Best race for each class?
- Thread starter Ogre Mage
- Start date
Lord Rasputin
Explorer
Barbarian: Dwarf. You could also go gnome with the Con bonus and half-orc with the Str bonus, but the extra Con and no Str penalty of a dwarf is appealing. Humans could use the bonus feat, the skill points aren't that important.
Bard: Half-elf or human.
Cleric: Human. Maybe dwarf. You can always make interesting clerics regardless of race, but according to stereotype, human. You can use the skill points; the bonus feat isn't that meaningful.
Druid: Human or halfling. Being small would be a help, and this is another class that could use the skill points.
Fighter: Dwarf, half-orc, human. Human gets a bonus feat; half-orc gets a Str bonus. If you're playing a specific fighter type, human, the feat is too useful. If you're playing a tank, dwarf or half-orc. Elves for archery.
Monk: Human. The extra skill points and extra feat are what is needed. Elves and halflings do gain the Dex bonus, and Dex is THE stat for a monk. I'm not one for half-orc monks; Str just isn't that important for monks, since their damage dice go up with experience.
Paladin: Human.
Ranger: Elf. The Dex bonus is handy.
Rogue: Halfling. Dex bonus AND small size.
Sorcerer or Wizard: Not really sure. I know not half-orcs, or dwarf sorcerers.
Bard: Half-elf or human.
Cleric: Human. Maybe dwarf. You can always make interesting clerics regardless of race, but according to stereotype, human. You can use the skill points; the bonus feat isn't that meaningful.
Druid: Human or halfling. Being small would be a help, and this is another class that could use the skill points.
Fighter: Dwarf, half-orc, human. Human gets a bonus feat; half-orc gets a Str bonus. If you're playing a specific fighter type, human, the feat is too useful. If you're playing a tank, dwarf or half-orc. Elves for archery.
Monk: Human. The extra skill points and extra feat are what is needed. Elves and halflings do gain the Dex bonus, and Dex is THE stat for a monk. I'm not one for half-orc monks; Str just isn't that important for monks, since their damage dice go up with experience.
Paladin: Human.
Ranger: Elf. The Dex bonus is handy.
Rogue: Halfling. Dex bonus AND small size.
Sorcerer or Wizard: Not really sure. I know not half-orcs, or dwarf sorcerers.
Ogre Mage
Hero
Best core race/core class combos
Barbarian: Dwarf. Barbarian fast movement offsets the movement penalty, CON makes rages more powerful. +2 vs. Magic is very helpful, as wizards like to target the "dumb barbarian" with charm spells. Half-Orcs are also good, but -2 INT limits skill choices from the barbarian's pretty decent skill list.
Bard: ???
Cleric: Human. Clerics suffer from a lack of feats and skill points (but have a decent skill list), humans are best at addressing this. Plus, humans tend to have the most flexibility with deity selection. Dwarves can also be good due to no movement penalty in medium/heavy armor, but suffer if DM likes to use undead. Elves are good cleric/archers, but -2 CON is bad for concentration checks.
Druid: Gnome. Wildshape offsets small size and -2 STR. +2 CON is very helpful for concentration checks and more HPs which do not change in wildshape form. Dwarves can also be good, but -2 CHA hurts when communicating with animals.
Fighter: Dwarf. Favored class, racial weapon proficiencies, +2 vs. magic, not hampered by medium or heavy armor, +2 CON for a class which needs to be the "meat shield," stability -- and these are just some of the benefits. Half-Orcs are also a good choice, especially since fighters have a very limited skill list, offsetting the -2 INT. -2 CHA is similarly no problem. The fighter is the rare case where the human bonus feat and skill points have limited impact.
Monk: Human. Monks work best with a generous number of feats and skills, humans are best at providing these.
Paladin: Human. Humans win by default. Dwarves and Half-Orcs have -2 CHA which puts them right out. Halflings and Gnomes have -2 STR which is just as bad. Elves have -2 CON, bad considering the paladin is a front-liner. The half-elf, I respectfully submit, sucks from a mix/max standpoint.
Ranger: ???
Rogue: Elf. Spot, Listen and Search are arguably the most used skills in the game and the elf gets +2 to all of them. Low light vision is a great boon as is the +2 DEX. Movement rate 30 is very important when you need to hustle. The racial weapon proficiences are the icing on the cake.
Sorcerer: Human. Sorcerers need metamagic feats but lack the easy ability to get them. You can't go wrong with human.
Wizard: Halfling or Gnome. I echo everyone else's comments about the advantage of small wizards, and +2 DEX or CON is very important to the wizard. Elves are also good because of +2 DEX and weapon proficiencies, but -2 CON is a steep penalty for d4 HPs and concentration checks.
mooby said:
Barbarian: Dwarf. Barbarian fast movement offsets the movement penalty, CON makes rages more powerful. +2 vs. Magic is very helpful, as wizards like to target the "dumb barbarian" with charm spells. Half-Orcs are also good, but -2 INT limits skill choices from the barbarian's pretty decent skill list.
Bard: ???
Cleric: Human. Clerics suffer from a lack of feats and skill points (but have a decent skill list), humans are best at addressing this. Plus, humans tend to have the most flexibility with deity selection. Dwarves can also be good due to no movement penalty in medium/heavy armor, but suffer if DM likes to use undead. Elves are good cleric/archers, but -2 CON is bad for concentration checks.
Druid: Gnome. Wildshape offsets small size and -2 STR. +2 CON is very helpful for concentration checks and more HPs which do not change in wildshape form. Dwarves can also be good, but -2 CHA hurts when communicating with animals.
Fighter: Dwarf. Favored class, racial weapon proficiencies, +2 vs. magic, not hampered by medium or heavy armor, +2 CON for a class which needs to be the "meat shield," stability -- and these are just some of the benefits. Half-Orcs are also a good choice, especially since fighters have a very limited skill list, offsetting the -2 INT. -2 CHA is similarly no problem. The fighter is the rare case where the human bonus feat and skill points have limited impact.
Monk: Human. Monks work best with a generous number of feats and skills, humans are best at providing these.
Paladin: Human. Humans win by default. Dwarves and Half-Orcs have -2 CHA which puts them right out. Halflings and Gnomes have -2 STR which is just as bad. Elves have -2 CON, bad considering the paladin is a front-liner. The half-elf, I respectfully submit, sucks from a mix/max standpoint.
Ranger: ???
Rogue: Elf. Spot, Listen and Search are arguably the most used skills in the game and the elf gets +2 to all of them. Low light vision is a great boon as is the +2 DEX. Movement rate 30 is very important when you need to hustle. The racial weapon proficiences are the icing on the cake.
Sorcerer: Human. Sorcerers need metamagic feats but lack the easy ability to get them. You can't go wrong with human.
Wizard: Halfling or Gnome. I echo everyone else's comments about the advantage of small wizards, and +2 DEX or CON is very important to the wizard. Elves are also good because of +2 DEX and weapon proficiencies, but -2 CON is a steep penalty for d4 HPs and concentration checks.
HammerFist
First Post
I can't believe there aren't more votes for a Dwarven Monk!
While they really aren't the greatest min/max wise, they're definitely the most fun to play, IMHO (Being a short guy who takes Karate IRL doesn't hurt, either!).
While they really aren't the greatest min/max wise, they're definitely the most fun to play, IMHO (Being a short guy who takes Karate IRL doesn't hurt, either!).
Brother Shatterstone
Dark Moderator of PbP
Yeah me too. I wish I could provide diffrent answer but I think everyone has covered pretty much the best at everything except for non-phb races. That said one off topic comment.Number47 said:
barbarian: bugbears
Now back on topic, I think the extra feat provided ny humans is hard to pass up. (Monks, Sorccers, Paladins) The only case I can make for non-humans is the fighter and the reason why is alreay provided by Ogre Mage.
Epametheus
First Post
Bard: Elf
Paladin: Half-celestial
Paladin: Half-celestial
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I don't know as there is really a "best" race for each class any more than there is a "best" build. Is the sword and shield fighter better than the two handed weapon fighter? How about the melee cleric vs. the spellcasting cleric? They're all viable character types and will perform differently in different campaigns and parties. In a group with a significantly multiclassed cleric or that relies on a bard or paladin for healing, the sword and shield fighter is better than the two-hander. In a group without front-line fighters or paladins, the melee focussed cleric will be better than the spellcasting cleric. In a fighter heavy group, the spellcasting focussed cleric is better. Etc. Etc.
So, here's my take on the races:
Human: Good at everything. Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerors, and wizards. The bonus feat and skills always handy, the favored class:any makes multiclassing easier, and the lack of stat penalties means they can tackle any class.
Half-elves: Like humans only not as good or like elves only not as good. Half elves are best for character concepts that require elf blood (arcane archer, bladesinger, leader of the rangers and heir to the throne of Gondor, etc) but for which a con penalty or favored class:wizard won't work. (Ftr 4/Rgr 1/Bbn 1/Wiz 1/Arcane Archer, or any kind of bladesinger are among these).
high elves: Good rogues (nothing like the automatic search check for secret doors when you have a very high search), druids, good archery focussed fighters, and possibly finesse focussed fighters. They're the also the easiest way to make an archer cleric. IMO, their con penalty makes them poor single-classed wizards but their favored class makes them good multiclassed wizards.
Wood elves: Good rogues (see high elves), fighters, barbarians, and rangers (str bonus). They make good archer-clerics too. They make good druids as well (although they don't benefit from their str and dex while wildshaped, they do get bow proficiency). The con penalty hurts melee focussed characters but they excel at archery. Their racial weapon proficiencies make them flexible monks but their fragility keeps them from being a real power-gamer choice. Conceptually, they don't generally work too well as paladins, but their stat bonusses aren't bad. If there's a non-human race that makes a good paladin it's probably Wood Elf.
Half-orc: Half-orcs make good fighters, barbarians, rangers, rogues (the only race with 30' movement AND darkvision), and monks. (The str bonus helps a lot and their penalties fall in the monk's two dump stats: Int and cha). They're not bad combat clerics (although they won't be good at turning). Their int and cha penalties keep them from being good bards, sorcerors, or wizards. A half-orc can make a decent paladin but the charisma penalty really hurts them too.
Dwarf: Dwarves make excellent fighters, barbarians, monks (the con bonus really helps monks with their fragility), and wizards (the con bonus helps a lot when you have d4 hp). They make good rogues but are hampered by their movement penalty. They make good clerics as long as they're not required to turn a lot of undead. And they make decent paladins although the charisma penalty hurts a lot.
Halflings: Halflings make excellent rogues, bards, druids, sorcerors, and wizards. Their size prevents them from being excellent fighters, rangers, barbarians (although many a halfling rogue benefitted from a single level of barbarian), or paladins but they can be constructed so as to be viable. Their bonus to dex doesn't really help clerics out much so they aren't great cleric material but they're viable.
Gnomes: Like halflings, gnomes make excellent bards and arcane casters (with +1 to illusion DCs, and +2 to con they're the obvious choice for illusionists). Their bonus to con makes them good clerics and druids (who DO benefit from con while wildshaped if not their other physical stats) as well--as long as they're not expected to be very good at melee. They make decent rogues as well although they're hampered by their low movement, favored class (halfling rogues can multiclass much more freely), and lack of darkvision.
Overall, if I had to pick the iconic race that emphasized each class's strength in its most obvious build it would be:
Barbarian: half-orc
Bard: Human or gnome
Cleric: Human
Druid: Human or Gnome
Melee Fighter: Dwarf
Archer fighter: Wood elf
Monk: Human or half-orc
Paladin: Human
Ranger: Wood elf or Human
Rogue: Halfling
Sorceror: Gnome
Wizard: Gnome
So, here's my take on the races:
Human: Good at everything. Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerors, and wizards. The bonus feat and skills always handy, the favored class:any makes multiclassing easier, and the lack of stat penalties means they can tackle any class.
Half-elves: Like humans only not as good or like elves only not as good. Half elves are best for character concepts that require elf blood (arcane archer, bladesinger, leader of the rangers and heir to the throne of Gondor, etc) but for which a con penalty or favored class:wizard won't work. (Ftr 4/Rgr 1/Bbn 1/Wiz 1/Arcane Archer, or any kind of bladesinger are among these).
high elves: Good rogues (nothing like the automatic search check for secret doors when you have a very high search), druids, good archery focussed fighters, and possibly finesse focussed fighters. They're the also the easiest way to make an archer cleric. IMO, their con penalty makes them poor single-classed wizards but their favored class makes them good multiclassed wizards.
Wood elves: Good rogues (see high elves), fighters, barbarians, and rangers (str bonus). They make good archer-clerics too. They make good druids as well (although they don't benefit from their str and dex while wildshaped, they do get bow proficiency). The con penalty hurts melee focussed characters but they excel at archery. Their racial weapon proficiencies make them flexible monks but their fragility keeps them from being a real power-gamer choice. Conceptually, they don't generally work too well as paladins, but their stat bonusses aren't bad. If there's a non-human race that makes a good paladin it's probably Wood Elf.
Half-orc: Half-orcs make good fighters, barbarians, rangers, rogues (the only race with 30' movement AND darkvision), and monks. (The str bonus helps a lot and their penalties fall in the monk's two dump stats: Int and cha). They're not bad combat clerics (although they won't be good at turning). Their int and cha penalties keep them from being good bards, sorcerors, or wizards. A half-orc can make a decent paladin but the charisma penalty really hurts them too.
Dwarf: Dwarves make excellent fighters, barbarians, monks (the con bonus really helps monks with their fragility), and wizards (the con bonus helps a lot when you have d4 hp). They make good rogues but are hampered by their movement penalty. They make good clerics as long as they're not required to turn a lot of undead. And they make decent paladins although the charisma penalty hurts a lot.
Halflings: Halflings make excellent rogues, bards, druids, sorcerors, and wizards. Their size prevents them from being excellent fighters, rangers, barbarians (although many a halfling rogue benefitted from a single level of barbarian), or paladins but they can be constructed so as to be viable. Their bonus to dex doesn't really help clerics out much so they aren't great cleric material but they're viable.
Gnomes: Like halflings, gnomes make excellent bards and arcane casters (with +1 to illusion DCs, and +2 to con they're the obvious choice for illusionists). Their bonus to con makes them good clerics and druids (who DO benefit from con while wildshaped if not their other physical stats) as well--as long as they're not expected to be very good at melee. They make decent rogues as well although they're hampered by their low movement, favored class (halfling rogues can multiclass much more freely), and lack of darkvision.
Overall, if I had to pick the iconic race that emphasized each class's strength in its most obvious build it would be:
Barbarian: half-orc
Bard: Human or gnome
Cleric: Human
Druid: Human or Gnome
Melee Fighter: Dwarf
Archer fighter: Wood elf
Monk: Human or half-orc
Paladin: Human
Ranger: Wood elf or Human
Rogue: Halfling
Sorceror: Gnome
Wizard: Gnome
I find it interesting that no one (I think) has brought up the weapon proficiencies for elves and their utility. To me, this makes elf a very attractive race for any class that doesn't already get all martial weapons, i.e, bard, cleric, monk, rogue, sorcerer, wizard, and (thanks to 3.5) druid.
Here's my take on the races:
Human: Always attractive for any class, given the flexible racial abilities.
Dwarf: One of the best races overall, especially given 3.5, and probably the most attractive for fighters.
Elf: Stacked with useful racial abilities, including a bonus to perhaps the most important skill in the game (Spot) and instantly adds proficiency in bows to any class that didn't come with that proficiency. I'm of the opinion that AC is more important than HP in 3.0/3.5, so the +2 Dex/-2 Con is a good tradeoff. Hard to pass up an elf for any non-martial weapon class. Ironically, despite being described as great at swordplay, elf isn't an attractive choice for fighter, because youessentially give up a racial ability (the weapon proficiencies).
Gnome: Still not as strong as dwarf or elf, and not a top choice for any class.
Halfling: Not a bad choice for rogue, especially for stealth, but I don't think they really beat out elves, who get a Spot bonus and better weapons.
Half-Elf: I still see this as the worst race, or at least the least attractive. I'm always going to go human or elf before I go half-elf. The new skill bonuses are not that exciting either.
Half-Orc: Probably gets less than any other race, but at least the Str bonus makes them interesting as fighting types.
Overall: In 3.0, I felt that elves were generally too good, dwarves were pretty good, half-orcs and halflings at least had a niche, and gnomes and half-elves were flavor-only choices. 3.5 gave elves another class (druid) where their weapon proficiencies would make them an obvious choice. As if trying to keep them close to the elves, 3.5 boosted dwarves considerably as well, at least as fighters. They did nothing to change the status of halflings, half-orcs, and gnomes, effectively making these races even worse compared to elves and dwarves.
--Axe
Here's my take on the races:
Human: Always attractive for any class, given the flexible racial abilities.
Dwarf: One of the best races overall, especially given 3.5, and probably the most attractive for fighters.
Elf: Stacked with useful racial abilities, including a bonus to perhaps the most important skill in the game (Spot) and instantly adds proficiency in bows to any class that didn't come with that proficiency. I'm of the opinion that AC is more important than HP in 3.0/3.5, so the +2 Dex/-2 Con is a good tradeoff. Hard to pass up an elf for any non-martial weapon class. Ironically, despite being described as great at swordplay, elf isn't an attractive choice for fighter, because youessentially give up a racial ability (the weapon proficiencies).
Gnome: Still not as strong as dwarf or elf, and not a top choice for any class.
Halfling: Not a bad choice for rogue, especially for stealth, but I don't think they really beat out elves, who get a Spot bonus and better weapons.
Half-Elf: I still see this as the worst race, or at least the least attractive. I'm always going to go human or elf before I go half-elf. The new skill bonuses are not that exciting either.
Half-Orc: Probably gets less than any other race, but at least the Str bonus makes them interesting as fighting types.
Overall: In 3.0, I felt that elves were generally too good, dwarves were pretty good, half-orcs and halflings at least had a niche, and gnomes and half-elves were flavor-only choices. 3.5 gave elves another class (druid) where their weapon proficiencies would make them an obvious choice. As if trying to keep them close to the elves, 3.5 boosted dwarves considerably as well, at least as fighters. They did nothing to change the status of halflings, half-orcs, and gnomes, effectively making these races even worse compared to elves and dwarves.
--Axe
Similar Threads
- Locked
