D&D General what is the worst race in dnd?

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Part of it was their default appearance*. I mean, I know I can change the fluff for my own campaigns, but if I want to play a 1/2 Halfling, 1/2 Gold Dragon, the Dragonborn race isn't quite a good match.

That and their breath weapon is usually abysmally bad, with either poor damage (or 4e's atrocious scaling). Who would want that?

*I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I like the liminality of half-dragons, and my players seem to agree, given the kind of art I'm usually bombarded with, like this young lady.

u75mz9w14hn31.jpg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I wish I could have played a Half-Dragon back then. The 5e Dragonborn will do. What about a Half-Dragon Dragonborn? ;) One way to look at a Dragonborn is that they are Half-Dragon and Half-Humanoid.
It's very much not the official lore, but if you wanted a more balanced less-than-half-dragon (like a tiefling is a less-than-half-fiend) then the dragonborn rules are pretty darn good. You could just describe yourself as a human with dragon horns and maybe some shoulder scales and a tail.
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
Part of it was their default appearance*. I mean, I know I can change the fluff for my own campaigns, but if I want to play a 1/2 Halfling, 1/2 Gold Dragon, the Dragonborn race isn't quite a good match.

That and their breath weapon is usually abysmally bad, with either poor damage (or 4e's atrocious scaling). Who would want that?

*I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I like the liminality of half-dragons, and my players seem to agree, given the kind of art I'm usually bombarded with, like this young lady.

View attachment 268424
Yeah, that's a half dragon.

The only note would be that my Dragonsired have inherently stupider hair because dragons don't understand what hair is for and assume more is better, elaborate is better, and because scales -- more rigid is better.

The perfect shapechanged dragon hairdo is a beehive that can house Storm Giants.
 


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Since this is a general thread, IMO anything after 1E AD&D.

I just reviewed all the races (I know of anyway) in 5E, and I'm not even really fond of Dragonborn or Tiefling, forget pretty much anything else. I'd be perfectly happy without any of them.

As I (jokingly) posted upthread, so many choices--I really couldn't pick the "worst". It is about a 60-way tie. ;)
 
Last edited:

Clint_L

Hero
Definitely the new Ardlings.
Yeah, Ardlings are super generic and boring right now. Plus, it's confusing - they specify Ardling options including "cat" and "raven" but...we already have Tabaxi and Kenku. Do we really need two different raven-folk options? Are they related?

So right now you have fully developed races like Tabaxi, Kenku, Harengon, Tortles, and so on...and then basically whatever else you want but with less lore than a Beastmaster's generic pet. I don't get it.
 

Yeah, Ardlings are super generic and boring right now. Plus, it's confusing - they specify Ardling options including "cat" and "raven" but...we already have Tabaxi and Kenku. Do we really need two different raven-folk options? Are they related?

So right now you have fully developed races like Tabaxi, Kenku, Harengon, Tortles, and so on...and then basically whatever else you want but with less lore than a Beastmaster's generic pet. I don't get it.
The generic beast-folk race is a sop to people who want to play particular animals that haven't gotten a full write-up yet. Some of them are weirdly missing like dog- or wolf-people, other are genuinely odd like axolotl-people (but I've met people who want to play exactly that).

Having a generic origin helps integrate them; having the origin be based on a plane no one interacts with anyways makes it easy: "you have an ancestor form a place we'll never go anyways" mean you really can just drop them anywhere.

On the other hand - if friendly beast-folk just plain don't fit your vision for the setting, no amount of refluffing is gonna change that.
 


The generic beast-folk race is a sop to people who want to play particular animals that haven't gotten a full write-up yet. Some of them are weirdly missing like dog- or wolf-people, other are genuinely odd like axolotl-people (but I've met people who want to play exactly that).

Having a generic origin helps integrate them; having the origin be based on a plane no one interacts with anyways makes it easy: "you have an ancestor form a place we'll never go anyways" mean you really can just drop them anywhere.

On the other hand - if friendly beast-folk just plain don't fit your vision for the setting, no amount of refluffing is gonna change that.
I figured that myself plus asamar have the problem of being without anything to pull from as they have little role play potential past being angle decendents have no darkness, no culture and not a whole lot else.
 

Corinnguard

Adventurer
The generic beast-folk race is a sop to people who want to play particular animals that haven't gotten a full write-up yet. Some of them are weirdly missing like dog- or wolf-people, other are genuinely odd like axolotl-people (but I've met people who want to play exactly that).

Having a generic origin helps integrate them; having the origin be based on a plane no one interacts with anyways makes it easy: "you have an ancestor form a place we'll never go anyways" mean you really can just drop them anywhere.

On the other hand - if friendly beast-folk just plain don't fit your vision for the setting, no amount of refluffing is gonna change that.
That plane happens to be the Beastlands. ;)
 

Kender. No other race is even close (even if Gully Dwarves are Hall of Shame members)

And no it's not a problem with the players when the rulebook tells the players to play like jerks. Which it does in almost all editions.

And no, "Tasslehoff was a good character therefore the published (pre-5e) kender are good doesn't follow first because a one note joke wears thin, and second because the Kender published in the rules aren't a society Tas could have come from so much as they are a Flanderised version of Tas made even more annoying. In our introduction to Tas we see him pickpocket Flint, then end up not retrieving a dagger with the line "Besides. The dagger was Flint's." Which means Tas does understand private property (unlike the Flanderised write-ups). He's just a troll who enjoys winding his friends up and knows how far he can push them and they know him to be useful and entertaining even if annoying. The sort of person you trust with a sword at your back or to go in alone and scout a dragon's lair even if you can't trust them within quarter of a mile of a custard pie.

Meanwhile the Kender in the books are told to go for it - and that they literally don't understand private property. They're instructed to not know when to back off and to carry the joke far too far. And many of the players aren't good at jokes anyway.
 



Corinnguard

Adventurer
I figured that myself plus asamar have the problem of being without anything to pull from as they have little role play potential past being angle decendents have no darkness, no culture and not a whole lot else.
1st Edition Pathfinder has an accessory called Blood of Angels, which does a decent job of presenting the Aasimar for the Golarion setting. It even expands the number of Celestials an Aasimar could have descended from.
 

Redthistle

Explorer
Supporter
I DID play a Shardmind Battlemind! Or was that a Battleshard MindMind?



Much like the plasmoids are now, and how Tieflings and Dragonborn have become, with a large amount of variety to the artwork (colours, markings, horn-size, etc), the Shardmind (that badly needs a different name) ought to be a wide variety of crystal-like people, rather than an ugly red spikey rock-thing. Had it been so, it might have been more popular. They could bring it back that way, but it was widely known to be the absolute least popular 4e race, so I doubt we'll see it ever again.
... although Shardminds did always remind me of Bizarro in Superman comics.
 

1st Edition Pathfinder has an accessory called Blood of Angels, which does a decent job of presenting the Aasimar for the Golarion setting. It even expands the number of Celestials an Aasimar could have descended from.
you got the quick version beyond just who your parent is as people who are made of part pure good tend to be boring and hard to get to work?
 


Corinnguard

Adventurer
you got the quick version beyond just who your parent is as people who are made of part pure good tend to be boring and hard to get to work?
1st edition Pathfinder's Blood of Angels covers their Origins and Birth (which covers their Childhood, Adolescence, their Physiology, their relationships with the other races, their view on combat, work, rituals), Geography (within the setting of Golarion), Living and Dying (which covers Old Age, Death, Faith, Friendship and Love, Art, Home), and Class Roles. There is a % table on Variant Aasimar abilities (which replaces their spell-like ability). While most Aasimar do not know exactly where their celestial powers came from, there is a minority who possess a stronger heritage to their Celestial ancestor. There are 6 distinct heritages in this book: Agathion-Blessed (Idyllkin), Angel-Blooded (Angelkin), Archon-blooded (Lawbringers), Azata-Blooded (Musetouched), Garuda-Blooded (Plumekith) and Peri-Blooded (Emberkin). There is a small selection of Celestial feats for the Aasimar, Aasimar-related features for Pathfinder's Oracle, Inquisitor and Cleric classes, the sorcerer's Martyred Bloodline, and a bunch of half-feats.

Blood of Angels is about 32 pages long. Definitely not a quick version of the Aasimar.
 

1st edition Pathfinder's Blood of Angels covers their Origins and Birth (which covers their Childhood, Adolescence, their Physiology, their relationships with the other races, their view on combat, work, rituals), Geography (within the setting of Golarion), Living and Dying (which covers Old Age, Death, Faith, Friendship and Love, Art, Home), and Class Roles. There is a % table on Variant Aasimar abilities (which replaces their spell-like ability). While most Aasimar do not know exactly where their celestial powers came from, there is a minority who possess a stronger heritage to their Celestial ancestor. There are 6 distinct heritages in this book: Agathion-Blessed (Idyllkin), Angel-Blooded (Angelkin), Archon-blooded (Lawbringers), Azata-Blooded (Musetouched), Garuda-Blooded (Plumekith) and Peri-Blooded (Emberkin). There is a small selection of Celestial feats for the Aasimar, Aasimar-related features for Pathfinder's Oracle, Inquisitor and Cleric classes, the sorcerer's Martyred Bloodline, and a bunch of half-feats.

Blood of Angels is about 32 pages long. Definitely not a quick version of the Aasimar.
I was asking for you to summarise the lore of it?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top