D&D Race You Hate the Most

[Vyvyan Basterd]

How can anything be more disliked than kender?

If you don't know kender, imagine Rob Schneider being in every movie you ever liked, appearing in every scene and having the most dialog. That's how you're supposed to be a kender. And the other people at the table are supposed to be greatful for it.

I almost chose kender, but then realized it's not really the race I dislike, but those who play it who believe the above to be true.

I chose other subraces. I dislike the plethora of subraces that receive their own treatment merely because they reside in the woods, or Frost (fill in the blank), etc. If you can make them different enough (like Drow and Duergar) I'm happy, but throwing a descriptive in front of Elf or Drawf just does not cut it.

 

[Sunseeker]

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 don't think so, no. In a world with only 4 races, each race has a lot more room to develop and differentiate. Take real-world humanity for example, while physically we're all 99% the same, there's still TONS of variety. This would hold true for a world with few races as well. Each race may have their "core" ideology, ie: dwarves live underground and are good with stone, elves live in forests and love trees, halflings live in burrows and well...aren't all that unique, humans can do everything. While that may be the core, in actuality all of these races are going to branch out in the same way humans do. There would be elves of tropical, temperate, scrubland, there would be dwarves who live deep in the mountains, those who live nearer to the surface, and those who live above ground! Just in the same way that humans do live everywhere, those parts of those races would adapt to those conditions over time creating unique cultures.

Fewer races inclines each one to be less specific. Dwarves may in general be hardy and like their ale, elves may love trees, but really that's about all you'd find in common unless you are IN the homeland of a specific culture. You couldn't expect someone to play your standard irish-parody dwarf at the table because there's no guarantee that in the world that's how all dwarves are going to be. In fact your dwarf may have dark skin, live on an island and sail.

Of course as diversity within a few races grows, the more the line blurs. Whats the difference between a human who loves nature and an elf? How exaclty ARE halflings not just short humans? How does a dwarf who lives above ground act any differently from a city-born human?

In fact more races will inspire each one to be more specific, as there is less room in the world, each race is forced to stay within the group, to stick to what makes a dwarf a dwarf, an elf an elf, ect... Elves love trees, dwarves love stone, tieflings are evil, dragonborn are honorable, and while all races may have all these traits, each race is almost forced to exemplify it to the greatest degree given that if they don't, they're really no more than any other race.

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.

Personally, I won't buy a PHB1 with 4 races, @ $40 a book, it's simply not worth it, secondly, I don't want to wait years for Wizards to get around to publishing the races I like(since I hate half the "core four" races).

That aside, I think if you really look at the races, without making them stupid parodies of real world cultures, the "core 4" are a lot more vague than you're giving them credit. Forcing them to be the most dwarfiest dwarves or elfiest tree-hugging elitist jerkwads to have elfed I think does them a discredit.

And really, how ARE halflings not just short humans? Burrows? Not good enough.

 

[prosfilaes]

I don't really see the need to fill every niche like this, especially in the PHB. That's why I also don't feel there should be a large race just to compensate for the small ones.

I feel there should be a large race so I can play a large race. Rules issues be damned, I want a race that can loom over humans and use brute force to solve all problems.

 

[MoxieFu]

I don't mind Kinder being in a game as long as it's balanced by also having the Kinderpult.

 

[Aldeon]

Dragonborn need to not exist, and have lizardfolk come in as a monstrous race (not core, though).

Although I don't dislike the idea of half-dwarves, I dislike the term mul. I think that if half-dwarves are accepted in as a 5e core race, they should be called such and the name mul should just stick with Dark Sun.

I always forget shardmind and wilden exist, and they really shouldn't anyways. IMO they were just added to beef up the PHB3's race options.

Eladrin shouldn't exist. Now we have a clear division of arcane elves and nature elves, but I think it should just be a cultural one instead. I'm sure the whole "too many elves" thing is a common moan though, but with reason.

I really don't like aasimar because they always struck me as just humans with shiny hair. I actually like devas though; their spiritual successors was a boon in my opinion.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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 don't really think so. Sure, this can get hard if every race were as humanlike as elves or dwarves, but good racial concepts are not. The gap between races only gets smaller if you create new race concepts within that gap. There are still a ton of race concepts that exist outside of the narrow gap between humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

Still, avoiding the whole "everything starts looking the same" issue is one of the reasons I argue against having watered down racial choices like Goliaths rather than Giants, Shifters rather than Werecreatures, or Dragonborn rather than Dragons. Diluting everything by making it half-human pushes good concepts into the gap that otherwise exist outside of it, meaning they crowd against each other more. It is easier to differentiate a Dragon from an Orc than it would be to differentiate a Dragonborn from an Orc, just like it is easier to make Elves and Orcs more different from each other than Half-Elves and Half-Orcs.

 

[Sunseeker]

Still, avoiding the whole "everything starts looking the same" issue is one of the reasons I argue against having watered down racial choices like Goliaths rather than Giants, Shifters rather than Werecreatures, or Dragonborn rather than Dragons. Diluting everything by making it half-human pushes good concepts into the gap that otherwise exist outside of it, meaning they crowd against each other more. It is easier to differentiate a Dragon from an Orc than it would be to differentiate a Dragonborn from an Orc, just like it is easier to make Elves and Orcs more different from each other than Half-Elves and Half-Orcs.

But the problem then is to make those races feel flavorfully like you're playing the actual race, we're looking at a level adjustment out the wazoo. And level adjustments classically cost FAR FAR more than they were really worth. Go download the Paizo Advanced Race Guide playtest document for an idea of how simply cost-ineffective things can be.(it's actually looking like a really cool guide for species building).

 

[Sunseeker]

Dragonborn need to not exist, and have lizardfolk come in as a monstrous race (not core, though).

Thing is though, Dragonborn weren't supposed to be a monstrous race. They're civilized, honorable, they have religion and society and all that sthick, plus the idea of being part dragon comes off a lot cooler than being part lizard. Especially when lizardfolk are portrayed as dirty, smelly, often cruel and usually stupid humanoids.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't really think so. Sure, this can get hard if every race were as humanlike as elves or dwarves, but good racial concepts are not. The gap between races only gets smaller if you create new race concepts within that gap. There are still a ton of race concepts that exist outside of the narrow gap between humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

True, but nearly all of them can be put into two categories: Anthropomorphic Creatures and Half-Bloods.

Centaur = anthro. horse
Minotaur = anthro. bovine
Satyr = anthro. goat
Rakasta = anthro. cat
Lizardfolk = anthro. lizards

Changeling = half doppelganger
Planetouched = half elemental
Shifter = half lycanthrope
Warforged = half golem
Dragonborn = half dragon
Tiefling = half fiend
Aasimar = half celestial

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing; it can be a lot of fun playing the role of a half-blooded doppelganger or an anthropomorphic cat. I just don't think it adds as much variety as people say it does.

 

[Hassassin]

Sure, this can get hard if every race were as humanlike as elves or dwarves, but good racial concepts are not.

IMO, of the races in the poll only warforged, thri-kreen and changelings are significantly less humanlike than elves and dwarves.

(Also gith, but for "cultural" reasons - living on the astral plane has to mess with your perception of physics. You could have the same background with any race.)