Giving each of them a value equivalent to the least represented classes on the original table (Monk and Bard, with 1/2 percent apiece), I got this result (and the following subtables):Įdit: These tables have been edited as per the discussion and suggestion from down-thread So applying this approach to the class table, there are three classes and one subclass that I don't think are represented on the original table: Barbarian, Rogue (Arcane Trickster), Sorcerer, and Warlock. I find this approach to be the more satisfying of the two. This approach allows for the in-fiction rationale for the absence of the two additional races on the original table to be that they were omitted or overlooked because of their rarity.
![5e class creator 5e class creator](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41wdXH+DqeS._SS400_.jpg)
![5e class creator 5e class creator](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4b/e7/d3/4be7d3f3c658dead39c24e4b01ce1f4d.jpg)
My approach to the race table, on the other hand, was to treat the additional races (Dragonborn and Tiefling) as equivalent in frequency to the least represented race on the original table (Half-Orc). After rounding, the extra 2% that these races take up essentially came out of the human’s share.Īfter further consideration of my answer to this question, I've found that I'm dissatisfied with how the class table came out and my decision making about that. My thinking was influenced by the inclusion of these additional races in the PHB as “rare” races. I kept the proportions between the existing races the same and gave dragonborn and Tieflings a value equal to the least represented race on the original table, half-orcs (coincidentally, perhaps, also a “monster race”). Without taking stock of how many subclasses each class has (I generally use the PHB only), I think a second roll wouldn’t be necessary for Barbarian, Wizard (Other), or Rogue (Other), but rather the spread of each result could be divided equally among the (remaining) subclasses. In practice, when using this table, once a class has been generated, if determining a subclass is desired and one of the two that appears on the table didn’t result, then I would make a second roll, if necessary, giving equal weight to each subclass of the resulting class. I had originally thought of giving the wizard enough of a spread that each subclass could have equal representation, but I found the result too arbitrary, especially as it impacted the space remaining to the sorcerer and warlock. Second, I divided the former non-illusionist magic-user’s space evenly between the sorcerer, warlock, and non-illusionist wizard, conceiving of “magic-user” as formerly encompassing the concepts of all three 5E classes, however ineffectively. I had at first thought to only give the barbarian a spread equal to the ranger, but it seemed too arbitrary, so I finally settled on dividing the fighter’s spread evenly. First, it gives half the fighter’s space to the barbarian, the basis of which was the barbarian’s history as a subclass of fighter. The Class table departs from the original in two respects. I tried to limit arbitrary decision making to a minimum. The short answer is I’m not all that interested in the larger world-building questions that these sorts of comparisons bring up.
5E CLASS CREATOR PC
I did take a look at the City/Town Encounters Matrix when preparing these tables, particularly the race breakdown, but again since my purpose is to generate a PC (or NPC) member of an adventuring party, I wasn’t particularly perturbed that demi-humans are found in higher proportions in urban environments than they are in adventuring parties. The rules for henchmen are interesting but depend on the DM‘s own breakdown of races that exist in a given area, and the class distribution specifically applies only to prospective henchmen, which is a subset of characters suitable for advancement, although it does seem pretty close to the distribution given in the Character Subtable. And while it’s true that a member of any race could be a thief, the fact that for most demi-humans, Thief was one of a limited number of classes available, would lead to humans being underrepresented on a list of thieves when compared to the general population of adventurers, which is what we see on that table. PCs aren’t generally conceived of as followers of upper level characters, although I suppose they could be. Perhaps I should state clearly that my intention with these tables is to provide a method for PC creation. The followers tables, as you said, are specifically for generating followers for upper level characters.
![5e class creator 5e class creator](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c7/76/29/c77629fecae9a6087099458cd61978d2.png)
No, I haven’t and don’t see any reason to.