Race tier list

[Amdy_vill]

so lets build a tier list of races and there subraces and then work on making the super weak one stronger. this is what i got. needs more of the races but with the others i was having a hard time placing them.


Tier 1 - Vhuman, Half-Elf, Elf(Eladrin)

Tier 2 -Aarakocra, Yuan-Ti, Aasimar, Tiefling, Warforged, Tabaxi

Tier 3 - Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Goliath, Gnome,

Tier 4 - Helf-Orc, Lizardfolk, Kenku, Triton, Minotaur, Genasi, Bugbear, Firbolg

Tier 5 - Human, Dragonborn, Orc, Kobold, Hobgoblin, Goblin

scale should be based on power of the races ability and more importantly the enjoyability of those ability.

example a race with proficiency in 2 tool kits all armor and all weapon and gained a cantrip or two would be mechanically strong but would probably rank low as non of the mechanics are enjoyable to us

[Windwaert]

so lets build a tier list of races and there subraces and then work on making the super weak one stronger. this is what i got. needs more of the races but with the others i was having a hard time placing them.


This is obviously subjective, so I think you need to specify what you mean by strong and weak.

Personally I believe vHuman are at the top, they are a strong choice for any class (highly versatile). Yaun-ti Pureblood and Warforged have some solid features.

Edit: Also there was an effort on reddit to compare race features and evaluate them (for making balanced homebrew). I believe Dwarves had highly evaluated features, but they have too much redundancy with the obvious class choices.

[Unoriginal]

so lets build a tier list of races and there subraces

Sure.

Tier Playable and Enjoyable: all of them.



Seriously, though, 5e doesn't have that "tier" mentality. Why try to put it back into existence?

[Mr.Spastic]

While I agree that this is subjective, I will acknowledge the fact that teiflings are probably the strongest race(if your not limited to phb+1). They have so many options for stat increases. +2 to cha or dex. And +1 to any other stat with fun spells to go with it. They are the most versatile and really powerful IMO.

[Amdy_vill]

This is obviously subjective, so I think you need to specify what you mean by strong and weak.

Personally I believe vHuman are at the top, they are a strong choice for any class (highly versatile). Yaun-ti Pureblood and Warforged have some solid features.

Edit: Also there was an effort on reddit to compare race features and evaluate them (for making balanced homebrew). I believe Dwarves had highly evaluated features, but they have too much redundancy with the obvious class choices.

thank you for this i have clarified it.

[Unoriginal]

While I agree that this is subjective, I will acknowledge the fact that teiflings are probably the strongest race(if your not limited to phb+1). They have so many options for stat increases. +2 to cha or dex. And +1 to any other stat with fun spells to go with it. They are the most versatile and really powerful IMO.

How do you calculate that they're the strongest?

If you task a bunch of PCs to kill one Ogre in a solo fight, are the tieflings regularly going to do better than the others?

We'd need a test that can give us a full view of the races capacities. Which given the numbers of factors into play isn't really realizable unless by observing actual game sessions, and the data from those tend to show the races are more or less equal overall.

That's why trying to establish "tiers" doesn't work.

[sophontteks]

Strongest races I know of are Yuan-ti, v-humans, and half-elves. They are all a bit stacked. I don't think a tier list is useful though. There are just some races that overperform and some that underperform.

Tieflings as an overpowered race? They are versitile becausr they have a lot of options, but none of them seem overpowered except maybe the free flight option that honestly shouldn't exist.

[XmonkTad]

No love for Kobolds? Sure, their stat adjustments are sub-par, but pack tactics and Cower, Grovel, Beg are both great abilities if you play an attacking class that doesn't have a lot of other ways of getting advantage. S tier for sure.

And let's not forget the Svirfneblin Abjuration Wizard with an arcane ward that takes no time or effort to fill up.

Actually, I can't think of a race I would never play because it's so much weaker than the others or any race that I would feel I "must pick" because it's so much better than the others. 5e is pretty well balanced.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Tieflings have lots of options, so does flexibility factor into this? I mean, sure, Bugbears are mechanically solid from a combat perspective, but they don't have social utility, so does that matter? Are you just ranking combat proficiency here?

Sorry, too much balance in 5e to allow this kind of rigid tier assignment. Lightfoot Halflings are awesome for Bards, Warlocks, or Rogues, but it's harder to build a solid front-line Fighter based on the abilities they get. it doesn't mean they're necessarily better or worse, they're just better optimized for certain classes. Even better, you can still build a Halfling Fighter and have fun, so, you know, do that.

[Foxhound438]

Personally I believe vHuman are at the top, they are a strong choice for any class (highly versatile). Yaun-ti Pureblood and Warforged have some solid features.


versatility is certainly good, and it's probably fair to say Vuman is the best for a lot of classes, but I think the things like Aasimar super sayan modes or eladrin short rest teleports are probably of higher quality when you're taking a class that can really pivot around those and optimize for them. Flight is also going to be high value if you're ever allowed a flying race on an archer.

Creating a whole general tier list is probably not as useful as just going to class guides and looking at the race section for that particular class, that way you're not being forced to grade a fish in tree climbing.

[Windwaert]

That does make me wonder, are there (sub)races that are strictly worse than others (ignoring fluff)?
The only one I can think of is the SCAG Elf Variant that gives up Skill Versatility (2 skill profs. of choice) for Keen Senses (perception skill prof.).

[Windwaert]

Flight is also going to be high value if you're ever allowed a flying race on an archer.

I would never ban races, but Aarakocra's Flight feature is clearly broken/badly written. Unlike the winged Tiefling variant, Araakocra's Flight does not refer to anatomy (wings), so RAW it would work even in wildshape.


Creating a whole general tier list is probably not as useful as just going to class guides and looking at the race section for that particular class, that way you're not being forced to grade a fish in tree climbing.

I agree, the class guides are excellent and they often explain their ratings in the context of actual play / class role.

[Genoin]

I think Variant Human is pretty clearly at the top, especially if your 2 best stats are odd before adding racials. +1 to ANY two ability scores, One additional skill of ANY type, and ANY feat at level 1. Half Elves are close, and probably better for CHA builds, but having a feat qt level 1 is exceptionally powerful (borderline broken in some cases). In terms of versatility and power, I would say the top 3 in order are

1. V Human
2. Half Elf
3. Tieflings

[thoroughlyS]

Tier Playable and Enjoyable: all of them.
Playable is certainly true, but enjoyable is more arguable. Sure you can probably enjoy a character regardless of their race, but the opportunity cost of racial selection can't be ignored. Why would I ever go Earth Genasi, when Mountain Dwarf or Goliath create a more fleshed out character?




there was an effort on reddit to compare race features and evaluate them (for making balanced homebrew). I believe Dwarves had highly evaluated features, but they have too much redundancy with the obvious class choices.
I recently posted a revival (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?572364-Detect-Greater-Balance-%96-A-Critical-Review-of-Homebrew-Race-Creation) of that scale.

While I agree that this is subjective, I will acknowledge the fact that teiflings are probably the strongest race(if your not limited to phb+1). They have so many options for stat increases. +2 to cha or dex. And +1 to any other stat with fun spells to go with it. They are the most versatile and really powerful IMO.
While the Tiefling race is very versatile thanks to the variants and subraces, it is also fairly sparse. They only get ability score adjustments and long rest spells. No flavorful skills, tools, or tricks. My votes for strongest races are Aasimar, Half-Elf, Variant Human, Lizardfolk, and Yuan-Ti Pureblood. And strongest subrace definitely goes to Eladrin.

That does make me wonder, are there (sub)races that are strictly worse than others (ignoring fluff)?
The only one I can think of is the SCAG Elf Variant that gives up Skill Versatility (2 skill profs. of choice) for Keen Senses (perception skill prof.).

Dark Elf
Air Genasi
Earth Genasi
Ghostwise Halflings
Half-Elves which trade skill versatility for Weapon Training

[CTurbo]

Tier 1 - Vhuman, Half-Elf, Aarakocra

Tier 2 - Yuan-Ti, Aasimar, Tiefling, Warforged, Tabaxi

Tier 3 - Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Orc, Goliath, Gnome, Lizardfolk

Tier 4 - Kenku, Triton, Minotaur, Genasi, Bugbear, Firbolg

Tier 5 - Human, Dragonborn, Orc, Kobold, Hobgoblin, Goblin

[Guy Lombard-O]

While I agree that this is subjective, I will acknowledge the fact that teiflings are probably the strongest race(if your not limited to phb+1). They have so many options for stat increases. +2 to cha or dex. And +1 to any other stat with fun spells to go with it. They are the most versatile and really powerful IMO.

Okay, well I'm obviously missing the extra material that makes Teiflings both flexible and better than a half-elf. The PHB Teiflings have always left me unimpressed. Where are these wonderous racial variants spelled out?

[Amdy_vill]

Tier 1 - Vhuman, Half-Elf, Aarakocra

Tier 2 - Yuan-Ti, Aasimar, Tiefling, Warforged, Tabaxi

Tier 3 - Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Orc, Goliath, Gnome, Lizardfolk

Tier 4 - Kenku, Triton, Minotaur, Genasi, Bugbear, Firbolg

Tier 5 - Human, Dragonborn, Orc, Kobold, Hobgoblin, Goblin

I kinda agree with this.

I think Aarakocra should be low as they really just get flying and an attack. mechanically powerful but not ins trusting. probably say tier 2


and half orc and lizard folk i feel should be tier 4. both have interesting flavor in there abilities but they don't feel like interesting mechanics.

[Foxhound438]

Okay, well I'm obviously missing the extra material that makes Teiflings both flexible and better than a half-elf. The PHB Teiflings have always left me unimpressed. Where are these wonderous racial variants spelled out?

there's a few options in the sword coast guide that are pretty free-form swap in features (ie the winged variant), and there's a list in mordenkainen's tome of foes that gives different ability bonuses (all have +2 charisma but the other stat is flexible), and different spell options (none are really more powerful). It's easier to find a tiefling that fits your desires with those, and in a lot of cases having the right abilities and a few free spells will be better than the couple of skills and one ability point a half elf would give.

But speaking of morty's tome, it's kind of surprising to me that no one else seems to value the short rest teleports that eladrin get. I guess all the other people who like misty step as a spell are just not seeing this thread? it's easily an S+ race for most martials, and it's even pretty good when you want a non-charisma mental stat.

[Amdy_vill]

there's a few options in the sword coast guide that are pretty free-form swap in features (ie the winged variant), and there's a list in mordenkainen's tome of foes that gives different ability bonuses (all have +2 charisma but the other stat is flexible), and different spell options (none are really more powerful). It's easier to find a tiefling that fits your desires with those, and in a lot of cases having the right abilities and a few free spells will be better than the couple of skills and one ability point a half elf would give.

But speaking of morty's tome, it's kind of surprising to me that no one else seems to value the short rest teleports that eladrin get. I guess all the other people who like misty step as a spell are just not seeing this thread? it's easily an S+ race for most martials, and it's even pretty good when you want a non-charisma mental stat.

thanks has been noted

[Snowbluff]

Seriously, though, 5e doesn't have that "tier" mentality. Why try to put it back into existence?

Ohoho.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/559ab41eff5747bea337dca6c69b9d84/tumblr_inline_pcpydluqn71qmh4s7_540.gif
It most certainly does.

There's all sorts of nonsense that some classes can't do. Wizards are definitely in a higher tier in these tiers. Ranger is definitely on the bottom of tiers in terms of combat usability, so even in the barest of terms it's tiered poorly.

Some races I'd rate highly in terms of power from experience:
1) Goblin: bonus action hide and disengage is good.
2) Yuan Ti for magic and poison resistances.
3) Meta Human/Variant Human for the feat.

Races I think have hypothetical value I haven't played:
4) Aasimar
5) Tortle

I think High Elf is good too, because cantrips are just handy. Minor illusion and prestigitation are fun, making them my favorite fun race mechanically (but Goblins are up there for just being funny). Booming blade is a good addition if you only have one attack anyway. Frostbolt is decent if your class is awful at ranged fighting but you don't want to try dropping your weapon for a bow (like a paladin).

[Unoriginal]

Playable is certainly true, but enjoyable is more arguable.

Which makes impossible to establish an actual tier list, because not only it's arguable, it's also impossible to quantify in any objective manner.



Sure you can probably enjoy a character regardless of their race, but the opportunity cost of racial selection can't be ignored. Why would I ever go Earth Genasi, when Mountain Dwarf or Goliath create a more fleshed out character?


Why would an Earth Genasi be automatically less fleshed out than the other two? What if I want to play a descendant of Earth beings? What if I like the aesthetic?

You can't dictate nor record how enjoyable I would find the experience to be. And as you said, all the races are playable, meaning that all of them might be played, presumably by people who enjoy doing so.

[CTurbo]

I kinda agree with this.

I think Aarakocra should be low as they really just get flying and an attack. mechanically powerful but not ins trusting. probably say tier 2


and half orc and lizard folk i feel should be tier 4. both have interesting flavor in there abilities but they don't feel like interesting mechanics.



I put Aarakocra in tier 1 for Flight obviously as it's REALLY strong as low levels, but I can see an argument for having them in tier 2.

Lizardfolk have a huge list of features. I almost had them in tier 2 so I really disagree with lowering them to tier 4. I think lacking a stat bonus to any main stat is the only thing that hurts them but +2 Con and +1 Wis is good on every single character.

Half-Orcs get one of the strongest single racial features so I can't see dropping them even though they are shoehorned into Str builds.

I can almost see bumping Genasi up on versatility alone.

[LudicSavant]

If someone makes a tier list of how much they enjoy a race, I can gather some information from that. If they make a tier list of how powerful they think a race is, I can evaluate that, too. But if the tier list is supposed to be some mixed evaluation with unclear criteria and weighting, I have no idea what any of the ratings actually mean. Why are hobgoblins tier 5? Is it because the OP thinks they're actually weak, or because they think they're unfun, or some combination thereof with unknown weighting? I have no idea.

If you want to make a tier list that we can actually have a useful discussion about, there has to be at least some level of isolation of variables.

[Amdy_vill]

I put Aarakocra in tier 1 for Flight obviously as it's REALLY strong as low levels, but I can see an argument for having them in tier 2.

Lizardfolk have a huge list of features. I almost had them in tier 2 so I really disagree with lowering them to tier 4. I think lacking a stat bonus to any main stat is the only thing that hurts them but +2 Con and +1 Wis is good on every single character.

Half-Orcs get one of the strongest single racial features so I can't see dropping them even though they are shoehorned into Str builds.

I can almost see bumping Genasi up on versatility alone.

I agree with bumping genasi up.

[Snowbluff]

I kinda agree with this.

I think Aarakocra should be low as they really just get flying and an attack. mechanically powerful but not ins trusting. probably say tier 2


and half orc and lizard folk i feel should be tier 4. both have interesting flavor in there abilities but they don't feel like interesting mechanics.


there's a few options in the sword coast guide that are pretty free-form swap in features (ie the winged variant), and there's a list in mordenkainen's tome of foes that gives different ability bonuses (all have +2 charisma but the other stat is flexible), and different spell options (none are really more powerful). It's easier to find a tiefling that fits your desires with those, and in a lot of cases having the right abilities and a few free spells will be better than the couple of skills and one ability point a half elf would give.

But speaking of morty's tome, it's kind of surprising to me that no one else seems to value the short rest teleports that eladrin get. I guess all the other people who like misty step as a spell are just not seeing this thread? it's easily an S+ race for most martials, and it's even pretty good when you want a non-charisma mental stat.

Flight has an interesting usage power wise.
To wit:
If the enemy has no ranged attack of any kind, you will not be hit.
If the enemy ranged attack is poor, you will take less damage.
However, there's nothing keeping said enemy from just stabbing your friend.
It does basically nothing against ranged focused enemies.
Doesn't work in all environments.

Also I'd like to say I'd rate elves just below Meta humans, like a tier lower. While they aren't as good, thinking about he cantrips it really can fill in a build or enable some. Plus some enchantment resistance is nice.

[Amdy_vill]

If someone makes a tier list of how much they enjoy a race, I can gather some information from that. If they make a tier list of how powerful they think a race is, I can evaluate that, too. But if the tier list is supposed to be some mixed evaluation with unclear criteria and weighting, I have no idea what any of the ratings actually mean. Why are hobgoblins tier 5? Is it because the OP thinks they're actually weak, or because they think they're unfun, or some combination thereof with unknown weighting? I have no idea.

If you want to make a tier list that we can actually have a useful discussion about, there has to be at least some level of isolation of variables.

This a vary valid. I would weight the satisfaction of using the mechanic of a race as bing much higher than that mechanic bing powerful. while flight is a powerful ability flight a lone is not an interesting mechanic to use.

Edit: i do think the power of the mechanic plays into the satisfaction of it.

[LudicSavant]

Seriously, though, 5e doesn't have that "tier" mentality. Why try to put it back into existence?

You're kidding yourself here. Basically every single forum guide has color coded ratings for everything. You know what those are? Those are totally tiers. People are ranking options according to criteria. That's what a tier list is.

Incidentally, if you were actually playing a game where evaluating the worth of options was impossible, then you would not be playing a game with strategic elements at all, because the core gameplay loop of any and every strategy game is evaluating options given certain criteria and picking whichever one you think will yield the best chance of accomplishing your goals.


Ohoho.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/559ab41eff5747bea337dca6c69b9d84/tumblr_inline_pcpydluqn71qmh4s7_540.gif
It most certainly does.

What the smug anime girl said.

[Foxhound438]

Ohoho.

It most certainly does.


I really don't think it does

I definitely agree that there's a consensus that rangers are weak, but a lot of people rate bard over wizard due to having even more breadth of usability and spell choice, and a few find sorcerer to be better for specific tasks like buffing with twinned or control with heightened. The three have definite strength over the others, but none is clearly head and shoulders over the others overall. In this case, a tier list would be "rangers are tier 2, everything else is tier 1", which is no more descriptive or useful than saying "rangers are kind of bad".

In terms of races, the only race that seems universally "great" is variant human, but there are cases where other races fit better to a specific purpose (crit fishing is better on a half orc, bugbears are the best assassins, an), so saying V.human is just in a higher tier could be misleading. There's also the fact that race specific feats exist now, so taking Variant Human for an early feat could mean you're losing out on something that could make an overall stronger character going into late game (see dragon fear on a conquest paladin). There isn't even a clear "weakest" race, since non-variant human is the touted worst race, but it allows you to get MAD dips that are otherwise difficult to justify (for instance a monk with a warlock dip, starting stats 9/16/14/9/16/13; not even half elf pulls this off better, since you'd have to have a 13 con for that to work out on point buy). I guess you could rate the races by "broadness of applicability", but that isn't at all helpful in optimizing a build.

[LudicSavant]

I really don't think it does

I definitely agree that there's a consensus that rangers are weak, but a lot of people rate bard over wizard due to having even more breadth of usability and spell choice, and a few find sorcerer to be better for specific tasks like buffing with twinned or control with heightened. The three have definite strength over the others, but none is clearly head and shoulders over the others overall. In this case, a tier list would be "rangers are tier 2, everything else is tier 1", which is no more descriptive or useful than saying "rangers are kind of bad".

If people are rating things at all then there are tier lists. The fact that people disagree on how good things are doesn't change that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you want to evaluate races according to some relatively objective metric, I think you could do it, but you'd need to actually define things. I'd attach the most value to features that are highly unique (ie, flight), that are numerically mis-tuned (ie, Warforged AC in one direction, Kobold's Str penalty in the other), and that open up build options that normally would be infeasible (ie, the Tortle's natural heavy armor).

EDIT:

Either that, or I guess very broad categories:

Overpowered: Things that are just... mis-tuned. I'd list Warforged (AC too high), Aarakocra/Winged Tieflings (flight), Yuan-Ti Purebloods (resistance to magic, immunity to the most common damage type), and vHumans for levels 1-3.
Fine: The vast majority of races.
Niche: Things that you'd almost never find yourself picking for mechanical reasons, outside of a very special build. I'd put vanilla Humans (+1 to an off stat isn't a feature), Dragonborn (poorly scaling breath weapon as their main feature), Orcs (simply inferior to all other muscle-races), and maybe Githzerzai (poor stat pairing and very sparse racial features).


Which, to be honest, is what most tier lists boil down to: things to watch out for because they're exceptionally strong, things to watch out for because they're exceptionally weak, and things that are fine as they are.

[stoutstien]

Every race other than dragonborn and orcs have at least one class/race combo that would be considered a "tier one pick."

[Foxhound438]

You're kidding yourself here. Basically every single forum guide has color coded ratings for everything. You know what those are? Those are totally tiers. People are ranking options according to criteria. That's what a tier list is.

but those are contextualized ratings. Saying that x class is a good dip for y build is significantly different to saying "wizards and fighters are tier 1, sorcerers and bards are tier 2, occultists and alchemists are tier 3" in pathfinder (forgive me those are probably not accurate, I don't pay attention to tier lists). Putting races into a tier list with no context isn't useful, becuase you're bound to either rate a niche ability as high without regard to context and wind up steering a player into Yuan ti for their monk, or you're going to rate a niche ability as low without regard to context and have the conquest paladin player totally skip over dragonborn.

Edit: what would be useful is to list out all the races and say what all the "best" and "good" build decisions for that race would be. Someone wanting to play x race could then easily find a useful place to be.

[LudicSavant]

but those are contextualized ratings

Yes, yes they are. As any proper tier list should be.


Putting races into a tier list with no context isn't useful

I agree. You'll notice that I criticized the OP on exactly this point.

[KorvinStarmast]

so lets build a tier list of races and there subraces and then work on making the super weak one stronger. Your lack of objective criteria renders your list useless. Can you sit down for a bit, put about seven criteria down, and then edit in your OP to show what criteria to use for evaluation? While I don't much care for this tier obsession GiTP has, at least if you are going to do it try and do it with a fair basis for comparison.

[MaxWilson]

so lets build a tier list of races and there subraces and then work on making the super weak one stronger. this is what i got. needs more of the races but with the others i was having a hard time placing them.


Tier 1 - Vhuman, Half-Elf, Elf(Eladrin)

Tier 2 -Aarakocra, Yuan-Ti, Aasimar, Tiefling, Warforged, Tabaxi

Tier 3 - Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Goliath, Gnome,

Tier 4 - Helf-Orc, Lizardfolk, Kenku, Triton, Minotaur, Genasi, Bugbear, Firbolg

Tier 5 - Human, Dragonborn, Orc, Kobold, Hobgoblin, Goblin

scale should be based on power of the races ability and more importantly the enjoyability of those ability.

Any "tier" list that puts goblins on the bottom rung is whacked. Goblins are top shelf.

Context: Hiding is powerful offensively and defensively. High Stealth skill is easy to get (e.g. a Bardlock can get it via Expertise, or anyone in the same party as a Shadow Monk/Ranger/Druid via Pass Without Trace), and so is the opportunity to hide (can come via Skulker feat or Fog Cloud or Darkness or Greater Invisibility or whatever), but the ability to hide with a bonus action normally requires sacrificing two levels to Rogue, which is too painful to be worth it. But a goblin gets it for free. And a goblin also gets bonus damage on a per-short-rest basis with no action economy cost (so you can "bless" some enemy spellcaster with a harder concentration check), good stats, and full 30' movement rate despite being small sized (which lets them ride donkeys and other Medium mounts in places where only Medium-sized creatures are comfortable, so they can often wind up faster than regular humans).

Goblins are in no way underpowered.

[Merudo]

Lizardfolk have a huge list of features. I almost had them in tier 2 so I really disagree with lowering them to tier 4. I think lacking a stat bonus to any main stat is the only thing that hurts them but +2 Con and +1 Wis is good on every single character.

Can someone explains to me what is so good about the Lizardfolk?

The extra skills sure are nice but the rest seems really lackluster.


Cunning Artisan can save you a few gold maybe, how is that valuable?
Hold Breath: everyone can already hold their breath for 1 + its Constitution modifier minutes
Natural Armor: I guess it's useful for a few builds (20 dex Lizardfolks)?
Hungry Jaws: weak attack with weak healing


Honestly I don't see how it compares to the Tiefling, Dwarf, or Elf.

[Merudo]

Any "tier" list that puts goblins on the bottom rung is whacked. Goblins are top shelf.

Context: Hiding is powerful offensively and defensively. High Stealth skill is easy to get (e.g. a Bardlock can get it via Expertise, or anyone in the same party as a Shadow Monk/Ranger/Druid via Pass Without Trace), and so is the opportunity to hide (can come via Skulker feat or Fog Cloud or Darkness or Greater Invisibility or whatever), but the ability to hide with a bonus action normally requires sacrificing two levels to Rogue, which is too painful to be worth it. But a goblin gets it for free. And a goblin also gets bonus damage on a per-short-rest basis with no action economy cost (so you can "bless" some enemy spellcaster with a harder concentration check), good stats, and full 30' movement rate despite being small sized (which lets them ride donkeys and other Medium mounts in places where only Medium-sized creatures are comfortable, so they can often wind up faster than regular humans).

Goblins are in no way underpowered.

Goblins are great for any class that doesn't have access to good bonus actions.

That would include Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Can someone explains to me what is so good about the Lizardfolk?
Con is good for everyone, two skills are good for everyone, Str-based characters get what I'm pretty sure is the best natural weapon out there, and Dex-based characters get permanent Mage Armor. It's not outstanding at anything except maybe being a Druid, but it's solid for anything.

Plus, you know, you get to be a six foot lizard monster.

[Windwaert]

Goblin Warlocks are light enough to be carried by their imp familiar. When the Goblin casts Invisibility on that familiar, RAW both are invisible (Imp + everything it carries). This means they can try to hide each turn. The goblin can attack and hide each turn!

Goblin is good, definitely not bottom tier.

[MaxWilson]

Can someone explains to me what is so good about the Lizardfolk?

The extra skills sure are nice but the rest seems really lackluster.


Cunning Artisan can save you a few gold maybe, how is that valuable?
Hold Breath: everyone can already hold their breath for 1 + its Constitution modifier minutes
Natural Armor: I guess it's useful for a few builds (20 dex Lizardfolks)?
Hungry Jaws: weak attack with weak healing


Honestly I don't see how it compares to the Tiefling, Dwarf, or Elf.

Mechanically, lizardfolk are indeed meh. The main draw (for me) of playing a Lizardman is roleplaying the interesting emotions they have.

They're not terrible as druids though, especially since their stats and flavor are pretty druid-y, and Natural Armor can help cover the AC weakness that druids tend to have. (AC 16 is normally their max (Hide AC 12, Dex +2, shield +2) but a Lizardfolk druid can exceed that. So can a non-lizardfolk druid with high-ish Dex and Mage Armor from a friendly wizard.)

[Windwaert]

They're not terrible as druids though, especially since their stats and flavor are pretty druid-y, and Natural Armor can help cover the AC weakness that druids tend to have. (AC 16 is normally their max (Hide AC 12, Dex +2, shield +2) but a Lizardfolk druid can exceed that. So can a non-lizardfolk druid with high-ish Dex and Mage Armor from a friendly wizard.)

If your DM is kind, you get the Natural Armor benefit when Wildshaped into a Giant Poisonous Snake or other tough, scaly beasts.

[Snowbluff]

I think I need to reiterate my point about goblins being good, as other people are pointing out. Bonus action hide and disengage are good. Tabaxi seems to be rated more highly but similiar reasons, so what gives?


I really don't think it does

I definitely agree that there's a consensus that rangers are weak, but a lot of people rate bard over wizard due to having even more breadth of usability and spell choice, and a few find sorcerer to be better for specific tasks like buffing with twinned or control with heightened. The three have definite strength over the others, but none is clearly head and shoulders over the others overall. In this case, a tier list would be "rangers are tier 2, everything else is tier 1", which is no more descriptive or useful than saying "rangers are kind of bad".

Well to be more thorough, of the top of my head:
Top Tier: bard, sorcerer, wizard, warlock (they get the most crazy spells like simulacrum and true poly)
Bigger Tier: Druids, Clerics (powerful spells options and utility, strong in a fight)
Big Tier: Rogues, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians (good at fighting, no particularly utility outside of skills aside from rogue)
Meh Tier: monks. I just don't like monks.
Small Tier: Ranger

Of course, I do favor spell work over pure combat ability, but without spells you'll never do something like say, make a simulacrum of a CR 20 warlord and true polymorph it into a friendly dragon. In general most classes will be able to contribute to a fight, but this isn't purely combat rating.


If you want to evaluate races according to some relatively objective metric, I think you could do it, but you'd need to actually define things. I'd attach the most value to features that are highly unique (ie, flight), that are numerically mis-tuned (ie, Warforged AC in one direction, Kobold's Str penalty in the other), and that open up build options that normally would be infeasible (ie, the Tortle's natural heavy armor).
...
Orcs (simply inferior to all other muscle-races)
Yeah warforged just seem janky.

Also I keep reading Orc as Half-orc, as half-orc gets some crit dice and an option to avoid going down, but orcs seem worse than Half-orcs. :smallfrown:

[Genoin]

Also, as much as you want your tier list to be based on how satisfying or fun a mechanic is, it's simply not logistically possible to make a tier list in this way that isn't just your personal preference.

For example, you can't objectively say that a high elf getting a free cantrip is more fun or satisfying than a half elf getting extra skill proficiencies, because people value things in totally different ways. Trying to make a tier list based around satisfying/fun racial features is no more than saying this is how fun I personally find each race.

If you want to make a tier list for races and have it be applicable to any relevant percentage of players, it pretty much has to be based on how versatile and strong the mechanics are. That said, based on JaronKs famous tier list, I would suggest the following criteria with a couple examples.

Tier 1 - A pick that is both strong and versatile, should be a top tier pick regardless of concept. (Variant Human)

Tier 2 - A versatile and strong pick, but not great in all cases. (Half Elf)

Tier 3 - A pick that is very strong for specific builds, but lacks versatility. (Half Orc)

Tier 4 - A pick that can be strong in rare cases, but is often outclassed by other options (Standard Human)

Note that this is based on Strength AND Versatility, so just because for example V. Human is Tier 1, that doesn't mean it will always be a better choice (A Half Orc is arguably just as strong for Barbarians, especially with racial feats). It simply means that a Tier 1 race is a strong pick for almost any given character.

Feel free to suggest refinement of these criteria and or examples of what other races should fit what tier.

[GreyBlack]

I mean, going back to the old 3.x watering hole, the classes weren't ranked by raw power, but by versatility. Bards weren't high tier 3 because they weren't as powerful as wizards, but rather because they had less options open to them. I hear everyone arguing that the races can't be ranked by tier and just have to ask myself, "Really? Some races aren't more flexible than others?"

To that end, I'll be posting on each tier definition first and then organizing race and subrace in the PHB; I'm not aware enough of the other races to really rank them.

Tier 1: Good at anything and everything. These races can be put into any of the class combinations and make effective opponents.

Ex.: V. Human, human, half elf

Tier 2: Races/subraces which, while flexible, perhaps have one or two features which limit their options or point them towards a certain class.

Ex.: Wood Elf, Hill Dwarf, Stout Halfling, Drow

Tier 3: Races/subraces which indicate towards a certain class or archetype, but which can have uses outside of these archetypes.

Ex: Tiefling, High Elf, Lightfoot Halfling, Gnomes, Mountain Dwarf

Tier 4: Races/subraces which strongly support a singular archetype or class, and are normally viewed as playing against type or substandard when outside this archetype.

Ex.: Half-Orc, Dragonborn.

Comments or concerns? You know where to put them. :evilgrin:

Edit: Dammit, I was swordsaged!

[Genoin]

I dont know, I think some discussion of raw power is useful. For example, standard humans are versatile, but for any given concept there is usually a better option, while variant humans are nearly always a top tier pick for any concept

[MaxWilson]

I mean, going back to the old 3.x watering hole, the classes weren't ranked by raw power, but by versatility. Bards weren't high tier 3 because they weren't as powerful as wizards, but rather because they had less options open to them. I hear everyone arguing that the races can't be ranked by tier and just have to ask myself, "Really? Some races aren't more flexible than others?"

To that end, I'll be posting on each tier definition first and then organizing race and subrace in the PHB; I'm not aware enough of the other races to really rank them.

Tier 1: Good at anything and everything. These races can be put into any of the class combinations and make effective opponents.

Ex.: V. Human, human, half elf

If you're not using Charisma, half elves are worse than humans. I don't think you can put any race but human in this so-called Tier 1. Every other race will have some classes that it's not a good choice for.

[GreyBlack]

I dont know, I think some discussion of raw power is useful. For example, standard humans are versatile, but for any given concept there is usually a better option, while variant humans are nearly always a top tier pick for any concept

This is a good point, but remember that the Psion and Sorcerer were both Tier 2 in 3.x. This wasn't due to the lack of raw power, but rather due to the lack of breadth instead of depth. That's why, personally, I'm going to go with the versatility over power argument.


If you're not using Charisma, half elves are worse than humans. I don't think you can put any race but human in this so-called Tier 1. Every other race will have some classes that it's not a good choice for.

Half-elves get the same stat adjustments as variant humans, an extra stat adjustment, a skill proficiency, darkvision, advantage on saving throws against charm, and immunity to magical sleep. To my mind, that's versatile enough to allow it to fit any archetype and succeed. Perhaps low tier one, but tier one nonetheless.

[Foxhound438]

I mean, going back to the old 3.x watering hole, the classes weren't ranked by raw power, but by versatility. Bards weren't high tier 3 because they weren't as powerful as wizards, but rather because they had less options open to them. I hear everyone arguing that the races can't be ranked by tier and just have to ask myself, "Really? Some races aren't more flexible than others?"


but there's a serious conceptual difference there. The "versatility" of the wizard vs. the bard is versatility in play once you're in play. You have a range of things you can do when it's your turn, and you have a range of things you can do to solve out of combat situations. The "versatility" of the races that you mention is only applicable when you're drawing up the character. Once you have that gnarrow, gniche gnome race printed onto the top of a wizard character sheet, you have the value that the gnome provides in the specific scenario of being a wizard (which you have total control over), and you have the wizard's in-play versatility when you're actually playing (which is where you need versatility in the first place, because here you don't have total control). Meanwhile, the guy with the super "versitile" variant human at the top of his sheet is now crammed into the narrow cage of being a barbarian with a stick that hurts a little more than normal, and he's always going to be doing the same things in every situation. Pile of orcs? hit it. Dragon? hit it. Bartender asks what you'll have? hit it.

[MaxWilson]

Half-elves get the same stat adjustments as variant humans, an extra stat adjustment, a skill proficiency, darkvision, advantage on saving throws against charm, and immunity to magical sleep. To my mind, that's versatile enough to allow it to fit any archetype and succeed. Perhaps low tier one, but tier one nonetheless.

If you're not using Charisma, they are dominated by variant humans. If you're going to claim that the features you just mentioned are enough to make them Tier 1, then e.g. Aarakocra, Yuan-ti and probably Goblins should be Tier 1 too--almost any character can benefit from their features as much as a half-elf Samurai benefits from half-elf features.

You're measuring versatility in a way that I can't agree with.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think some discussion of raw power of the race when used for the intended class is important.

A PC will face many different scenarios and apply many different skills and abilities. Even social scenarios can result in death, or worse, a loss of loot. However, barring some strange shenanigans, a PC will only be a single race for most of the campaign. It doesn't matter if a certain race is terrible at being barbarians if they can pull ahead as a wizard or have crazy tricks like the goblin warlock. If hardly anyone makes that class/race combo, does it actually matter for terms of balance? No. Versatility is excellent fluff for the humans, but not a good metric for a race as it won't really matter for the group.

And admittedly, this is a personal pet peeve, but I hate races that are terrible at what they are supposed to be doing, such as goblin rogues. Not every goblin needs to be one, but it should have been a solid choice Pelor damn it.

[LudicSavant]

Regarding the versatility discussion:

In practical optimization, it is very important to differentiate between versatility in build and versatility in play.

Versatility in build is the fact that a Human can be used as a component of many different build paths. Versatility in build doesn't actually make the character you built any more powerful, it just means that that game element could have been useful for a greater variety of builds.

Versatility in play is how many options you have at your fingertips after the character is actually built. Versatility in play comes from stuff like "you get more spells known." Versatility in play actually makes you stronger, because it increases your ability to respond to in-world situations.

To put it another way, the fact that your non-variant human Wizard could have been a Rogue instead doesn't make your Human Wizard any stronger. By contrast, a Hobgoblin Wizard is going to have more versatility in play than a non-variant human Wizard, because they have more useful options at their fingertips to resolve problems at any given moment.

[Genoin]

Regarding the versatility discussion:

In practical optimization, it is very important to differentiate between versatility in build and versatility in play.

Versatility in build is the fact that a Human can be used as a component of many different build paths. Versatility in build doesn't actually make the character you built any more powerful, it just means that that game element could have been useful for a greater variety of builds.

Versatility in play is how many options you have at your fingertips after the character is actually built. Versatility in play comes from stuff like "you get more spells known." Versatility in play actually makes you stronger, because it increases your ability to respond to in-world situations.

To put it another way, the fact that your non-variant human Wizard could have been a Rogue instead doesn't make your Human Wizard any stronger. By contrast, a Hobgoblin Wizard is going to have more versatility in play than a non-variant human Wizard, because they have more useful options at their fingertips to resolve problems at any given moment.

Agree. I think in general, when you are discussing races, versatility in build is most important because basically all of a races versatility comes from choices that are made during character creation.

As a side note, I think that Variant Human may be the only true Tier 1 race, because the feat at level 1 makes them very powerful, and they are literally good for any character.

[Languid_Duck]

Tiering the races isn't really possible when different classes/builds have different stat priorities, which is the main thing people look at. Gnomes for instance make amazing Wizards, great ATs/EKs, and dismal Barbarians or Sorcerers, so how do we place them? Only a couple races (Vuman, Half-Elf, Envoy Warforged) could be universally helpful, and even those have better alternatives for some builds.

[Keravath]

I think vHuman is a good choice from a flexibility point of view. However, "power" depends on feat choice. I'm not sure that my vHuman rogue who took the observant feat just so they could be good at spotting traps is any sense "more poweful" than many if not most other races (except where it comes to noticing traps, hidden creatures and possibly ambushes. :)

On the other hand, the yuan-ti magic resistance becomes amazing at higher levels where saving throws start to matter a lot more.

[Snowbluff]

On the other hand, the yuan-ti magic resistance becomes amazing at higher levels where saving throws start to matter a lot more.

I like them at lower levels too because of their poison immunity. This means those pesky snakes and spiders are a lot less threatening.

[MaxWilson]

And admittedly, this is a personal pet peeve, but I hate races that are terrible at what they are supposed to be doing, such as goblin rogues. Not every goblin needs to be one, but it should have been a solid choice...

Out of curiosity, what makes you feel that goblins are supposed to be rogues? If a PC is playing e.g. a sneaky, murderous, goblin Battlemaster, in what way do you view that as something less than ideal? The whole point of goblin features is that they're all gobliny, they don't have to be rogues to do it.

What rogue features do you feel are needed to make goblins feel like real goblins?

[Mr.Spastic]

What would be useful is to list out all the races and say what all the "best" and "good" build decisions for that race would be. Someone wanting to play x race could then easily find a useful place to be.

This is why I think that V humans and Tieflings are top tier. As the two most versatile races in the game, they can be tweaked to fit almost any build.

[Genoin]

I think what he is referring to regarding goblins being Rogues is that the Goblins most powerful racial feature is redundant with the Rogues feature

[Snowbluff]

Out of curiosity, what makes you feel that goblins are supposed to be rogues? If a PC is playing e.g. a sneaky, murderous, goblin Battlemaster, in what way do you view that as something less than ideal? The whole point of goblin features is that they're all gobliny, they don't have to be rogues to do it.

What rogue features do you feel are needed to make goblins feel like real goblins?

OKay, this bothers me too. So goblins are naturally sneaky, right? They have a feature that gives them bonus action hide and disengage, great features. Naturally, this flavor makes them seem like good rogue.

However, rogues naturally get this, so a goblin isn't a very good rogue because they basically just have an ability less than their compatriots.

It's not the worst thing ever but the optimizer in my doesn't want to waste race abilities.

[Mr.Spastic]

OKay, this bothers me too. So goblins are naturally sneaky, right? They have a feature that gives them bonus action hide and disengage, great features. Naturally, this flavor makes them seem like good rogue.

However, rogues naturally get this, so a goblin isn't a very good rogue because they basically just have an ability less than their compatriots.

It's not the worst thing ever but the optimizer in my doesn't want to waste race abilities.

I personally think that goblins make better rangers than rogues. They seem like more natural survivalists.

[Genoin]

I think vHuman is a good choice from a flexibility point of view. However, "power" depends on feat choice. I'm not sure that my vHuman rogue who took the observant feat just so they could be good at spotting traps is any sense "more poweful" than many if not most other races (except where it comes to noticing traps, hidden creatures and possibly ambushes. :)

On the other hand, the yuan-ti magic resistance becomes amazing at higher levels where saving throws start to matter a lot more.

Yes power does depend on feat choice. But an option's theoretical power is based on the most optimal choice being made. While your example is relatively weak, using the standard array you can end up with a variant human Rogue with 16 Dexterity 14 Constitution and 14 in another stat with no odd stats and the crossbow expert feat at level 1. I'm not saying that's the most optimal choice but it is considerably stronger.

[Snowbluff]

I personally think that goblins make better rangers than rogues. They seem like more natural survivalists.

They're really good bards and wizards for sure.
Basically anything that doesn't wear disadvantage on stealth armor and doesn't use a lot of bonus actions.

[Trustypeaches]

They're really good bards and wizards for sure.
Basically anything that doesn't wear disadvantage on stealth armor and doesn't use a lot of bonus actions.It can depend on the bard.

A Lore bard doesn't use Bonus Actions very often, but a Glamour Bard has several strong uses for them.

[Snowbluff]

It can depend on the bard.

A Lore bard doesn't use Bonus Actions very often, but a Glamour Bard has several strong uses for them.

Well, all bards have inspiration, and Lore bard can get bonus action spells, and they all innately have bonus action spells already.

However, my point is more aimed at them getting expertise and being good with skills than use of their actions, which I should have made more clear. My bad. x.x

[thoroughlyS]

And admittedly, this is a personal pet peeve, but I hate races that are terrible at what they are supposed to be doing, such as goblin rogues. Not every goblin needs to be one, but it should have been a solid choice Pelor damn it.
Out of curiosity, what makes you feel that goblins are supposed to be rogues? If a PC is playing e.g. a sneaky, murderous, goblin Battlemaster, in what way do you view that as something less than ideal? The whole point of goblin features is that they're all gobliny, they don't have to be rogues to do it.

What rogue features do you feel are needed to make goblins feel like real goblins?

OKay, this bothers me too. So goblins are naturally sneaky, right? They have a feature that gives them bonus action hide and disengage, great features. Naturally, this flavor makes them seem like good rogue.

However, rogues naturally get this, so a goblin isn't a very good rogue because they basically just have an ability less than their compatriots.

It's not the worst thing ever but the optimizer in my doesn't want to waste race abilities.
Historically, goblin rogues are also common. In 1st edition, rogue was one of the five classes they had access to, which had the second highest level cap (behind assassin). In v3.5, rogue is their favored class, and the only goblinoid prestige class (stonedeath assassin) was easier to enter as a rogue and also gave sneak attack (which stacked with rogue). In 4E, one of the six goblin racial feats was designed for goblin rogues.

Goblins are my favorite race, and I appreciate that the current design makes them fairly popular, but it really bothers me that a classic race/class combo is nonsynergistic. In addition, nimble escape is so powerful that it precludes the goblin having any other interesting features*.

*Fury of the small is trash. Don't @ me.

[Honest Tiefling]

Out of curiosity, what makes you feel that goblins are supposed to be rogues? If a PC is playing e.g. a sneaky, murderous, goblin Battlemaster, in what way do you view that as something less than ideal? The whole point of goblin features is that they're all gobliny, they don't have to be rogues to do it.

What rogue features do you feel are needed to make goblins feel like real goblins?

Well, if the player wanted to be a rogue but felt that the racial overlap would be boring or underpowered, I'd consider that a bit of a problem. The racial features of a goblin should feel gobliny, not 'Welp, better make a ranger or fighter now!'. Fighters and rangers are very good classes for goblins in many settings, but rogue really should have been a better option.


I think what he is referring to regarding goblins being Rogues is that the Goblins most powerful racial feature is redundant with the Rogues feature

You hit it on the head, Genoin. I just don't think a race can be considered well designed if it doesn't work with a class it has been historically associated with and often used for NPCs. Unless a lot of adventures had goblin warlocks I was completely unaware of. I like the idea of flying goblin warlocks, but I don't really think that's a common class for goblins in lore.


Historically, goblin rogues are also common. In 1st edition, rogue was one of the five classes they had access to, which had the second highest level cap (behind assassin). In v3.5, rogue is their favored class, and the only goblinoid prestige class (stonedeath assassin) was easier to enter as a rogue and also gave sneak attack (which stacked with rogue). In 4E, one of the six goblin racial feats was designed for goblin rogues.

Yeah, I know we shouldn't strictly adhere to the rules of the past, but I feel like rogue is really a class that fits with many different interpretations of goblins. Why would the race be designed to discourage this combination?

[The Jack]

I think you're all overvalueing variant human.
Good for all characters because you can pick what you want, but rarely the best choice for a class.

OP: aracocra, Yuan ti

Attractive: V human, Elves, Mountain dwarf, Goblin.

Niche: gnomes, halfling, tieflings

Meh: Gensai

Upsettingly bad: hobgoblin.

But hey, I enjoy racial biases so...

[CTurbo]

Tier 1 - Vhuman, Half-Elf, Aarakocra

Tier 2 - Yuan-Ti, Aasimar, Tiefling, Warforged, Tabaxi, Goblin

Tier 3 - Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Orc, Goliath, Gnome, Lizardfolk, Genasi

Tier 4 - Kenku, Triton, Minotaur, Bugbear, Firbolg, Kobold, Hobgoblin

Tier 5 - Human, Dragonborn, Orc


I had to reread about Goblins and Hobgoblins so I adjusted them.

All this Tiefling love, and I think Aasimar are superior.

[Benny89]

While I agree with sentiment that "every race is playable and fun", the truth is some races mechnically are just better. Tier list does not interfere with roleplay aspect, it's merely a way to express opinion about race balance (or lack of it).

Tier S+ : Variant Human and Half Elf (Drow best)

Tier S: Aasamir, Mountain Dwarf, Half-Orc, Yuan-Ti

Imo those are top, which is subjective a little too and depends on clas but those are my picks.

[Keravath]

Yes power does depend on feat choice. But an option's theoretical power is based on the most optimal choice being made. While your example is relatively weak, using the standard array you can end up with a variant human Rogue with 16 Dexterity 14 Constitution and 14 in another stat with no odd stats and the crossbow expert feat at level 1. I'm not saying that's the most optimal choice but it is considerably stronger.

Absolutely :) ... but every other race choice has fixed benefits. You can compare them just by looking at the printed material. However, vHuman CAN be among the best but, in my opinion, the real advantage to vHuman is the flexibility in building a character with an interesting perk or benefit that varies from build to build.

For example, I have played vHuman in a number of cases just to have resilient ... usually con and sometimes wis. This isn't game breaking ... it is like having a racial ability that gives you +1 to a stat and proficiency in the matching saving throw. This is still really useful in the long run.

To be honest, I think that for the most part the only feats that are less balanced for a level 1 character are polearm master and crossbow expert since both of these will grant an additional attack and other perks (though to be honest the extra attack isn't that different from a monk's unarmed strike or the extra attack from two weapon fighting though the feats have additional benefits). Sharpshooter and GWM could also be included in the list, not because they really help a level 1 all that much but because they can then be combined with crossbow expert and polearm master at 4th level when the character gets an ASI. The combination of extra attacks with Sharpshooter/GWM and some way to reliably generate advantage can lead to some very effective builds at very early levels that are only accessible by variant humans with the extra feat.

Without those combinations, I think variant human is pretty even with the other races and provides more flexibility but isn't any stronger. Ban those four feats for a level 1 vHuman and I think you might see a lot fewer vHumans around :).

[GreyBlack]

If you're not using Charisma, they are dominated by variant humans. If you're going to claim that the features you just mentioned are enough to make them Tier 1, then e.g. Aarakocra, Yuan-ti and probably Goblins should be Tier 1 too--almost any character can benefit from their features as much as a half-elf Samurai benefits from half-elf features.

You're measuring versatility in a way that I can't agree with.

I mean, yes. Aarakocra, Yuan-Ti, and Goblins should probably be Tier 1. Flight, the numerous resistances, and

They provide bonuses on par with those Tier 1 races, although I didn't really look at anything beyond the PHB. You're free to evaluate them in your own way.

That said, based on many complaints, I will drop Half Elf to Tier 2, although I do still feel that it's deserving of T1 status.

[guachi]

Make all races better:

A player may take one plus from any ability that has a +2 and put it on any other ability, to a maximum of +2 in that ability score.

Humans may take one plus and put it on any other ability score for a total of +2 in that ability score, giving a non-variant human +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 to his six ability scores.

Now, (almost) anyone can get +1 to any ability and it increases those that can have a +2. Humans can get a +2 to anything. Now, players can more freely chose a race because of the flavor and not the stat bonuses

[The Jack]

The only races that are problematicly strong are yuan-ti and aracocra.

Who's weak... well.

[LudicSavant]

Aarakocra are ridiculous. I'm not even just talking about their power level, I'm talking about the fact that they canonically have a 20 foot wingspan, yet have no trouble flying 50 feet a round in 5-foot wide dungeon corridors. It's even worse than Medium centaur towers.

[MaxWilson]

OKay, this bothers me too. So goblins are naturally sneaky, right? They have a feature that gives them bonus action hide and disengage, great features. Naturally, this flavor makes them seem like good rogue.

However, rogues naturally get this, so a goblin isn't a very good rogue because they basically just have an ability less than their compatriots.

It's not the worst thing ever but the optimizer in my doesn't want to waste race abilities.

Sure, but why would you WANT to be a rogue as a goblin? What are you missing by just going e.g. straight Battlemaster? At that point you're basically a multiclassed fighter/rogue already: you've got full Fighter attacks and a fair bit of pseudo-Sneak Attack damage that you can add to any of your regular attacks, once per short rest.

It's weird to me to hear something that sounds like "Xs aren't very good Y because they already have all of the best parts of Y, so they don't really feel like Xs". I'm wondering if there's something you feel goblins "should" have that they don't already have but would if they went Rogue.

[Merudo]

Sure, but why would you WANT to be a rogue as a goblin? What are you missing by just going e.g. straight Battlemaster? At that point you're basically a multiclassed fighter/rogue already: you've got full Fighter attacks and a fair bit of pseudo-Sneak Attack damage that you can add to any of your regular attacks, once per short rest.

It's weird to me to hear something that sounds like "Xs aren't very good Y because they already have all of the best parts of Y, so they don't really feel like Xs". I'm wondering if there's something you feel goblins "should" have that they don't already have but would if they went Rogue.

The "goblins don't make good rogues in 5e, so they are bad race" point to be entirely based on flavor & lore - goblins have been known to make good rogues in the past, so it is strange to some that rogue is actually one of the worst classes goblins can be in 5e.

Still, I don't see how "flavor" should be part of the discussion of the race tier list. The goblin race is mechanically powerful, and so deserves to be in a high tier - even though the design of the race doesn't really work with the existing lore.

The same can be said of the supposedly "stoic" lizardfolks who can enter a "feeding frenzy" as one of their abilities.

[thoroughlyS]

Sure, but why would you WANT to be a rogue as a goblin?
Why would you WANT to be a dwarf cleric, or an elf wizard? Because for a large part of the game's history, they were firmly established concepts with some amount of mechanical backing. Same with the goblin rogue, except as it currently stands in 5e

The "goblins don't make good rogues in 5e, so they are bad race" point to be entirely based on flavor & lore - goblins have been known to make good rogues in the past, so it is strange to some that rogue is actually one of the worst classes goblins can be in 5e.

Still, I don't see how "flavor" should be part of the discussion of the race tier list. The goblin race is mechanically powerful, and so deserves to be in a high tier - even though the design of the race doesn't really work with the existing lore.
Actually no-one has made the assertion that goblins are bad because they don't make good rogues. The only people who put goblins in the lower tiers were the first couple of posters. After that, everyone else has been pointing out how that was an odd placement. Meanwhile, some posters (myself included) have made it clear that we wish goblin rogue was a better option. It's a completely tangential conversation.

[Son of A Lich!]

Is there consideration for races that are redundant but worse then their originals?

The Orc has an unnecessary debuff to intelligence, but that's a largely ignored stat anyway. The killer for the Orc class is that Half-Orcs are just so much better at everything, except getting into melee combat quicker... which really shouldn't be a problem. I guess half-orcs got the Savage Attacks and Endurance from their human side of the family?

I think they'd be a lot more appealing to play if they got something like GWM as a 1/short rest ability, akin to goblins 'Fury of the Small', and the Relentless Endurance trait. It would make them different without being objectively worse. However, carrying a useless debuff (in the form of -2 Int) is just salt in the wound.

Glad they had to break the mold for that.

[The Jack]

I think books aught to loose the "we dont want to encourage monster races so lets make em broken" mentality .

Volos... it's not even like they're trying to be accurate to the monster; they're either balls or the balls ( a couple are alright, i like the bugbear... )

[thoroughlyS]

I think books aught to loose the "we dont want to encourage monster races so lets make em broken" mentality .

Volos... it's not even like they're trying to be accurate to the monster
I actually feel like the idea was simply to slap together some rough rules so that people could at least kind of play those races if they wanted. I'm still holding out for a more fully developed treatment like the other races in Volo's, simply treated as a "subrace" to effectively patch them.

[Potato_Priest]

Something that hasn't been analyzed in the thoroughness I feel it deserves is the Kenku. This is because they have incredibly crippling features that may be totally ignored, depending on the DM's interpretation of Kenku lore and the player's commitment to roleplaying.

The first of these is the fact that they literally can't be creative in the lore. If this translates into actual gameplay, not being able to come up with clever plans and tricks is a downside that no amount of mediocre racial features could make up for. This is especially bad because the Kenku's ability to mimic others is one that I find works great with creative strategies.

The second of these is the fact that they can't talk without imitating others. While theoretically a Kenku could just imitate individual words (or heck, even syllables) that they've heard to construct normal sentences, I have seen people not interpret it this way, requiring the Kenku to speak using entire phrases or sentences imitated from others, strongly limiting their ability to interact with NPCs.

[MaxWilson]

Is there consideration for races that are redundant but worse then their originals?

The Orc has an unnecessary debuff to intelligence, but that's a largely ignored stat anyway. The killer for the Orc class is that Half-Orcs are just so much better at everything, except getting into melee combat quicker... which really shouldn't be a problem.

Do you realize that Aggressive can be used for kiting too? Use Aggressive to approach 30' (or 40' with Longstrider), make an attack with e.g. a pike or a thrown javelin/dart/dagger, and then use normal movement to retreat 30' (or 40'). It's not quite as good as Mobile but it's more versatile than you think it is.

My powergamer side would much rather play an Orc than a Half-orc, because an always-on bonus action option is better than a once-per-long-rest ability for barely staving off disaster (drop to 1 HP instead of 0 HP) and a marginal boost to a barely-relevant combat contingency (more dice on criticals). My RP side thinks half-orcs have some interesting potential, and my powergamer side is far more interested in other races than orcs anyway, but I'm still probably more likely to play a full orc than a half-orc anyway. And BTW the Int penalty makes orcs more interesting to me, not less.


Something that hasn't been analyzed in the thoroughness I feel it deserves is the Kenku. This is because they have incredibly crippling features that may be totally ignored, depending on the DM's interpretation of Kenku lore and the player's commitment to roleplaying.

The first of these is the fact that they literally can't be creative in the lore. If this translates into actual gameplay, not being able to come up with clever plans and tricks is a downside that no amount of mediocre racial features could make up for. This is especially bad because the Kenku's ability to mimic others is one that I find works great with creative strategies.

The second of these is the fact that they can't talk without imitating others. While theoretically a Kenku could just imitate individual words (or heck, even syllables) that they've heard to construct normal sentences, I have seen people not interpret it this way, requiring the Kenku to speak using entire phrases or sentences imitated from others, strongly limiting their ability to interact with NPCs.

Good point. Kenku are so bad and annoying I always forget they exist. You could give them full Aarakocra flight and I still wouldn't want to play one.

They would no longer be bad, but still annoying, in the same way it's annoying to me to play a low-Int fighter: it sets up an unnecessary tension between my roleplaying instincts (which want to roleplay low Int) and my powergamer instincts (which want to fight effectively). It's just simpler to put a reasonable Int on any character I'm not intending to play as a half-wit. And it's just simpler not to play a Kenku.