Races you like with bad mechanics.

[The Jack]

Rant and rave about the races you really like the idea of, but are let down by their stat block

1. Hobgoblins.
From my every reading of hobgoblin lore, hobgoblins should be rather like dwarves in stat block. A hardy society where military campaigning is more than half of life and there's very few you'd call civilians, and the abundance of carpenters has something to do with sieges. Something like the dwarves makes sense (increase speed, remove poison resistance and obviously stone sense. Change the bonus weapons to weapons the priests teach to all the young...)

What Volo gave us was a pigeonholed wizard race. This of course makes no sense, because the majority of hobgoblins ain't mages. I understand that the devestator is cool and all, but if He's in a supplement book rather than the main monster manual, he's not what should be selling. Most hobgoblins are fighty, and most of the features of this race are redundant with fighters.

2. Githyanki
They're really, really cool, and the free mage hand is tight, but they don't belong with any class.
No class that asks for strength is going to not have medium armour
Eldrictch knight is a very specific vocation and not jedi enough.

[the_brazenburn]

Dragonborn. Just suboptimal in general, especially since their main feature is a breath weapon with extremely limited usage and poor leveling.

[JeenLeen]

Dragonborn. Just suboptimal in general, especially since their main feature is a breath weapon with extremely limited usage and poor leveling.

I second Dragonborn. While I like their stat modifiers for classes like Paladin, and the flavour could work cool for a Paladin of Bahamut, their racial features all kinda stink. At least give 'em Darkvision.

Other than them, I like most of the races in the PHB. Some seem pretty niche or limited in how much I'd like them (particularly Gnome), but I can see each being mechanically sound.
It does bug me a bit that the dwarf proficiencies with weapon and armor are probably not useful to most classes that would mesh well with dwarf, since the character likely gets the proficiency from their class. But it does make for the possibility of a cool armored dwarf wizard.

[Zanthy1]

Agree with Dragonbotn, Gith and Hobgoblins.

Would also add Orc, because they so much worse than a half-orc, and All warforged aside from teh sentry, because there is not real reason to play them when the sentry is an option (they need stronger options to balance with sentry)

[hymer]

I agree with you on the hobgoblins. The prideful reroll makes sense mechanically, but even so I don't like it. It's like the hogboblin works best when s/he's embarrassed. I'd prefer abilities that support a cooperative, disciplined society's warriors and scouts.

[Sigreid]

Orc and kobold. It annoys me that they set the standard of no negative modifiers and the broke it for those 2 races for no good reason.

[NaughtyTiger]

I do think it's funny that a +1 in INT means you have to be a wizard.

Heaven forbid you have an intelligent fighter.

[Hypno]

I do think it's funny that a +1 in INT means you have to be a wizard.

Heaven forbid you have an intelligent fighter.

Generals and leaders don't have to be smart! Whoever heard of someone skilled at tactics being smart?

Agree about dragonborn most of all. I enjoy the idea behind them, the fluff, but they feel so lacking. Even just darkvision would make them feel a lot better, but I'd still be iffy on their breath weapon.

[Willie the Duck]

1. Hobgoblins.
From my every reading of hobgoblin lore, hobgoblins should be rather like dwarves in stat block. A hardy society where military campaigning is more than half of life and there's very few you'd call civilians, and the abundance of carpenters has something to do with sieges. Something like the dwarves makes sense (increase speed, remove poison resistance and obviously stone sense. Change the bonus weapons to weapons the priests teach to all the young...)
What Volo gave us was a pigeonholed wizard race. This of course makes no sense, because the majority of hobgoblins ain't mages.

In general, I dislike the races that give you benefits which encourage you to play them as anything except what they are traditionally known as. Goblins are thieving little bastards? Give them an ability which is (mostly) redundant for no one except rogues. Hobgoblins are sneaky-stealthy warriors who almost always will take at least some levels in fighter or rogue? Make sure to give them light armor proficiency. Mountain dwarves work somewhat in that the point is that either the +2 Strength and weapon proficiencies or the medium armor proficiency is going to be somewhat redundant, and thus they could give them a little more in terms of benefit. The same doesn't really happen for these other races--it just encourages you to play them against type.


I agree with you on the hobgoblins. The prideful reroll makes sense mechanically, but even so I don't like it. It's like the hogboblin works best when s/he's embarrassed. I'd prefer abilities that support a cooperative, disciplined society's warriors and scouts.

Hobgoblins in general I feel like they didn't really know what they wanted. Hobgoblins are kind of the 'strictly better' goblin types -- they are vaguely braver, smarter, stronger, stealthier, strategic, cooperative... goblins. So what specifically do you focus on?

[iTreeby]

Lizard folk are awesome because they get so many lovely ribbons. but their racial abilities have counter synergy

[DarkKnightJin]

Orc and kobold. It annoys me that they set the standard of no negative modifiers and the broke it for those 2 races for no good reason.

I 1000% agree with this. At least the Orc has the usual +2/+1 as well. Kobold is just straight up boned in that department. And kinda pigeonholed into a Rogue-y or ranged kind of character.

I get it, they're tiny little critters. So are Halflings and Gnomes. You didn't take a steaming, Dragonborn-sized dump on them either.

Speaking of Dragonborn: I vote we roll the Dragon Hide racial feat (+1 on a per-DM basis) into baseline Dragonborn, and have something approaching worth it besides just 'cool factor'.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Lizardfolk bug me a little bit, with their contradicting main features-- it's really hard to make use of both their natural armor and their bite attack.

[NecroDancer]

Lizardfolk aren’t a bad race in my opinion (pretty balanced in my opinion) but they suffer from way to many abilities. They desperately need to be streamlined, remove some of the many ribbon abilities should balance the race enough to change the bite attack to dexterity.

[Mr.Spastic]

I always found that non-variant humans seemed a bit underwhelming. The ability score increase can be great but they just get trounced by variant humans. I like in the event that you are rolling for stats and come up with all odd stats. "Woah, 17, 15,15,15 9,9" that's when I like plain humans.

[Theodoric]

I think the Hobgoblin's problem isn't really how it exists as a race by itself (though obviously the weapon training is a bit superfluous), but in the limited utility of Intelligence as a stat outside of very specific spellcasting (sub)classes. If there had been a non-magical Str/Int class, like the 4e Warlord, Hobgoblin would be a great option.

Here's hoping WOTC finally makes an Int-oriented Warlord, or at least a fighter subclass to that effect. Or a dedicated Swordmage arcane half-caster that uses Str and Int, that'd give Githyanki a place, too.

[hymer]

I do think it's funny that a +1 in INT means you have to be a wizard.

Heaven forbid you have an intelligent fighter.

There's more that make hobgoblin racials point to wizards than those stat boosts (though con is clearly good for anyone). The weapon proficiencies are best for those who have no martial weapons from their class (and useless to most melee). The light armour proficency also point to a really casty caster (and again, not to any warrior type class). And Saving Face is good for most people, but for those whose Concentration saves can make or break an encounter, they can really use it.

[stoutstien]

Lizardfolk aren’t a bad race in my opinion (pretty balanced in my opinion) but they suffer from way to many abilities. They desperately need to be streamlined, remove some of the many ribbon abilities should balance the race enough to change the bite attack to dexterity.

Agreed, Lizardfolk suffer from having way too many features. I removed the ba bite and made the unarmored feature to work off CON. I like my lizard folks more Gorn like.

Dragonborn breath attack needs to recharge more often and make it a bonus action.

Yuan time magic resistance is same as gnome.

[strangebloke]

In general, I dislike the races that give you benefits which encourage you to play them as anything except what they are traditionally known as. Goblins are thieving little bastards? Give them an ability which is (mostly) redundant for no one except rogues. Hobgoblins are sneaky-stealthy warriors who almost always will take at least some levels in fighter or rogue? Make sure to give them light armor proficiency. Mountain dwarves work somewhat in that the point is that either the +2 Strength and weapon proficiencies or the medium armor proficiency is going to be somewhat redundant, and thus they could give them a little more in terms of benefit. The same doesn't really happen for these other races--it just encourages you to play them against type.


Nailed it. This is actually one thing that I really like about dragonborn. They shore up standard paladin weaknesses.

Their problem is that they're not really good at anything else. I think some weapons proficiencies or maybe even half of the elemental adept feat would make them a more common sorcerer choice, and that'd be a good thing.

[Willie the Duck]

Another addition: Minotaurs. They aren't actually weak, and I like the idea of using their otherwise potentially unused reaction or bonus action actions to push people, but it seems like you have to have a level of barbarian or rogue or I suppose bard (since they can't take prodigy) to give them a reasonable chance of success on an already only situationally useful ability.

[Sigreid]

Nailed it. This is actually one thing that I really like about dragonborn. They shore up standard paladin weaknesses.

Their problem is that they're not really good at anything else. I think some weapons proficiencies or maybe even half of the elemental adept feat would make them a more common sorcerer choice, and that'd be a good thing.

If there were a feat to give dragonborn a recharge on their breath weapon I would consider that fair and good.

[Dudewithknives]

I think the main issue I have with many race is that they have only either plain vision or darkvision, yet 3 levels of light.

If they had just made:

Bright light, low light, darkness
Vision of Normal, low light, and darkvision.

Normal can see in normal fine but disadvantage in lowlight
lowlight can see in low and normal with no negs but disadvantage in darkness
Darkvision can see in all 3 with no negs.

With it as it is you have odd things like:
Elves and dwarves having the same vision
Half elves have darkvision for some reason.
Dragonborn only have normal?
Lizardfolk only have normal?

I just house rulled in lowlight vision to make everything make sense.

Other than that only a few things stand out:

Half Elves get +2 cha, 2 skills, and a +1 to 2 other stats, and darkvision, and other stuff... that is crazy.

Too many races get +2 str, +1 con.

Personally as a player, I put a lot of weight in the idea of vision modes.

Kind of sucks to be the only person in the Underdark without darkvision.

Our DM told the 5 of us to make characters and show up for a new campaign.
All he said was make level 1 characters who are built for survival.
We had a lizardfolk druid in the party, as the only person without darkvision... in Out of the Abyss.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I agree very strongly with Willie the Duck, some of the Volo/Mordenkainen races in particular are just very bad at being what they're supposed to be. Goblins, hobgoblins, and githzerai are the worst offenders, I feel.

I usually think of rock gnomes as being 'fine', but their tinkering is too subdued to have enough of an impact, given that this is the only real thing they have over forest gnomes, who also get a debatably better stat and a laundry list of more useful features. Given the choice, I see my players picking forest every time. Even for tinkers. I've never actually seen a rock gnome in play.

[GlenSmash!]

Hmm.

Non-variant human. I don't even care about the feat, but I hate not getting the Skill and Language Profs.

Dragonborn for all the reasons stated.

I've never tried the monstrous races.

[Finger6842]

Changeling, other than shapechanging, has very little to offer but that 1 skill is incredibly useful.

[Ganymede]

In general, I dislike the races that give you benefits which encourage you to play them as anything except what they are traditionally known as. Goblins are thieving little bastards? Give them an ability which is (mostly) redundant for no one except rogues. Hobgoblins are sneaky-stealthy warriors who almost always will take at least some levels in fighter or rogue?

That's why my goblin character is a wizard who is also heavily invested in being roguish without any rogue levels: high Dex and stealth, sleight of hand, and thief's tools proficiency.

[Unoriginal]

In general, I dislike the races that give you benefits which encourage you to play them as anything except what they are traditionally known as. Goblins are thieving little bastards? Give them an ability which is (mostly) redundant for no one except rogues. Hobgoblins are sneaky-stealthy warriors who almost always will take at least some levels in fighter or rogue? Make sure to give them light armor proficiency.

So what you're saying is that the races shouldn't be good at what they're said to be good at, because otherwise it's redundant with the classes?

Does it mean you're against elves being proficient with longbows? Or forest gnomes having illusions?



Hobgoblins in general I feel like they didn't really know what they wanted. Hobgoblins are kind of the 'strictly better' goblin types -- they are vaguely braver, smarter, stronger, stealthier, strategic, cooperative... goblins. So what specifically do you focus on?

Hobgoblins aren't particularly stealthy in general. That's more a Bugbear thing.

[GlenSmash!]

Oh I forgot about Eberron.

I love Shifters. I love everything about them but the mechanics. It bothers me that all flavors of Shifter get a Dex bonus even once themed on Bears and Boars (I think Wisdom bonus would be much more appropriate for something that covers all the animal types) and that Beasthide shifters don't get a strength bonus despite being themed on two of the strongest lycanthropes.

I also dislike that I can't Shift and Rage turn.

Still I love Shifters, and would still play them.

[LudicSavant]

Orcs. :smallfrown:

[Amdy_vill]

Orcs both feel to similar and generic. these are orc they should feel like giant uncontrollable monsters but instead they feel like elf sub races. both have cool ideas but no fallow through.

[Willie the Duck]

So what you're saying is that the races shouldn't be good at what they're said to be good at, because otherwise it's redundant with the classes? Does it mean you're against elves being proficient with longbows? Or forest gnomes having illusions?

No, but it would be nice if they found options that are not made redundant. There are a huge number of things they could have done for goblins and hobgoblins in particular that would have not made playing to type the least likely choice.

As to elves, boy, if you quizzed 4 D&D-ers on the subject, you'd get at least 6 mutually incompatible opinions on what class is elves playing to type. Elven wizards at least have been the official line on the subject at least once, and longbow proficiency benefits that role (caveat, excepting for ubiquitous combat cantrips being better at many-to-most levels, which is another knot to untangle). I'm not sure how forest gnomes having illusions is redundant. If they happen to pick illusionist or bard as their class, the don't actually lose this ability, nor is an identical copy (with no stacking) placed over it, as light armor proficiency is for hobgoblins.


Hobgoblins aren't particularly stealthy in general. That's more a Bugbear thing.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm

[Unoriginal]

No, but it would be nice if they found options that are not made redundant. There are a huge number of things they could have done for goblins and hobgoblins in particular that would have not made playing to type the least likely choice.

As to elves, boy, if you quizzed 4 D&D-ers on the subject, you'd get at least 6 mutually incompatible opinions on what class is elves playing to type. Elven wizards at least have been the official line on the subject at least once, and longbow proficiency benefits that role (caveat, excepting for ubiquitous combat cantrips being better at many-to-most levels, which is another knot to untangle). I'm not sure how forest gnomes having illusions is redundant. If they happen to pick illusionist or bard as their class, the don't actually lose this ability, nor is an identical copy (with no stacking) placed over it, as light armor proficiency is for hobgoblins.

I think you overestimate the "space" that light armor proficiency in the racial proficiency of the hobgoblin.

As for the goblin, sure, it's a bit redundant, but their ability make it so that *all* goblins are a bit rogue-like, and Fury of the Small works great with Sneak Attack for those who double down and go Goblin Rogue.



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm

Why are you posting a link for 3.5? That's not really relevant to what 5e hobgoblins are.

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Hobgoblin#content

Here is the common hobgoblin soldier for 5e. You'll note that they have no particular stealth capacity, and in fact since they're wearing Chain Mail they literally have disadvantage to Dexterity (Stealth) checks.

[Willie the Duck]

I think you overestimate the "space" that light armor proficiency in the racial proficiency of the hobgoblin.

Alright, that's a matter of preference, akin to the elves with bows. My general take on other peoples' opinions has been that light armor is one of the reasons that people feel hobgoblins are pushed towards wizards, as opposed to EKs. If light armor is truly somewhere between ribbon and real benefit, that would make a difference.


As for the goblin, sure, it's a bit redundant, but their ability make it so that *all* goblins are a bit rogue-like, and Fury of the Small works great with Sneak Attack for those who double down and go Goblin Rogue.

It does, and that here we're at least in agreement on point. It does make non-rogue goblins fairly rogue-ish (at least in combat style. They still need to craft their skill selections right to feel appropriately roguish, in my mind). However, this, unlike the hobgoblin's armor, is I think clearly a big part of the goblin benefit package. And it is fairly redundant for a rogue (not completely, as other things that get it like swashbuckler archetype is a thing, and not having to use your bonus action to retreat is pretty nice). Enough, I think, to really kinda make you look elsewhere if you are contemplating a rogue. And that is my point. Whatever the benefit is, and however it makes non-X (racial iconic role) feel partially-X, it shouldn't make you actively reconsider actually taking X as your class selection with the given race.


Why are you posting a link for 3.5? That's not really relevant to what 5e hobgoblins are.

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Hobgoblin#content

Here is the common hobgoblin soldier for 5e. You'll note that they have no particular stealth capacity, and in fact since they're wearing Chain Mail they literally have disadvantage to Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
<emphasis added>

We are discussing our pleasure or displeasure with the current implementation of the races. That is the subject at hand. Restricting our selves to the current model makes critique impossible by recursion. Of course the 5e version perfectly represents the 5e version because it is the 5e version. Perfection by tautology. But, by nature of the question asked in the original post, I am suggesting that they should have gone a different direction with the hobgoblin, and put forth my argument. Again referencing the 5e version would defeat the purpose. Make sense? I guess I could have gone with the 4e or 1e or oD&D version (heh, baboon men or grumpy samurais), but that wasn't where my preference (and therefore suggestion) lies at the moment.

[GlenSmash!]

I guess I could have gone with the 4e or 1e or oD&D version (heh, baboon men or grumpy samurais), but that wasn't where my preference (and therefore suggestion) lies at the moment.

I always liked the grumpy Samurai version. And I didn't even play that edition.

[lunaticfringe]

Seconding Orcs. It saddens me they are continually penalized throughout editions. 5th is probably the most meh, though I'm very familiar with 4th.

[Unoriginal]

We are discussing our pleasure or displeasure with the current implementation of the races. That is the subject at hand. Restricting our selves to the current model makes critique impossible by recursion. Of course the 5e version perfectly represents the 5e version because it is the 5e version. Perfection by tautology. But, by nature of the question asked in the original post, I am suggesting that they should have gone a different direction with the hobgoblin, and put forth my argument. Again referencing the 5e version would defeat the purpose. Make sense? I guess I could have gone with the 4e or 1e or oD&D version (heh, baboon men or grumpy samurais), but that wasn't where my preference (and therefore suggestion) lies at the moment.

Fair enough, however I have to point out you probably should have precised that when you posted your link, to make it clear. Given to what you posted your link in response to, I mean. I apologize for not understanding, still.


I personally disagree they should have gone with a different version of the hobgoblins. "Best soldiers of the humanoids, masters of warfare" is pretty great by itself, it gives them a distinct identity, and it's actually a niche that's not occupied by others. But all of that is a question of taste, not objective facts.

[Cynthaer]

I see a lot of Githyanki hate, and I can understand why—it feels bad to "waste" an ability score or feature. But I think they're actually pretty good at being a race defined by their martial prowess and psionic abilities.

The most obvious point of comparison is mountain dwarves, since both races have Strength bonuses and combat proficiencies that are redundant with traditional Strength classes. I was curious, so I threw together a side-by-side chart, highlighting where one gets something the other doesn't:



Mountain Dwarf

Githyanki



+2 Str/+2 Con
+2 Str/+1 Int


One of three tool proficiencies
Any tool or skill proficiency



Dwarvish
Gith plus one other language


Weapon proficiencies:
- d6 light/thrown
- d8 versatile


Weapon proficiencies:
- d6 light
- d8 versatile
- 2d6 two-handed


Armor proficiencies: light/medium
Armor proficiencies: light/medium


Misc.
- Darkvision
- Poison resist
- Bonus to identify stonework
Misc.
- Invisible Mage Hand
- Jump 1/day
- Misty Step 1/day



Mountain dwarves have more synergistic stats, darkvision, and poison resist—but githyanki get a skill choice, another language, a two-handed weapon, and some pretty nifty spells.

In combat, the githyanki fighter loses +2 Con and poison resist but gains two mobility spells. That seems pretty appropriate for a race of psions compared to a race of stout miners.

More interestingly to me, though, is that the githyanki is at least as good as the mountain dwarf for the classic "Strength wizard" off-brand build. You can build Str and still start with 16 Int! You get a proper two-handed weapon! That's really cool! It's not as broadly applicable as Str/Con, but it still lets you do something quite unique.

(Also, once we get proper psionic classes, there will definitely be more uses for Str/Int builds. Just saying.)

[Corran]

On hobgoblins: I think the int racial boost is spot on. My problem is that there is no strictly-martial class that can make use of a good int. If there was a battlemaster variant that gained maneuvers or other bonuses to their martial abilities and intelligence played a role in that, then I would be ok with it. So I guess my problem is that we don't have sth like the 4e warlock in 5e yet, and with how int can easily be a dumb stat since it has not many things going for it (especially when melee combat is concerned), and not with the race itself. As is, the int bonus seems like a waste for a hobgoblin warrior PC.

I also agree with dudewithknives regarding races and vision. I find this issue biting me whenever I consider playing a halfling rogue. Halflings have some traits that are awesome for rogues, yet the lack of darkvision and how impactful this is due to how the game handles vision, always make me change my mind even if I only change it in the last minute.

[Unoriginal]

Dark vision isn't that important. How often do you adventure in places that are inhabited and completely dark?

[Dalebert]

The climb speed of tabaxis. I'm not judging them as a race overall because they're decent. But the climb speed sounds great mostly because people misunderstand it. It doesn't mean you can climb things that are normally unclimbable and it doesn't mean you climb automatically. If a athletics is called for normally, it's still the case with your climb speed.

In short, your tabaxi climbs 5 ft faster than a regular person would. That's it. And he climbs slower than a thief.

[Corran]

Dark vision isn't that important. How often do you adventure in places that are inhabited and completely dark?
Is that sarcasm? It's called dungeons and dragons. Fair enough though, lack of darkvision is not something as simple as a light spell can't fix if you are travelling with the rest of your party. But when you want to scout ahead, or I dunno, to break in somewhere and steal or kill something, lack of darkvision can hinder you significantly since even a small light source like a candle increases the chances to be spotted. There are ways of course to go around that, but darkvision is so vital to certain roles you want your character to fulfill (roles which the rogue class is supposed to cover and be good at that), that betting everything on an item or on always having an ally on standby to grant you darkvision seems a bit too risky. Lacking darkvision on a rogue seems to me like entering a game with the odds already against me. Which I find to be a shame cause I like halflings as a race.

[Unoriginal]

Is that sarcasm? It's called dungeons and dragons.

Yes? Aside from undead, non-sapient subterranean monsters, and a few sapient monsters who have no use for light (like the grimlocks), most creatures like to have light in their dungeon (at least the places they are currently occupying).



lack of darkvision can hinder you significantly since even a small light source like a candle increases the chances to be spotted.

Why?



There are ways of course to go around that, but darkvision is so vital to certain roles you want your character to fulfill (roles which the rogue class is supposed to cover and be good at that), that betting everything on an item or on always having an ally on standby to grant you darkvision seems a bit too risky. Lacking darkvision on a rogue seems to me like entering a game with the odds already against me. Which I find to be a shame cause I like halflings as a race.

You're going to have to explain this to me. What in the rogue's job make it too risky to have a hooded lantern? Or what in the rogue's job make darkvision so vital compared to not having it?

Describing a situation where it'd come into play, for example.

[Potato_Priest]

I really like Genasi. Elemental/Fey stuff has always appealed to me dramatically more than any of the Law/Chaos/Good/Evil planar ancestries.



If they had just made:

Bright light, low light, darkness
Vision of Normal, low light, and darkvision.

Normal can see in normal fine but disadvantage in lowlight
lowlight can see in low and normal with no negs but disadvantage in darkness
Darkvision can see in all 3 with no negs.

With it as it is you have odd things like:
Elves and dwarves having the same vision
Half elves have darkvision for some reason.
Dragonborn only have normal?
Lizardfolk only have normal?

I just house rulled in lowlight vision to make everything make sense.


While I like the idea of creating other levels of darkvision, I still don't understand why you would give any to Dragonborn, Lizardfolk, or Elves, apart from mechanical weakness (in which case there are more creative ways to rebalance). Given that all three are (lore dependent here) mostly diurnal like humans, I don't see any reason they should be better at seeing in the dark. It seems like the only race that doesn't have it and needs it is the Triton who live at the bottom of the ocean.

[R.Shackleford]

Rant and rave about the races you really like the idea of, but are let down by their stat block

1. Hobgoblins.
From my every reading of hobgoblin lore, hobgoblins should be rather like dwarves in stat block. A hardy society where military campaigning is more than half of life and there's very few you'd call civilians, and the abundance of carpenters has something to do with sieges. Something like the dwarves makes sense (increase speed, remove poison resistance and obviously stone sense. Change the bonus weapons to weapons the priests teach to all the young...)

What Volo gave us was a pigeonholed wizard race. This of course makes no sense, because the majority of hobgoblins ain't mages. I understand that the devestator is cool and all, but if He's in a supplement book rather than the main monster manual, he's not what should be selling. Most hobgoblins are fighty, and most of the features of this race are redundant with fighters.

2. Githyanki
They're really, really cool, and the free mage hand is tight, but they don't belong with any class.
No class that asks for strength is going to not have medium armour
Eldrictch knight is a very specific vocation and not jedi enough.

All of them.

I like pretty much every race. I just don't think you should get racial modifiers. I think racial modifiers should be changed to background modifiers.

Criminal would give you +2 Dex and then +1 in a different ability score. If you're a thug, +1 strength. If you're a con artist, +1 cha. If you're a cat burglar, +1 int.

I get why racial modifiers are a thing, but I think they really hold people back from playing some race/class combinations. Not too many people want to play a Half-Orc Wizard or Sorcerer after all. I would love to see more people play Gnome Barbarians, one of my favorite weird class/race combos.

[thoroughlyS]

In general, I dislike the races that give you benefits which encourage you to play them as anything except what they are traditionally known as.
I couldn't agree more. I've seen some decent goblins and hobgoblins in homebrew which came out before Volo's Guide.

I personally dislike:

Dragonborn - sparce racial trait list
Gray Dwarf - sunlight sensitivity is garbage
Dark Elf- sunlight sensitivity is garbage
Eladrin - non-spell misty step per short rest from 1st level? how was this deemed fair?
Genasi - air and earth get screwed, fire and water are boring
Goblin - goblin rogue is nonsynergistic and Nimble Escape is so big that they don't get many other traits
Goliath - doesn't have anything to distinguish it from other "big guys", and doesn't have enough to justify taking over half-orc
Half-Elf - ability scores shouldn't be the only thing a race gets
Hobgoblin - is nonsynergistic with martial builds
Human - ability scores shouldn't be the only thing a race gets
Kenku - gets great ribbons, but not really any mechanical benefits
Kobold - has amazing bonuses and crippling drawbacks... balance! also, sunlight sensitivity is garbage
Lizardfolk - gets too many traits, it looks like a bad homebrew
Orc - a worse half-orc, in every respect
Yuan-Ti - gets too much, looks like a bad homebrew

[lunaticfringe]

All of them.

I like pretty much every race. I just don't think you should get racial modifiers. I think racial modifiers should be changed to background modifiers.

Criminal would give you +2 Dex and then +1 in a different ability score. If you're a thug, +1 strength. If you're a con artist, +1 cha. If you're a cat burglar, +1 int.

I get why racial modifiers are a thing, but I think they really hold people back from playing some race/class combinations. Not too many people want to play a Half-Orc Wizard or Sorcerer after all. I would love to see more people play Gnome Barbarians, one of my favorite weird class/race combos.

Easier way is just let players add +2/+1 to whatever stats they want. Has to be different 2 different stats obviously. The background idea is good but ultimately you are going run into similar problems. Just feels like a half measure to me.

[TripleD]

I think racial modifiers should be changed to background modifiers.


Maybe get physical modifiers (STR/DEX/CON) from your race and mental ones (INT/WIS/CHA) from your background? You get to apply +2 to one and +1 to the other, but it’s your choice which is which.

For example, a half-Orc is larger and stronger than most races, so they get a STR bonus. But you choose to have a librarian background, so you get a INT bonus as well. You can either go with +2 to STR and +1 to INT, or +2 to INT and +1 to STR.

[Pelle]

Easier way is just let players add +2/+1 to whatever stats they want. Has to be different 2 different stats obviously. The background idea is good but ultimately you are going run into similar problems. Just feels like a half measure to me.

Even easier is to have no + to stats at all. Adding +2/+1 to whatever is a completely redundant step all the time you choose which rolled/bought/array stat you apply to which ability. Just put your highest stat in Str if you want to be a strong orc.

[Aett_Thorn]

It’s gotta be Dragonborn for me. The single racial feature (badly disguised as three), and the breathe weapon using your Con modifier as the save stat just make it boring and bad for me. I want to really like them, and have created Dragonborn characters before, but after a few levels I don’t use the breathe weapon anymore and then I just have the resistance.

Runner up is the Githzerai. They were just slightly overpowered in their UA, and then got nerfed pretty hard before release.

[TerakasTaranath]

I wouldn't call it horrible but I love the idea of a high elf knight. Strength based with a sword shield and heavy armor while occasionally getting on a mount with a lance? By far one of my favs but elves don't get strength bonuses so it's not "optimal."

[LudicSavant]

I want to highlight this because I think it is quite possibly the single worst racial mechanic... and it affects most of 5e's races.


I wouldn't call it horrible but I love the idea of a high elf knight. Strength based with a sword shield and heavy armor while occasionally getting on a mount with a lance? By far one of my favs but elves don't get strength bonuses so it's not "optimal."

Personally I think that the 5e racial ability modifier system is a bad mechanic in general, because of player experiences like this.

Seriously, what purpose does the racial ability modifier system have?

Flavor? One could perhaps argue that the strongest half-orc should be stronger than the strongest human, but the mechanic doesn't actually do that. The strongest orc and the strongest human have the same Strength score (20). Heck, a level 1 Orc Barbarian and a level 1 Human Barbarian are generally both going to start with a +3 strength score (with standard point buy). And the difference in stats between any race in the PHB and a human will never exceed 1 point. With a VHuman it's not even that (because a VHuman can be made into a +1/+2 race of any 2 stats by choosing to take a half-feat at level 1). With the sole exception of the Mountain Dwarf, no PHB race can actually get an inhuman statline.

No, what the mechanic does in practice is shoehorn races into playing the "correct" classes. Your Half-Orc Wizard is still going to get to 20 Int, but they're going to be a weaker character overall since they had to divert more resources from other things to get there. That's it.

It seems like a legacy of past editions, stripped of its original context and purpose, living on as a sacred cow that no longer accomplishes anything positive, other than providing the warm fuzzies of familiarity.

[Pelle]

The racial ability modifiers is to ensure the classic racial stereotypes. The average orc should be stronger than the average human. In a kitchen sink fantasy game like D&D, I like having those stereotypes. But maybe they would be better as minimum values?

For example, Half-orcs has a minimum 12 str, but you could assign a higher value in it if you want. Elves have a minimum 12 Dex, and so on. If you wanted a lower value for rp reasons I guess that would be ok, but I wouldn't give extra build points for that.

[Unoriginal]

What the racial modifiers do is help establish the *identity* of the species.

A STR 20 Half-Orc is as strong as a STR 20 Wood Elf. But the half-orc probably started with more STR, reached 20 sooner, and then had room to grow in other direction. The wood elf wasn't weaker overall, though, they just had other perks that made them less specialized in STR but broader. With the standard stat array, this wood elf could have put an 8 in DEX and still ended up at 10, and that's still useful. The half-orc who puts their 8 into DEX is more vulnerable to DEX-save powers and worse at DEX checks. Same way that an half-orc Wizard would be better at STR-related tasks than a wood elf Wizard, if both invested the same into the stat.

That make the species have a coherent identity, in a mechanical way, without actually making them weaker for choosing character concepts.

[NaughtyTiger]

There's more that make hobgoblin racials point to wizards than those stat boosts (though con is clearly good for anyone). The weapon proficiencies are best for those who have no martial weapons from their class (and useless to most melee). The light armour proficency also point to a really casty caster (and again, not to any warrior type class). And Saving Face is good for most people, but for those whose Concentration saves can make or break an encounter, they can really use it.

Okay, mountain dwarf: con bonus, med armor, martial weapons, resistence to common damage...
but they aren't considered destined for caster... it's the +1 to caster stat that is driving the Hobgoblin.

[LudicSavant]

The racial ability modifiers is to ensure the classic racial stereotypes.

Pretty much.


But maybe they would be better as minimum values?

For example, Half-orcs has a minimum 12 str, but you could assign a higher value in it if you want. Elves have a minimum 12 Dex, and so on. If you wanted a lower value for rp reasons I guess that would be ok, but I wouldn't give extra build points for that.

I could certainly see something like that working better.


What the racial modifiers do is help establish the *identity* of the species. The thing is, you can do that just as well (arguably even better) without 5e-style racial ability modifiers. In fact, modern videogames tend to do precisely this, for this very reason.


That make the species have a coherent identity, in a mechanical way, without actually making them weaker for choosing character concepts.

I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the racial ability modifiers don't affect how good various race/class combos are.

[Willie the Duck]

It seems like a legacy of past editions, stripped of its original context and purpose, living on as a sacred cow that no longer accomplishes anything positive, other than providing the warm fuzzies of familiarity.

Which is quite frustrating for those of us who preferred editions that for the most part never had racial stat modifiers (the Basic/Classic line)*.
*Orcs of Thar and other play-as-monsters books occasionally had bonuses to stats, but you were still capped at 18.

[Unoriginal]

You can do that just as well (arguably even better) without racial ability modifiers. In fact, modern videogames tend to do precisely this, for this very reason.

And how do they do that? As far as I know, they either restrict races to some classes (ex: WoW Alliance elves can't be Paladins), make so that all classes are race-exclusive (ie your race is a character path by itself, which then branch out into more options), or by using aesthetic or sometime story choices opportunity to establish the identity more than mechanics.

If that is innacurate, then I'd be glad to learn more.




You're kidding yourself if you think that the racial ability modifiers don't affect how good various race/class combos are.

I'm of the opinion that having a +3 as your main stat bonus at lvl 1 isn't a requirement, and that characters who start out with a +2 aren't crippled.

I'm aware other disagree.

[Pelle]

And how do they do that?

Special Abilities, for example like in 5e.

[Mith]

My perspective on races is that they should have "similar" races have similar stats, so no crapping on the kobold with -2 STR. If that is to be a feature, all small races get the penalty. I am probably more partial to skim the books and develop my own templates, than actually following thd books in a regular home game.

As far as stat bonuses go, I am more partial to the idea that racial stat bonuses are only +1 to the stats given in the book, with the stat that gets a +2 being able to be raissd to 22. Your class gives a +1 to the two "primary" stats, so you still have your +2/+1.

[Man_Over_Game]

And how do they do that? As far as I know, they either restrict races to some classes (ex: WoW Alliance elves can't be Paladins), make so that all classes are race-exclusive (ie your race is a character path by itself, which then branch out into more options), or by using aesthetic or sometime story choices opportunity to establish the identity more than mechanics.

If that is innacurate, then I'd be glad to learn more.




I'm of the opinion that having a +3 as your main stat bonus at lvl 1 isn't a requirement, and that characters who start out with a +2 aren't crippled.

I'm aware other disagree.

I will say that a lot of the class features scale dramatically at lower levels based on your main modifier.

Battlemasters' saves are based on that stat, as is the accuracy for a Rogue's Sneak attack. Bardic Inspiration is dependent on your modifier (which means you could only start with 2 uses of a 1d6 per day, ugh), and prepared casters rely on their modifier for the number of spells they prepare. Your spell list is a LOT different if you could prepare 5 spells instead of 2.

It's kind of unfortunate, but your modifier is very much tied in to the unique abilities of each class and subclass. Look at the Glamour Bard; it would have a hard time being interesting with a +2 modifier. Sometimes, being "above average" isn't enough to be a hero, I guess.

--------------------------

As for the main topic, I want more races to not have Darkvision. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but just having Humans as the only race that needs light, when there's like 30 spells that deal with darkness and TORCHES, is just lazy.

I think Elves and Dwarves should be the only ones with Darkvision, otherwise darkness isn't scary, or even considered. Everyone else should get cool things to keep them on par, sure, but our first suggestion to every new race shouldn't be "give it darkvision!".

Besides that, I really like Dragonborn. I like the idea of having Constitution as a main stat, and having either Charisma or Strength as a subclass option, maybe tied in to each dragon choice (so "evil" dragons get Str and "good" dragons get Cha). Most Dragonborn I come across as NPC's aren't paladins, they're usually casters or leaders.

[Dudewithknives]

I will post one in the opposite direction:

Firbolg: I love the racial stats and abilities, but the race itself I just don't like.

1 Str and 2 wis, that is great, we needed a +2 wis race.
Most of the wisdom based classes will be cool with a little more str too.
Hidden Step: once per short rest as a bonus action i can turn invisible until next turn? Really? That is some great business right there.
1/SR detect magic and disguise self. Some great utility there.
I can also somewhat talk to plants and animals... I could get a lot of use out of that.

Shadow Monk would be great.
Heck just a good fighter of may kinds.
Any Cleric would rock.
Druid can make great use of it.
I can even see many rogue builds working with this well.
Every build of every class loves some added wisdom.

BUT:

The fluff, look, and the personality of the race just rubs me the wrong way.
Part elven, part giant, xenophobic hippies.

[Cynthaer]

I will say that a lot of the class features scale dramatically at lower levels based on your main modifier.

Battlemasters' saves are based on that stat, as is the accuracy for a Rogue's Sneak attack. Bardic Inspiration is dependent on your modifier (which means you could only start with 2 uses of a 1d6 per day, ugh), and prepared casters rely on their modifier for the number of spells they prepare. Your spell list is a LOT different if you could prepare 5 spells instead of 2.

It's kind of unfortunate, but your modifier is very much tied in to the unique abilities of each class and subclass. Look at the Glamour Bard; it would have a hard time being interesting with a +2 modifier. Sometimes, being "above average" isn't enough to be a hero, I guess.

Let's not strawman here—the argument isn't that primary stats don't matter, just that starting out with 14 instead of 16 is perfectly playable. So we're talking about preparing four spells instead of five, not two.

Honestly, while I don't disagree that you really feel that primary stat difference at low levels, I still agree with Unoriginal that starting at 14 works fine—especially because you can bump the stat up to 16 at level 4 anyway. Yes, the high elf wizard still gets to stay one ASI ahead of the half-orc, but I think it's non-controversial that you don't need 18 in a primary stat at level 4. It's great, but it's a luxury.

[LudicSavant]

I'm of the opinion that having a +3 as your main stat bonus at lvl 1 isn't a requirement, and that characters who start out with a +2 aren't crippled.

I'm aware other disagree.

I don't think that it's a requirement either. I played a half-orc caster in a recent campaign myself. But the fact that it's not a requirement doesn't change the reality that I could have made a noticeably stronger version of the same character if I wasn't a half-orc.

Anyways, as for other ways you can establish identity... I'd say that "Relentless Endurance" adds a lot more flavor than "+1 Con" does. Especially since +1 Con is literally the exact same score as a human. And Relentless Endurance is a useful feature for any class.

Pelle's "stat bounds" approach would also establish identity without making the Orc Wizards sad.


And how do they do that? As far as I know, they either restrict races to some classes (ex: WoW Alliance elves can't be Paladins), make so that all classes are race-exclusive (ie your race is a character path by itself, which then branch out into more options), or by using aesthetic or sometime story choices opportunity to establish the identity more than mechanics.

If that is innacurate, then I'd be glad to learn more.

WoW is the only specific game you named, so I'll address that one (since I'll assume you're familiar with it).

While it's true that in WoW there are racial class restrictions, they aren't the main way that they lend mechanical identity to races, and they definitely don't use these race/class connections in the same sense that D&D does. There are fairly few race-restricted classes, and the restrictions aren't things like "orcs can't be mages." They're things like "Orcs have Shamans, not Priests" or "The Undead can't be Druids." That has more to do with the lore of in-setting organizations connected to those classes than any sort of "orcs are stronger on average" sort of thing.

It's more like the developers are saying "I don't think our medieval human kingdom would have far eastern inspired Monks." It's an entirely different sort of philosophy than the one D&D is using with its racial modifiers, and more akin to when SCAG says "Bladesingers are for Elves in this setting." And for the races that an orc can be, they're supposed to be about equally good at all of them (whether it's Warrior, Mage, whatever). For example, an orc Mage gets a bonus to their spell power from their rage.

Many other MMORPGs don't have any racial restrictions at all.

[Willie the Duck]

Look, if stats didn't matter at all*, we probably wouldn't care about what races got what stat. That said, I agree with the general point that a 14-15 at start is imminently survivable/endurable.
*And I kind of liked it in pre-Greyhawk supplement oD&D where stats did very very little except for determining xp bonus, but that's a very different game.

But... that doesn't change the fact that racial attribute bonuses make certain race-class combos significantly more optimized than other combinations. If we're going to talk about racial mechanics (which is the subject of this thread), what combos/option the races mechanics make optimal has to be part of the discussion, right?

[hymer]

Okay, mountain dwarf: con bonus, med armor, martial weapons, resistence to common damage...
but they aren't considered destined for caster... it's the +1 to caster stat that is driving the Hobgoblin.
I can't agree with that.
The mountain dwarf has things pointed in two different directions (at least). +2 str/+2 con looks quite melee, particularly barbarian (though really any strength build would like that). The armour and weapons point to a caster, particularly the squishy sorcerers or wizards. In comparison, the hobgoblin abilities either point in no particular direction, or at a caster with no armour and few weapon proficiencies. The int makes it that more likely to be wizard over sorcerer.

[NaughtyTiger]

I can't agree with that.
The mountain dwarf has things pointed in two different directions (at least). +2 str/+2 con looks quite melee, particularly barbarian (though really any strength build would like that). The armour and weapons point to a caster, particularly the squishy sorcerers or wizards. In comparison, the hobgoblin abilities either point in no particular direction, or at a caster with no armour and few weapon proficiencies. The int makes it that more likely to be wizard over sorcerer.

first you say that the class racial features (not the +1 INT) point to wizard.
now you say that the class racial features "point in no particular direction" and the +1 moves it to wizard...

+2 con and reroll anything points to anything
martial weapons points to rogue. d6 wizards shouldn't be using weapons.
light armor - pretty useless since it would take +2 studded to beat mage armor.

i agree it points in no particular direction.

(yes I edited out "in no particular direction or at a caster with no armor" because most casters have 13 base AC)

edit: oops, should have read racial instead of class.

[Unoriginal]

because most casters have 13 base AC)

Really? How?

[NaughtyTiger]

Really? How?


Mage armor (wiz, sorc, AT)
at-will mage armor (warlock invocation)
clerics have medium armor + sheild (14 +2)
Draconic Resilience (drac sorc)
EK, Pal, Ranger have heavy + shield (12-16 +2)


the others have:
druids have medium + shield (12+2)
bards have light (12)

did i miss any?

edit: fixed bullets

[Knaight]

It seems like a legacy of past editions, stripped of its original context and purpose, living on as a sacred cow that no longer accomplishes anything positive, other than providing the warm fuzzies of familiarity.
To be fair this is pretty much how it worked in past editions as well. Pushing certain races towards certain classes has been the function of racial ability modifiers since at least 2nd edition.


And how do they do that? As far as I know, they either restrict races to some classes (ex: WoW Alliance elves can't be Paladins), make so that all classes are race-exclusive (ie your race is a character path by itself, which then branch out into more options), or by using aesthetic or sometime story choices opportunity to establish the identity more than mechanics.

If that is innacurate, then I'd be glad to learn more.
Racial usable abilities come to mind. Take the roguelike ToME - every race has a power line (4 powers, unlocked sequentially), which do different things. These can incentivize certain classes. Ghouls get a pretty huge mobility boost at going towards enemies via a tongue grab or similar*, which incentivizes melee. Ogres can hold extra magic runes and get more use out of them, and also eventually can use two handed weapons one handed, which incentivizes hybrid melee magic classes. Yeek get a global speed bonus, some willpower and mental defense boosts, and other things that incentivize ranged psionic characters. There's still a lot of ways to play against type, but the incentives are there through something other than just stat boosts.

This isn't just a videogame thing either - there are plenty of non-D&D tabletop games which give active abilities, and they've been praised on this forum for being better because instead of an easily ignored passive you actively dwarf your way through things. I'd contest that a little bit, but that's mostly because I'm not particularly fond of power systems at all and like stat-skill structures. In a game already heavy on powers they fit right in.

*I don't tend to actually play ghouls, so I'm working from memory.

[Willie the Duck]

To be fair this is pretty much how it worked in past editions as well. Pushing certain races towards certain classes has been the function of racial ability modifiers since at least 2nd edition.


Sort of. Racial class restrictions had such a heavy thumb on the scale that it is hard to separate stat effect out for AD&D. Of course the attributes also did different things back then (random example: in 5e elves are pushed towards lightly armored, Dex-based martials wielding short swords or rapiers. Sure, in 2e Elves also had a Dex bonus, but you needed strength for any melee weapon and high dex benefited you whether you were wearing studded leather or full plate, so there wasn't pushing an elven fighter away from making a longsword-based build).

But mostly, isn't that pretty much LudicSavant's point? Races were pushed (in part by stats) towards certain classes in previous editions, and he feels the only reason they exist now is because the concept is familiar?

[Knaight]

But mostly, isn't that pretty much LudicSavant's point? Races were pushed (in part by stats) towards certain classes in previous editions, and he feels the only reason they exist now is because the concept is familiar?

My reading was that they do that now, as vestigial traits that had better uses earlier - I'm just pointing out that the current situation dates back a while.

[NaughtyTiger]

Flavor? One could perhaps argue that the strongest half-orc should be stronger than the strongest human, but the mechanic doesn't actually do that. The strongest orc and the strongest human have the same Strength score (20).

This is what i liked about the shadowrun racial system:

Troll has a higher max str than human.
Elf has higher max dex and cha

[hymer]

first you say that the class features (not the +1 INT) point to wizard.
No, first I said

There's more that make hobgoblin racials point to wizards than those stat boosts (though con is clearly good for anyone).
And that you aren't disputing, so I consider myself perfectly vindicated. :smallbiggrin: But I'm happy to continue the convesation.


now you say that the class features "point in no particular direction" and the +1 moves it to wizard...
No. I assume that by 'class features' above you mean 'racial features'? When I said something similar to what you're saying in the quote above, I was talking about mountain dwarf racials, not hobgoblin racials. My stance remains what it was from the beginning, although I am revealing more of it as the conversation advances.

Edit: I think I see the disconnect now: I said that hobgoblin racials either point in one direction or in every (or no) direction. By that I mean that +2con and darkvision point in every (or no) direction, while everything else points at an unarmoured caster, and more a wizard than a sorcerer.


+2 con and reroll anything points to anything
Ah, something we agree on! :smallsmile:


martial weapons points to rogue.
I sort of agree with that, but not entirely. For one thing, rogues already have access to several martial weapons, particularly ones that allow sneak attacks. And since that's pretty much the whole ball for wax for rogue weapons, what you're basically getting is longbow rather than shortbow. Which is nice for the range, I guess. Or you could pick up whip, which could be useful.
So the racial is makes for slightly better stuff than existing options for rogues. Whereas the longbow outpaces the sling (or cantrips) by hundreds of feet, so to speak. A considerable upgrade, particularly for someone who would like as much space between the enemy and themselves as possible, as a rule of thumb. I know you agree with that given that you then go on to say:


d6 wizards shouldn't be using weapons.
Longbows are great for quite a while if you build for them. Dex is no loss for casters, to be sure, so you aren't giving up on anything. Longbows deal more damage than cantrips in general until they get their second die (and after, if your dex is high enough). Certain casters get their casting stat to damage, and they can pretty much dispense with the bows. But most available options do not feature this extra damage, and so could benefit.
The range of the longbow remains far better than any cantrip, and so there is a niche use there through all of your career.


light armor - pretty useless since it would take +2 studded to beat mage armor.
Mage Armor lasts 8 hours for a spell slot, and takes up a spell known or learned. Studded leather costs 45gp, and you have it for life.
In your games (so you seem to claim, sorrect me if I'm wrong), casters always take mage armor. Even so, getting a suit of studded leather to sleep in would be useful, and ensure against surprises, dispelling, and running out of spell slots.
And you don't have to beat mage armor to switch to physical armour. Equalling it is quite enough, given all the drawbacks of spells. Indeed, in games other than your own, there are casters who don't take the mage armor spell at all, and they most certainly would gain from light armour proficiency.

[Cicciograna]

One race I used to love which was marred by very bad mechanics was the GP of Monaco of a couple of years ago, in which the Ferrari team completely borked the tires change at the 33th lap.

:smallbiggrin:

*** quietly going away now ***

[Cynthaer]

Anyways, as for other ways you can establish identity... I'd say that "Relentless Endurance" adds a lot more flavor than "+1 Con" does. Especially since +1 Con is literally the exact same score as a human. And Relentless Endurance is a useful feature for any class.

Pelle's "stat bounds" approach would also establish identity without making the Orc Wizards sad.

I didn't mention it in my post, but I do agree that it's possible to establish a racial identity entirely through features, without having racial stat boosts at all. I think it would be pretty tricky to retrofit into 5e, and you'd sort of change the entire race/class dynamic—it's hard to encourage gnomes to be wizards, tieflings to be warlocks, and hill dwarves to be clerics—but it could absolutely have been designed that way.

If I understand Pelle's approach, it involves starting one stat at 12 instead of giving a +X bonus, and then letting you point-buy stats up to 16 instead of 15? I think this would work pretty well, although I suspect it interacts oddly with defensive stats. For instance, a race that gives Con might as well be a pure wild card since nobody puts less than 12 in Con anyway. It's a interesting idea, though, and I think I'd like to explore it more.


But... that doesn't change the fact that racial attribute bonuses make certain race-class combos significantly more optimized than other combinations. If we're going to talk about racial mechanics (which is the subject of this thread), what combos/option the races mechanics make optimal has to be part of the discussion, right?

Definitely, and there's a reason they're at the top of every race's description: They generally have the broadest applicability because they affect class features, attack bonuses/save DCs, ability checks, and saving throws. They're the quickest signpost for what a race is best at/intended for.

That said, they kind of have to be considered in context, because they're still just one part of the package. And importantly, the stats and other features interact differently for different races.

Sometimes stats and features synergize beautifully with specific classes: Everything about half-orcs works perfectly on a barbarian, and high elves bring stats and weapon proficiencies to the wizard.

Sometimes they're intentionally made to be either "suboptimal" or redundant for any given class: Mountain dwarves' combat proficiencies are wasted on Str classes but their stats don't support anything else, and lizardfolks' stats and natural armor clash with their Str-based bite attack.

Personally, I kind of like having a mix of the two? Like, I think it might be kind of annoying if every race had some tradeoff, because sometimes you just want everything to click together with perfect optimization. But giving "redundant" features to some races encourages non-standard builds that have their own fascinating optimization puzzles.

[NaughtyTiger]

oops, yeah, i meant racial not class.

there are differences at my tables and experience:
sleeping in armor at my tables imposes rest penalties. so yeah casters take mage armor and hand it out like candy for the late night fights.

rogues definitely prefer longbow, heavy crossbow to shortbow.
my ranger likes whips and nets, so a rogue might, too.


levels 1-4 are 4 sessions max. so cantrips will outpace longbows pretty quickly. cantrips outpace whips at level 1. by tier 2, my tables doesn't use all of their L1/L2 slots, so mage armor is fine.

a point of dispute:

When I said something similar to what you're saying in the quote above, I was talking about mountain dwarf racials, not hobgoblin racials.

actually you were referring to hobs

In comparison, the hobgoblin abilities either point in no particular direction, or at a caster with no armour and few weapon proficiencies.




Longbows are great for quite a while if you build for them. Dex is no loss for casters, to be sure, so you aren't giving up on anything.
actually, if you are taking hob for longbow as a caster you are giving up:

high elf: cantrip, +2 dex, charm and sleep spell protections
gnome: magical resistance, +2int, cantrip
goblin: bonus action stuff, damage boost
goliath: damage reduction (ok not really, but i like the thought)
vhuman: feat.




And that you aren't disputing, so I consider myself perfectly vindicated.
if you think that hobs have no better place than wizards, fine.
my original post was that it is silly that the hob is considered only for wizard. in my view their features are also useful in martial roles. nothing standout for casters.

[LudicSavant]

To be fair this is pretty much how it worked in past editions as well.

...Isn't that exactly what I said? :smallconfused:

[Mikaleus]

Dragonborn - I feel they could benefit from subrace options like the Tieflings were given.

Currently it’s Loxodon. I think they should use a different stat to calculate their natural armor. Instead of using Dex I think it would be more fitting to use Constitution or Strength.

I mean sure, teenage mutant ninja elephants are amusing, but I’d rather play a Loxodon Smiter :)

[NaughtyTiger]

Dragonborn - I feel they could benefit from subrace options like the Tieflings were given.

Currently it’s Loxodon. I think they should use a different stat to calculate their natural armor. Instead of using Dex I think it would be more fitting to use Constitution or Strength.

I mean sure, teenage mutant ninja elephants are amusing, but I’d rather play a Loxodon Smiter :)

or just a flat AC like the tortles

[Mikaleus]

or just a flat AC like the tortles

Wow I totally forgot about that.

That’s brilliant !

[The Jack]

I now know why I like mountain dwarf so much. All races should follow it's example; It seems powerful, but it really has a load of redundancies to maximize how many classes can pick it. Monks and rogues get the least out of it, but they're not exactly ruined by the choice, whilst every other class gains a lot from it.

More races should definetly do this.

[LudicSavant]

I now know why I like mountain dwarf so much. All races should follow it's example; It seems powerful, but it really has a load of redundancies to maximize how many classes can pick it. Monks and rogues get the least out of it, but they're not exactly ruined by the choice, whilst every other class gains a lot from it.

More races should definetly do this.

Yeah, this stood out to me as well when I read Mountain Dwarf for the first time. I was disappointed to see that it wasn't a trend for the edition as a whole.

Notably, a lot of videogames take this approach of "gives benefits that help out a variety of different classes, rather than trying to just help out one class too much."

Someone brought up WoW earlier, so I guess that's as good an example as any. I haven't played the game since Vanilla (back in ancient times), but I can pull up the wiki and see that Orcs have the following traits:

[Blood Fury] - Increases attack power by (Level*4)+2 and your spell power by (Level*2)+3. Lasts 15 seconds.
[Hardiness] - Duration of Stun effects reduced by an additional 20%.
[Command] - Damage dealt by Death Knight, Hunter and Warlock pets increased by 1%.

Even if you're unfamiliar with the game, you can clearly see what they're going for here. Resisting stuns is probably good for everyone. The rage increases attack power for warriors, but also boosts the spell power for mages. And pet classes who wouldn't benefit quite as much from Rage (since a lot of their damage is coming from pets) are boosted up with Command. The benefits are spread out amongst multiple domains.

And the end result is that the orcs are good mages, shamans, warriors, death knights, hunters, warlocks, etc. They're good at each class in different ways than other races are, but they're still good at each class. That's how it should be, if you ask me.

Incidentally, the wiki also includes the flavor reasons for each racial trait.



Orcs have racial abilities due to a long history as a warrior race. They had been corrupted by the Blood of Mannoroth which Grom Hellscream eventually removed.
The Blood of Mannoroth caused them to enter a form of demon fury which was the cause of their viciousness in the First War. Orcs can work themselves up into a natural berserker frenzy called [Blood Fury].
Orcs are also notoriously tough — a young teenage orc will already dwarf a robust human adult, and their skeletal structure is far more suited for battle, mostly due to the harsh environment that orcs live in. This has led to a [Hardiness] which makes them resilient to being knocked out.
For reasons unknown, orcs also share a great natural affinity with animals. Many animal-orc friendships are made as soon as they look into one another's eyes and find the same primal soul within each other. Their close mental connection to these beasts has led them to be able to [Command] beasts with ease, or when faced with enslaving a demonic entity.

That just seems like much cleaner race design to me than, say, "okay, let's make Hobgoblins a Wizard race."

[Sigreid]

I now know why I like mountain dwarf so much. All races should follow it's example; It seems powerful, but it really has a load of redundancies to maximize how many classes can pick it. Monks and rogues get the least out of it, but they're not exactly ruined by the choice, whilst every other class gains a lot from it.

More races should definetly do this.

Friends don't let friends play dwarves. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

I do think it's funny that a +1 in INT means you have to be a wizard.

Heaven forbid you have an intelligent fighter.

I think it's more the lack of anything but Con to support fightering.

Given the Mountain Dwarf precedent (anti-synergies justify larger total bonuses) it would not be out of line to give hobgoblins +1 Str, +2 Con, +1 Int, which would make them pretty good at both fightering and wizarding. Reasonable, no?

[thoroughlyS]

I think it's more the lack of anything but Con to support fightering.

Given the Mountain Dwarf precedent (anti-synergies justify larger total bonuses) it would not be out of line to give hobgoblins +1 Str, +2 Con, +1 Int, which would make them pretty good at both fightering and wizarding. Reasonable, no?
I personally do +1 DEX, +1 CON, +1 INT because I feel that all goblinoids should have a DEX bonus. +2 DEX, +2 CON would make them a poor-man's Mountain Dwarf.

[The Jack]

Alas, i write on my phone and lack the usual resources. but i'd do something more like:

Hobgoblin.
+2 con. +1 wis
Darkvision 60ft
Life at war:
Your choice of war related tool proficiency and one extra skill.
Wear to war:
Medium armour. Alternatively, i think it'd be cool to get +the next armour profeciency, so a druid gets heavy and a sorcerer gets light. The cool part would be fighters/paladins getting an unarmoured defence.
Religious instruction:
Longsword, handaxe, a martial weapon of choice or unarmed strikes.
Martial advantage
One superiority dice and a battlemaster move. Dice dependent on level (d6 for levels 1/2)

Gith
+2 int.
There's like... no way to balance adding psychic damage to moves, is there? Ki points?
Timeless learning.:
Tool+language.
Inate psionics:
Mage hand (invisible)
Jump.

Yanki
+2 str
Medium armour.
sword profeciencies.

Zerai
+2 wis
unarmoured defence (wis+dex+shield)
Unarmed strike profeciency


Dragonborn.
This race is just silly.

Orc:
All the half orc stuff.
30ft run towards enemy bonus.
-1 to int, wis and charisma
Sunlight sensitivity.

Ideally, one extra ability depending on what kind of orc they are/which orc god they feel closest too. alas, volos is not with me.

[ZorroGames]

As someone has gravitated to Dwarf (especially Mountain,) Gnome, and Genasi I keep wondering why the Genasi has such schizophrenic subclass approach to Darkvision. While as a DM I like the drop in Perception and lack of detail on monochromatic vision (my take is that itnis significantly less detailed than an infravision scope) that I casually mention prior to going underground.

Minor gripe but than I do not play the races most seem to be thinking were nerf’ed somehow.

[ZorroGames]

I now know why I like mountain dwarf so much. All races should follow it's example; It seems powerful, but it really has a load of redundancies to maximize how many classes can pick it. Monks and rogues get the least out of it, but they're not exactly ruined by the choice, whilst every other class gains a lot from it.

More races should definetly do this.

My first 5e character was a Mountain Dwarf Monk just because of all the “earlier edition” thinking I read.

[Tanarii]

Dwarves in general, mountain dwarves in particular.

I mean, they're fine. But tool proficiency and stonecutter get and the weapon proficiency "ribbon" dont really fit what I think of as racial abilities, they're more due to a natural social/cultural orientation. Not that the equivalent of Stonecutting isn't a tradition. And the weapon proficiency being basically tailored for Life Clerics is just wonky.

Mountain Dwarves feel even worse on that last score. Either you're a Str build and don't need Medium Armor, or you're not and don't need Str. Again, it seems tailored for Bladelocks, with a minor buff to Warlocks in general and Sorcs and Wizard which is just weird. Unlike the weapon thing it's not like it's helping a traditional orientation for dwarves.

It's not like +2 to Str (and to two stats) isn't powerful, nor Medium armor prof isn't. It's just wonky to find one or the other useful.

[Naanomi]

I have a hard time finding a role for Firbolgs; and (to a lesser degree) Forest Gnomes...

I suspect eventually we will be looking back at Githzerai as a great mystic/psion race

[Ganymede]

I have a hard time finding a role for Firbolgs

I managed to find a niche with a Charlatan Firbolg Redemption Paladin whose alter-ego is a Half-orc mercenary.

[Cynthaer]

I now know why I like mountain dwarf so much. All races should follow it's example; It seems powerful, but it really has a load of redundancies to maximize how many classes can pick it. Monks and rogues get the least out of it, but they're not exactly ruined by the choice, whilst every other class gains a lot from it.

More races should definetly do this.


Dwarves in general, mountain dwarves in particular.

I mean, they're fine. But tool proficiency and stonecutter get and the weapon proficiency "ribbon" dont really fit what I think of as racial abilities, they're more due to a natural social/cultural orientation. Not that the equivalent of Stonecutting isn't a tradition. And the weapon proficiency being basically tailored for Life Clerics is just wonky.

Mountain Dwarves feel even worse on that last score. Either you're a Str build and don't need Medium Armor, or you're not and don't need Str. Again, it seems tailored for Bladelocks, with a minor buff to Warlocks in general and Sorcs and Wizard which is just weird. Unlike the weapon thing it's not like it's helping a traditional orientation for dwarves.

It's not like +2 to Str (and to two stats) isn't powerful, nor Medium armor prof isn't. It's just wonky to find one or the other useful.
See, this is why I think it's a good thing that 5e has a mix of race design types.

Some people really like the mountain dwarf design, with redundancies that provide flexibility for different class builds—no matter what class you choose (almost), the race has something to offer.

Some people find it aggravating that it's impossible to optimally use all of the stats and features in a single build—no matter what class you choose, either the stats are suboptimal or the proficiencies are useless.

(Side note: [sub]races by design are an ambiguous combination of biological and cultural factors. All tool/weapon/armor proficiencies, like dwarves and elves have, are obviously cultural. Physical attributes and magic/psionic abilities, like tieflings and dragonborn have, are explicitly inherited. A bunch of the rest, including stat bonuses and even resistances, could go either way. This has always had kind of weird implications if you think about it for like 30 seconds, but honestly I feel like removing "cultural" traits and only having biologically determined differences might actually make things worse by eliminating ambiguity.)