Setting-Agnostic Race Height Chart: Minimum, Average, & Maximum Heights

[thoroughlyS]

https://i.imgur.com/VkJ2nBJ.png

I made a height chart displaying the minimum, average, and maximum heights of each race from setting-agnostic sources (Player's Handbook, Volo's Guide to Monsters, and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes). Data below:


RACE
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM


kobold
2 ft 3 in
2 ft 6 in
2 ft 9 in


halfling
2 ft 9 in
3 ft 0 in
3 ft 3 in


gnome
3 ft 1 in
3 ft 4 in
3 ft 7 in


goblin
3 ft 7 in
3 ft 10 in
4 ft 1 in


dwarf, hill
3 ft 10 in
4 ft 1 in
4 ft 4 in


dwarf, mountain
4 ft 2 in
4 ft 5 in
4 ft 8 in


elf, dark
4 ft 7 in
5 ft 0 in
5 ft 5 in


kenku
4 ft 6 in
5 ft 1 in
5 ft 8 in


elf, sea
4 ft 8 in
5 ft 3 in
5 ft 10 in


elf, high
4 ft 8 in
5 ft 5 in
6 ft 2 in


elf, wood
4 ft 8 in
5 ft 5 in
6 ft 2 in


triton
4 ft 8 in
5 ft 5 in
6 ft 2 in


shadar-kai
4 ft 10 in
5 ft 5 in
6 ft 0 in


half-elf
4 ft 11 in
5 ft 6 in
6 ft 1 in


tiefling
4 ft 11 in
5 ft 6 in
6 ft 1 in


eladrin
4 ft 8 in
5 ft 7 in
6 ft 6 in


aasimar
4 ft 10 in
5 ft 7 in
6 ft 4 in


hobgoblin
4 ft 10 in
5 ft 7 in
6 ft 4 in


human
4 ft 10 in
5 ft 7 in
6 ft 4 in


yuan-ti pureblood
4 ft 10 in
5 ft 7 in
6 ft 4 in


lizardfolk
4 ft 11 in
5 ft 8 in
6 ft 5 in


half-orc
5 ft 0 in
5 ft 9 in
6 ft 6 in


tabaxi
5 ft 0 in
5 ft 9 in
6 ft 6 in


githzerai
5 ft 1 in
6 ft 0 in
6 ft 11 in


githyanki
5 ft 2 in
6 ft 1 in
7 ft 0 in


orc
5 ft 6 in
6 ft 1 in
6 ft 8 in


dragonborn
5 ft 8 in
6 ft 3 in
6 ft 10 in


bugbear
6 ft 2 in
7 ft 1 in
8 ft 0 in


goliath
6 ft 4 in
7 ft 1 in
7 ft 10 in


firbolg
6 ft 4 in
7 ft 3 in
8 ft 2 in





Are there any results you find surprising? I, personally, was surprised how tall bugbears are and how short orcs are in comparison. I always assumed they were roughly of equal stature (being the two "common" races with powerful build).

[Theodoxus]

The chart is a little clunky based on how wide it is, I had to reply with quote just to see it formatted in a readable fashion. But that being said, I'm actually most surprised at how tall goblins are. There's not much difference between them and hill dwarves... so it makes some sense just on that, for them to be base 30 speed. Kobolds being so tiny still doesn't make sense to me for their speed...

[Lalliman]

The chart is a little clunky based on how wide it is, I had to reply with quote just to see it formatted in a readable fashion.
If you're on PC, you can right-click the image and open it in a new tab.


I personally was surprised how tall bugbears are, and how short orcs are in comparison.
It's also bothered me for a while how small orcs are for a creature with powerful build. But that's probably because half-orcs are only slightly larger than humans, so they couldn't justify making full orcs goliath-sized. And the small size of half-orcs is because Wizards hadn't yet decided that orcs would have powerful build when they published the PHB.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I always thought that goblins and gnomes were smaller than halflings. I had the order as

Dwarf > halfling > gnome ~ goblin

[Unoriginal]

I personally was surprised how tall bugbears are, and how short orcs are in comparison. I always assumed they were roughly of equal stature (being the two "common" races with powerful build).



It's also bothered me for a while how small orcs are for a creature with powerful build. But that's probably because half-orcs are only slightly larger than humans, so they couldn't justify making full orcs goliath-sized. And the small size of half-orcs is because Wizards hadn't yet decided that orcs would have powerful build when they published the PHB.

Orcs may not be very tall, but they are pretty wide compared to humans.

[Lalliman]

Orcs may not be very tall, but they are pretty wide compared to humans.
You know what, despite the notable height difference, orcs (avg 238 lb.) aren't that much lighter than firbolgs (266 lb.) and goliaths (277 lb.). So yeah, they're really squat.

[KorvinStarmast]

https://i.redd.it/29h25kvnsp471.png

I made a height chart You are about three editions behind. For AD&D 2e, thought, handy chart. :smallcool:

[da newt]

Nice to see a picture.

I always imagined gnomes were smaller than halfling and goblin were the same ht as halfling but scrawny. In my head cannon elves are smaller than humans. Orcs are thick, bugbear are lanky with serious reach, goliath are BIG and firbolg are just tall.

The surprise for me are the gith - I always imagined them a little smaller than human.

[thoroughlyS]

You are about three editions behind.
I'm not sure I get your point? These heights are calculated using the tables for height provided in the 5e PHB, VGM, and MTF. Why is this "three editions behind"?

[MaxWilson]

https://i.redd.it/29h25kvnsp471.png

I made a height chart displaying the minimum, average, and maximum heights of each race from setting-agnostic sources (Player's Handbook, Volo's Guide to Monsters, and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes). Are there any results you find surprising?

I personally was surprised how tall bugbears are, and how short orcs are in comparison. I always assumed they were roughly of equal stature (being the two "common" races with powerful build).

WotC's next supplement will have "optional" rules that allow you to pick from any height / weight row in the table regardless of your actual race. WotC has also promised to "do better" and to avoid physically describing races in future products.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not sure I get your point? These heights are calculated using the tables for height provided in the 5e PHB, VGM, and MTF. Why is this "three editions behind"? I may not be remembering correctly, but I think that this has been done. Did you find something different from previous editions in the relative size and scale? (Maybe I should have said "I don't see anything new" rather than what I posted. Sorry about that).

@Max: What is a footie product? Last time I heard the term "footie" it was in reference to a brand of football, Australian rules. (It's been over 40 years since I've played that ... but I did get to watch some on ESPN a few decades ago)

[MaxWilson]

@Max: What is a footie product? Last time I heard the term "footie" it was in reference to a brand of football, Australian rules. (It's been over 40 years since I've played that ... but I did get to watch some on ESPN a few decades ago)

It's a phone typo for "future". :) Fixed now, thanks.

[quindraco]

https://i.redd.it/29h25kvnsp471.png

I made a height chart displaying the minimum, average, and maximum heights of each race from setting-agnostic sources (Player's Handbook, Volo's Guide to Monsters, and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes). Are there any results you find surprising?



I personally was surprised how tall bugbears are, and how short orcs are in comparison. I always assumed they were roughly of equal stature (being the two "common" races with powerful build).

I thought you messed up some of the heights until I realized Volo's contradicts itself, listing Goliath minimum height as both 7' and 6'4". Any chance you could re-do the chart with each listing's average height listed below the race names?

[Telwar]

It's a phone typo for "future". :) Fixed now, thanks.

I'm going to be absolutely honest, I wasn't sure why you were using some races in footie pajamas and others not. :)

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm going to be absolutely honest, I wasn't sure why you were using some races in footie pajamas and others not. :) There's no arguing about taste. :smallbiggrin:

[thoroughlyS]

I may not be remembering correctly, but I think that this has been done. Did you find something different from previous editions in the relative size and scale? (Maybe I should have said "I don't see anything new" rather than what I posted. Sorry about that).
Alright then: I guess my first thought is that it doesn't matter if it's been done before. If I want to retread a discussion, I'm pretty sure that's allowed on this forum. The fact that you can't remember leads me to believe this isn't exactly a tired topic. Secondly the question of other editions doesn't seem relevant to me, because this is a forum about 5e material. As far as 5e goes, I found these (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/9s8360/oc_race_height_chart_share_around_if_you_find_it/) three (https://www.jayrobinson.net/5e-race-heights) examples (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/hv2wxp/art_a_visual_size_comparison_of_several_5e_races/) of the same idea. If you absolutely must compare my work to anything, it should be these. The three examples are arguably prettier than mine because they use outlines of the races instead of pregenerated models, but mine is the most complete (tied with the third example for number of races) and offers additional information that they leave out. Those charts only list average height; you aren't informed that a githyanki can be taller than a dragonborn, for example. Thirdly, even if I were looking at older editions then my chart has merit because no other edition has had a consolidated chart like this for all of the races listed in mine. Tabaxi and firbolg haven't been player character races since 2nd edition, and dragonborn were introduced in 4E (which didn't have random height tables). All in all, I find your question needlessly dismissive of my post.

Regarding the discussion of this thread, are there any race heights you find surprising?




I thought you messed up some of the heights until I realized Volo's contradicts itself, listing Goliath minimum height as both 7' and 6'4". Any chance you could re-do the chart with each listing's average height listed below the race names?
I will not redo the chart, because exact measurements were beside the point (that being relative scale), but I will edit the first post to include the raw data.

[MaxWilson]

Regarding the discussion of this thread, are there any race heights you find surprising?

I for one find 5E humans surprisingly short, which makes it even more surprising that Githzerai are surprisingly tall. I'm sure I'm being slightly misled by the relative beefiness of the images used (githzerai are more likely lanky than beefy) but it's still weird to me that apparently there aren't supposed to be any 6'6" humans in 5E? And the average height is what, 5'7"? For human males at least that is quite short, 2 inches shorter than the USA average. Ref: https://www.medicinenet.com/height_men/article.htm#average_male_height_worldwide

It's like they averaged male and female heights together and then assigned the results back to males and females equally.

I wonder if humans in 5E are sexually dimorphic w/rt height.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I for one find 5E humans surprisingly short, which makes it even more surprising that Githzerai are surprisingly tall. I'm sure I'm being slightly misled by the relative beefiness of the images used (githzerai are more likely lanky than beefy) but it's still weird to me that apparently there aren't supposed to be any 6'6" humans in 5E? And the average height is what, 5'7"? For human males at least that is quite short, 2 inches shorter than the USA average. Ref: https://www.medicinenet.com/height_men/article.htm#average_male_height_worldwide

It's like they averaged male and female heights together and then assigned the results back to males and females equally.

I wonder if humans in 5E are sexually dimorphic w/rt height.

Modern US people are significantly taller than medieval (or even pre-industrial-revolution) people on average.

[MaxWilson]

Modern US people are significantly taller than medieval (or even pre-industrial-revolution) people on average.

Yes, but D&D food technology isn't medieval apparently, or every PC would have a whole bunch of siblings who died in childhood from illness + malnutrition. At minimum I bet they have crop rotation, and then stuff like Plant Growth, where available, increases yields further.

So there's no particular reason PCs should have medieval heights.

[Tanarii]

I feel like Goblins are too tall by at least 4 inches. 3-1/2 ft average seems about right.

Halflings are always too short for my tastes. I liked Tallfellow & Kender, 4ft average seemed about right.

I like WotC elf heights, BECMI / AD&Ds 5ft was a bit short.

Is there a way to fade out the heights, so short is the most solid, then average more translucent, and tallest the faintest? That'd make it easier to see what's going on.

Also this chart would be cool if it had width based on weight. :smallamused:

[Arkhios]

The picture, or more specifically the texts underneath each race, could use some more work; the font isn't particularly readable. It's chunky and badly pixelated, even when I opened it in it's real size.

Other than that, I'd say, good job! This does explain somewhat why they decided to make the formerly large races as medium instead. I mean, 7' to 8' tall humanoids are noticeably larger than humans for example.

[thoroughlyS]

I for one find 5E humans surprisingly short, which makes it even more surprising that Githzerai are surprisingly tall. I'm sure I'm being slightly misled by the relative beefiness of the images used (githzerai are more likely lanky than beefy) but it's still weird to me that apparently there aren't supposed to be any 6'6" humans in 5E? And the average height is what, 5'7"? For human males at least that is quite short, 2 inches shorter than the USA average. Ref: https://www.medicinenet.com/height_men/article.htm#average_male_height_worldwide
I would argue that 2 inches is not meaningfully shorter. Furthermore, you're comparing to a single country. As a counter example, it is the same as the average height for China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country) (the most populous nation).

It's like they averaged male and female heights together and then assigned the results back to males and females equally.
That's probably not far off from what happened. Since 4E, WotC has been forgoing any real specifics for things relating to identity. They probably want to avoid anything even resembling the "women have a Strength penalty" style of "realism".


Modern US people are significantly taller than medieval (or even pre-industrial-revolution) people on average.
Yes, but D&D food technology isn't medieval apparently, or every PC would have a whole bunch of siblings who died in childhood from illness + malnutrition. At minimum I bet they have crop rotation, and then stuff like Plant Growth, where available, increases yields further.

So there's no particular reason PCs should have medieval heights.
Yeah, D&D has moved away from attempting to model the "medieval era" in any meaningful way. This is probably for the best, as the average player would probably be more confused if average heights were based on historical data.

The picture, or more specifically the texts underneath each race, could use some more work; the font isn't particularly readable. It's chunky and badly pixelated, even when I opened it in it's real size.

Other than that, I'd say, good job! This does explain somewhat why they decided to make the formerly large races as medium instead. I mean, 7' to 8' tall humanoids are noticeably larger than humans for example.
The text was automatically generated by the height comparison tool. No races were ever playable at Large size (the firbolg is a corner case as they could technically be played in v3.0 but were not presented as a player race). I'm not really sure how your last sentence relates to the one before it?

[MaxWilson]

No races were ever playable at Large size (the firbolg is a corner case as they could technically be played in v3.0 but were not presented as a player race).

2nd edition, Dark Sun: thri-kreen and half-giants are both Large.

[thoroughlyS]

None of the races currently presented in 5e were ever presented as Large size.

[MaxWilson]

None of the races currently presented in 5e were ever presented as Large size.

Yes, but you mentioned 3E so I thought you weren't just talking about 5E. My mistake.

[Arkhios]

None of the races currently presented in 5e were ever presented as Large size.

None? 2nd edition and earlier bugbear and 4th edition and earlier firbolg would disagree, as they *were* large before. Get your facts right.

And sheesh, can't you take even a slight compliment? I wasn't saying it's your fault that the text is smudgy. I only said it could use some work. By someone responsible. I couldn't possibly know whether it was you or someone else. I did not say specifically you should do it.

Other than that very small detail, the chart is nicely done. See, that's a compliment, not an insult.

[Gurgeh]

Aren't centaurs and minotaurs player races in 5e? Introduced via a MTG setting rather than a TSR/legacy one, but still. Both were Large in 3.5, and probably were in older editions as well.

There's nothing uniquely Ravnican about them, they're staple fantasy creatures sourced from ancient Greek mythology (and if the simple fact that they're published in a setting-specific book would disallow them from consideration then you've realistically got to ditch everything in Volo's).

[thoroughlyS]

None? 2nd edition and earlier bugbear and 4th edition and earlier firbolg would disagree, as they *were* large before. Get your facts right.
Firbolg were not presented as player character races in v3.0, v3.5, or 4E. They were always presented in books about monsters. Yes, v3.0 listed a level adjustment for them (making them playable as I mentioned earlier) but that is a quirk of the system. Regarding 2nd Edition, the Complete Book of Humanoids is ambiguous about size. There is no listing for it in race descriptions. Both the bugbear and firbolg say that one of their special disadvantages was that they "take damage as large creatures". As a foreigner to the system, I can't tell if that means they are large or if it is a single trait like Powerful Build in 5e. I did some more digging and found bugbears and firbolgs in the Monstrous Manual, where they are indeed large size. That was an oversight on my part.

This does explain somewhat why they decided to make the formerly large races as medium instead. I mean, 7' to 8' tall humanoids are noticeably larger than humans for example.
I'm still unsure what you're saying with these two statements. They almost seem to contradict each other.

Aren't centaurs and minotaurs player races in 5e? Introduced via a MTG setting rather than a TSR/legacy one, but still. Both were Large in 3.5, and probably were in older editions as well.

There's nothing uniquely Ravnican about them, they're staple fantasy creatures sourced from ancient Greek mythology (and if the simple fact that they're published in a setting-specific book would disallow them from consideration then you've realistically got to ditch everything in Volo's).
The problem with that is one could make the argument that those racial traits only apply in those settings. After all, centaurs and minotaurs are present in setting-agnostic material (the Monster Manual), and the description there conflicts with those found in Ravnica and Theros. I would argue that the physiology and cultures outlined in those books are unique to those settings.

[MaxWilson]

Firbolg were not presented as player character races in v3.0, v3.5, or 4E. They were always presented in books about monsters. Yes, v3.0 listed a level adjustment for them (making them playable as I mentioned earlier) but that is a quirk of the system. Regarding 2nd Edition, the Complete Book of Humanoids is ambiguous about size. There is no listing for it in race descriptions. Both the bugbear and firbolg say that one of their special disadvantages was that they "take damage as Large creatures". (A) As a foreigner to the system, I can't tell if that means they are Large or if it is a single trait like Powerful Build in 5e. I did some more digging and found bugbears and firbolgs in the Monstrous Manual, where they are indeed Large size. That was an oversight.

(A) They take damage as "large creatures" not "Large creatures" because in TSR books, jargon is deemphasized, and anything bigger than human takes additional damage from two-handed swords and similar weapons. "Large creatures" includes Large/Huge/Gargantuan.

https://i.postimg.cc/NfhvkCHZ/Bugbear1.png (https://postimages.org/)

https://i.postimg.cc/Vkmy3S4R/Bugbear2.png (https://postimages.org/)

[thoroughlyS]

I did a quick edit to make the average heights stand out more.

[Orechto]

You do know the racial height charts are just tools, not in any way hard rules, right? Jeremy even said it in the "Rules in the Handbook #2 Sage Advice" video. Very good because RAW orcs are too small and too light for my tastes.

[Tanarii]

Very good because RAW orcs are too small and too light for my tastes.
Interesting. For me Orcs should be shorter than humans, maybe old school elf height. But heavily muscled for their height, if not as much as dwarves.

So call it 5ft and as heavy as the average dwarf.


https://i.imgur.com/VkJ2nBJ.png
I did a quick edit to make the average heights stand out more.
Thanks!

[MaxWilson]

Interesting. For me Orcs should be shorter than humans, maybe old school elf height. But heavily muscled for their height, if not as much as dwarves.

So call it 5ft and as heavy as the average dwarf.

Me too. And some of them are the size of hobbits.

"Where there's a whip, there's a way!" (https://youtu.be/VoAfb3f04mo)

[Tanarii]

Me too. And some of them are the size of hobbits.

"Where there's a whip, there's a way!" (https://youtu.be/VoAfb3f04mo)
I mentally translate short Orcs to Goblins in D&D. Since apparantly Tolkein didnt really distinguish?

And like I said earlier, 3 ft 10 seems tall to me for a Goblin, they should definitely be more hobbitish.

[thoroughlyS]

You do know the racial height charts are just tools, not in any way hard rules, right?
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. But the game gives us a set of suggest values, and they are a starting point for the conversation.

[Unoriginal]

Interesting. For me Orcs should be shorter than humans, maybe old school elf height. But heavily muscled for their height, if not as much as dwarves.


Me too. And some of them are the size of hobbits.

"Where there's a whip, there's a way!" (https://youtu.be/VoAfb3f04mo)

Tolkien's orcs were very short, with the tallest orcs being described as nearly/barely as tall as human height.


I mentally translate short Orcs to Goblins in D&D. Since apparantly Tolkein didnt really distinguish?

Tolkien didn't distinguish, indeed. "Orc" is the term derived from the Elvish word, "goblin" is the Westron term, and they were used interchangeably, although "orc" is used more by people familiar with Elvish (which is why it is used more in the LotR).

That being said, there were differences. Uruk-hai ("orc-folks") were the orcs higher on the food chain, as they were taller and stronger (which as mentioned above still made them shorter than humans), while the smaller, weaker orcs were called "snaga" (which means "slave"), and they could easily be Hobbit-sized.

Interestingly, Gimli states at Helm's Deep that he thought the Hill-Men were too big for him, while he had no issue fighting Saruman's Uruk-hai.

[Gurgeh]

D&D takes almost nothing directly from Tolkien; its orcs and elves got filtered through a lot of general-purpose fantasy pop culture before they arrived in the game. D&D Dwarves are much closer to what you see in Tolkien's work, but still quite different in the fine detail.

edit: to get really nitpicky on Tolkien's orcs, the general-purpose name they used for themselves in the black speech was "uruk". The name "uruk-hai" is only used by Saruman's orcs, who are consistently described as larger and stronger and are strongly implied to be part-human; the term does not appear at all during the siege of Minas Tirith or during Frodo and Sam's trek into Mordor.

[Unoriginal]

D&D takes almost nothing directly from Tolkien; its orcs and elves got filtered through a lot of general-purpose fantasy pop culture before they arrived in the game. D&D Dwarves are much closer to what you see in Tolkien's work, but still quite different in the fine detail.

D&D dwarves are *very* different from Tolkien's.

For example, people tend to forget that unlike the D&D dwarves, Tolkien's dwarves tend to be pretty poor combatants (Gimli, Dain Ironfoot and to a lesser extent Thorin Oakenshield in his youth being very notable exceptions).

They also weren't boisterous, notable beer drinkers, or particularly stubborn (only Thorin was the later, and only when it was his greed doing the talking). In fact the narrator notes that dwarves were kind of cowardly in general, and Gimli is the one who has the hardest time handling the Path of the Dead.

[hamishspence]

edit: to get really nitpicky on Tolkien's orcs, the general-purpose name they used for themselves in the black speech was "uruk". The name "uruk-hai" is only used by Saruman's orcs, who are consistently described as larger and stronger and are strongly implied to be part-human; the term does not appear at all during the siege of Minas Tirith or during Frodo and Sam's trek into Mordor.

"Hai" just means "Folk". Tolkien made it clear in the Appendix to LOTR that the Uruks were new, that they weren't the Orcs of the Second and First age, and that it was Sauron's service that they first appeared in.


The Return of the King, LoTR Appendix A, Annals of the Kings and Rulers: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion: The Stewards

In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath. Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone-bridge was broken. No people dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him.

"Hai" appears again in Appendix F, for a type of troll, called the Olog-hai.


D&D dwarves are *very* different from Tolkien's.

For example, people tend to forget that unlike the D&D dwarves, Tolkien's dwarves tend to be pretty poor combatants (Gimli, Dain Ironfoot and to a lesser extent Thorin Oakenshield in his youth being very notable exceptions).

They also weren't boisterous, notable beer drinkers, or particularly stubborn (only Thorin was the later, and only when it was his greed doing the talking). In fact the narrator notes that dwarves were kind of cowardly in general, and Gimli is the one who has the hardest time handling the Path of the Dead.

They're pretty boisterous at Bilbo Baggins's house - the "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates" scene springs to mind.

Dwarves stubbornness is also supposed to be the reason the Rings can't turn them to wraiths.

And they have their own war-cry, with a long history, translated as: "Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!"

[Gurgeh]

Sorry, I've misremembered and been too vague in my language; uruk is not a completely generic term, but it's clear Saruman's uruk-hai are something different. A name can have generic components while nonetheless being a distinct name.

Sauron's uruks were a new development in the third age, but they are not new by the time of the war of the ring, and would have been familiar enemies to Boromir and to Aragorn (who had fought on Gondor's frontiers under a false name for years). While they're larger and tougher than the orcs of earlier ages, they still share their discomfort with sunlight, in contrast to Saruman's orcs, who are the only ones to refer to themselves as uruk-hai.

Grishnakh's attitude and behaviour are far closer to that of Shagrat and Gorbag than to the snaga in Cirith Ungol, yet the text makes it pretty clear that Uglûk and his soldiers are larger, stronger, and better disciplined than Grishnakh and his troop from Mordor.

EDIT: very much agreed on the dwarves; unoriginal's assertions don't seem well supported by the text. Gimli's reluctance in the Paths of the Dead is very clearly depicted as a fear of the supernatural, one that's shared by all of the Rohirrim; the fact that such a battle-hardened warrior is afraid isn't meant to undermine him but to demonstrate the danger of the path Aragorn takes.

[Ettina]

The chart is a little clunky based on how wide it is, I had to reply with quote just to see it formatted in a readable fashion. But that being said, I'm actually most surprised at how tall goblins are. There's not much difference between them and hill dwarves... so it makes some sense just on that, for them to be base 30 speed. Kobolds being so tiny still doesn't make sense to me for their speed...

What does size have to do with speed? Just because the two Small PHB races happen to have low speed doesn't mean it's inherent to being Small. Maybe halflings and gnomes just have a more awkward build than kobolds.

[hamishspence]

While I can believe that Saruman's Uruks are a bit more sun-resistant that Sauron's (and, notably, equipped with straight swords rather than the more typical curved ones) the word "Uruks" for Saruman's Orcs is used in The Battles For The Fords of Isen (Unfinished Tales):

Saruman's eastern force came down with unexpected speed; it was much smaller than the western force, but more dangerous. It its van were some Dunlending horsemen and a great pack of the dreadful Orc-riders feared by horses. Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles.

IMO there's plenty of reason to believe that for Tolkien, "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" were pretty well synonymous.

[Unoriginal]

They're pretty boisterous at Bilbo Baggins's house

This is not supported by the text. They're unfailingly polite with Biblo, with the caveat that they're under the impression they were invited while Bilbo has no idea what's going on.


the "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates" scene springs to mind.

They sing a song about their host's over-stuffiness, while specifically *not* doing any of the things they're singing about. It's no more boisterous than Frodo singing about the Man in the Moon getting drunk as hell at the Prancing Pony.


Dwarves stubbornness is also supposed to be the reason the Rings can't turn them to wraiths.

This is not supported by the text either. Dwarves are resistant to others' influence, true, but it's never portrayed as stubbornness.


And they have their own war-cry, with a long history, translated as: "Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!"

Having a long war history doesn't mean you have a long successful war history. In the Hobbit, the Men and Elves talk about how the Dwarves are (pardon the pun) out-of-their-depth outside of mine skirmishes, and the only large-scale battle the Dwarves fought by themselves in Tolkien's works (that I'm aware of, at least) was a pyrrhic victory at best.



EDIT: very much agreed on the dwarves; unoriginal's assertions don't seem well supported by the text. Gimli's reluctance in the Paths of the Dead is very clearly depicted as a fear of the supernatural, one that's shared by all of the Rohirrim; the fact that such a battle-hardened warrior is afraid isn't meant to undermine him but to demonstrate the danger of the path Aragorn takes.

I don't think it was to undermine him, I'm just saying that he's the most affected among the ones Aragorn takes with him (something he himself acknowledge when talking about the experience after Minas Tirith is saved).

Dwarves being portrayed (and outright described) as somewhat cowardly comes from the Hobbit, mostly.

[Gurgeh]

IMO there's plenty of reason to believe that for Tolkien, "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" were pretty well synonymous.
Mm, I think that's a reasonable interpretation. That said, I wouldn't lean too heavily on Unfinished Tales since it is exactly what its title says: unfinished, and largely unedited. From memory, that same section details five contradictory ideas for how Saruman's break with Gandalf played out, for instance. What Tolkien put down in his notes isn't the same as what would have made it into a published work, and shouldn't necessarily be expected to be consistent with it.

[thoroughlyS]

I decided to do some comparisons, and found something interesting. There are only 5 races which fall entirely outside the range of human heights: the 4 Small races and dwarves. Every other race has at least one point of overlap with the range of human heights. In fact, the tallest two races overlap at exactly one height (6 ft 4 in). Even if you only look at the average height for the other races, only the 3 tallest races fall outside the range.

[hamishspence]

This is not supported by the text. They're unfailingly polite with Biblo, with the caveat that they're under the impression they were invited while Bilbo has no idea what's going on.


They sing a song about their host's over-stuffiness, while specifically *not* doing any of the things they're singing about.

Mocking the host isn't exactly unfailingly polite.

Though it's true that the scene is more overtly boisterous in the movie.


Dwarves are resistant to others' influence, true, but it's never portrayed as stubbornness.

The Silmarillion

"Since they were to come in the days of the power of Melkor, Aulë made the dwarves strong to endure. Therefore they are stone-hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples; and they live long, far beyond the span of Men, yet not forever."





From memory, that same section details five contradictory ideas for how Saruman's break with Gandalf played out, for instance.

Only two of the versions are strongly contradictory. In C, Saruman repents when the Wraiths turn up, and seeks Gandalf's help, only to find Gandalf already gone, and Gwahiir flying away with him in the distance. In A and B, Gandalf has been gone for a couple of days already when the Wraiths arrive.

A and B agree largely (B focuses more on Aragorn and on the problems with using Ringwraiths), C has major differences, and D is material mostly concerned with Gollum's role.

Apparently the published LOTR timeline most closely fits C, according to the Unfinished Tales Notes for that section:

15: The entry for the 18th of September 3018 in the Tale of Years reads: 'Gandalf escapes from Orthanc in the early hours. The Black Riders cross the Fords of Isen.' Laconic as this entry is, giving no hints that the Riders visited Isengard, it seems to be based on the story told in version C.

[Unoriginal]

The Silmarillion

"Since they were to come in the days of the power of Melkor, Aulë made the dwarves strong to endure. Therefore they are stone-hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples; and they live long, far beyond the span of Men, yet not forever."


I admit I was wrong. I honestly didn't remember that.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, Tolkien's portrayal of Dwarves evolved over time.

Still, even in LOTR, the idea of Dwarves as being "Stiff-necked" is present - when Gimli gets angry at the idea of being blindfolded, Legolas's immediate response is "A plague on the stiff necks of Dwarves".

Though he gets angry at Gimli's suggestion of him being blindfolded too, to which Aragorn snarks "Now, shall we cry 'A plague on the stiff necks of Elves?' But the company shall all fare equally."

[thoroughlyS]

Given that the 5E tabaxi's appearance seems to be based on ocelots, I am surprised at how tall they are. If they were based on leopards and jaguars like in 2nd Edition, I wouldn't have questioned it.

[Unoriginal]

Given that the 5E tabaxi's appearance seems to be based on ocelots, I am surprised at how tall they are. If they were based on leopards and jaguars like in 2nd Edition, I wouldn't have questioned it.

Pretty sure they're still mostly based on leopards in 5e.

A few artists have given them fur inspired by other felines, true, but that doesn't change the leopard thing as the starting point.

[thoroughlyS]

I've only seen two official 5E tabaxi artworks. The first (Volo's Guide to Monsters (https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/a/a2/Tabaxi-5e.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170131190820)) seems to be based off of an ocelot, based on the face markings. The second (Tomb of Annihilation (https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/8/87/Tabaxi_minstrel.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20180224004531)) I have a harder time linking to a real animal, but the eye-stripes seem to be ocelot based as well.

[Merudo]

RACE
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM


goblin
3 ft 7 in
3 ft 10 in
4 ft 1 in




In Volo's, Goblin are listed as being between 3 and 4 feet tall. So it would seem the minimum is 3 feet, not 3 ft 7.

[XmonkTad]

Thank you for putting this together. It is quite interesting how much overlap there is between human heights and those of the other races. It makes sense that the small races are outside that range on the short end. I do wonder if we're ever going to get a Tiny/Large race, or if they'll expand the "Custom Lineage" rules to include tiny/large options.

[gmajacon]

Cool to see such a thoroughly made chart. I agree that Orcs should be taller than humans because they are usually described like this. They are significantly bigger and stronger than humans.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: How tall is your average Thread Necromancer?