5e Large Races

Back to Main Page → 5e Homebrew → Races → Races by Size
5e Large Races without an improving, reviewing, or removing template present.

NameSummaryAbilitiesSizeSpeed

{{#dpl: debug=1

 category=5e category=User category=Race category=Large Size notcategory=Supplement notcategory=! notcategory=April Fools notcategory=List include={5e Racial Traits}:summary:abilities:size:speed mode=userformat format=,¦- class="²{Odd-Even¦²{#var:odd}²}²"\n¦ [[%PAGE%¦²{#replace:%PAGE%¦(5e Race)¦}²]],\n, tablerow=¦¦ %%, %%\n

}}

Incomplete Races
Races with one or many improving, reviewing, or removing templates present. Please help work on the problem presented on the template.

{{#dpl: debug=1

 category=5e category=User category=Race category=! category=Large Size notcategory=WIP notcategory=Supplement notcategory=List notcategory=SRD format=,* [[%PAGE%¦²{#replace:²{#replace:%PAGE%¦(5e¦}²¦Race)¦}²]]\n, order=ascending columns=6 rowcolformat=width=100%

}}

Races which are works in progress:

{{#dpl: debug=1

 category=5e category=Race category=User category=WIP category=Large Size notcategory=Supplement notcategory=SRD notcategory=List format=,* [[%PAGE%¦²{#replace:²{#replace:%PAGE%¦(5e¦}²¦Race)¦}²]]\n, order=ascending columns=6

}}

Back to Main Page → 5e Homebrew → Races → Races by Size

gollark: Which I suppose can make some sense if you assume that it's "rational" in that people... like surprises, or something, but...
gollark: People *play the lottery*, too.
gollark: People somehow can't accept positive-sum games.
gollark: > A core proposition in economics is that voluntary exchanges benefit both parties. We show that people often deny the mutually beneficial nature of exchange, instead espousing the belief that one or both parties fail to benefit from the exchange. Across 4 studies (and 7 further studies in the Supplementary Materials), participants read about simple exchanges of goods and services, judging whether each party to the transaction was better off or worse off afterwards. These studies revealed that win–win denial is pervasive, with buyers consistently seen as less likely to benefit from transactions than sellers. Several potential psychological mechanisms underlying win–win denial are considered, with the most important influences being mercantilist theories of value (confusing wealth for money) and naïve realism (failing to observe that people do not arbitrarily enter exchanges). We argue that these results have widespread implications for politics and society.
gollark: (linking because I happened to read it recently)
This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.