Race/Class combinations you wouldn't play

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

I had a conversation a little bit ago about how much I enjoyed the goblin race and how I could see myself playing them as most classes, with the exception of rogues, oddly enough. Their racial bonus action hide/disengage overlaps too much with cunning action, which would cause me to want to pick some other race that could better use it. I had a similar problem with Tabaxi Thieves.

Are they any race/class combinations that you find yourself not really able to play, either for thematic, mechanical, or personal preference reasons?

[Man_Over_Game]

I had a conversation a little bit ago about how much I enjoyed the goblin race and how I could see myself playing them as most classes, with the exception of rogues, oddly enough. Their racial bonus action hide/disengage overlaps too much with cunning action, which would cause me to want to pick some other race that could better use it. I had a similar problem with Tabaxi Thieves.

Are they any race/class combinations that you find yourself not really able to play, either for thematic, mechanical, or personal preference reasons?

Human Variant with Fighter: Overly played, to the point of being cliché.

Halfling Barbarian: At this point, you're trying to be ironic. The Gnome provides a lot more and accomplishes the same thing.

Dragonborn Rogue: It just doesn't really fit my image of the Dragonborn, and flavor-wise they wouldn't be interested in being Rogues.

Half-Orc Wizard: These are usually played as "dumb wizards", and there aren't enough smart characters in 5e as it is. It'd be like ruining the last ration for a punchline. Jokes are fine, but it shouldn't ruin a perfectly valuable resource doing so. A joke-Fighter would be a lot more valuable to a team.

[The Kool]

Half-Orc Wizard: These are usually played as "dumb wizards", and there aren't enough smart characters in 5e as it is. It'd be like ruining the last ration for a punchline.

I played a multiclass half-orc barbarian/wizard once (in 3.5). He was kind of hilarious but actually a halfway decent gish... for the entirety of the one session he survived before another character instigated a party wipe. His thing was that he was way smarter than anyone gave him credit for, but had a tendency to start seeing red and go into a rage if a fight broke out.

There's not much I won't play, if anything. I think that category pretty much includes "anything I've played even remotely recently", because I tend to jump from one concept to the next. Even when I return to a concept I try for a different take on it, a different class as the base for example.

[Yakmala]

Halfling/Gnome/Kobold/Goblin Barbarians: Every one of these I've encountered at local game shops or conventions conveniently has Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Belt of Giant Strength and attributes that were designed with the expectation of gaining such an item from the very beginning. I don't like character builds that require a specific type of magic item to work.

Orc Wizard: Yeah, it's funny. But once the joke gets old, you still have a dumb wizard.

Deep Gnome Abjuration Wizard: A race/class combo that is being picked solely to exploit a loophole in Arcane Ward. Sure, I could probably come up with a good backstory, but in the end, it's just there to mask that the character is a walking exploit.

[Spiritchaser]

I’d pass on almost any rogue if the race didn’t have Darkvision.

Seriously, I’m going to spend half my time slithering around in the dark, and I get to choose if I’m blind in the dark or not?

Yes a warlock MC would be fine and so on... and maybe, just MAYBE a mastermind or swashbuckler could get by without (though even there I probably wouldn’t go that route) but single class rogue? No Darkvision? Yuck!

[NaughtyTiger]

charismatic lizardfolk: no paladin/bard/sorc/warlock.
contemplative lizardfolk: no monk.

[Man_Over_Game]

charismatic lizardfolk: no paladin/bard/sorc/warlock.
contemplative lizardfolk: no monk.

An Inquisitive Rogue Lizardman would be really interesting.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I will never be able to bring myself to play a class with a race that doesn't synergies.

For example, I play a wood elf goo tomb warlock(BFC) only because we were able to move the racial stat bonus.

[JumboWheat01]

All this disdain for halfling barbarians... they're so much fun, though!

Since I have a tendency to draw up plans for things that go against racial norms, the race/class combos I'd probably wouldn't play are the dreadfully obvious ones, dwarf fighters, high elf wizards, wood elf rangers, halfling rogues, tiefling warlocks, so on and so forth. Though sometimes it's fun to go with an obvious class and subvert it in some way, maybe be a dwarven eldritch knight, for example.

[jaappleton]

There's some races I just don't like.

Goliath. Aside from Stone's Endurance, they're pretty trash. I'll take Half Orc all day.

I want to like Kenku, thematically. I really do. But I hate the prospect of actually playing one. Though I do have this idea of a Kenku Bard that speaks only in real-world song titles....

"Bard, you ready to fight?"
"Like a virgin!"

But no race/class combos.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

Half-Orc Wizard: These are usually played as "dumb wizards", and there aren't enough smart characters in 5e as it is. It'd be like ruining the last ration for a punchline. Jokes are fine, but it shouldn't ruin a perfectly valuable resource doing so. A joke-Fighter would be a lot more valuable to a team.


Halfling/Gnome/Kobold/Goblin Barbarians: Every one of these I've encountered at local game shops or conventions conveniently has Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Belt of Giant Strength and attributes that were designed with the expectation of gaining such an item from the very beginning. I don't like character builds that require a specific type of magic item to work.

I actually did a combination of these with a Minotaur Wizard who dumped Int and had a headband of intellect. He'd had it for a long time at that point, though, and had the full understanding from the years and experience that he was nothing without it. He was desperately afraid or thieves and anyimagic fields, 'cause who couldn't go back to what he was. So, kind of a play on the dumb wizard, but without the dumb.


I’d pass on almost any rogue if the race didn’t have Darkvision.

My very first character was in a beginners game where they needed a rogue and the DM recommended human to keep things simple. Right about level 4 I begged him to let me respec, as we were dungeon delving and I couldn't sneak or scout without disadvantage and darkness kept ruining my sneak attacks. I ended up taking 2 levels of Warlock just for the darkvision.

[jaappleton]

My very first character was in a beginners game where they needed a rogue and the DM recommended human to keep things simple. Right about level 4 I begged him to let me respec, as we were dungeon delving and I couldn't sneak or scout without disadvantage and darkness kept ruining my sneak attacks. I ended up taking 2 levels of Warlock just for the darkvision.

Geez, even Adventurer's League lets you respec before lv5.

[No brains]

I'm not sure if there's anything I'd ever not play. I wish I could play D&D enough for this to be an issue.

My 'worst' 5e character was a high elf trickery cleric, which sounds pretty close to a bad idea from the get-go, but that character pulled their weight decently well. I'd be eager to try other bizarre combos.

[Lord Raziere]

human fighter with a sword
elf ranger with a bow
halfling or human rogue who steals things as comic relief
orc barbarian who wields an axe
dwarf fighter who wields an axe
drow ranger who wields two scimitars
halfling or human bard who is comic relief
human wizard with a big white beard, robes and wand/staff
human paladin with a sword and shining armor

just anything cliched and stale. if its too normal, I don't go for it.

[Man_Over_Game]

human fighter with a sword
elf ranger with a bow
halfling or human rogue who steals things as comic relief
orc barbarian who wields an axe
dwarf fighter who wields an axe
drow ranger who wields two scimitars
halfling or human bard who is comic relief
human wizard with a big white beard, robes and wand/staff
human paladin with a sword and shining armor

just anything cliched and stale. if its too normal, I don't go for it.

I'd be fine with a Drow Ranger with two scimitars, if only because of how poorly optimized it is. It's an 'unnatural' trope that you don't actually see anything similar to it very often.

On the flipside, though, I've seen many White Knight Paladins, orphan Sorcerers, edgelord Warlocks than I care to count.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

just anything cliched and stale. if its too normal, I don't go for it.

Yeah, I have a hard time getting excited to play the fantasy stereotypes. If forced to, I'd have to play them against type somehow.

[JackPhoenix]

Dragonborn anything.
Anything small-sized, except goblins.
Volo's anything, except Yuan-ti, maybe, depending on the setting's lore. And goblins.
EE anything.
Ravnica anything.

I see no point in having crapload of sapient humanoid species in a setting. 5-10 is more than enough, but things derived from normal races may get pass.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm not sure if there's anything I'd ever not play. I wish I could play D&D enough for this to be an issue.

This.

If I get a good idea for a char, class/race combination is never gonna be a problem.

I just wouldn't play a character I don't have a good story/background/reason for.

[ZorroGames]

Wouldn’t play? No.

Not big on certain races. Tiefling, Dragonborn, Half-anything including Halfling, High/Drow Elf - these are “yet to be planned much less played.”

Admittedly, Mountain Dwarf anything is an obsession; Feat oriented Variant Human mono-class 0D&D tropes of Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, or Cleric; and Gnome Wizard MCs dominate my current mix of PCs.

[intregus]

An Inquisitive Rogue Lizardman would be really interesting.

My wife (DM) killed my fire genasi wizard last Friday and my firbolg tempest cleric friend, we're playing Tomb of Annhilation, and I just rolled up a monster hunter ranger4/inquisitive rogue3 lizardfolk. Should be fun!

Ill play anything that I get a good concept for. I really do think d&d should move away from racial stat bonus's though because a lot of people refuse to play unoptimized even if it would be fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

My wife (DM) killed my fire genasi wizard last Friday and my firbolg tempest cleric friend, we're playing Tomb of Annhilation, and I just rolled up a monster hunter ranger4/inquisitive rogue3 lizardfolk. Should be fun!

Ill play anything that I get a good concept for. I really do think d&d should move away from racial stat bonus's though because a lot of people refuse to play unoptimized even if it would be fun.

I don't think I'd mind that too much. Maybe each race has a very niche benefit that will only be relevant if you actually used it.

I guess that brings up a good question: Are racial tropes good? Is it good that a Wood Elf is more inclined to be a Rogue than a Half-Orc is? Or should we see just as many Half-Orc Rogues as we do Wood Elves? Probably best for another topic, thinking about it.
On one hand, opening up diversity provides players a lot more options for their narrative. There would be less restrictions on what they'd feel comfortable playing.


But on the other, the racial bonuses provide a sense of culture and familiarity with their choices. Half-Orcs are Barbarians because it's natural for them, and you feel like a true Half-Orc by being a Barbarian just like the rest of your Race. Even if there were no modifiers dictating what direction you should go, a Half-Orc Rogue will always feel out of place, because tropes. But there'd be no reason for that feeling if there were no modifiers to push you towards a direction. A Half-Orc Rogue is unoptimized, so it is both mechanically and narratively against the grain. If a Half-Orc isn't a meathead race, then what is it and why? In a way, the narrative regarding your character, and how they fit with their race, will always match your racial stats with your class/playstyle.
Of course, that's assuming that you like stereotypes in your narrative. I do, as it implies that the world has built-in culture based on race (which isn't too different from our own), but I can see where someone might do otherwise.

[Snowbluff]

Goblin Rogue: Sadly, a big draw of Goblin, their Cunning Action light, is basically worthless as a rogue. This makes me sad that it's such a bad combination. I play AL so it's especially not worth using my +1 book for it, even though I like playing small and cute characters.

Kobold barbarian: What as a strength penalty and already gets easy advantage without using reckless attack?! This class. For real, -2 Str hurts and I wish kobolds were buffed by having the penalty removed.

[Corran]

Gnome + any race class. Annoying little buggers.

Any race without dakvision + rogue. I like my rogues to have darkvision (without depending on items, which can be lost).

Halforc vengeance paladin. Both seen and heard too many times of what essentially boils down to the same simple and boring character concept: A halforc with a grudge against orcs. Doesn't mean I would have to play it like that, but I have come to dislike this combination.

[Snowbluff]

Halforc vengeance paladin. Both seen and heard too many times of what essentially boils down to the same simple and boring character concept: A halforc with a grudge against orcs. Doesn't mean I would have to play it like that, but I have come to dislike this combination.

On that note, anything Warforged. I am neither interested in "beep boop I'm a robot" nor "beep boop I'm a robot who wants to feel love."

[Kyutaru]

Aasimar Warlock. The celestial being born of a pure good entity just made a demonic pact with Hell.

Dwarf Druid. Not a whole lot of animals or foliage underground. Call Lightning is functionally useless.

Gnome anything. There's never a reason to use these guys. Just be an elf or half-elf for extra abilities.

Half-orc Bard. This is the epitome of slapstick comedy with the ugly giant being everyone's favorite pal.

Halfling Monk. Would never be able to stop laughing any time I did anything grappling related.

[Tanarii]

Tiefling Barbarian.
But strangely, I've had a hankering to play a Halfling Barbarian Sailor (aka Viking) for a while now.

Dragonborn Sorcerer, even though they're as good as humans at it, ability score-wise.

Half-Orc Wizard, not even one that casts fist.

Mount Dwarf Druid, because wut? (If I did it would almost certainly be a Mountain Land Druid. Edit: or Underdark, on a seconds worth of reflection )

Also I still find it weird to play Dwarf or Halfling arcane caster, even after three editions of it being possible.

[Yunru]

Deep Gnome Abjuration Wizard: A race/class combo that is being picked solely to exploit a loophole in Arcane Ward. Sure, I could probably come up with a good backstory, but in the end, it's just there to mask that the character is a walking exploit.

Mask my ass! A creative player has their character come to the same conclusion as them, and is exploiting the **** out of it because they found it works :P

[Kyutaru]

Mask my ass! A creative player has their character come to the same conclusion as them, and is exploiting the **** out of it because they found it works :P

Elminster does the same thing in every book ever. Even deep in hell and facing Asmodeus himself, the guy has more cheats than a Nintendo Power magazine.

[JackPhoenix]

On that note, anything Warforged. I am neither interested in "beep boop I'm a robot" nor "beep boop I'm a robot who wants to feel love."

Good thing warforged aren't "beep boop, I'm a robot" race, then.

[Marywn]

On that note, anything Warforged. I am neither interested in "beep boop I'm a robot" nor "beep boop I'm a robot who wants to feel love."
"BEEP BOOP, I AM A ROBOT FROM THE FUTURE. I HAVE COME TO TAKE AMERICAN JOBS."

In all seriousness, I will never play one thing. That is Human Fighter, due to the overabundance of em running around. And I like playing dragonborn rogues, Allows me to try to figure out ways to use the claws in a more precise way than just slashing and stabbing.

[EDIT]
Of course if it's a ranger with a whip, I think Indiana Jones, or the Belmonts.

[Astofel]

I'll most likely never play an orc wizard (or an orc anything, tbh, that race is pretty weak and the flavour can be accomplished by using a half-orc), or kobold barbarians (I know dex barbs exist, but I don't really like them). I'll also avoid playing small-sized archers, because longbows and heavy crossbows can't be used by them without disadvantage. At least for melee smalls I usually have the option to use a shield or a versatile weapon instead of the heavy two-handers, archer smalls are forced into using a shortbow or light/hand crossbow with no compensation.

[Lyracian]

I mostly play Elves, Dwarves and the occasional Human; also 1/2 Elves in 5th Edition. As they were never in the older editions I played doubt I would ever play Dragonborn, tiefling or any of the monster races other than Goblins. I like Goblins and have played them in other games.

There are some classes I would only play with the XGtE sub classes such as Warlock and Ranger. I am unlikely to ever play a Sorcerer because I prefer Bards and Wizards.

My Fifth Ed characters at the moment are
High Elf Arcane Trickster
High Elf Wizard (with Cleric Dip)
Half Elf Bard (with Cleric Dip)


Halfling Barbarian: At this point, you're trying to be ironic. The Gnome provides a lot more and accomplishes the same thing.
Amusingly that is one of the few I want to play; mostly because I read the Iron Chef
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2ji303/the_class_is_a_lie_the_lil_chef/


On the flipside, though, I've seen many White Knight Paladins, orphan Sorcerers, edgelord Warlocks than I care to count.
Being the White Knight is the draw of the paladin. All that holier than thou posturing.


Any race without dakvision + rogue. I like my rogues to have darkvision (without depending on items, which can be lost).
This one I can get behind Rogues need to see in the dark if they want to go off scouting.

[Arkhios]

Does it count that I wouldn't play a Gnome? With any class? :smallbiggrin:

[Wizard_Lizard]

human/fighter.
too bland.

[Deleted]

Elf and really anything. I've never really liked elves in any edition of D&D except for 4e, and even then I never really touched them all that much (there is some awesome builds in 4e that elves can pull off!).

I will play a halfling barbarian, I will play a half-orc light cleric, and I will play mountain dwarf sorcerer... Elves just don't do anything for me.

If I want the fluff, I'll pick up Gnome as they fill the same sort of fey-ish creature... And Gnomes are about 10x more awesome mechanically.

I think Elves are overshadowed by pretty much every other race.

[Imbalance]

Can't rule out anything until I've tried it, so my list would only be combinations that I wouldn't play again, with the only real reason being that I dislike repetition. Right now, there are two on that list, both of which are technically still active:
Human cleric
Human fighter

So...yeah. These were intended to be starter characters to learn the system, and there are half a dozen decidedly more exotic builds waiting in the wings for the fighter to die, including a loxodon monk, a centaur warlock, and a duergar wizard (if not mystic).

[2D8HP]

...Are they any race/class combinations that you find yourself not really able to play, either for thematic, mechanical, or personal preference reasons?


I have only played Elves, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues in 5e.

For 1e I played a Half-Orc Cleric/Fighter for a bit, but otherwise my class/race selections were (IIRC) much the same as my 5e selections.

I have some desire to play an Oath of Ancients Paladins 'cause the Tenets look fun, but otherwise my PC's are mostly "A guy with a bow, sword, and some skills" and I don't stretch much beyond that.

I applaud all those upthread who choose not to Play a Human Fighter 'cause "too bland" as that leaves a space for me.

[MrStabby]

I need something with a bit of mystical fantasy mojo. Escapism doesn't really work for me when I play a character that is human and pretty much bound by the laws of physics as we know them.

Monk is fine, but barbarian, fighter and rogue are probably not. Especially if they don't come with cool racial abilities.

This isn't to say I could never play them, but I would never play them single classed. Maybe eldritch knight or arcane trickster but without much enthusiasm.


For races, I am happy with most apart from Lizardfolk. Having claws doesn't appeal to me much.

[Vulsutyr]

I don’t play Dragonborn. I wish there was a Half-dragon playable race, but nope, just Dragonborn.

I won’t play any pairing designed to be “ironic,” whether that is an Orc Wizard or a Gnome Barbarian. Any gimmicky characters are out. But I would play those pairings if I had a good idea for it and a decent mechanical ability.

[XmonkTad]

I'm in agreement with not liking warforged. They're too cheesey feeling. I'd avoid playing them with any class.



Deep Gnome Abjuration Wizard: A race/class combo that is being picked solely to exploit a loophole in Arcane Ward. Sure, I could probably come up with a good backstory, but in the end, it's just there to mask that the character is a walking exploit.

Boo! It's not a loophole, it's working as intended. And a gnome wizard is pretty classic, so no idea why you'd think it's just a mask.

[Mercurias]

I'd play most anything, really. The key to me is finding a way to enjoy it.

I would play the heck out of a Warforged Druid, for example. Give it at least partial wooden parts, a backstory of awakening damaged in a battlefield and being found by, say, the Circle of Swords, and a character arc based around accepting its place outside of the great cycle even while revering it (Or even wanting to become a living being a la Bicentennial Man), and bam. Fun character right there.

[Phoenix042]

The main combos that I don't like are the ones like those you listed; the presumed "intended" combos that don't actually work as well together.

Goblin rogues are a great example of something I'd probably never play.

[Deleted]

I don’t play Dragonborn. I wish there was a Half-dragon playable race, but nope, just Dragonborn.

I won’t play any pairing designed to be “ironic,” whether that is an Orc Wizard or a Gnome Barbarian. Any gimmicky characters are out. But I would play those pairings if I had a good idea for it and a decent mechanical ability.



My group(s) like to think that Aasimars, Dragonborn, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Tieflings (might be missing one or two other races) should just be human subraces.


Also... Gnome Barbarians would probably be a follower of Baervan Wildwanderer (deity of forests, nature, and travel), Flandal Steelskin (deity of mining, smithing, and fitness), Segojan Earthcaller (earth and nature deity), or Urdlen (greed and blood deity). And it works well to have the "weird cousins" of a typical Gnomish village/tribe/whatever be a nomadic tribe that consist of a few barbarians at the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_gnome_deities

D&D has a lot of lore and pretty much any combo isn't going to solely fall under "ironic"... Especially when you have crazy halfling barbarian cannibal lore.

[Finback]

*sets up folding table and chair*
*unfurls banner for the front of the table*
"Halflings are only good for narrative elements, but terrible for a racial option - change my mind"

(I seriously cannot ever get motivated to play one. I just can't see anything they bring to the table as being all that useful, when there are so many other races that could do things better - Halfling rogue? I'll take a gnome instead. Halfling fighter? I'd take a kobold for the pack tactics. Halfling wizard? Elves/tieflings/gnomes superior, furfoots inferior)

[Zevox]

I don't think there's a specific race + class combination that sticks out to me as an instant "no," but there are races and a couple of classes that I'm much less likely to play than others, if I'd ever do so.

Race-wise, Half-Orcs and Dwarves are the big two from among the PHB races. I'm just not a fan of anything to do with those races, and would basically have to play a very atypical one in order to enjoy them. Drow aren't too far behind, mostly for the sunlight sensitivity issue, though I'd play one if I had an idea for a build that worked in such a way that it minimized or eliminated that as an issue. From Xanathar's, Goliaths, Orcs, and Bugbears lack appeal for me for similar reasons to Half-Orcs and Dwarves. I don't have any idea what I'd do with a Firbolg. And a Triton feels like something that would only be appealing in a campaign specifically focused on the seas. And for the Elemental Evil races... no, I think I would use any of those, though Svirfneblin would be the least likely, just because I'd probably prefer one of the other Gnome subraces if I played a Gnome.

Class-wise, the classes that get no magic at all tend not to appeal to me so much, and I'd certainly play the subclasses that do get spells over the ones that don't if I did play one of them (so EK Fighter, Shadow or 4 Elements Monk, etc). Besides that, there's the Bard, which I'd like to play, but always run up against a wall trying to think of how I'd roleplay one - I've just never had any good ideas for that, or at least none I felt I could actually pull off.

[Tanarii]

Besides that, there's the Bard, which I'd like to play, but always run up against a wall trying to think of how I'd roleplay one - I've just never had any good ideas for that, or at least none I felt I could actually pull off.
Lore Bard - Celtic diplomatic & lore master
Valor bard - Norse skald
Glamour Bard - fey beguiled
Sword Bard - bravo, or circus performer
Whispers Bard - grand vizier

[8wGremlin]

I tend not to play elves (any variety), or assimar i find them boring good two shoes.

Class wise, Wizards I also find boring.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I have only played Elves, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues in 5e.

For 1e I played a Half-Orc Cleric/Fighter for a bit, but otherwise my class/race selections were (IIRC) much the same as my 5e selections.

I have some desire to play an Oath of Ancients Paladins 'cause the Tenets look fun, but otherwise my PC's are mostly "A guy with a bow, sword, and some skills" and I don't stretch much beyond that.

I applaud all those upthread who choose not to Play a Human Fighter 'cause "too bland" as that leaves a space for me.

If everyone refuses to play human fighter, because it is boring... ....then human fighter will become a new cool original idea! sometime in the future

[ZorroGames]

If everyone refuses to play human fighter, because it is boring... ....then human fighter will become a new cool original idea! sometime in the future

Do not forget this forum is vastly optimizer weighted in those who post versus character/role-play posters. Or seems to be. That may affect the lack of Human character love.

Though, a Standard Human might well work for 5th to 7th player who can contribute many ways if not usually super showy.

Hmmm...

[Tanarii]

Class wise, Wizards I also find boring.When I first started playing D&D with a mix of AD&D 1e and BECMI, I was all about Magic-users.

Somehow 3e killed it for me, which is weird because that's the edition that made them not fairly useless at the lowest levels. Now I'd much rather play a melee, a Fighter/Wizard, or a Gish. (EK is my favorite 5e subclass by far.)


Do not forget this forum is vastly optimizer weighted in those who post versus character/role-play posters. Or seems to be. That may affect the lack of Human character love.
That's back to front. Optimization favors Humans .. not the other way around.

New players almost always pick Humans, or occasionally Elves or Dwarves, because they are familiar. 2nd characters are generally non-human if their first was human. After that, I've found the majority of players have a preference for non-humans. The only thing that keeps humans competitive is they're more powerful. Otherwise (ie with standard humans) you end up with about 1/4 of your characters human, the rest non-human. That's fine, that's pretty much the reincarnate numbers, which IMO give you an idea of how WotC thinks racial distribution pans out. But many DMs don't like a party of 4-5 with a single Human in it, it feels wrong to them.

There's a reason WotC makes humans more powerful than non-humans as a general rule, at least once you add in optional rules for experienced players, and has done so for several editions. As Gygax found out as far back as 1e, if you don't put some kind of limits on non-humans, or give humans a solid boost above non-humans, most players will decide to play a non-human.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, the answer is "none of them." I generally dislike gnomes, but that's independent of class. I don't particularly care about optimization, so I'll do whatever strikes my fancy.

[Snowbluff]

That's back to front. Optimization favors Humans .. not the other way around.

New players almost always pick Humans, or occasionally Elves or Dwarves, because they are familiar.

Speaking of dwarves, you can play the game as a Hill Dwarf with a 16 in con at level 1 and +1 hp/level, or you can play a human with a 16 in con and the tough feat for +2 hp/level. :smalltongue:

This is why Volo's shouldn't count as your plus one in AL. Humans are too strong. :smalltongue:

[Deleted]

*sets up folding table and chair*
*unfurls banner for the front of the table*
"Halflings are only good for narrative elements, but terrible for a racial option - change my mind"

(I seriously cannot ever get motivated to play one. I just can't see anything they bring to the table as being all that useful, when there are so many other races that could do things better - Halfling rogue? I'll take a gnome instead. Halfling fighter? I'd take a kobold for the pack tactics. Halfling wizard? Elves/tieflings/gnomes superior, furfoots inferior)

Halfling Barbarian (Wolf) 3/Rogue 2 means that as a bonus action you can disengage and go through bigger creature's spaces (cause halfling) and then use the "climb onto bigger creature action" to attach yourself to an enemy. You now are giving your allies advantage when you rage, your rogue levels gives you expertise for climbing onto said bigger creature and staying there. Your wolf rage is great for giving allies advantage against the target.

I don't care for halflings, but they have some goooood synergy with some classes.

The ability to move through bigger creature's spaces is amaaaazingly underrated.

Light Cleric/Sorcerer/Wizard Halfling shooting off burning hands from out from under your allies means that you don't have to hit your allies.

Lucky is awesome for not auto-missing on a 1. Even for saving throws, it's soooo nice to not roll a 1.

I hate halflings for their fluff, but mechanically they're nice.

[Klaus Teufel]

Deep Gnome Abjuration Wizard: A race/class combo that is being picked solely to exploit a loophole in Arcane Ward. Sure, I could probably come up with a good backstory, but in the end, it's just there to mask that the character is a walking exploit.
Aasimar Warlock. The celestial being born of a pure good entity just made a demonic pact with Hell.There are fallen Aasimar.
Mask my ass! A creative player has their character come to the same conclusion as them, and is exploiting the **** out of it because they found it works :P
Boo! It's not a loophole, it's working as intended. And a gnome wizard is pretty classic, so no idea why you'd think it's just a mask.Please enlighten this noob: What is the loophole that Deep Gnome Abjurers can exploit?

On topic: Monk Tortles*. Any other combination I'm open to, if I get an appropriate inspiration.


*especially adolescent ones.

[DrKerosene]

On that note, anything Warforged. I am neither interested in "beep boop I'm a robot" nor "beep boop I'm a robot who wants to feel love."
How about a Warforged Bard who mourns someone like a dog misses their master, and is just trying to find out if they have a soul and can go to the same afterlife?



*sets up folding table and chair*
*unfurls banner for the front of the table*
"Halflings are only good for narrative elements, but terrible for a racial option - change my mind.

Well, my wife has been tapped as a Player in an up-coming Dragon Heist game. The DM has said that he is going to make Natural 1’s a bigger deal. My wife figured a Halfling Divination Wizard is going to be a good hedge against house-rule empowered death. If I get to play too, I’m considering a Halfling Bard with the Bountiful Luck feat to double down on aiding allies. If you have a better idea that doesn’t require other Players to do anything, I’m open to ideas.


Edit: On a bet, dare, or to set an example for new players, I’d be willing to play anything, but that assumes I’d get to be a player instead of a DM. I’m disinclined to play the more mundane monstrous races from Volo’s due to the mechanical options being unappealing, and I’m more interested in the stronger full-casters classes, so I’d be really unlikely to pick a Hobgoblin Monk over a Firbolg Druid.

[Klaus Teufel]

Well, my wife has been tapped as a Player in an up-coming Dragon Heist game. The DM has said that he is going to make Natural 1’s a bigger deal. My wife figured a Halfling Divination Wizard is going to be a good hedge against house-rule empowered death. If I get to play too, I’m considering a Halfling Bard with the Bountiful Luck feat to double down on aiding allies. If you have a better idea that doesn’t require other Players to do anything, I’m open to ideas.What is it some DM's have with critical fails? :smallfrown:

[jaappleton]

*sets up folding table and chair*
*unfurls banner for the front of the table*
"Halflings are only good for narrative elements, but terrible for a racial option - change my mind"

(I seriously cannot ever get motivated to play one. I just can't see anything they bring to the table as being all that useful, when there are so many other races that could do things better - Halfling rogue? I'll take a gnome instead. Halfling fighter? I'd take a kobold for the pack tactics. Halfling wizard? Elves/tieflings/gnomes superior, furfoots inferior)

I've had this idea for a 'Fateweaver', basically a Halfling Diviner with the Lucky feat and that Halfling racial trait that extends the racial Lucky ability to allies.

Manipulate the numbers. You've foreseen it.

[Man_Over_Game]

*sets up folding table and chair*
*unfurls banner for the front of the table*
"Halflings are only good for narrative elements, but terrible for a racial option - change my mind"

(I seriously cannot ever get motivated to play one. I just can't see anything they bring to the table as being all that useful, when there are so many other races that could do things better - Halfling rogue? I'll take a gnome instead. Halfling fighter? I'd take a kobold for the pack tactics. Halfling wizard? Elves/tieflings/gnomes superior, furfoots inferior)

Moving through an enemy's space can have good tactical value, especially if you have a Disengage effect or some reason for enemies to chase you (Ancestral Guardian).

Some DMs like to use Critical Fails. In the case where critical fails are not relevant, Lucky does a good job of ensuring success when you have a small chance of failure. For example, a Halfling with Expertise might only have a 20% chance to fail, where Lucky turns that into about a 16% chance to fail, making your chance of success about 25% more likely.

Being able to Hide behind an ally is useful for a Rogue with no cover.

Dexterity + Constitution is probably one of the most ideal stat combos that people would want. Not to mention the fact that you get resistance to one of the most common damage types in the game, as well as Advantage against one of the most debilitating conditions.


Halflings are probably one of the most consistent and versatile Races. They don't have many cool gimmicks, like the Dragonborn, but they have their place.

Personally, though, I use them for this:

DM: "I use Critical Fails".
Me: "Uh, not against me, you don't".

[Cynthaer]

I find it interesting that so many people list Half-Orc Wizard specifically, and that it's generally assumed that such a character would necessarily be a joke.

My favorite AL character is a Half-Orc Wizard, played perfectly straight. She's an intelligent investigator, specializes in divination, and I'm maxing Int on her just like any other Wizard. She also plays into her racial features by often going into melee and swinging a Shadow Blade with her 16 Str.

I know that "races" in D&D muddle genetics and culture together into one big set of features, but I see no reason that a Half-Orc must be played as a dumb brute.

[Man_Over_Game]

I find it interesting that so many people list Half-Orc Wizard specifically, and that it's generally assumed that such a character would necessarily be a joke.

My favorite AL character is a Half-Orc Wizard, played perfectly straight. She's an intelligent investigator, specializes in divination, and I'm maxing Int on her just like any other Wizard. She also plays into her racial features by often going into melee and swinging a Shadow Blade with her 16 Str.

I know that "races" in D&D muddle genetics and culture together into one big set of features, but I see no reason that a Half-Orc must be played as a dumb brute.

I really like the idea of a Half-Orc Wizard, using his undying feature with something like Overchannel in the Evocation School. Or just relying on the undying feature to counter the Wizard's natural squishiness. It's a really good combination of abilities.

My gripe is when people do it for irony's sake at the expense of the party. +2 to Strength isn't a problem, but 12 to Intelligence is.

[Rukelnikov]

I really like the idea of a Half-Orc Wizard, using his undying feature with something like Overchannel in the Evocation School. Or just relying on the undying feature to counter the Wizard's natural squishiness. It's a really good combination of abilities.

My gripe is when people do it for irony's sake at the expense of the party. +2 to Strength isn't a problem, but 12 to Intelligence is.

Only because you are thinking of a traditional Wizard, one who focuses on no save spells, and doesn't use many attack ones can be make to work with 12 Int.

[Man_Over_Game]

Only because you are thinking of a traditional Wizard, one who focuses on no save spells, and doesn't use many attack ones can be make to work with 12 Int.

A lower intelligence lowers more than just that, though. It reduces the number of spells a Wizard can prepare, it lowers the effectiveness of class features like Bladesinger and Evocation (which are the best-case scenarios for a Half-Orc), removes any options for multiclassing (which means that the Half-orc can no longer adapt their playstyle to match any new narratives or needs of the party), and lowers the effectiveness of Intelligence skills (which make up 2/3rds of the Wizard's choices of skills).

A Wizard with a lower intelligence has fewer options and is less effective than a Wizard with a higher Intelligence. It makes you more and more of a liability. Even if you focus on using utility spells that don't rely on Intelligence, that's still something that any other Wizard would be able to do just fine, if not better (considering the optimized Wizard can prepare more spells, and so have more answers available at any given time).

[Cynthaer]

A lower intelligence lowers more than just that, though. It reduces the number of spells a Wizard can prepare, it lowers the effectiveness of class features like Bladesinger and Evocation (which are the best-case scenarios for a Half-Orc), removes any options for multiclassing (which means that the Half-orc can no longer adapt their playstyle to match any new narratives or needs of the party), and lowers the effectiveness of Intelligence skills (which make up 2/3rds of the Wizard's choices of skills).

A Wizard with a lower intelligence has fewer options and is less effective than a Wizard with a higher Intelligence. It makes you more and more of a liability. Even if you focus on using utility spells that don't rely on Intelligence, that's still something that any other Wizard would be able to do just fine, if not better (considering the optimized Wizard can prepare more spells, and so have more answers available at any given time).
Abjurer and War Wizard also have something to offer a melee Strength Wizard, but other than that I agree.

Really, though, from a mechanical perspective if you're going to outright dump Int, you should probably just be an Eldritch Knight. (As always, to each their own, and do whatever you want if it doesn't annoy your group.)

In any case, the thing that's striking to me is that when people think "Half-Orc Wizard", they immediately think "stupid Wizard" and not "intelligent Half-Orc".

[Arkhios]

Please enlighten this noob: What is the loophole that Deep Gnome Abjurers can exploit?

I believe it has "something" to do with Svirfneblin Magic –feat:

"You have inherited the innate spellcasting ability of your ancestors. This ability allows you to cast nondetection on yourself at will, without needing a material component. -- "

Nondetection is a 3rd level abjuration spell.

So, when the Arcane Ward is first created, it has temporary hit points equal to twice your wizard level + your intelligence. Afterwards, whenever abjurer casts a spell of 1st level or higher, the ward regains temporary hit points equal to twice the spell's level (=6 with nondetection).

[Rukelnikov]

A lower intelligence lowers more than just that, though. It reduces the number of spells a Wizard can prepare, it lowers the effectiveness of class features like Bladesinger and Evocation (which are the best-case scenarios for a Half-Orc), removes any options for multiclassing (which means that the Half-orc can no longer adapt their playstyle to match any new narratives or needs of the party), and lowers the effectiveness of Intelligence skills (which make up 2/3rds of the Wizard's choices of skills).

A Wizard with a lower intelligence has fewer options and is less effective than a Wizard with a higher Intelligence. It makes you more and more of a liability. Even if you focus on using utility spells that don't rely on Intelligence, that's still something that any other Wizard would be able to do just fine, if not better (considering the optimized Wizard can prepare more spells, and so have more answers available at any given time).

Yeah, 12 may be a point too low, since it prevents MC, but 13 is perfectly doable.

[Deathtongue]

Yeah, 12 may be a point too low, since it prevents MC, but 13 is perfectly doable.Wizards don't have many good no-save/no-attack roll spells to cast in combat before level 9. You'll be stuck casting Protection from Evil and Good and Fly and Haste and Polymorph and Greater Invis for buffs (only one of them, of course, because lol concentration) and twiddling your fingers. Even spells that don't do saving throws directly (like illusions and Counterspelled) are hindered.

What's more, not only do you have fewer spells prepared (which goes against the whole concept) but you also deprive the party of likely its only source to make vital Arcana and Investigation checks.

There's no reason to start with a 12 in intelligence as a wizard. I understand not wanting to be an optimized combat monster, but it's also clear that at this point you're just offloading your share of the work onto the rest of the party so you can tell a joke. And not even a particularly clever or original joke.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wizards don't have many good no-save/no-attack roll spells to cast in combat before level 9. You'll be stuck casting Protection from Evil and Good and Fly and Haste and Polymorph and Greater Invis for buffs (only one of them, of course, because lol concentration) and twiddling your fingers. Even spells that don't do saving throws directly (like illusions and Counterspelled) are hindered.

What's more, not only do you have fewer spells prepared (which goes against the whole concept) but you also deprive the party of likely its only source to make vital Arcana and Investigation checks.

There's no reason to start with a 12 in intelligence as a wizard. I understand not wanting to be an optimized combat monster, but it's also clear that at this point you're just offloading your share of the work onto the rest of the party so you can tell a joke. And not even a particularly clever or original joke.

Makes me wonder what a clever joke character would be?


Gnome Moon Druid, has a Napoleon Complex, even when he's bigger (so he gets really angry at any monsters who are bigger than his Wild Shape).
Barbarian Totem Warrior with Mobile and Tavern Brawler. Drinks all the time, calls himself a Drunken Master, because they fight in slow-motion, and that's how he feels when he fights (because he's drunk all the time).
Halfling Mastermind. Acts all tough, but then hides behind his friends because he's a massive coward, begging them to kill the bad guys, which translates into a Help Action spam. Without an attack roll, there isn't much reason for his Hidden condition to really end, so he can comfortably be a coward while outputting x2 Help actions per turn.
High Elf Arcane Trickster. Is incredibly gifted with magic, but is just as stupid. Uses his infinite levels of magic for the most mundane things (like picking his nose and stealing things). Constantly gets harassed by his familiar. Stops leveling into Rogue before level 9 (to prevent getting a useless feature).

[Zevox]

Lore Bard - Celtic diplomatic & lore master
Valor bard - Norse skald
Glamour Bard - fey beguiled
Sword Bard - bravo, or circus performer
Whispers Bard - grand vizier
I don't think I could personally pull off any of those particularly well. (Plus grand vizier in particular is more of an NPC thing than something a PC is likely to work as.)

It's just a matter of the class' fluff not fitting well with the kind of person and roleplayer I am, I think. Maybe someday I'll have an idea I like and think I can pull off for the class, but if not, oh well, not a huge deal.


There's a reason WotC makes humans more powerful than non-humans as a general rule, at least once you add in optional rules for experienced players, and has done so for several editions. As Gygax found out as far back as 1e, if you don't put some kind of limits on non-humans, or give humans a solid boost above non-humans, most players will decide to play a non-human.
Case in point: my group almost never plays Humans. In four major parties we've had three total, two of which were only with us briefly before their players had to drop for various reasons. Three of our major four parties did not have a Human at all for the vast majority of their play time, and our current party has never had one. Pretty much everyone among our regulars finds the idea of playing a normal Human dull compared to just about anything else.

Though personally I don't see why that's a problem that requires making humans more mechanically powerful, but I'm only slightly less inclined to consider playing a Human dull than most of the rest of my group. (I've so far played a Tiefling, a Dragonborn, a Fire Genasi, and am currently playing a Halfling.)

[Tanarii]

In any case, the thing that's striking to me is that when people think "Half-Orc Wizard", they immediately think "stupid Wizard" and not "intelligent Half-Orc".
The issue is "Strong wizard". Strength is a dump stat for 9-1/2 classes. Dragonborn and Mountain Dwarf wizard are simmarly unappealing.

[Cynthaer]

The issue is "Strong wizard". Strength is a dump stat for 9-1/2 classes. Dragonborn and Mountain Dwarf wizard are simmarly unappealing.
For you personally, perhaps. But "Half-Orc Wizard" has gotten a dozen votes in this thread, with many specifically citing the "stupid wizard" archetype as undesirable, and I haven't seen anyone mention Dragonborn or Mountain Dwarf Wizards until now.

[Sigreid]

I don't think I could personally pull off any of those particularly well. (Plus grand vizier in particular is more of an NPC thing than something a PC is likely to work as.)

It's just a matter of the class' fluff not fitting well with the kind of person and roleplayer I am, I think. Maybe someday I'll have an idea I like and think I can pull off for the class, but if not, oh well, not a huge deal.


Case in point: my group almost never plays Humans. In four major parties we've had three total, two of which were only with us briefly before their players had to drop for various reasons. Three of our major four parties did not have a Human at all for the vast majority of their play time, and our current party has never had one. Pretty much everyone among our regulars finds the idea of playing a normal Human dull compared to just about anything else.

Though personally I don't see why that's a problem that requires making humans more mechanically powerful, but I'm only slightly less inclined to consider playing a Human dull than most of the rest of my group. (I've so far played a Tiefling, a Dragonborn, a Fire Genasi, and am currently playing a Halfling.)

Humans aren't mechanically more powerful. Every race gets what is effectively a feat. Only difference is the variant human gets to pick theirs and the non-variant gets it in the form of what is effectively an ASI.

[Mackatrin]

I'd have to say Kobald or Kenku Paladin, in theory it sounds fun, in practice its just a really annoying character.

[Witty Username]

I think the only one I wouldn't play is orc rogue.
I don't like orcs in 5e, I have joked that in my games pure blood orcs don't exist because they are outperformed by half-orcs, but I can see myself trying to make something happen with aggressive, or have rolled stats and a good concept. Rogue just doesn't mesh well with orc at all to me, and cunning action is aggressive plus three more options.
goblin rogue will at least have a good Dex.

[DrKerosene]

I'd have to say Kobald or Kenku Paladin, in theory it sounds fun, in practice its just a really annoying character.

Since every single Paladin spell has Verbal components, that would be harder to consistently get around.


I think the only one I wouldn't play is orc rogue.
Well, the fact that powerful build can help with carrying loot (assuming you don’t have magic means) is the main thing that springs to mind for me. But that’s be a group of NPC Orc Rogues stealing statues, or entire carriages.

[Constructman]

Since every single Paladin spell has Verbal components, that would be harder to consistently get around.

1. Nothing explicitly states that the Verbal component of a spell has to be its name.
2. A Kenku that was raised in a Kenku community and survived to adulthood pribably has a functional vocabulary from years of being taught by their parents and picking up random street chatter.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I have a hard time playing full elves of any class...I just find it really hard to get into character with how their mindsets are described, both in the sense that they're supposed to be "flighty" yet think long-term, "whimsical" yet "melancholy," "passionate" but "aloof," their descriptions just feel very contradictory and inconsistent, and because I just find it hard to roleplay Chaotic alignments in general (I mean, my username is Archpaladin for Torm's sake!). So if I want pointy ears I usually just play a half-elf and roleplay them like a human.

I also have difficulty playing rogues of nearly any ancestry, since a lot of the time they just feel very samey: grew up on the streets, five o'clock shadow, leather armor, black hood, way too many knives, picking any locks and pockets the GM presents and saying everything with an air of brooding sarcasm. Maybe if they REALLY want to do something different they'll replace the hood with a face-cloth and call themselves a ninja.

[ZorroGames]

For you personally, perhaps. But "Half-Orc Wizard" has gotten a dozen votes in this thread, with many specifically citing the "stupid wizard" archetype as undesirable, and I haven't seen anyone mention Dragonborn or Mountain Dwarf Wizards until now.

My MD (of course, it is me playing... me,) Wizard is 7th level n ALmright now and itching to be played after a month of DMing. 😉

[Tanarii]

I also have difficulty playing rogues of nearly any ancestry, since a lot of the time they just feel very samey: grew up on the streets, five o'clock shadow, leather armor, black hood, way too many knives, picking any locks and pockets the GM presents and saying everything with an air of brooding sarcasm. Maybe if they REALLY want to do something different they'll replace the hood with a face-cloth and call themselves a ninja.
5e background helps with that a lot. Mechanically inclined anti-lock/trap rogue? Guild Artisan (locksmiths guild). Noble Rakes. Swindling Charlatans. Lip reading (observant feat) Spies. And that's just the ones that are common rogue tropes.

[Armok]

I'm playing a Rogue in a current game and I have to say, I just dont think its the class for me. I enjoy the flavor of it, but I'm much more comfortable playing something... reactionary? Like, the rogue is very much a class that excels at proactively solving problems, but that's not really my strong suit.

As far as race/class combos... I guess there are some that just don't make sense to me. Gnome as Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin just doesnt strike me as fitting. Likewise, I cant really see a halfling as a Barbarian or a Paladin. And with the notable exception of Kobolds, I don't really like the monstrous races at all.

Which I guess leads me into a controversial point: I cannot stand "good goblins". As a player option, or as a part of any given setting. Goblins should be mean, scary little blighters, dangerous enough that people are afraid to go into the woods at night. Not "tragically misunderstood little green pranksters".

[Aidamis]

Wood Elf Ranger cause this is too stereotypical. Same goes for Dwarf Cleric.

Half-orc Barbarian cause while I like the overlap, I'd rather use the Half-orc perks on a Fighter or a Paladin,
and play Barbarian with an "inappropriate" race, such as Tiefling.

Half-elf Bard because too OP, true intellectuals play Goblin Bard.

Drow Rogue because too edgy,
I'd rather play a Drow Divine Soul Sorcerer of Eilistraee, cause friendship is magic.

Eladrin Paladin cause one can only handle so much smug. Half-orc Paladin for the win, Eladrin can go study magic as a Wizard or something. Or Diplomacy in the Business School his/her daddy owns.

Human Ranger cause Aragorn is overrated.

[Aidamis]

The issue is "Strong wizard". Strength is a dump stat for 9-1/2 classes. Dragonborn and Mountain Dwarf wizard are simmarly unappealing.

I respect and understand your stance but as someone with a thing for character with no "holes", a 10 in Strength looks good for me even on Wizards, and Mountain Dwarf let's you wear medium armor + reach 16 Con for a bargain cost of 7 point buy points. 8+2 Str, 14 Dex, 14+2 Con, 15 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha. If you start at Level 4, 16 Int is guaranteed :)

[Tanarii]

I respect and understand your stance but as someone with a thing for character with no "holes", a 10 in Strength looks good for me even on Wizards, and Mountain Dwarf let's you wear medium armor + reach 16 Con for a bargain cost of 7 point buy points. 8+2 Str, 14 Dex, 14+2 Con, 15 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha. If you start at Level 4, 16 Int is guaranteed :)
For sure. Wizards & Sorcs in particular have basically no mechanical need for Strength, even if the variant encumbrance rule is in effect. That doesn't mean that +2 Str is wasted, it just feels that way to me. Just as +2 Dex feels wasted to me on a HA class, and that's with it boosting Init & Dex saves. Conversely, I'll never feel like +2 Int for Gnomes or +1 Int for High Elves / Tieflings is wasted, even if it results in an odd score.

So yeah, totally perception bias.

-----------

Any other perception bias for me: 5e Halflings are meh, 5e gnomes are wear it's at for playing bad-ass small folk. 5e has rolled back the clock on awesome Halflings that 3e introduced, and the art doesn't help. Meanwhile 5e gnomes are a counter the squeaky-voiced annoying WoW-gnome, making gnomes awesome again.

(Exception to be made if I ever roll the aforementioned halfling sailor barbarian, but I already envision that as a muscular but agile mini-Viking, not a 5e big-headed small-footed hobbit.)

[Tanarii]

It feels like most builds fall under a stereotype when considering racial modifiers and optimization, especially using point buy. So much so that every race seems to have at least one: Wood Elf Ranger, Deep Gnome Abjurer, Hill Dwarf Cleric, etc.
Mine personal head canon stereotypes are:
Hill Dwarf Cleric
Mountain Dwarf Fighter (BM)
High Elf Fighter (EK)
Wood Elf Ranger
Lightfoot Rogue (Thief)
Stout Fighter (champion)/Rogue(thief) Folk Hero
Dragonborn Paladin
Rock Gnome Wizard (illusionist) Guild Artisan (Alchemist)
Forest Gnome Rogue (AT) Guild Artisan (Locksmith)
Half-elf Bard Charlatan
Half-Orc Barbarian Outlander (Tribal Marauder)
Tiefling Rogue (Assassin) Criminal

Also in FR, Halfling Monk (Hin Fist).

[TripleD]

Tieflings have never appealed to me. I will play a Kobold anything (especially martials).

As for combos, I guess Half-Elf Monk. No particular reason, just that the reason I play Half-Elves (more social) is usually the exact opposite of the reason I usually play monks(tactical and martial).

Gotta say the amount of people that won’t play a rogue without darkvision is surprising. Been playing a human rogue for a while now and, even with a trip into the underdark, it hasn’t really been a noticeable handicap. I can still hear things while scouting, and my DM bends the rules for a more realistic interpretation of light (e.g. yes I am in complete darkness, but it makes zero sense that I can’t see the guy with a torch fifty feet away).

[Armok]

I can still hear things while scouting, and my DM bends the rules for a more realistic interpretation of light (e.g. yes I am in complete darkness, but it makes zero sense that I can’t see the guy with a torch fifty feet away).

I have to admit, I had a hard time wrapping my head around that idea until I played with a DM who ruled like that himself. It does make a good degree of sense- if you have a torch, you're putting out light, and unless it's from a vast distance youre going to be noticable in the dark.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Wood Elf Ranger cause this is too stereotypical. Same goes for Dwarf Cleric.
Gotta agree with you here. Personally I'd find it more interesting to flip them, and play Wood Elf Clerics and Dwarf Rangers! :smallbiggrin:

Half-orc Barbarian cause while I like the overlap, I'd rather use the Half-orc perks on a Fighter or a Paladin, and play Barbarian with an "inappropriate" race, such as Tiefling.
Yep. I like playing more "civilized" half-orcs, and while I've yet to play a barbarian myself, I'm more interested in playing it like a historical barbarian, like the Franks or the Goths

Half-elf Bard because too OP, true intellectuals play Goblin Bard.
Never tried this, but it sounds interesting. I'd play a Kobold Bard but Deekin Scalesinger was already perfect and no PC I play could match his adorable awesome! :smallbiggrin:

Drow Rogue because too edgy,
Eh...I dunno, I think maybe something could be done with it that's not Jarlaxle. I sorta like the idea of playing a drow who's less interested in "proving stereotypes wrong" like Drizzt or getting their kicks by manipulating people like Jarlaxle and more just "I just want to be able to afford food regularly, and going into dangerous ruins in search of treasure's only a little bit more dangerous than surviving in mainstream society anyway." :smalltongue:

I'd rather play a Drow Divine Soul Sorcerer of Eilistraee, cause friendship is magic.
Now THIS is an awesome concept! Mind if I steal it for future use? :smallcool:

Eladrin Paladin cause one can only handle so much smug. Half-orc Paladin for the win, Eladrin can go study magic as a Wizard or something. Or Diplomacy in the Business School his/her daddy owns.
Half-orc paladins are AWESOME! I can't really wrap my head around an eladrin of any class, though, for the same reasons I find it hard to play elves. Eladrin are just elven personalities, and the confusing contradictions inherent to them, on steroids. It's interesting that they walked back from 4e's "they're the elfiest elfs that ever elfed" depiction and more "they've spent so much time in the Feywild that even OTHER ELVES think they're weird."

Human Ranger cause Aragorn is overrated.
I don't know about overrated, I personally like him a lot as a character, but I don't think I'd want to roleplay as him. Half-orc rangers are nice, though!