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

[thoroughlyS]

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]

I made a height chart

You are about three editions behind. For AD&D 2e, thought, handy chart.

[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]

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]

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.

[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 three examples 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_m...ight_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_m...ight_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.

[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_m...ight_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 (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.

Spoiler: For Those Interested, Relevant Text From Complete Book of Humanoids

Show

[thoroughlyS]

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