Standard Races you have no desire to play?

[ZorroGames]

Maybe because I am still new to 5th Edition from years away but there are some races I really never see myself playing.

Duergar Dwarf, Drow Elf, (any) Halfling, Dragonborn, and Tiefling. Reading about those races either disinterests me or seems unappealing. Some cases I understand why, others not so much, I would not prefer to play them. No problem with them being played in the game, just not by me.

Leaving aside the "why" are there any standard races that you never envision youself wanting to play?

[nickl_2000]

Gnomes all gnomes. I just don't like the tinker mentality and the whole steampunk thing. It doesn't feel like it fits into the world for me. Also it helps that I've always hated playing wizards

[Waterdeep Merch]

Dragonborn, purely for aesthetic reasons. I think dragon people just look stupid, in every medium, no matter how hard they try to convince me they're actually ferocious and 'cool'.

And the bizarre lineages that go with them to explain how they exist at all are usually really, really dumb.

I give a pass to Dark Souls, and that's the only iteration off the top of my head I don't hate.

[Balyano]

Standard Human, sooooo boring. I would play a variant human to get that first level feat so it seems a little different, but the standard +1 across the board is way too much bland on a bland
no niche sandwich.

It also means that High Elves are smart, so smart in fact that they are as smart as the average human. Orcs are so tough that they are as tough as the average human. Dragonborn are so charasmatic that they are as compelling and inspiring and intimidating as the average human. Wood Elves? why, they are as wise as a human.

If humans are what all others are measured against, and humans are +1 across the board, then that means the average member of other races is a bit of a clumsy derp, a little socially awkward by human standards, a little bit weaker than the average man. The average elf only being slightly more graceful than the humans, the dwarf only a little tougher (alcohol aside, yeah poison resistance) and so forth.

[Grey Watcher]

I hesitate to say "never," since I may have a good idea later on, but I think

Elves (ironically except drow): For drow, I'd need something very particular to take it beyond just Angsty Anti-Hero or Misunderstood Hero, but there's potential there. Other kinds of Elves are just sorta meh. Unless the setting significantly alters the fluff, they're just "eh."

Rock Gnomes: the Clockwork Toy feature really pigeonholes these guys into a VERY particular character type, much moreso than, say Wood Elf or even Forest Gnomes.

Tieflings: Sort of the worst of both my lack of enthusiasm for Elves and Gnomes, they're pretty well locked into one or two very specific story arcs and not an especially interesting ones at that. Yeah, I COULD probably find some sort of something to make things more interesting, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything that doesn't render Being a Tiefling (as opposed to a Human or a Halfling or an Awakened Raccoon) entirely irrelevant.

[Elminster298]

There are very few that I have ZERO interest in ever playing...but... Stout halfling, human(standard), and rock gnome I have never played and really cant foresee any concept that I would be interested in. Hill dwarf, human(variant), dragonborn, forest gnome, and half orc I very rarely ever play but I have had some great characters from these races. All others I have played many characters from each.

[Smitty Wesson]

I'm generally most unlikely to play as a Halfling. I think there's a lot of baggage from the more childlike interpretations of the race, even as I've enjoyed more recent takes on them (like Belkar, Bree Three Hands, and Betty the Hippie Smidgen Thief). I also like gnomes a lot, so part of it is that halflings don't give me anything conceptually that I don't get from gnomes - and gnomes tend to have features (like more magical/fey flavor) that are more appealing than the "humans but small" default of halflings.

Half orcs and half elves also tend to be not-my-jam. Mostly just that I don't get much appeal out of the mixed heritage, and for the half orc especially it tends to feel like an artificial separation wherein orcs can't ever be the good guys.

[Fach]

Dwarfs and any of the short races.

[Naanomi]

I can see myself playing nearly anything; but dragonborn are way down on the bottom for me; the aesthetics and mechanics are both unappealing to me

[Elminster298]

Elves (ironically except drow): For drow, I'd need something very particular to take it beyond just Angsty Anti-Hero or Misunderstood Hero, but there's potential there. Other kinds of Elves are just sorta meh. Unless the setting significantly alters the fluff, they're just "eh."



My first exposure to drow was(of course) reading The Icewind Dale trilogy 20 years ago and so I definitely understand your point. However, after reading War of the Spider Queen I have a much broader picture of Drow characters. I never played a "Drizzt clone" and probably never will since there are so many others that are more interesting to me.

[Arcangel4774]

I give a pass to Dark Souls, and that's the only iteration off the top of my head I don't hate.

People with dragon lineage do make much more sense covered in fur

[Hypersmith]

I've played standard human, I don't think I'll do so again. Dwarves and elves just don't really appeal to me, of all the races they feel the most stereotypical and I don't enjoy that. I'm willing to play things that aren't great mechanically, like a half orc moon druid, but those two races just feel so meh to me

[Hypersmith]

People with dragon lineage do make much more sense covered in fur


Or feathers. Buq buq

[Osrogue]

Definitely Halflings. I prefer gnomes tbh and I can never justify both of them existing. On the other hand, I don't like rock gnomes. They're tinkering ability is a little weird and doesn't fit everywhere.

Also, while I do like dark elves as a fantasy concept, I don't personally like the FR drow.

[Ninja-Radish]

Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans or anything that looks human. I like playing freakish or monstrous looking races personally. I have no desire to play anything that looks normal.

[coolAlias]

For me it depends on the campaign. In Planescape, I'd be down with a Tiefling, Aasimar, Genasi, Modron, etc; in a "normal" campaign, I would never do so.

The only (standard PHB) race I don't ever see myself playing in general is Dragonborn. Bleh. And maybe Drow, because they just scream special snowflake character right out of the gate.

I've played and enjoyed pretty much every other standard PHB race, though I tend to favor V-Humans these days - I've always liked playing a human.

[Potato_Priest]

I prefer halflings to gnomes but I still can't imagine myself playing a light foot halfling.

When I play a halfling, I play a tough little fella, and stout halfling fit the bill so much better.

I also will probably never play a tiefling. They're not very interesting from a story perspective, and I pretty much universally prefer fey/elemental flavor to demonic flavor.

Edit: I forgot the race I'm least likely to play!

I will never play a Kenku unless they get a fluff modification. I love coming up with creative tactics, so playing a race without the ability to invent plans of their own would be horrible.

Edit 2: Does it seem to the rest of you like charisma improvement is generally correlated with special snowflakiness in races? (Obviously there are exceptions)

[Belltent]

Gnomes. I'm not even a hardcore gnome hater, but I just cant see myself playing one for some reason.

Mechanically, the dragonborn desperately wants me to not play it.

[Sirdar]

Dragonborn, purely for aesthetic reasons. I think dragon people just look stupid, in every medium, no matter how hard they try to convince me they're actually ferocious and 'cool'.

And the bizarre lineages that go with them to explain how they exist at all are usually really, really dumb

Agreed! Dragonborn is just awful. Even Tieflings look normal when standing next to a Dragonborn. Yuck!

[KorvinStarmast]

I am still new to 5th Edition from years away but there are some races I really never see myself playing.
Gnome, Tiefling, Drow, and Dragonborn.
Can't see playing any of those, though years ago I played a gnome illusionist that was sort of fun.

Drow as a PC race is sadly, for me, ruined by a certain Mary Sue from Salvatore.

I played so many hobbits and halflings over the years that I am about done with them. (Maybe a monk some day ...)

Half Drow? We can talk. (SCAG has a half drow option/variant)

The others? Yeah.

[Corran]

Gnomes (not sure why, but I really dont like this race) and dragonborns (due to their art, as others have mentioned - mechanically, they are not doing themselves any favours either).

[Spore]

Gnomes and probably full on bog standard elves. Too much ias towards (High) Elves here.

[Dudewithknives]

Gnomes, just never cared for them, maybe if I am an artificer or lore wizard


Dragonborn, not because of their looks but because their abilities make no sense to me.

Goliath, never liked their flavor.

Dwarves if I am not playing a cleric or a martial class.

[Contrast]

Think I'm unlikely to ever feel the urge to play a drow or tiefling.

I don't have the distaste that some of the other people here have for dragonborn visually/thematically but they're probably down the bottom on the list because they don't really appeal mechanically.

[JackPhoenix]

Dragonborn, looks, mechanics and lore. Why does that thing exist at all, in the core rules, even? I'll take lizardfolk for ferociousness and kobolds for relations with dragons any day.

Gnomes. Never was a fan of them. Propably thanks to Dragonlance and Warcraft.

I'd say halflings, but there's exactly one exception: the tribal, dinosaur-riding ones from Eberron. Still, for the mounted, raiding warrior archetype, I would rather pick a Valenar elf.

Current (post 4e) incarnation of tieflings. Give me back my variable quarter-fiends, please.

Tabaxi. Just... no. May have something to do with my dislike of furries inherited from my time on 4chan.

I wouldn't play Genasi, but don't have anything against them.

[Sigreid]

Elves (ironically except drow): For drow, I'd need something very particular to take it beyond just Angsty Anti-Hero or Misunderstood Hero, but there's potential there. Other kinds of Elves are just sorta meh. Unless the setting significantly alters the fluff, they're just "eh."



I've got a deep gnome that when the party asked why he was living in their village responded "Have you met my people? Miserable, mean spirited little pricks the lot of them! I'll stay up here where being happy is considered a worthy goal."

[Lombra]

Humans. I see them everyday and I like the chance to not be one in a game.

[Corran]

I think we should try to convince ZorroGames to edit the original post, so that we have a chart that will show how many (negative) votes each race gets, so that at the end we can declare a winner as far as the most unpopular race is concerned!

[coolAlias]

I think we should try to convince ZorroGames to edit the original post, so that we have a chart that will show how many (negative) votes each race gets, so that at the end we can declare a winner as far as the most unpopular race is concerned!
That looks to be pretty solidly the Dragonborn - 2nd and 3rd place will be interesting to see.

[MaxWilson]

Maybe because I am still new to 5th Edition from years away but there are some races I really never see myself playing.

Duergar Dwarf, Drow Elf, (any) Halfling, Dragonborn, and Tiefling. Reading about those races either disinterests me or seems unappealing. Some cases I understand why, others not so much, I would not prefer to play them. No problem with them being played in the game, just not by me.

Leaving aside the "why" are there any standard races that you never envision youself wanting to play?

Dwarves, dragonborn, and tiefling. All three of them are mechanically distinct from humans, but have no interesting character hooks to my knowledge: there's no reason I'd want to make Stumpy McElbow the narcoleptic battlemaster a dwarf or a tiefling instead of a human, except possibly a mechanical reason.

If dragonborns were as psychologically different from humans are Volo's lizardmen are, I'd find them much more interesting and I'd probably play them. Tieflings could potentially be interesting in the context of a Planescape campaign or similar. Dwarves are a lost cause--Duergar are the only interesting kind of dwarves, because they actually reflect fairy tales about dwarfs as magical, secretive, sometimes-malignant creatures like Rumplestiltskin. All the other kinds of dwarves are just boring Tolkien dwarves transplanted to D&D.

[Talyn]

Screw Gnomes. If I want to be short, I'll play a Halfling, if I want to be in tune with nature, I'll play an elf!

[coolAlias]

Dwarves are a lost cause--Duergar are the only interesting kind of dwarves, because they actually reflect fairy tales about dwarfs as magical, secretive, sometimes-malignant creatures like Rumplestiltskin. All the other kinds of dwarves are just boring Tolkien dwarves transplanted to D&D.
The Rumplestiltskin-like dwarves turned into gnomes. ;)

[MrStabby]

For me:

Dragonborn - the background seems like it brings no nuance. They are just ugly as well.

Gensai - an elemental connection is pretty cool, but if I were to have a planar connection I think there are more interesting planes

Goliath - like being human but big. Just seems too bland.

[Nifft]

I liked 3.5e Dragonborn, because I like voluntary transformation races (& classes).

I don't really like 5e Dragonborn.

I'm kinda bored with Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings -- there's nothing wrong with them, but I just don't feel any urge to be one.

[Arkhios]

GNOME! Just... No. I've had a few of my characters reincarnated as gnomes, and even then I retired them immediately.

Likewise I don't see myself playing as a dragonborn, duergar, or drow.

I take it that races from Volo's are not standard races, but out of them I would probably play only aasimars. The others don't do the trick for me.

[Drathmar]

My first exposure to drow was(of course) reading The Icewind Dale trilogy 20 years ago and so I definitely understand your point. However, after reading War of the Spider Queen I have a much broader picture of Drow characters. I never played a "Drizzt clone" and probably never will since there are so many others that are more interesting to me.

Honestly, I have always found the manipulative more chaotic neutral (obviously up to debate but this is how he comes across to me) character of Jarlaxle as infinitely more interesting than the "good member of an evil race" that is Drizzt. Just the way he manipulates both sides for his own gain, for profit, but also never really steps over the line to being actually evil while at the same time never letting either side ever be sure of him... just makes him so much more interesting to me.

As for the original question... probably gnome. Nothing about them appeals to me. Halflings I can find some redeeming qualities in but not gnomes. Dwarves are a close second. I can't put my finger on it but I just don't like dwarves.

[Elminster298]

Honestly, I have always found the manipulative more chaotic neutral (obviously up to debate but this is how he comes across to me) character of Jarlaxle as infinitely more interesting than the "good member of an evil race" that is Drizzt. Just the way he manipulates both sides for his own gain, for profit, but also never really steps over the line to being actually evil while at the same time never letting either side ever be sure of him... just makes him so much more interesting to me.



I agree with you about Jarlaxle. He has always been one of my favorite drow. Also, Valas Hune and Pharaun Mizzrym were great for different reasons.

[Zardnaar]

Dragonborn, Tieflings, Drow and Rock Gnomes.

[Luccan]

No desire? Drow and other evil subraces. Some fluff change would make it fine, but being from the race of EEEEEVIIIIILLLL! isn't really desirable to me, unless I'm playing a bad guy (and I rarely do). I could see myself using all the other races though. Nonstandard, I have no desire to play the monster races in a game where they are assumed to be evil. I don't like Goliath or Firbolg (Goliath is so boring and Firbolg... I want to choose to be a friendly giant, not come from a race of them). Aarakocra or however you spell it, I go back and forth on. I don't like bird people with wings and arms, but they can fly and I like doing that. No Tabaxi. Dunno why, because I like Khajiit, but I can't see myself playing Tabaxi. Maybe because they're so similar; you can only see so many cat-thief-people before it gets dull. Or annoying.

[Sigreid]

Y'see I feel like Lizardfolk are too far off the deep end. They underline the alien mindset so much it's like "Is it even possible to do this right?" Plus you can only do the "derp, I don't get mammals" shtick for so long before you just start coming off as obnoxious and wilfully ignorant and stubborn. For a one or two session adventure it sounds fun, but it also seems like it would just grate on the nerves after a while.



You mean before you're just playing another dwarf?

[MaxWilson]

No desire? Drow and other evil subraces. Some fluff change would make it fine, but being from the race of EEEEEVIIIIILLLL! isn't really desirable to me, unless I'm playing a bad guy (and I rarely do). I could see myself using all the other races though. Nonstandard, I have no desire to play the monster races in a game where they are assumed to be evil. I don't like Goliath or Firbolg (Goliath is so boring and Firbolg... I want to choose to be a friendly giant, not come from a race of them). Aarakocra or however you spell it, I go back and forth on. I don't like bird people with wings and arms, but they can fly and I like doing that. No Tabaxi. Dunno why, because I like Khajiit, but I can't see myself playing Tabaxi. Maybe because they're so similar; you can only see so many cat-thief-people before it gets dull. Or annoying.

Wait. So do you or don't you want to come from an evil/unfriendly people?

[Luccan]

Wait. So do you or don't you want to come from an evil/unfriendly people?

I neither want to be from a people of evil nor a people whose society can be described as "we're all good all the time". I have no problem with giants that get along with others. I don't want to be from a group of them that are like a disney cartoon

[Ninja-Radish]

I neither want to be from a people of evil nor a people whose society can be described as "we're all good all the time". I have no problem with giants that get along with others. I don't want to be from a group of them that are like a disney cartoon

OMG I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about Firbolgs for the longest time and you nailed it: they look like cartoon characters! It's like you expect them to break out in song at any moment.

[Puh Laden]

OMG I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about Firbolgs for the longest time and now it hit me: they look like cartoon characters! It's like you expect them to break out in song at any moment.

I call them 7-foot smurfs, and their hippie commune ways are why I have no interest in them, except maybe as a fighter or conquest paladin. ;)

I'm somewhat surprised at the dragonborn hate since those have been my favorite characters I've DM'd for, albeit their players had the charisma to match.

[Pex]

Tiefling

I don't care for their concept. I loathe they were included and Aasimar were not, not that I have any love for Aasimar either. I never cared for them when they first appeared in 3E. I cannot get over their right to exist, so to speak. It's a me thing.

[Osrogue]

You know what, I actually don't play elves if I can avoid it. I always try to opt for half-elf instead if it is available. Reread the fluff on Dragonborn, and yeah, I don't care for the fixation on honor and perfecting one skill (especially since combat will basically be that skill) their mechanics are not great unless you want to be a paladin, but they are pretty much the closest race there is to role playing one of the chromatic/metallic dragons or any combination of them really since Dragonborn have muddled lineages. But vanilla Dragonborn? Yeah, wouldn't play that.

[Puh Laden]

You know what, I actually don't play elves if I can avoid it. I always try to opt for half-elf instead if it is available. Reread the fluff on Dragonborn, and yeah, I don't care for the fixation on honor and perfecting one skill (especially since combat will basically be that skill) their mechanics are not great unless you want to be a paladin, but they are pretty much the closest race there is to role playing one of the chromatic/metallic dragons or any combination of them really since Dragonborn have muddled lineages. But vanilla Dragonborn? Yeah, wouldn't play that.

Admittedly, if I had a DM that enforced the default lore and the homogeneous color-scheme, I would never ever play a dragonborn. I encourage my dragonborn players to emphasize the extreme personalities of dragonborn, and housefluff dragonborn scales to match their draconic heritage.

But even if every DM I've had handles dragonborn like I do, I'm still not interested in playing a dragonborn because despite liking exotic races, I wouldn't likely be able to put on as much of a show as my players have, and because of my experience that'd be missing the point of playing a dragonborn in my eyes.

[TheCrowing1432]

Standard Human.

With Feat Varient Human being so much better, theres never a reason to pick standard human, unless your DM bans the Feat Varient, then pick whatever race suits your class better.

Gnomes

They just arent my bag, though a lot of people feel differently.

[mephnick]

Dragonborn, Drow and Tieflings. Boring snowflake races. I was mad when I got to the Drow page in the PhB. Then I got to Tieflings and actually gagged.

[Esprit15]

Never found dwarves appealing, and dragonborn are just a weird way to play a dragon without being one.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Does standard races mean those in the PHB? Or any "official" WOTC race?

Anyway, the short (small) races don't interest me much at all. I'd probably not play a Halfling or Gnome.

WRT to the rest, I'm fairly flexible, with the same restriction, so no Goblins or Kobolds.

And what's the deal with Tengu? Kenku? Whatever those bird people are, WOTC kinda dropped the ball there. Too weird.

Oh, and no furries. Minotaurs and Tabaxi are OUT! Not sure about Gnolls...

[Ninja-Radish]

I have to admit I absolutely hate the way WOTC handled races in 5E. Every race should have the same total bonus for stats. Whether they want to make it +3 total or +4 total doesn't matter to me, but they should all have the same total bonus.

It pisses me off to no end that the Mountain Dwarf and Half-Elf "uber master races" exist, with more bonuses than anyone else, AND great racial abilities to boot. Meanwhile they crapped all over the poor Dragonborn. Seriously, just don't include them in the PHB if you're going to make them the redheaded stepchild of 5E.

[Elminster298]

Tiefling

I don't care for their concept. I loathe they were included and Aasimar were not, not that I have any love for Aasimar either. I never cared for them when they first appeared in 3E. I cannot get over their right to exist, so to speak. It's a me thing.

Aasimar are in the Dundeonmaster's Guide. They added it there instead of the players handbook as a simple way of showing potential DMs how to modify an existing race.

[JAL_1138]

Tiefling

I don't care for their concept. I loathe they were included and Aasimar were not, not that I have any love for Aasimar either. I never cared for them when they first appeared in 3E. I cannot get over their right to exist, so to speak. It's a me thing.

Tieflings didn't first appear in 3e. They first appeared as a player race (and possibly first appeared ever) in Planescape in 2e, where—because of all the planar travel and with so many beings from various planes coexisting in Sigil—it would be a bit odd not to have an option for someone to have at least a bit of lower-planes ancestry.

I dunno how 3e did them, but in 2e their ancestry simply manifested in some odd physical characteristics (which used to be highly-variable and were rolled for on a set of tables) and maybe the odd extra ability depending on the roll. People in Sigil (and the rest of the planes) didn't really think twice about it, so there weren't any "mistrusted outcast" or "evil empire" connotations like the 4e/5e fluff.

[Luccan]

I call them 7-foot smurfs, and their hippie commune ways are why I have no interest in them, except maybe as a fighter or conquest paladin. ;)

I'm somewhat surprised at the dragonborn hate since those have been my favorite characters I've DM'd for, albeit their players had the charisma to match.

First 5e character was a Dragonborn. Played up the charisma as a boisterous, good-natured guy, but ignored the "we're another fantasy klingon without the fun stuff" fluff, focused on his copper heritage, and made him a chaotic good ex soldier who was politely asked to retire after being caught with his female superiors one time too many.

The problem with Dragonborn fluff is it tells you not to be a dragon. Being a wingless, Medium, bipedal dragon is exactly what they should be.

[Luccan]

Tieflings didn't first appear in 3e. They first appeared as a player race (and possibly first appeared ever) in Planescape in 2e, where—because of all the planar travel and with so many beings from various planes coexisting in Sigil—it would be a bit odd not to have an option for someone to have at least a bit of lower-planes ancestry.

I dunno how 3e did them, but in 2e their ancestry simply manifested in some odd physical characteristics (which used to be highly-variable and were rolled for on a set of tables) and maybe the odd extra ability depending on the roll. People in Sigil (and the rest of the planes) didn't really think twice about it, so there weren't any "mistrusted outcast" or "evil empire" connotations like the 4e/5e fluff.

In 3e they were in the first Monster Manual, but they still had variable demonic traits. Their actual mechanics were all the same, but they looked mostly human, save their horns or goat feet or whatever you decided to give them. Also, they got -2 cha, which makes it weird that now they get a bonus. I actually like the new look, especially when I first saw it in my brother's 4e player's handbook, but it is unfortunate you can't just play a guy who happens to have a demon ancestor and you can't tell just by looking at him. I've resolved that my first Tiefling in 5e will have zero angst, due to being raised in the woods.

[Princess]

Half-orcs seem to occupy a weird crossroads between different things I like but in a form I've never played. If I want to be basically a big strong person who is wild and free, I can do without the bad teeth. If I want to play someone monstrous in someway, why stop at half-orc, especially when there have been so many more satisfyingly ferocious options? And that's the summary of why I think I never played a half orc and might never do so, unless it was just to explicitly try one. But bugbear and goliath both go a little further in two of the directions that make half-orcs stand out, so alas, poor half-orc, I knew you never.

[Princess]

In 3e they were in the first Monster Manual, but they still had variable demonic traits. Their actual mechanics were all the same, but they looked mostly human, save their horns or goat feet or whatever you decided to give them. Also, they got -2 cha, which makes it weird that now they get a bonus. I actually like the new look, especially when I first saw it in my brother's 4e player's handbook, but it is unfortunate you can't just play a guy who happens to have a demon ancestor and you can't tell just by looking at him. I've resolved that my first Tiefling in 5e will have zero angst, due to being raised in the woods.

2e Tieflings had a whole page of variant racial abilities and got a charisma bonus as a default (assuming that Succubus/Incubus was the simplest explanation for how a Tiefling was born, or something to that effect.) 3e changed that to a charisma penalty just because, and 4e actually went back to that interpretation but made up an elaborate conspiracy that tried to errata-genocide all the Tieflings that didn't look like red horned devil people. It's such a stupid revision for the settings where Tieflings were already established that I refuse to play with that lousy forced fluff in any way. Bad writing at its worst trips all over itself, which is why SCAG started to fix that with the variant Tiefling suggstions in there. There are enough evil empires in D&D without making writing for Tieflings (or Drow, et al.) continually worse at random.

[Findulidas]

Probably dragonborn. The idea behind half human half dragon is REALLY unappealing. They look stupid and dont have any fun mechanics. I would play a 5e lizardfolk over dragonborn any day of the week.

[Tanarii]

Dragonborn and Tieflings.

I'm not likely to ever play halflings in 5e, because gnomes are superior in every possible way. Both mechanically, and in terms of Lore . 5e did to gnomes what 3e did to halflings, made them awesome! Too bad it did it at the cost of halflings.

[Hrugner]

Humans, drow, and half elves. Humans seem sort of boring to me and half elves as a distinct and very different race from both parents rubs me the wrong way. Drow are a reversal on the D&D expectations for elves, then you reverse it again and make them a PC race, it seems silly. It would be like having a race of talking intelligent horses, then playing one with a severe learning disability.

All the other races are fun though.

[MxKit]

As a rule, the more "standard" you get the less I want to play them, really. Humans (including variant humans), Dwarves (including duergar), Elves (including drow), Half-Elves... And I always find myself thinking of Gnomes as just a less interesting Halfling, so I'm mostly meh on them, too (except for maybe Deep Gnomes).

As for the nonstandard races... Aasimar are pretty majorly Just There for me; I feel like the only way I'd ever like to play one is if I can actually finagle a good Warlock Aasimar with the Fiend patron. I also find Aarakocra weirdly uninteresting, as well as Minotaurs, Changelings, Shifters, and Warforged. Firbolg, Goliaths, and Tritons are just boring, and I can't call Yuan-Ti Purebloods boring, but they seem weirdly unplayable to me—I can ignore "they're all evil!" or "they're all emotionless!" but not both, apparently, heh. And oddly, I think I prefer Half-Orcs to Orcs.

Which I guess would make my favored races Halflings, Deep Gnomes, Dragonborn, Tieflings, Genasi, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, all the Goblinoids, and Kobolds. Yeah, that sounds about right!

[Big Papa Turnip]

I always get a kick out out of these sorts of threads when they come up, because 90% of responses are pretty soundly on one side a big lame coin.

"I don't want to play edgy special snowflake races."
vs
"I don't want to play boring generic Tolkein races."

Admittedly, I tend to lean towards playing the more standard races, myself. Had a real bad DM for several years who would actively punish anyone playing the human/elf/dwarf trinity ("a bloo bloo bloo these races are so uncreative why don't you play a fire elemental or this bug person instead"), so I'd just start rolling "Frank, the average human guardsman," every campaign to rebel against this clown.

That's not to say that I haven't also had a lot of fun playing dragonborn paladins, tiefling warlocks, etc.

[Tanarii]

"I don't want to play edgy special snowflake races."
vs
"I don't want to play boring generic Tolkein races."

That's right! Is it time for the tangent to a grognard discussion about the place of humanity in a campaign? Something something gygaxian humanism. :smallamused:

[strangebloke]

I want to play a character, not a race. For that reason most of the 'rare' races are severely unappealing to me.

Think about it this way. If you were a tiefling in <insert DnD setting here> your monstrous appearance would be a fact that dominated your whole life. The prejudice and hate you received would be a massive, formative experience that you would share with all other Tieflings. Think, like... young cancer patients. They all have this ridiculous struggle that sets them way apart from all of their peers. A lot of such kids have talked about the struggle to avoid 'becoming their illness.'

I don't want to play a tiefling or a dragonborn for this exact reason.

I make exception for the half-elf and half-orc because even if you're a bit weird, it isn't as though most of the humans/orcs/elves you grew up with likely care that much.

Gnomes in theory subvert this by having tiny little gnome villages...

But I absolutely hate the bastards. That fricking whimsy has no place at my table!

[Elminster298]

Humans, drow, and half elves. Humans seem sort of boring to me and half elves as a distinct and very different race from both parents rubs me the wrong way. Drow are a reversal on the D&D expectations for elves, then you reverse it again and make them a PC race, it seems silly. It would be like having a race of talking intelligent horses, then playing one with a severe learning disability.

All the other races are fun though.

HOLY CRAP ON A CRIPPLE! I want to play this character now! I shall call him Mr. Special Ed! 🐎

[coolAlias]

That's right! Is it time for the tangent to a grognard discussion about the place of humanity in a campaign? Something something gygaxian humanism. :smallamused:
Exactly! All campaign settings should be focused on the master race, i.e. humans. All other races should really have hard level caps like in 2e AD&D and prior, and other human good others bad stuff! Good times will be had by all (that are human). :P

I actually do tend toward more human-focused settings when running games, perhaps it's just easier for me to conceptualize, but I'll gladly play in pretty much any setting - even ones with no or few humans.

Planescape in 2e was one of my favorites to both play and run; Dark Sun was a close second though I had far too few opportunities to play it. I loved me some chatkcha-throwing thri-kreen at the time. ;)

[Nifft]

I always get a kick out out of these sorts of threads when they come up, because 90% of responses are pretty soundly on one side a big lame coin.

"I don't want to play edgy special snowflake races."
vs
"I don't want to play boring generic Tolkein races."

Heh, both of these are true for me.

I want races that are neither special edge-flakes, nor generic DEGH races.

Sometimes this means a world with a customized racial palette.


I shall call him Mr. Special Ed! 🐎
I smirked quietly.

[Zman]

Gnome, Dragonborn, Tiefling.

[Elminster298]

I smirked quietly.

That is honestly all that horrible joke deserved... I should probably go commit internet seppuku. 😔

[CountWolfgang]

Tieflings and half orcs, I find tiefling really boring. Only reason I'd play a half orc would be to make them stupid, and speak in a cockney accent.

[jaappleton]

Dragonborn.

Its 100% their lack of Darkvision that kills it for me. I'll be a Halfling, I'll be VHuman, but I refuse to be Dragonborn.

Which sucks, because I WANT to be Dragonborn.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'd probably be up for playing nearly any race. I used to think I'd never play a gnome, then I read the Pathfinder gnome. I used to think I'd never play a half-orc, then I came up with a tribal mage.

Mechanics are probably the main reason I won't play a race, so Dragonborn are unlikely for me. Who knows, though, someday I might wanna play a dragonborn paladin or something.

[PaxZRake]

I generally play Dwarves.

I'm highly unlikely to play a Human or an Elf.

Everything else is probably fair game. Less likely to play an out and out evil race unless I'm in an evil campaign.

[MxKit]

I always get a kick out out of these sorts of threads when they come up, because 90% of responses are pretty soundly on one side a big lame coin.

"I don't want to play edgy special snowflake races."
vs
"I don't want to play boring generic Tolkein races."

Admittedly, I tend to lean towards playing the more standard races, myself. Had a real bad DM for several years who would actively punish anyone playing the human/elf/dwarf trinity ("a bloo bloo bloo these races are so uncreative why don't you play a fire elemental or this bug person instead"), so I'd just start rolling "Frank, the average human guardsman," every campaign to rebel against this clown.

Hey, as someone whose post could be taken that way, I'm sorry to hear about that experience. That sounds like a legitimately bad DM.

I think for me, when it comes to the standard-standard races, I get excited to play other options in the games where that's available to me. In a lot of games you're just playing as humans anyway, and in a lot of fantasy games (Beyond the Wall is a good example; I love that game but yeah) they'll add in Elves and Dwarves and maaaaybe a hobbit-ish race and nothing else. I don't at all judge people who like that sort of thing, or who prefer to play those races! But as a result, in any game that offers more than Humans, Elves (and Half-Elves) and Dwarves, I tend to ignore them in favor of the other options.

(And as for the other, non-standard races I find boring for no discernable reason? I have no idea, man. By all rights I should be all over Minotaurs, Orcs, and even Aarakocra, but they're big ol' blahs to me. Oh, well.)

[coolAlias]

I have a soft spot for Aarakocra due to the game Shining Force... yep, I'm old. :D

[Zardnaar]

I have a soft spot for Aarakocra due to the game Shining Force... yep, I'm old. :D

One of the 1st games to have prestige classes if you can findvmithril.

[Sigreid]

I generally play Dwarves.

I'm highly unlikely to play a Human or an Elf.

Everything else is probably fair game. Less likely to play an out and out evil race unless I'm in an evil campaign.

Friends don't let friends play dwarves.

Dwarf, not even once.

[DanyBallon]

Races I don't like to play and reticent to allow in my game are: Drow, Tiefling, Aasimar, Dragonborn, Half-Orc, and Gnomes. Mostly because they are either too rare or too reclusive to be considered as a character race.

Also, I'm an old grognard that is in the camp of those who likes when their party and world consist of a majority of humans :smallbiggrin:

[Basement Cat]

My problem with playing certain races comes from burnout.

Basic + Expert D&D: Started with a dwarf and played the heck out of him for years. Burned out on Dwarfs.

Advanced D&D: Played elves, burned out.
--Unearthed Arcana: Played a female Drow Cavalier (circa 1987 when Drizzt wasn't yet a thing). Comeliness was a new stat and I remember she somehow had a Com of 22 or 23 and rather than being shunned she had crowds following her with their tongues out. :smalltongue: Then I burned out on Drow.

D&D 3.5: Moved to Halflings...burned out. Same with half elves.

Old available races I never played: Gnomes: The noses don't do it for me and Dragonlance left gnomes so stereotyped they became a joke with me and my friends.

D&D 4th: Never played it: Bought PHB and decided to wait for 5th edition.

D&D 5th: Won't play Dragonborn, Aasimar, Half Orcs or Gnomes (still). If I ever play a Tiefling I expect he/she will be as stereotypical a Tiefling as Varric from Dragon Age is a stereotypical Dwarf--which is to say "Not at all".

I don't have the additional books so I'm not familiar with variant humans, goliaths, etc.

I'm frankly drawn to playing Humans these days rather than demi-humans. My friends and I homebrew Feats so we receive them at character rather than class levels and Humans get one Feat automatically at 1st level plus the option of a 2nd Feat or stat increases. It works for us so I don't worry about normal humans being inferior.

[coolAlias]

I'm frankly drawn to playing Humans these days rather than demi-humans.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you spot a grognard. :P

Do they still use that word in the core books? I don't recall seeing it since 2e.

[Scots Dragon]

I will not play dragonborn. They're just very out of place in any of the campaign settings I use.

Beyond that I reinterpret tieflings back into their original Planescape incarnations because I bloody well can, but would probably play one. The other races all have things that interest me about them to various degrees. I used to dislike gnomes for a while there but have slowly gotten over that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Tiefling

I don't care for their concept. I loathe they were included and Aasimar were not, not that I have any love for Aasimar either. I never cared for them when they first appeared in 3E. I cannot get over their right to exist, so to speak. It's a me thing.
What happens in Planescape, stays in Planescape. I'm with you on this one. (But they fit Planescape nicely!)

[coolAlias]

What happens in Planescape, stays in Planescape. I'm with you on this one. (But they fit Planescape nicely!)
Count me in as well.

In any given game setting, certain races are considered standard. If you want to play a non-standard race in that setting and I am DM, count me out - I don't want to role-play how special your character is due to his/her race every time they go to town or interact with someone, and if you don't either, why are you playing that race?

An occasional 'let's all play monster/evil races' game can be fun, but please don't try to bring your vampire half-dragon/half-ogre to a table playing a run-of-the-mill Greyhawk game.

[2D8HP]

I don't play casters, short folk (dwarves, gnomes, halflings), and obviously non-humans (Dragonborn, Tieflings).

I play Elves, Half-elves, Half-orcs, and Humans.

And I wouldn't even play Elves but for the mechanical advantages.

[Hypersmith]

Man this thread makes me think of the first game I played. everyone but me was a half elf. Like damn it was a bore, some diversity is nice.

[Basement Cat]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you spot a grognard. :P

Do they still use that word in the core books? I don't recall seeing it since 2e.

Actually I prefer 5th edition by far. :smalltongue:

Just color me old fashioned.

P.S. I had to look up what a grognard was. <_<

[Scots Dragon]

What happens in Planescape, stays in Planescape. I'm with you on this one. (But they fit Planescape nicely!)

I can see plane touched fitting into the various Prime settings as one-offs, particularly in areas near major dungeons and places where planar summoning is more common. So you'd have a couple of tieflings, aasimar, and such in places like the City of Greyhawk or Waterdeep given their status as major cities on top of ancient dungeons full of fiends. You'd also have quite a few in the magocracies as a result of there being a higher proportion of people summoning monsters there.

But generally they ought to be a relatively secondary race and probably not part of the core rules. They should not be a more common player race than fully blooded orcs. I actually think they should have given orcs their own section instead of the tieflings and dragonborn, on that note.

[coolAlias]

I actually think they should have given orcs their own section instead of the tieflings and dragonborn, on that note.
Oh heck yeah! Especially if they gave them a more Warcraft-like fluff instead of Tolkien - the former is much more amenable to a player race, and if you didn't want them as a player race, you could still have the Tolkien orcs as the source of all evil in your setting.

[2D8HP]

Man this thread makes me think of the first game I played. everyone but me was a half elf. Like damn it was a bore, some diversity is nice.


I played a "Lost Mine of Phandelver" game in which everyone was an Elf or a half-elf.

[Hypersmith]

I played a "Lost Mine of Phandelver" game in which everyone was an Elf or a half-elf.

Maybe it's the root cause of my aversion to being overly generic.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

Tieflings didn't first appear in 3e. They first appeared as a player race (and possibly first appeared ever) in Planescape in 2e, where—because of all the planar travel and with so many beings from various planes coexisting in Sigil—it would be a bit odd not to have an option for someone to have at least a bit of lower-planes ancestry.

I dunno how 3e did them, but in 2e their ancestry simply manifested in some odd physical characteristics (which used to be highly-variable and were rolled for on a set of tables) and maybe the odd extra ability depending on the roll. People in Sigil (and the rest of the planes) didn't really think twice about it, so there weren't any "mistrusted outcast" or "evil empire" connotations like the 4e/5e fluff.


In 3e they were in the first Monster Manual, but they still had variable demonic traits. Their actual mechanics were all the same, but they looked mostly human, save their horns or goat feet or whatever you decided to give them. Also, they got -2 cha, which makes it weird that now they get a bonus. I actually like the new look, especially when I first saw it in my brother's 4e player's handbook, but it is unfortunate you can't just play a guy who happens to have a demon ancestor and you can't tell just by looking at him. I've resolved that my first Tiefling in 5e will have zero angst, due to being raised in the woods.


2e Tieflings had a whole page of variant racial abilities and got a charisma bonus as a default (assuming that Succubus/Incubus was the simplest explanation for how a Tiefling was born, or something to that effect.) 3e changed that to a charisma penalty just because, and 4e actually went back to that interpretation but made up an elaborate conspiracy that tried to errata-genocide all the Tieflings that didn't look like red horned devil people. It's such a stupid revision for the settings where Tieflings were already established that I refuse to play with that lousy forced fluff in any way. Bad writing at its worst trips all over itself, which is why SCAG started to fix that with the variant Tiefling suggstions in there. There are enough evil empires in D&D without making writing for Tieflings (or Drow, et al.) continually worse at random.

Gods, this bugs me... what nobody seems to ever remember is that the tiefling racial variables? They weren't an original core trait!

Tiefling fluff stated that they could look like all kinds of creatures, yes. But in practice, the artwork always boiled down to some variation of "human with one or more of horns, tails or funny legs". The much-vaunted table of random tiefling features? Yeah, that didn't exist at first.

Tieflings first appeared as a PC race (alongside Githzerai and Bariaur) in the Planescape Player's Handbook, part of the Planescape Campaign Setting Boxed Set, published in 1994.

Variant tiefling abilities and a tiefling appearance generating table didn't appear until we go the Planewalker's Handbook in 1996 - as in two (bleep!) years later!

It absolutely incenses me how many people use this pathetic excuse about random appearances, something that wasn't anything more than an aside in the fluff for the first two years of the race's existence, and which was never and has never been anything more than character window dressing, to dump all over the 4e tiefling. Especially since Wizards explained why these tieflings are not the same as the old tieflings, and, guess what?

You can reskin them!

Seriously, point me towards an official 3e equivalent to the tiefling generation table, because I'm not aware of one. Variable appearance was always in the fluff, yes, but when, aside from that one splatbook, was it ever implement in the official game? Even the artwork stuck to a pretty standard formula! Even Alluvius Ruskin, the tiefling incantifier from Faces of Sigil, is basically "moon-faced old black-skinned woman with a funny tail and dinky little horns".

If I'm wrong, prove it: give me official 2e and 3e artwork, and show me a tiefling that doesn't boil down to "human with one or more of horns a tail, and/or funny legs". I admit I haven't read every single D&D book that was published from Basic to the end of 3.5, so I could well have missed some unique tiefling artwork somewhere.

And it's not as if 4e didn't try to bring back some of the variability for tieflings. We got three different "subraces" for tieflings in Dragon Magazine, from the Blood-Crowned Courtier (can turn into a rampaging fiend-like monster), to the Broken Mirror (cause bad luck in everyone around you), to the Blightseer (rot everything and everyone you look at). We could have gotten more, too.

All they did was say "you know what? Let's stop being hypocrites and actually admit we stick to an artwork formula that makes them marketable, and then let's embrace that to give this race a stronger core identity".

Don't pretend you lost something integral to the race with the edition shift, because you really, really didn't.

[Luccan]

Don't pretend you lost something integral to the race with the edition shift, because you really, really didn't.

Ok, while I agree that you can refluff it and I was going to point that out (didn't even think about it in my first post), you can refluff lots of stuff. That doesn't make it usable at every table, which may stick to pre-established lore from the books. Secondly, I actually like the new look, as I said in my post you quoted, and clearly don't feel like anything was really "lost" so much as I dislike that now all demon-blooded people are assumed to look a particular way that's very distinctive and obvious. I didn't even play 2e, I was just pointing out that they were still said to have variable looks in 3e.

[auric_gm]

.. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that doesn't render Being a Tiefling (as opposed to a Human or a Halfling or an Awakened Raccoon) entirely irrelevant.

Now I so wanna whip up an awakened Raccoon race. Ooh! Even better! An awakened Aardvark (infinitely fewer movie tie-ins)! Either would be vastly preferable to vanilla human. Stats aside, humans are thematically way less interesting than pretty much any other race ever.

[Elminster298]

Now I so wanna whip up an awakened Raccoon race. Ooh! Even better! An awakened Aardvark (infinitely fewer movie tie-ins)! Either would be vastly preferable to vanilla human. Stats aside, humans are thematically way less interesting than pretty much any other race ever.

An awakened raccoon can simply be refluffed from a rock gnome. Size, bonus to int, and artifice abilities all fit perfectly with the intended concept...

[CantigThimble]

Personally, I prefer simple and classic character races. I prefer to go for more nuanced RP and bringing an elephant into the room (like, 'I am good even though I totally look evil') feels like it just stomps all over that. As a result, I don't play Drow, Dragonborn or Tieflings.

[Steampunkette]

Gnomes. Hate 'em as a PC race.

Halflings. So tiny and annoying.

[NovenFromTheSun]

Few settings have sold me on dwarves.

[DonLouigi]

Elves. Dear gods, do I hate elves. It is simply because they are this better-at-everything in Tolkien. Dwarves are hardy and don't tire easily? Well elves don't need to sleep at all. Hobbits are light-footed? Well elves don't disturb the ground in any way. Dwarves are great smiths? Well they could never hod a candle to the Noldor masters. Elves are better at everything than everyone, and not a minute passes without it being shoved in our faces.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Point is: this ruined elves for me in every context where they are presented as remotely Tolkien. I actually like elves in dragon age, where they are portrayed very differently.

So that is why I will never play an elf or half elf, unless the presentation is really far from Tolkien.

Also I just find Tieflings weird. THe less I see of them, the better.

And don't get me wrong, I like the very generic Tolkien-like interpretations of dwarves and Stout halflings. Problem is not with Tolkien, but with elves.

[Corran]

(tieflings)
Now I want an official half-tiefling (with more disrete infernal traits)! And in all likelihood I will not get one...:smallfrown:
I hope you are proud for what you just did...

[OverdrivePrime]

Unless there's a good campaign reason for it, I almost always play either Humans (any) or Half-Elves, but I'll occasionally dabble in the shorter races like elves, dwarves or (under duress) halflings.

Things I won't play: monsters. Dragonborn, Tieflings, Gnomes, Hobgoblins, Lizardfolk and the rest all exist to provide XP and loot to adventurers. Playing them goes against the natural order of things. :smallamused:

[mephnick]

Oh yeah, I also don't like half-elves much. Too bad 5e made them the best race for a ton of characters. How would you like +4 stats (+2 being in a popular casting stat), extra skills, 3 languages AND most of the good elven stuff?

Oh? Everyone rolled a half-elf? Weird.

[UberN3wb]

I can't really ever see myself playing standard humans or halflings; they're just too bland. Whenever I come up with a concept that uses a halfling, I inevitably switch to a gnome because I can create a more unique/interesting angle on the character. I also don't play tieflings or drow, but that's because I don't like the "no really guys, I'm not actually evil" theme to them.

[Luccan]

I think I need to read the tiefling again. Are they generally evil, like drow, or is there just a general perception they're evil even though their alignment is fairly variable, like drow PCs? Because I'm not sure which one I dislike more. (Though this doesn't make me dislike tieflings either way)

[Hackulator]

I almost NEVER play Elves. Half Elves sometimes but Elves make me want to punch them in the face.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

I think I need to read the tiefling again. Are they generally evil, like drow, or is there just a general perception they're evil even though their alignment is fairly variable, like drow PCs? Because I'm not sure which one I dislike more. (Though this doesn't make me dislike tieflings either way)

Traditionally, tieflings are in much the same boat as half-orcs; there is a slight predilection towards neutral and evil alignments over good, but their actual status as "born evil" is predominantly a stereotype, and they most frequently turn evil because people assume they're evil and treat them badly regardless of them having done anything or not.

In 4th edition, they're usually not seen as being evil at all; the time of Bael Turath was long ago, so whilst there is some stigma to that ancestral association with devil-worship and black magic, it's mostly faded away. 4e tieflings are exotic, in much the way a gnome or an elf is exotic, but not seen as a bad person just for that.

[EmperorGricer]

I'm somewhat new to D&D, but there's not a lot of races I can't see myself playing. One race I don't think I will ever play is half-elf. I enjoy races that have an impact on gameplay, whether through roleplay or through mechanics. The only remotely interesting trait half-elves have is Fey Ancestry, which is both passive and situational (two things that, when put together, make a trait really boring to me), not to mention that is taken straight from full-elves. Adding onto that it is one of the only races to get an ability score increase total of +4, and it's a good race that everyone wants to play.

Other races I'm not too keen on playing are human (Standard human's traits are extremely boring, and even with the variant in play, why would I go to a fantasy RPG to play a human?), halfling (Traits are rather bland. And the lucky trait rather goes against the point of rolling a dice in the first place. Natural 1s can be fun for both the player and the DM), gnome (Much the same as halfling, except rock gnome also gets shoved into the role of tinkerer), kenku (I think they're a really cool concept, just not one I'd enjoy roleplaying for more than a couple sessions) and triton (I don't know what it is. I think their appearance really drives me away).

Another race I wouldn't really want to play is the orc from Volo's. The difference is that I would be perfectly happy playing one if I was just using the half-orc race, but calling it an orc. But as it is presented, the full-orc feels less like an orc than the half-orc.

[mr-mercer]

I don't harbour any dislike for them, but I don't think I'll ever play a hill dwarf, high elf, drow, lightfoot halfling, gnome or tiefling. I simply Don't Play Casters Or Sneaky-Boys for the most part, so they don't benefit me at all (wood elf is exempt because I came up with a fun idea for a wood elf barbarian one time, and I want to keep good old Aesir Moonsorrow).

I like the dragonborn a lot more than many here seem to, but agree that their vanilla designs are pretty hideous: luckily I tend to ignore that sort of thing, so to me dragonborn really do look like humanoid dragons rather than weird lizardy people. I also prefer to not play the vanilla human, but if I'm in a campaign where that's my only option I don't mind taking it.

My bottom line is this: if a race gives bonuses to strength then it's one I like, otherwise we'll just have to see if I think of something fun for them.

[ZorroGames]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you spot a grognard. :P

Do they still use that word in the core books? I don't recall seeing it since 2e.

Wear that badge proudly!

[Tanarii]

An awakened raccoon can simply be refluffed from a rock gnome. Size, bonus to int, and artifice abilities all fit perfectly with the intended concept...


Elves. Dear gods, do I hate elves. It is simply because they are this better-at-everything in Tolkien. Dwarves are hardy and don't tire easily? Well elves don't need to sleep at all. Hobbits are light-footed? Well elves don't disturb the ground in any way. Dwarves are great smiths? Well they could never hod a candle to the Noldor masters. Elves are better at everything than everyone, and not a minute passes without it being shoved in our faces.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Point is: this ruined elves for me in every context where they are presented as remotely Tolkien. I actually like elves in dragon age, where they are portrayed very differently.

So that is why I will never play an elf or half elf, unless the presentation is really far from Tolkien.Pratchett Elves might be more up your alley. High Elf might do it.

[MajorDefunction]

Dwarfs and any of the short races.

I agree with this.

[Potato_Priest]

I can't really ever see myself playing standard humans or halflings; they're just too bland. Whenever I come up with a concept that uses a halfling, I inevitably switch to a gnome because I can create a more unique/interesting angle on the character. I also don't play tieflings or drow, but that's because I don't like the "no really guys, I'm not actually evil" theme to them.

How does being a gnome help you create a more interesting theme?

[DracoKnight]

How does being a gnome help you create a more interesting theme?

Darkvision. I bet it's darkvision.

Anyway: out of the standard races, I'd never play a drow. My DMs are to back-and-forth about lighting for me to reliably count on the benefits or drawbacks presented by Sunlight Sensitivity. Kobolds get around this problem for me with Pack Tactics. If I wanted to play a Drow, I'll be a Half-Drow Variant from SCAG.

Out of the Volo's races: I'll never play an Orc, Bugbear, or Hobgoblin. I hate the fact that I'll likely have an 8 or 6 INT and never be able to fully realize playing an Orcish Wizard; and with the bugbear they...don't appeal to me aesthetically or in the lore. Hard Pass. Hobgoblins...what niche are they supposed to fill? They'd make good Wizards or EKs I guess...but that Saving Face (IIRC that's what it's called) ability? I don't get where the heck that came from. Is it an ability they have in their statblocks in the MM? I guess I just found myself let down with these.

[Tanarii]

How does being a gnome help you create a more interesting theme?
They enjoy life. That makes for a fun game experience. But most importantly, it irritates anyone trying to play an edgelord.
Plus they're smart and good at things.
Just so long as you don't go down the absent minded professor + genius tinkerer + annoying kender route.

5e Gnomes are awesome and everyone that panned them in this thread should feel bad. :smalltongue:

[Jackalias]

Dwarfs or gnomes, I'm 6'4 and I have a hard time getting into the mindset of being short.

[Potato_Priest]

They enjoy life. That makes for a fun game experience. But most importantly, it irritates anyone trying to play an edgelord.
Plus they're smart and good at things.
Just so long as you don't go down the absent minded professor + genius tinkerer + annoying kender route.


I think that being a homey halfling cook might annoy edgelords almost as much, particularly if you treated Mr. Drizz't Darkshadowdoom like a sulky child. The 2 wee races work well for different sorts of characters, but a gnome is not implicitly more interesting or fun.


Darkvision. I bet it's darkvision.


Don't halflings have that too?

[DracoKnight]

Don't halflings have that too?

Nope. The race that is cast as a Rogue in the legacy of D&D does not have darkvision in 5e. It annoys me to no end.

[90sMusic]

Dwarf. As much as I love the dwarves of Dwarf Fortress, the ones in D&D just aren't that cool IMO. And you're like a short person, but not quite short enough to be considered "small" which is also a little weird to me. So it's really just lore and thematic reasons I can't get into a dwarf character.

Halfling. No darkvision and + to dexterity are the biggest downsides. If they had a bonus to charisma instead or if they had nightvision, either one might be enough to be worth playing as a bard for example, but as they stand right now I just don't like them mechanically.

Human. Worst racials in the entire game. Variant is "ok", but a free feat isn't worth the loss in many of the racial abilities and better ability scores where you really want them. Also, again, no darkvision. Makes sneaking around difficult.

That is prettymuch it. I'd never play a gnome except as a wizard, but i'm more or less alright with playing most other things. Also feel like dragonborn should have darkvision, makes literally no sense that they don't.

[ghost_warlock]

Dwarf - I'd be too concerned about my fellow adventurers trying to cut me open to see if I'd swallowed any gems lately. We've done that with more dwarves than I can keep track during our campaigns.

Elf - No thanks. I have no interest in running around checking under kids' pillows for teeth. Bunch of weirdos. And who the heck funds that absurd operation, anyway?

[Maxilian]

Gnomes all gnomes. I just don't like the tinker mentality and the whole steampunk thing. It doesn't feel like it fits into the world for me. Also it helps that I've always hated playing wizards

I love the steampunk theme, but... i guess Warforged get into that niche (not standard sadly and right now nothing more than an UA)

-I would say from Standards, i'm not that much of a fan of Dwarves (i did created 1, died on the first day of the campaign), but i guess the race i dislike the most is Half-elf, is like... hey i want to be special like an Elf but at the same time act like a normal human!, what bother me most is that they are a pretty good race for optimization (so its like.... Half-elf is a good option for X class combo i want, but... ugh Half Elf), Drow elves, i really like them but have never got the chance to play one, mainly because of how they are seen by most people and how many people play them out.

[alchahest]

AD&D:
didn't like playing dwarves (no real reason I was just new to the whole thing and favored humans)

3.x:
didn't really like playing gnomes. really liked playing poison dusk lizardman and warforged

4E:
Didn't like elves, liked playing humans and goliaths

5E:
so far I just kinda don't like the Small races, really enjoyed High Elf and Goliath.

it might seem that I have a height bias, but, in 3.x poison dusk are the small sized lizardmen!!!

[Maxilian]

5E:
so far I just kinda don't like the Small races, really enjoyed High Elf and Goliath.

it might seem that I have a height bias, but, in 3.x poison dusk are the small sized lizardmen!!!

I love small races, mainly because that means that i can always be mounted -and almost anything can be my mount-, and even better.... that my mount can be a dog! (and they are not that expensive)

[Twizzly513]

Most races can be interesting in their own way, and while they might not seem interesting, I think an idea could definitely come to me for most things.

Except halflings. Why would I want to do that to myself. Not a lot of good roleplaying. You can either be a sneaky guy or you could be an anti-archetype. Halflings aren't my favorite for rogues and such, and I hate anti-archetypes because people think they're creative when they're not, and they're sacrificing being at effective (not something I'm necessarily opposed to, but it's the reason why: ) just so that they can feel like they're funny and clever. Halflings are supposed to be nice little creatures, which doesn't blend too well with stabby assassins. You can do it anyways but the way it's written puts you in a corner, requiring a suspension of disbelief about halflings if you choose to do it. And on top of it all they're just annoying. Hard pass.

[alchahest]

I disagree greatly about anti-archetypical characters. I Think that may just be a limitation you're seeing at your table. And I hope you can find better players who are able to pull off the concepts they want to pull off without making you feel like they're being uncreative.

5E levels out a lot of the power curve, so not getting a bonus immediately is less dire than in previous editions. though it is usually best to start with 16 in your main stat, being able to start with 15 in it, and have your secondary stats shored up / being more of an all-rounder is generally just as good. The only argument against it is one of min-maxing, and that's okay, it's another way to play. If that's the important part of your game, then that's cool, you're having fun and that's the important thing. 5E has done a lot to make it less necessary, though.

[Tanarii]

Except halflings. Why would I want to do that to myself. Not a lot of good roleplaying. You can either be a sneaky guy or you could be an anti-archetype. Halflings aren't my favorite for rogues and such, and I hate anti-archetypes because people think they're creative when they're not, and they're sacrificing being at effective (not something I'm necessarily opposed to, but it's the reason why: ) just so that they can feel like they're funny and clever. Halflings are supposed to be nice little creatures, which doesn't blend too well with stabby assassins. You can do it anyways but the way it's written puts you in a corner, requiring a suspension of disbelief about halflings if you choose to do it. And on top of it all they're just annoying. Hard pass.
Halflings are thematically appropriate as Fighters since D&D started. But also Bards and Rangers since they became 'gypsies' since 3e. I've always thought of them as thematically Monks too, probably because of the FR Hin Fist, but that's kinda campaign world specific.

For 5e background, some that really fit Halflings IMO: Sailor (especially river/barge folk), Guild Artisan (homebody Stout) or Guild Merchant variant (Lightfoot), Folk Hero.

As far as off-archetype / campaign specific Halfings go, my favorites are Viking Raider Halflings (from dungeonomics blog) and cannibal tribes Halfings (Dark Sun).

Edit: also, the 5e PHB has the quick start Background for Rogue as Charlatan, not Criminal. That fits Halflings (and many other races as Rogues) very well.

[Dudu]

I just love classic tolkien races. Elves are delving dangerously into the special snowflake territory, but I still play as one now and then, if anything because their mechanic is solid in 5.0.

Speaking of special snowflakes, half-elves, the most special snowflake there is. And yet, I'm ok with playing as one occasionally. Humans are still my favorite flavorwise but standard human is one the blandest things in the whole fifth edition.

About the topic, I don't like Dragonborn. My stance about dragons is that I love dragons, but loathe everything that is "dragonish" but isn't really a dragon. Dragonsteed, dragonborn, dragonfire adept. Sorcerers are ok, since it's more of a blood thing only. You don't have the face of a dragon and breath fire, which is just ridiculous. And some wings hanging behind, argh. But I do think there are some momments they could work, as a large race or something.

[alchahest]

Would someone be able to fill me in as to why people wanting to play auspicious characters is a bad thing? This wave of "Special Snowflake" derision is kind of baffling. aren't we all trying to play fantasy heroes here?

[Ninja-Radish]

Would someone be able to fill me in as to why people wanting to play auspicious characters is a bad thing? This wave of "Special Snowflake" derision is kind of baffling. aren't we all trying to play fantasy heroes here?

It's a grognard thing, they hate it when anyone besides themselves is having fun. They also hate anything that wasn't in Lord of the Rings.

[Kane0]

Aasimar. I've never been able to shake the feeling that they're the race version of stick-up-ass paladins.

Drow. Deep down I know i'm just not enough of a cunning bastard to play one properly, so I don't feel motivated to try.

Changeling/shifter. :smallfurious:

[CantigThimble]

Would someone be able to fill me in as to why people wanting to play auspicious characters is a bad thing? This wave of "Special Snowflake" derision is kind of baffling. aren't we all trying to play fantasy heroes here?

The issue people have with snowflakes is that the special-ness seems unearned. If my character is noticible then that ought to be because he did something noteworthy, not because his race or class make him inherently of note. When you get recognized or treated as important from the beginning that cheapens later achievements somewhat. I have no problem with playing races that weren't in the lord of the rings in settings built around those races being normal, but D&D still feels a lot like LotR with special new things stapled on. So starting out as 'normal' means not playing dragonborn and tieflings. Those are my feelings on the issue anyway.

[alchahest]

So the idea is that you can only do notable things as a non-notable character race (like humans)? Why not trust your players to play? If they're so bad that picking a race other than a narrow defined set of "non snowflake" races would render them incapable of roleplaying, why play with them?

[Tanarii]

So the idea is that you can only do notable things as a non-notable character race (like humans)? Why not trust your players to play? If they're so bad that picking a race other than a narrow defined set of "non snowflake" races would render them incapable of roleplaying, why play with them?The idea is that your specialness should happen in play. Not in your backstory.

A player can make any character a special snowflake with any race. But certain races, and to a lesser degree classes, have a large amount of backstory specialness built right into them. Which is why Tieflings and Dragonborn irritate me. There's a line. IMO Elves as just shy of that line, but those two races crossed at a dead sprint and never looked back.

They're an immediate red flag, the same as Special Snowflake players wanting to play monster races (Orc, Kobold, Lizardman) in a non-monster campaign. Which makes Volo's official Red Flag material. Thanks WoTC!

Edit: obviously take all this with a grain of salt. It's partly tongue in cheek, as in its kinda how I feel but I know it's silly.

Btw one thing that I've noticed tends to make what race/class becomes 'special snowflake' is what was official when we grow up with it vs new in a later edition. For example, to many oD&D grognards when I was a child, Drow, Half-orcs, Gnomes, Bards, Barbarians and Cavaliers were all Special Snowflake races and Classes. Now the 'new' content to me that triggers Special Snowflake red flags is Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warlocks and Sorcerers.

[mr-mercer]

In my book, you only really have a Special Snowflake problem when the player refuses to play a character that isn't homebrew (and even then it isn't a problem if they're going for races that aren't really out there). I have less of a problem with drow than I do with someone trying to get away with playing a bloodwolf angel or something.

[Maxilian]

The issue people have with snowflakes is that the special-ness seems unearned. If my character is noticible then that ought to be because he did something noteworthy, not because his race or class make him inherently of note. When you get recognized or treated as important from the beginning that cheapens later achievements somewhat. I have no problem with playing races that weren't in the lord of the rings in settings built around those races being normal, but D&D still feels a lot like LotR with special new things stapled on. So starting out as 'normal' means not playing dragonborn and tieflings. Those are my feelings on the issue anyway.

I have always been fan of being the "monster" or the weird thing in the group (reason why i really like the monstrous races in Volos), IMHO those characters are treated differently because of what they are, but not as a hero xD (and if you do something noteworthy in the future, you may be treated as a hero -or villain depending what you do)

[alchahest]

The idea is that your specialness should happen in play. Not in your backstory.

A player can make any character a special snowflake with any race. But certain races, and to a lesser degree classes, have a large amount of backstory specialness built right into them. Which is why Tieflings and Dragonborn irritate me. There's a line. IMO Elves as just shy of that line, but those two races crossed at a dead sprint and never looked back.

They're an immediate red flag, the same as Special Snowflake players wanting to play monster races (Orc, Kobold, Lizardman) in a non-monster campaign. Which makes Volo's official Red Flag material. Thanks WoTC!

Edit: obviously take all this with a grain of salt. It's partly tongue in cheek, as in its kinda how I feel but I know it's silly.

Btw one thing that I've noticed tends to make what race/class becomes 'special snowflake' is what was official when we grow up with it vs new in a later edition. For example, to many oD&D grognards when I was a child, Drow, Half-orcs, Gnomes, Bards, Barbarians and Cavaliers were all Special Snowflake races and Classes. Now the 'new' content to me that triggers Special Snowflake red flags is Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warlocks and Sorcerers.


I'm still not understanding - you're saying members of those races and classes are all by default poor at creating experiences because they have backgrounds that are challenging or interesting? And isn't the strangeness/normalness of your character's background entirely dependant on the DM anyways? like let's say you have a disruptive player (the only time I could see "snowflake" be a problem) who wants to specifically play something to be seen as weird, like a tiefling sorcorer. Tell them "yeah tieflings are very common and have been for four centuries now, and they are commonly warlocks, due to their cultural bias towards proper and accurate contracts". So not only is the character now normal, but also provides you with story fodder. Or I guess berate players for not playing human fighters?

Also I grew up playing AD&D, and each new edition or supplement with new exciting ways to experience fantasy role playing have only added to my enjoyment and wonder. I'd say that probably 40% of the characters I've played have been human, with a fairly even spread each edition among most (Though I haven't really played many gnomes). Some have had dirt farmer non-snowflake histories, some have had crazy infighting noble house histories, others have failed at being x and are barely surviving at being y, others have been diplomats, or storied entertainers, or nebbish bookworms - to say that having an interesting background takes away from the ability to play an interesting character seems very bizarre to me.

[coolAlias]

For me, my problem with "special snowflake" characters is one of expectation. If a player rolls up with a Kobold Warlock or Drow Ranger in a bog standard campaign setting, that's a big flashing sign saying "I want my character to be different from everyone else's and I expect it to come up in play."

Well, sorry, but as DM I don't want to deal with that. I don't want to spend my time coming up with special NPC reactions every single game because you want to play a non-standard race that sticks out like a sore thumb. And if you don't want your character to stick out and don't want your race (or whatever special background you've come up with - doesn't have to be race) to have a major influence on your interactions with the world... then why did you pick what you did?

If Drow or Kobolds or whatever are a major race in the game setting, however, go nuts - no problems there. If we're playing an all-monster game and you roll up with a human, guess what? Same problem. It's a matter of context.

[alchahest]

Maybe a player wants to be different because it can be fun to have party dynamics that aren't all the same? Or maybe they have hit on a character concept they find interesting and want to explore? As a DM I encourage people to come up with interesting backgrounds, it helps me write them into the story at large, and provides role play and adventure hooks that a mark one mod zero no frills dirt farmer might not have. Though even that is something I can hook into - Why should I care about a dirt farm? What is special about you or your family's dirt farm that makes it worth mentioning?

If there's nothing outstanding in a background, then there's nothing to work with and your character might as well be an early final fantasy protagonist.

Your personality is based on all of the various things you've done, seen, and learned with through your life up to this point, and a large part of that is informed by your upbringing and culture, and yes, your race. That by no means requires you to play a stereotypical member of your character's culture, as we all know, stereotypes are very, very rarely indicative of any given individual, in the real world, and in fantasy characters (I Say characters specifically, as stereotypes certainly exist for non-characters, like a monster stat block in a MM.)

Don't fall into the uncreative trap that a player choosing a "snowflake" race, class, or background is doing so to make your life hard or boring, or somehow saps away opportunity for character growth. let it feed your narrative, let it cultivate new and interesting ways to shape your story. I get it if you just want to roll dice without having deep meaningful character interactions, and if that's the case, then just do away with races entirely and just have people select a stat block and go fight other stat blocks.

[CantigThimble]

So the idea is that you can only do notable things as a non-notable character race (like humans)? Why not trust your players to play? If they're so bad that picking a race other than a narrow defined set of "non snowflake" races would render them incapable of roleplaying, why play with them?

You are wildly extrapolating from what I actually said. This thread is called 'Standard races you have no desire to play' not 'Races you ban when you're DMing because you hate your players'. When I DM I don't ban any races.

I don't have much of a problem with people using interesting backstories (there are limits, your character didn't kill 8 dragons when they were six). The problem is when people SUBSTITUTE a race for a backstory. Eg. "I'm a good drow so I must be interesting" and then just go edgelord it up without playing an actually interesting character.

As for "Why would you play with imperfect roleplayers?", because they're my friends and they have time every other saturday. Unlike the mythical perfect players that theoretically exist somewhere.

[Maxilian]

For me, my problem with "special snowflake" characters is one of expectation. If a player rolls up with a Kobold Warlock or Drow Ranger in a bog standard campaign setting, that's a big flashing sign saying "I want my character to be different from everyone else's and I expect it to come up in play."

Well, sorry, but as DM I don't want to deal with that. I don't want to spend my time coming up with special NPC reactions every single game because you want to play a non-standard race that sticks out like a sore thumb. And if you don't want your character to stick out and don't want your race (or whatever special background you've come up with - doesn't have to be race) to have a major influence on your interactions with the world... then why did you pick what you did?

If Drow or Kobolds or whatever are a major race in the game setting, however, go nuts - no problems there. If we're playing an all-monster game and you roll up with a human, guess what? Same problem. It's a matter of context.

That's kinda sad, that kind of means that noone in your party ever is special in any way (until they go and kill the dragon, and that can still be debated-, Warlock do not interact with their patrons, the pcs are not recognized by any NPC (maybe because of their race, or maybe because of their background -Hey, a noble guy from X family-.

IMHO "special snowflakes" are troublesome when they don't go well with the group (and that's kinda fixed in a session 0 -but that's also irrelevant of the race, some PCs may be the most common type of character, and be more annoying than anything else -Looking at you Rogue that wants to steal everything!-)

[alchahest]

You are wildly extrapolating from what I actually said. This thread is called 'Standard races you have no desire to play' not 'Races you ban when you're DMing because you hate your players'. When I DM I don't ban any races.

I don't have much of a problem with people using interesting backstories (there are limits, your character didn't kill 8 dragons when they were six). The problem is when people SUBSTITUTE a race for a backstory. Eg. "I'm a good drow so I must be interesting" and then just go edgelord it up without playing an actually interesting character.

As for "Why would you play with imperfect roleplayers?", because they're my friends and they have time every other saturday. Unlike the mythical perfect players that theoretically exist somewhere.

it's not "why would you play with imperfect roleplayers" it's "why play this game with people you don't trust to make an enjoyable experience with."

And as for the name of the thread, I absolutely agree, there's races I don't like to play. but the conversation shifted to a concept of bad roleplaying being a result of certain races, and that I disagree with.

[CantigThimble]

it's not "why would you play with imperfect roleplayers" it's "why play this game with people you don't trust to make an enjoyable experience with."

And as for the name of the thread, I absolutely agree, there's races I don't like to play. but the conversation shifted to a concept of bad roleplaying being a result of certain races, and that I disagree with.

I never tried to shift the conversation in that direction. I was explaining why I have no desire to play 'special snowflake' races.

And my fellow players are imperfect. So am I. Sometimes we screw up and the game isn't enjoyable. Negotiating and setting limits helps to avoid that and to do better in the future. That's how trust works.

[coolAlias]

Maybe a player wants to be different because it can be fun to have party dynamics that aren't all the same?

You can have varied party dynamics even with a party consisting of a single race and every character having the same background, heck even the same class. The all human soldier party that are all fighters still has plenty of room for individual personalities and varied party dynamics. Pinning that all on choice of race seems... well, racist. :P

Don't fall into the uncreative trap that a player choosing a "snowflake" race, class, or background is doing so to make your life hard or boring, or somehow saps away opportunity for character growth. let it feed your narrative, let it cultivate new and interesting ways to shape your story. I get it if you just want to roll dice without having deep meaningful character interactions, and if that's the case, then just do away with races entirely and just have people select a stat block and go fight other stat blocks.
I don't see how asking a player to fit their character concept to the campaign setting is depriving the game of meaningful character interactions, nor how having a specific theme in mind for a game somehow implies that all I care about is rolling dice.

But like I said, it's a matter of context. Sometimes an anything goes game is great and figuring out how such a mish-mash of misfits got together and how they get along in the world is fun; other times, I'd rather spend our precious table time on focused on other things, in which case having that Dragonborn along when they don't otherwise have any substantial presence in that particular setting just feels weird.

That said, if a player comes to me with a character concept and is excited about it, I will work it into the game. My beef is with players that just choose {special race in game setting} and expect to be special because of it.

[Dudu]

So the idea is that you can only do notable things as a non-notable character race (like humans)? Why not trust your players to play? If they're so bad that picking a race other than a narrow defined set of "non snowflake" races would render them incapable of roleplaying, why play with them?

Not quite. I think you are misinterpreting what a "special snowflake" is.

For one, there are multiple ways for a character to be notable. Maybe the char is fun, brash, outright baddass, unpredictable. But being a snowflake is like being the "chosen one", you know? Is that guy with a green spiky hair in the middle of others. That char is edgy, he rolls eyes when others state their inferior opinion. He almost certainly has a dark and mysterious past. He believes the spotlight belongs to him.

Yeah, that kind of character sucks. Hard. It's already annoying in a story like a movie or a book, but it's much worse in a table, when the players wants to pretend his character is more special than the others.

Now, about the race, the race itself might not BE the special snowflake, but is very likely to breed one. Drows and half-elves usually are chosen for their special snowflake potential. I still refer to those races as "special snowflakes", even if I played as half-elf.

The reason I like humans is because they don't have those silly pointy ears and don't have some aryan belief that their race is of some superior lineage like most high elves. There are thousands of ways to make your char interesting, afterall. And love dwarves, they are classic and also lack the pointy ears which is a win in my book. I tolerate wood elves and even high elves a bit, even though the later annoy me slightly. Halflings are cool too, and gnomes can be interesting. Tiefling might be good pending on the campaign, the setting, et cetera.

[Sigreid]

Would someone be able to fill me in as to why people wanting to play auspicious characters is a bad thing? This wave of "Special Snowflake" derision is kind of baffling. aren't we all trying to play fantasy heroes here?

IMO it's because there's a percentage of players that use it as a really lazy way of trying to be an interesting character. It's not all of them, or even most, but it's enough to create a bad stereo type.

[poolio]

I'll try just about ever race, i like trying to come up with unconventional race/class combos (half-orc life cleric) i also like trying out preferred race/class combos (mountain dwarf barbarian) my only exceptions are the Tiefling and the aassimar, they both just scream "look how cool and unique i am!" They are the most try-hard edge lord races, pretty for teens with deviantart pages loaded with fanfic OCs (do not steal) and i can't think of anything that wouldn't feel like I'm trying to hard to stand out.

[Telwar]

Never cared for half-orcs. I was so thrilled in 3e when suddenly goliaths showed up and you could have a strong, NOT DUMB race. (Sure, the psychic handbook half-giants came around too, but the goliaths got purchase)

So far in this edition, I've played a mountain dwarf, a trollkin (in our DM's attempt at homebrewing IK before he got thoroughly sick of 5e), a hill dwarf, and a high elf. The high elf was almost going to be a gnome, but the low foot speed kind of killed gnome for me. That needs to die. (...and yet it's better than 3e...)

[Dudu]

Half-orcs aren't exactly my cup of tea, but at least in this edition they are not necessarily dumb. You can play a perfectly viable Int 12 or 14 half-orc fighter, for example.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I tend to play a lot of human in previous additions, but in 5e I branched out a lot more than usual. I wouldn't say I would play every race, but pretty much. The only race I for some reason never find a reason to at least make a build with is halfling. I use Dragonborn and Gnome (last character I played was a Master Yado forest Gnome Soulknife) more than I would use halfling. I don't have a problem with the race in particular other than maybe, it's a very ... uninteresting small race. If I'm going small I'm going all the way small.

Favorite races are probably Tiefling, Eladrin, Hobgoblins, and Lizardfolk in no particular order.

Also I'm of the mindset that special snowflake happens if there aren't session 0s to explain the setting and appropriate races/backgrounds/classes. When you go against the setting to just be different and (important) it's drawing more attention than the campaign should give to it, is when you are a problem.

[ZorroGames]

Maybe because I am still new to 5th Edition from years away but there are some races I really never see myself playing.

Duergar Dwarf, Drow Elf, (any) Halfling, Dragonborn, and Tiefling. Reading about those races either disinterests me or seems unappealing. Some cases I understand why, others not so much, I would not prefer to play them. No problem with them being played in the game, just not by me.

Leaving aside the "why" are there any standard races that you never envision youself wanting to play?

Just a comment to try and get this thread back on track - this was not based on "special snowflake" (another subject, entirely player based IMO,) but for me these races do not appeal to me leaving the psychoanalytic "why" out of the equation as much as possible.

[Tanarii]

Half-orcs aren't exactly my cup of tea, but at least in this edition they are not necessarily dumb. You can play a perfectly viable Int 12 or 14 half-orc fighter, for example.
Not to mention that you need to roll stats to have a really bomb dumb character. Lowest Int you can have with rolled stats or point buy is Int 8, which is basically average intelligence.

Of course, some TRPG players consider themselves quite the intelligent people, so even average is 'dumb' to them.

[Yagyujubei]

tiefling and dragonborn don't really interest me. Honestly im almost always elf human or half elf....I think I've played a race other than those maybe 2 or 3 times ever

[Ninja-Radish]

The way 5E races are designed infuriates me because there's no consistency to it. Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves are the "master race" with more bonuses and better racial abilities than anyone else. Meanwhile you have the poor Dragonborn; just terrible in every possible way.

I hate all races that look human, but most of the monstrous races are just awful mechanically, so I end up having no choice but to play the bog standard Tolkien retreads. That's one reason why I usually choose to DM instead: I find not dealing with the restrictive nature of 5E character creation very liberating.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

The way 5E races are designed infuriates me because there's no consistency to it. Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves are the "master race" with more bonuses and better racial abilities than anyone else. Meanwhile you have the poor Dragonborn; just terrible in every possible way.

I hate all races that look human, but most of the monstrous races are just awful mechanically, so I end up having no choice but to play the bog standard Tolkien retreads. That's one reason why I usually choose to DM instead: I find not dealing with the restrictive nature of 5E character creation very liberating.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that first paragraph.

As for the second... well, I don't necessarily hate demihuman races, but I always love monstrous races because they provide so many more ingredients for designing homebrew settings and campaigns. I don't EVER want to run Greyhawk/Faerun and its damn neo-Medieval Europe *** pseudo-Tolkien schtick.

[Maxilian]

The way 5E races are designed infuriates me because there's no consistency to it. Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves are the "master race" with more bonuses and better racial abilities than anyone else. Meanwhile you have the poor Dragonborn; just terrible in every possible way.

I hate all races that look human, but most of the monstrous races are just awful mechanically, so I end up having no choice but to play the bog standard Tolkien retreads. That's one reason why I usually choose to DM instead: I find not dealing with the restrictive nature of 5E character creation very liberating.

Why not reflavor some of the more common races into something that would be more to your liking?

-Gnome / Halfing into a Kobold or Goblin

[Telwar]

Half-orcs aren't exactly my cup of tea, but at least in this edition they are not necessarily dumb. You can play a perfectly viable Int 12 or 14 half-orc fighter, for example.

Oh, of course. But they have that whole rep of "hurr, durr, I've got an Int penalty because Str is so much more useful to everyone so we have to have two penalties to make up for it because we sure know how much stats are worth" from 3e.

[Jophiel]

I started with the red box D&D set and 1st ed AD&D stuff so I have a soft spot for the core races. Dragonborn and Tiefling remind me too much of every player who wanted to be half-something and have the game revolve around how awesome they are because they have [whatever] blood. Half-elf or -orc don't bother me because there's nothing super exciting about orcs or elves so those don't get played the same way.

I dislike what gnomes have become since Krynn with the tinkering nonsense and lol-clockwork/steamwork stuff. Dwarves don't especially interest me but there's nothing I dislike about them either. I guess I feel pigeonholed with the faux-scottish axe & ale slinging stereotype. I actually like Halflings best of the small races.

[ZorroGames]

I started with the red box D&D set and 1st ed AD&D stuff so I have a soft spot for the core races. Dragonborn and Tiefling remind me too much of every player who wanted to be half-something and have the game revolve around how awesome they are because they have [whatever] blood. Half-elf or -orc don't bother me because there's nothing super exciting about orcs or elves so those don't get played the same way.

I dislike what gnomes have become since Krynn with the tinkering nonsense and lol-clockwork/steamwork stuff. Dwarves don't especially interest me but there's nothing I dislike about them either. I guess I feel pigeonholed with the faux-scottish axe & ale slinging stereotype. I actually like Halflings best of the small races.

I love Dwarf PCs but no accents at all for me, especially not Scots! Next people will want them in kilts!?!

My best AD&D Dwarf was a Ghetto Fighter with a short mace and a sling (and an attitude) from a conquered Human/Dwarf populated city controlled by Fascist/Racist Grey Elves. The 1950s/1960s protests lived in that near unlikeable SOB!

All my characters speak in my voice, "SoCal 1960s English." I can role play (though not an actor like my friends) but not that Scots Dwarf stereotype, thank you!

Halflings seem to raise images of a British accented bumpkin to me and my anglophobic upbringing might be part of why I never play Halflings.

Weird why we like or dislike fantasy races, isn't it?

Yeah Kenders give Gnomes a bad reputation by association. Well Dragonlance in general did that for/to Gnomes.