D&D Race You Hate the Most

[Pheonix0114]

I picked Thri-Kreen, Mul, and Winged Folk.

Thri-Kreen because an insect race simply has no place in my world, and I don't imagine they would have thought processes that even begin to resemble our own.

Mul because I dislike the idea of a half-human/half-dwarf somehow being TALLER than the average human. I mean, wtf?

Winged Folk because of flight. If you can fly to the top of a tall tree to rain down arrows from, what hope do any melee mooks have?

Beyond that, the races that are essential to my setting, as PCs, are: Humans, Half-Elves, Elves, Half-Orcs, Dwarves, Shifters, Wilden, Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Half-Giant/Goliath.

These races originally came from 4e, which was the original edition my group played, but as we switched to Pathfinder it came up again and again that This or That was really interesting and so I put the work in to make them all playable races. In general, I'd say having 20 bazillion different possibilities is too much, but if a person has a concept for their character that can find its place within my setting I let them go with it, as every time they flesh their character out I get free setting material.

And yes, I excluded Halflings on purpose, I am working on a culturally significant group to throw into our next game, I was thinking Gypsy like nomads, but as of now halflings as a whole have next to no impact on the world.

 

[Sunseeker]

Winged Folk because of flight. If you can fly to the top of a tall tree to rain down arrows from, what hope do any melee mooks have?

At the same time, what's to stop a very agile ranger from climbing said tree and doing the same?

As a good GM once told me, if you ever make a character that basically flies into the sky and rains death upon whatever's on the groun, expect the next encounter to be filled with some flock of horrible monsters that fly.

Yeah at lvl1 in a pre-built campaign I agree that this might be problematic, of course at the same time, I think that having to make a "fly" check every round in order to stay aloft while fighting, or mandatory X-distance minimum movement each round is a good way to balance out "I fly up and rain death from above". I also house-rule in "wingspan" rules. If there isn't realistically 10 feet of open space to each side, you can't fly, or you gotta make a darn good fly check. Wings on a humanoid would probably be about 15-feet long each, so I'm going easy on them, they'd also make for one heck of a big(if moving) target.

I'm not arguing in favor of the inclusion of winged races, I think they'd be a great place for some 1-3 lvl "racial classes" or racial feats to enable flight. But I think that realistically the advantage of flight that they present is minimal given most adventuring situations(dungeon-crawling, indoors, dense forest, ect...).

 

[CleverNickName]

human

elf

dwarf

halfling

I picked the exact opposite...I kinda hope that these four are the *only* races in the 5E core handbook. I doubt I'll get my wish, though.

 

[Lwaxy]

I picked Thri-Kreen, Mul, and Winged Folk.

Thri-Kreen because an insect race simply has no place in my world, and I don't imagine they would have thought processes that even begin to resemble our own.

Yeah, generally true. But they are only in the Dark Sun setting. Doesn't make me like them more, they are almost as disliked as Mul, but at least I can use the "only in" rule.

I have actually not allowed them as PCs in our DS campaign though, didn't want to open that can of ants.

 

[Minigiant]

I picked the exact opposite...I kinda hope that these four are the *only* races in the 5E core handbook. I doubt I'll get my wish, though.

Ew.
Can I ask how one of the races in your 4 race world would look if you designed them?

 

[CleverNickName]

Ew.
Can I ask how one of the races in your 4 race world would look if you designed them?

Each of the races would look the same way they do now, in whatever game system you choose. Humans have their cities and farmlands, hobbits have their burrows and shires, elves rule the forests, dwarves rule the mountains, that sort of thing. Why change them?

 

[SKyOdin]

Alright, I get the hate for kender. But nearly half of all respondents have voiced dislike for raptorians/wingfolk. Why? Is it because raptorians were a rather lousy winged-humanoid race or is there a general sentiment against races with wings?

 

[nightwalker450]

I can't say I have a least favorite race. I could see myself playing any of them in some campaign. I also wouldn't have a problem with someone else playing one in a game, assuming it is setting appropriate.

 

[Minigiant]

Each of the races would look the same way they do now, in whatever game system you choose. Humans have their cities and farmlands, hobbits have their burrows and shires, elves rule the forests, dwarves rule the mountains, that sort of thing. Why change them?

Because in most of the time, those 4 races are close to being the same race with different names.

 

[CleverNickName]

Because in most of the time, those 4 races are close to being the same race with different names.

Ah. Well, I can't speak for every DM out there, but I've never had an issue with that. Our dwarves have always been very, very different than our elves. The players even tease each other about it at the table.

"Of *course* you want to go down there, dwarf. You were born in a hole."

"You can stay out here and tend your precious trees, then. We've got goblins to hunt."

Good times, good times.

Anyway, to bring it back on topic: wouldn't adding more races to the mix dilute them all? I mean, with only four races, it is very easy to make them distinct. But when you start adding in more and more races, the gap between them all gets a little more narrow and everything starts sounding alike. I think it would be better to focus on the "core four," make them as different and distinctive as possible and putting the rest in supplement books.