Race Adjustments

[Shrapp Hamnier]

I am trying to compile a list of races that are a bit underpowered, and ways to make them more appealing from a mechanical perspective. I tend to play with and DM for players who look at their race and say "why would I choose this one?" Many of them would like to play them for roleplay, but the mechanics of some races are just vastly inferior to say the free feat of humans.

To start the list I guess, I have never seen a dwarf player in my games. They have tons of little things, but what I notice most people get held up with is that the weapon proficiencies are wasted (either the class also gives proficiency to those or another prefered weapon, or it is a class like a spellcaster where you typically don't care about those proficiencies).

My suggestion to modify dwarf is a simple one. If the class and race proficiencies overlap, they get to chose two of those to gain expertise with. In addition, the racial proficient weapons may be used as a spellcasting focus.


I would love your ideas on what races have issues and/or ideas on how to improve them!

 

[aco175]

In my games, humans are chosen most followed by dwarf. Halfling and elf/ half-elf are ok and dragonborn and others like goliath are seldom. I'm sue you will get suggestions that each race is weak or powerful and it may come down to the type of game you play. Overall I find that most races are good at being balanced.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Many of them would like to play them for roleplay, but the mechanics of some races are just vastly inferior to say the free feat of humans.

Have you considered not adding the Variant Human option to your game? It is quite obviously overpowered, which makes it a bad reference point.

 

[Shrapp Hamnier]

Have you considered not adding the Variant Human option to your game? It is quite obviously overpowered, which makes it a bad reference point.

Never considered that, no. Because that then makes the human underpowered. We always use feats in the games I play in. Very few times do we actually take the human because we all think its boring to always be human. We allways try to use races that work while branching out, but we keep winding up with one or two aasimar in the group, tabaxi are common, maybe a tiefling. But dwarf, air and earth genasii, dragonborn... there are just some races that are not as usefull as the rest.

I think that list is relatively small, I think I would personally only add 1 or 2 more to that list if I went through everyone. But this is in part to see what everyone else thinks. (Including you, I'm just looking more for ways to add to races than to remove from them)

 

[generic]

Orcs, Kobolds, and Goblins are severely under-powered.

In contrast, Yuan-Ti Purebloods land a stunning 26 points (10 average) on my personal point scale, making them more than twice as powerful as humans (10 points regardless of variant).

 

[Arvok]

I haven't really found the need to balance out races mechanically because there are role-playing advantages and drawbacks to certain races. In my 3.5e games, I even gave elves (and half-elves) extra mechanical advantages but this seemed to be made up for by role-playing considerations. Dwarves, in my worlds, are reliable and trustworthy and therefore are much more welcome most places than haughty and arrogant elves (even if the PC is playing against type--and has a good reason to do--it's hard to overcome racial stereotypes).

In my worlds, races are much more like different species in the real world. Also, there is much less diversity across a race than across other races. The idea that there is more diversity within a race than across it was something I remember being introduced in 3e and one of the things I didn't like about that system. I'm a grumpy old Fatbeard and I like my games to have a very medieval feel. People are suspicious of outsiders (especially different races), so it's hard for one of the stranger races to get by outside his home area (i.e. where most adventures take place).

That's just how I do things. You might run things very differently.

 

[Autumn Bask]

To start the list I guess, I have never seen a dwarf player in my games. They have tons of little things, but what I notice most people get held up with is that the weapon proficiencies are wasted (either the class also gives proficiency to those or another prefered weapon, or it is a class like a spellcaster where you typically don't care about those proficiencies).

My suggestion to modify dwarf is a simple one. If the class and race proficiencies overlap, they get to chose two of those to gain expertise with. In addition, the racial proficient weapons may be used as a spellcasting focus.

I've seen plenty of players pick Elves, and their weapon proficiencies are also usually wasted. The fact of the matter is that that's just the icing on the cake, and the same is true for Dwarvan Combat Training. In fact, lets compare Elven racials and Dwarven racials, side-by-side.

Elves have +2 Dex
Dwarves have +2 Con

Both have Darkvision

Both have Racial Combat Training. (Yeah, it's baked into the Elven Subclasses. Whatever.)

Elves have Keen Senses, which gives them proficiency in Perception.
Dwarves have Tool Proficiency, which is more niche, but also harder to come by.

Elves have Trance, which varies massively in usefulness depending on the setting.
Dwarves have Stonecunning, which varies massively in usefulness depending on the setting.

Elves have Fey Ancestry, which gives them advantage on Saving Throws against being Charmed, and magic can't put them to Sleep.
Dwarves have Dwarven Resilience, which gives them advantage on Saving Throws against Poison and resistance to Poison damage.

So, at base, I would say these two races are fairly comparable. Now let's look at subclasses:

Hill Dwarves: +1 Wis, +1 hp per level
This, in my opinion, is really good. Especially in addition to Dwarf's base +2 Con. You make the tanky classes tankier, and the squishy classes less squishy. And it's important to remember that Spellcasters do benefit from increased Con. Hill Dwarves are good picks for most martial classes, as well a Wisdom casters like Druids, Rangers, and Clerics.

Mountain Dwarves: +2 Str, Light and Medium Armor Proficiency.
Two +2s to Ability Scores is very rare, and the Armor Proficiencies would be nice, if this wasn't clearly intended for a Strength-based character.

High Elf: +1 Int, Cantrip, Extra Language
A/an extra Cantrip is always nice.

Wood Elf +1 Wis, +5 Movement Speed, Hide Easier
The movement is nice, but I'd take the Hill Dwarf's health, any day, assuming we're just speaking from a balance perspective.


Overall, I would say that both Dwarves and Elves are the benchmarks for balanced races. I think the reason you don't see Dwarves getting a lot of play has more to do with the races aesthetic, rather than the merits of its mechanics.

 

[ccs]

I tend to play with and DM for players who look at their race and say "why would I choose this one?" Many of them would like to play them for roleplay, but the mechanics of some races are just vastly inferior to say the free feat of humans.

Well, when you're the DM that's pretty easy to fix. You say you've got people who want to play ____ for RP reasons? Then lean into that & run stuff where their RP choices matter & are rewarded. Do that & you'll see dwarf wizards etc. But if you continue to run stuff in a style that only rewards mechanics & guess what type of characters you'll keep seeing....

As a player? SHOW the others that choosing things for RP reasons is just as viable here in 5e. Play something less optimized like a dwarf wizard etc.