dragon Magic, Race of Dragons and Draconomicon, with stats to create monster class with all canon (true) dragons. (When I say "true" I say dragons with age category, and when I say "all", I say oriental, planar, from spelljammer, pearl, jade, amber..).

* If there is a new Species Savages, I´m afraid some powers should be weakest in the first level, and later it would be more powerful. For example the power of flying. The first level would be only like the spell "feather fall), later would be glidding movemnet and lastly total fly movement.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

No thats if they wanna appease the 3.x fans. Thats far from the same as being smart. LA was a horrible system and wasn't maintained well. The 4e system where each race occupies a more defined designed space is much easier to keep under control. Furthermore the 4e mm write ups were horrible half-assed heaps of hideous, unbalanced, uninspired, and ultimately unplayable. If wizards does that again I urge them to do a better job of it.


1 - I said the system wasn't the smoothest. It didn't work well. That is true. I said as much, and even went on to say "they should do it better though"


2 - What it did do though, was give a formulated method to play anything as a PC. 4e has 30 races. 3.5 had hundreds. Thats a huge draw. I 


3 - Appeasing 3.X fans is a smart move. 3.5 and PF combined make up at least half the market space. Instead of debating numbers though, I will simply say "A large percent" which I think everyone can agree on. 4e didn't sell well enough (they rebooted it already) so clearly its fans aren't enough to keep a brand this big afloat. If you can win back a good enough percentage of 3.5/PF fans it can only help. I don't know anyone who plans to play 4e once 5 comes out, I know plenty who plan or would consider still running with 3.5/PF/2/1 if 5 isn't good. Converting as many of them as possible is a good idea. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

LA doesn't work for the same reason different exp charts for classes and split exp for multi-classers doesn't. It creates characters unable to funtion at the game's level or completely op.

Furthermore a race like a minotaur in 3.x is awesome for a fighter baralbarian or ranger at +2 la and six racial hd, but completely worthless for an arcane caster, and little better for divine. You can't go tossing huge bonuses around and expect them to even out in a few levels because each class will interact with that bonus differently.

You want powerful races, buy them with things that can be balanced against the benefits, feats, themes, racial powers, and such. It's not like la let you play them any sooner.

As for the mm write ups in 4e. They were short on features and those they had were unbalanced (oversized) or uninspiring (+2 initiative for gith) the racial powersetc when they were present were either op (kobold) or horrible (gnoll or minotaur). If 5e continues the practise I advise they step it up a notch and try to stop sucking at it.
I did not say it worked. Not once.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Ah I mistook the "it" in "They should do it better" to mean LA.

It is possible to balance races with stronger or weaker abilities, but LA isn't the way.

One thought I had was to consider a point method of creation where by ceratin races cost more points that could be spent on something else. Or a priority system where putting higher priority in race opens up more powerful options such as dreagloth or half-dragon.

But the days of a race, even a monster race doling out +4 strength, +2 natural armor, and - 2 dex need to stay over.
At the end of Monster Manual 1 and 2 in 4th edition, you got a couple of races you might wanna play ( MM1 has Bugbear, Gnoll, Goblin, Orc, etc. ) What would be nice is that all creatures have something like that in D&DN Monster Manual.

I remember Savage Species in 3rd was just too annoying to use! In 4th they came with an easy and balanced way to play a lot of different races.

In D&DN, they need to come with the same thing, but, a lot bigger!!! I know you can't play a snake or a Nightmare, but playing an Ogre or a Lizardman would be awesome! On every pages of every, let's say, humanoid creatures, you have an entry to play this race.



I've been all for this since day one.  (I even took it a step further and moved every race to the monster manual.)  The core rules should have the most basic of options available for character creation; basic classes, generic options and (if we must have them) classic races (dwarf, elf, halfling, and human.)  Any thing else should come in later supplemental books.  The Monster Manual would be the first.

If we keep the entries for each monster simple, then we can include some brief information on playing some of them as PCs.  For the first manual, we can limit the amount of options to classic monsters: orcs, kobolds, goblins, (and IMO dwarfs, elfs, halflings, and even humans.)  Later, we can expand on each race with its own supplement, providing more options for backgrounds, themes, etc.  Then, as more manuals are released, we can have more "monster" races, and in turn more supplements.

It would allow each group, each player, and each DM, more control, more choices, and greater flexibility in selecting races for their PCs.  Also, by following this format, if the manuals are kept fairly small, and the racial books smaller, they might see a bigger profit line; the printing and distribution costs would be smaller (more books can be printed and will fit in a box), and as players pick and choose the supplements they want, more books will be purchased overall (IMO.)
Sometimes the idea of playing a exotic monster PC is fun. Why? Because the same reason is funny dress up for Halloween or Carnival.

A option is creating "light" version of monsters, for example the rakastas (humanoid with tiger head from Red Seel/Savage Coast) and rakshasas (famous evil feline outsiders). It wouldn´t be the first time, like the spikers from Planar Handbook and blandelings from Monster Manual II (3rd Ed). 

Other option would be monster type like core classes, for example a total 20-30 levels of fay, contructs, undead/deathless, dragon, outsider. A creture type could have got different classes (or build) if PC by the monster role (brute, soldier, artillery, controller, lurker, skirmisher). A mindslayer or a sprite can´t be like a brute, or a giant can´t be a lurker.

* Unearthed Arcana had optional rules about bloodlines and changing the system of Level Adjusment.

But...if monsters classes are allowed, and there will be a new official D&D videogame..How getting balance of power monster and no-monsters PCs for PvP combat?

And don´t forget magic to summon monsters. I say if for example DM allows a banshee bard PC, the evil necromancer nPC could summon his evil bard banshee too.

* I would like riding monster like videogame Golden Axe (like that giant mantis what spat fire). I could sue vernims with template "monstrous beast" from Savage Species, couldn´t I?

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

What about templates for races? Should 5e have those? I personally like the halfbreed templates: (Half-celestial, half-elemental, half-dragon etc.)

And what about the Unearthed Arcana racial variants of 3.5 that are based on environment and bloodlines? There are the desert, arctic, and jungle variants of races to think about.
If they are templates for PCs it´s a great challenge for game designers. It´s about balance of power. Something has to be sacrificed to get the right balance of power. The normal PC ought have got something the "exotic" PC couldn´t have got. What?

Let´s imagine player spend XPs to get the benefits of power of quickly-regenerating by template half-template. What about level 5, or level 15? A power like flying would be powerful in low level but in the highest levels wouldn´t be anything.

A option would the usual PC could spent XPs to "buy" a special extra, like a prestige classe. For example paladin get "member of order of star", wizard get "member of guild of..", barbarian get "member of clan of bear..". The "exotic" PCs couldn´t get it because they have just "bought" their extra.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

At the end of Monster Manual 1 and 2 in 4th edition, you got a couple of races you might wanna play ( MM1 has Bugbear, Gnoll, Goblin, Orc, etc. ) What would be nice is that all creatures have something like that in D&DN Monster Manual.

I remember Savage Species in 3rd was just too annoying to use! In 4th they came with an easy and balanced way to play a lot of different races.

In D&DN, they need to come with the same thing, but, a lot bigger!!! I know you can't play a snake or a Nightmare, but playing an Ogre or a Lizardman would be awesome! On every pages of every, let's say, humanoid creatures, you have an entry to play this race.




I wouldn't say annoying but rather a sound idea that when printed was difficult to use and needed homebrew alterations to work effectively. Once we (me and a few DM friends) figured out what worked and what didn't work Savage Species became of our most used source books. So yes I'm all in favor of a 5e version of SS but it does need to be better written then the 3e one. But it should be a book of it own. Keep the MM just monsters as that will keep size down and hopefully cost as well.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
Excuse me if I´m mistaken/wrong, but the stats of humanoid creatures from Monster Manual haven´t been designed to be used like PC races. (Yes, you could use/try it if you want, but the balance of power will not be totally right).



The point is not that you would use the monster statblock, but rather that each monster entry would include a section that says "This is the racial adjustments you make to the block of tofu character if you want to use this creature as a PC."  The actual stats of the monster are irrelevant.

While an Ancient Red Wyrm might be an incredibly powerful entity, when your Red Dragon PC rolls up at level 1, it's going to get a couple stat adjustments and some minor bonuses, just like everyone else.  That the Ancient Red Wyrm doesn't use these stats is irrelevant.

I mean, as an example, behold the "dwarf template" from 3e, from the SRD:
Dwarf



  • +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma.

  • Medium: As Medium creatures, dwarves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.

  • Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).

  • Darkvision: Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves can function just fine with no light at all.

  • Stonecunning: This ability grants a dwarf a +2 racial bonus on Search checks to notice unusual stonework, such as sliding walls, stonework traps, new construction (even when built to match the old), unsafe stone surfaces, shaky stone ceilings, and the like. Something that isn’t stone but that is disguised as stone also counts as unusual stonework. A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can. A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.

  • Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves may treat dwarven waraxes and dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons.

  • Stability: A dwarf gains a +4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground).

  • +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison.

  • +2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects.

  • +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids.

  • +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against monsters of the giant type. Any time a creature loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class, such as when it’s caught flat-footed, it loses its dodge bonus, too.

  • +2 racial bonus on Appraise checks that are related to stone or metal items.

  • +2 racial bonus on Craft checks that are related to stone or metal.

  • Automatic Languages: Common and Dwarven. Bonus Languages: Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon.

  • Favored Class: Fighter. A multiclass dwarf’s fighter class does not count when determining whether he takes an experience point penalty for multiclassing


Now, I'm not saying you can or should be able to apply this to any existing creature, but if you apply it to the raceless, formless entity that is your character before you make a race selection, you get a dwarf.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sign In to post comments