D&D 5E What Races for the 5E PHB

What Races for the 5E PHB

  • Aarakocra

    Votes: 5 3.0%
  • Aasimar

    Votes: 19 11.2%
  • Bugbear

    Votes: 6 3.6%
  • Catfolk

    Votes: 23 13.6%
  • Centaur

    Votes: 10 5.9%
  • Changling

    Votes: 17 10.1%
  • Deva

    Votes: 14 8.3%
  • Dragonborn

    Votes: 74 43.8%
  • Drow

    Votes: 39 23.1%
  • Eladrin

    Votes: 69 40.8%
  • Elf (High/Gray/Wild)

    Votes: 156 92.3%
  • Gith (yanki/zeri)

    Votes: 12 7.1%
  • Gnoll

    Votes: 8 4.7%
  • Gnome

    Votes: 104 61.5%
  • Goblin

    Votes: 21 12.4%
  • Goliath

    Votes: 28 16.6%
  • Hadozee

    Votes: 3 1.8%
  • Half-Giant/Half-Ogre

    Votes: 19 11.2%
  • Halfling

    Votes: 146 86.4%
  • Half-Orc/Orc

    Votes: 112 66.3%
  • Human

    Votes: 164 97.0%
  • Illumian

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • Kalshaltar

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • Kobold

    Votes: 18 10.7%
  • Lizardman

    Votes: 21 12.4%
  • Minotaur

    Votes: 20 11.8%
  • Pixie

    Votes: 16 9.5%
  • Raptorian

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • Saurial

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • Shardmind

    Votes: 4 2.4%
  • Shifter

    Votes: 31 18.3%
  • Spellscale

    Votes: 3 1.8%
  • Tiefling

    Votes: 67 39.6%
  • Vampire

    Votes: 8 4.7%
  • Warforged

    Votes: 30 17.8%
  • Wilden

    Votes: 7 4.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 104 61.5%

  • Poll closed .
S

Sunseeker

Guest
You know, there's just the off-chance that everybody else doesn't play that way.

Sure. But I'm just saying that not everyone is fond of the "Core Four", and some of us would like to be able to keep some of those races out of our games as is our DM privilege, without ending up restricting players to two races.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MoxieFu

First Post
Sure. But I'm just saying that not everyone is fond of the "Core Four", and some of us would like to be able to keep some of those races out of our games as is our DM privilege, without ending up restricting players to two races.

That is quite different from saying:

"I hate halflings and I hate dwarves. Why? Because halflings are almost never played as anything more than the "spunky sidekick" or the "joker" character who does nothing more than be silly and goofy and abuse the fact that they're short. Why do I hate dwarves? Because I've never met a player who didn't want to be the drunkest, smelliest, most Irish-parody dwarf in existence. While I enjoy some off-color humor, I despise racial and cultural stereotypes being used as a source of personal entertainment."

Just because you never met anyone who doesn't play a Dwarf in the way you describe does not mean they don't exist. There are many posts in this thread by people that seem to differ from your experience. In fact I bet there are actually very few Dwarves played that match your stereotype.
 


LostSoul

Adventurer
I want human, elf, dwarf, and tiefling. I like the swords & sorcery feel of a human with inhuman ancestry. I don't like hobbits because they don't have that sword & sorcery feel.
 

grimslade

Krampus ate my d20s
What are we looking for in races? How are we differentiating the races? What makes the best possible array of games?
The Core Rules should follow the Rule of Six (Ro6)
6 abilities, 6 races, 6 classes, 6 themes to start.
If races are giving stat benefits you need a race for each stat.

Human has to be there. It is the baseline, safest choice. What stat do humans get? Charisma? Wis? Ha. Player pick? Or none.

Elf - magic race and woodsy race Agile and smart? Elves serve two big themes need a split.
Eladrin and Elf or High Elf and Wood Elf covers Dex and Int

Dwarf- tough race resilient crafters and fighters they're in They cover Con.

Halflings or hobbittses- small race, smell like cabbage good at hiding and burglary Dex again?
Charismatic short folk?

Strong race, Orc, half-orc, Goliath, half-giant, warforged, shifter, dragonborn, lizardfolk, etc. Pick one. I vote Steroid gnome.

Charisma race, human, halfling, half-elf, changeling, jokey gnome, deva or aassiimmaarr, tiefling?

Wisdom race? Who is most pious? Deva, aasimar, human (ha!), giff, githzerai, owl folk?

The full on APH or mod options a-plenty book should have a good 1/6 of the book devoted to races. So fit in as many as possible, but ditch the half races and just make them full human or other with a feat or power swap. Eberron will need to retool for their half elves.
 

Pour

First Post
I know this lineup is impossible in a unity edition, but I'd want:

Changeling: Reflavor them as part of the faerie tradition, truly crib-swapped individuals who realize their fey heritage and are either driven out and persecuted, or else stricken with an irresistible wanderlust, or need to return to their magical homeland. I'd route for some iteration of the Feywild to be in 5e, and having them as some sort of living key or one of the easier means of entering and exiting the place. There's just so much mythology and fantasy wrapped up in Faerie, I think this is a good place to vet it while still allowing a player to remain, at least for early levels, somewhat ignorant of how the DM is going to handle the Feywild and faeries. The Changeling is part of that world, but not intimately from the get go. I'd also want Changelings to have the opportunity to grow into full nobility, Sidhe or something along those lines.

Dwarf: Dwarves are so great no matter the setting, rugged, stout people that somehow manage all these shared fantasy connotations without pulling you out of any particular setting. They just fit. And better yet when you start fiddling with them a little to make them more campaign specific. Just a great race out of the box or after some odd treatment or another.

Eladrin: I'd prefer the 5e PHB Elf to actually be an eladrin, and bring the mystery, aloofness, charm, and magic back to a race who's, in my opinion, gotten too close to humans in the last two editions. I'd be fine with agelessness, the ghostly quality of living in sheltered forest cities, and their penchant for walking unseen paths (teleportation). Let settings dictate the eladrin as a more rugged 'elf ranger' type. Ironically, I think I'd want to remove the fey connotations from the eladrin, though, and keep them as evidence of the beauty, majesty, and magic of the prime material worlds.

Gnoll: Monstrous races should be represented right at the get go, and of all the monstrous races I feel the gnoll has the most potential in the wilds of any particular setting, and is, in my opinion, more flavorful and palatable than the orc. They could really be positioned into that space the 'elf ranger' used to occupy, a more grounded, wilderness race that conflicts with civilized worlds and more supernatural ones both, and reflects worldly nature in their bestial natures. They could bring in a lot of shamanism, totemism, and animism, and provide a great way to involve Primal Spirits into character's immediate lives (which I do hope make a 5e comeback).

Gnome: I want a flavorful and interesting small race, but I always thought halflings and gnomes sort of fed off of the same design space in many ways which made them both weaker for it. Smallness alone gives a race a sort of charm, but there should only be one initially. I vote gnome. I know there's some assumed setting in what follows, but make gnomes the wily pranksters and elusive thieves of the borderlands, not quite belonging in the wilds with gnolls, or in the distinguished company of eladrin, nor welcomed in the civilized society of man and dwarf as anything other than second-class citizens. They should be the race that lives between and underfoot all the other races, in barn lofts, under cellars, in small thieving troupes, or as drifters. I don't know if they should be fey, but if so, something like household fey, inherently low magic save a few keen tricks and a gift for not being caught. Maybe I really want a Brownie or Boggart or something here, but definitely not straight up Kender.

Goblin: Too good to have gone five additions without getting the royal PHB treatment. So many people would play these guys it isn't even funny. They, like dwarves, possess this sort of ingrained awesome that comes from countless treatments over fantasy mediums since myth. Maybe they're idiots, or cunning night-stalkers, or of the teeming hordes which threaten to overwhelm civilization (I do love all the different Magic the Gathering treatments over the blocks). They can be spun so many ways, and all of them are somehow compelling.

Half-Ogre: Products of ogres and humans, for a number of reasons, resonate with me far more than of orcs. That design space has been tread, whereas half-ogres have not (at least recently, or on the onset). I mean they really hit the point home of union between bestial giant and human. They're larger than half-orcs, stronger, just as savage and conflicted, and still have all the roleplaying wealth. They also allow for more re purposing as any sort of half-giant or maybe pure-blood giants and ogres. Lets make them Large, too.

Human: I am one, and I have a soft spot for them. They are usually a major focus of nearly every setting. They are a staple I don't think anyone wants to be rid of, as versatile our actual history shows us. They can be anything, different races unto themselves, honestly.

Shifter: Despite the gnoll in my lineup, I believe the Shifter (under a new name, please) has a spot in the 5e PHB as one of those 'something more than human' types, namely a lycanthrope. It's a strong fantasy archetype and a desirable one. I'd give them the power to change anthro or the actual animal right off the bat, too. Why hold off on that? I'd rather we give players such racial tools from the onset, and their skill and player ability to use well progresses from there. I honestly don't see any sort of imbalance in becoming an ordinary animal or a more physically adept humanoid. Of course it'll scale, but yes, put the lycanthropes in the PHB. They could also fill some of that gritty player space afforded a low magic quality I so enjoy.

Vampire: They're here to stay. They're ingrained into the culture, and into rpgs, and even into D&D. Thank Ravenloft, I suppose. Thank every vampire character, setting, book, etc. I rather like them myself, though minus a few of the more gimmicky weaknesses (garlic) but fine with others (aversion, not destruction, to direct sunlight and maybe difficulties with opposing alignment holy symbols). I also like the idea of an undead race in the starting lineup, one that has to be at least a little dark in its eating habits. They also cover a huge design range, from vast, dark, aristocratic empires, singular baronies and fiefs, to lone stalkers as part of an unseen culture spanning the entire setting. They could also pull the Shadowfell's equivalent into greater focus, which I like.

Wilden: Another name I'd change, but a concept I'd definitely keep in some capacity. A plant race is something I'd like to see done with respect and a creative touch, that will also be supported throughout the edition and not a one-and-done. These types of races deserve the respect all the others got at some point. Maybe it comes in the form of the recent Heroes of the Feywild hamadryad, or Guild Wars II's Sylvari, but I want something not animal involved here.

On the fence:
Tiefling: As someone mentioned, fiendish ancestry is very bad ass and sings of Sword & Sorcery. It has a place in a lot of settings and campaigns, and is a desirable choice from the outset. I wouldn't mind expanding the bloodline beyond infernal, and maybe keeping the uncertainty of the exact affiliation as part of their mystery, at least for a time. You could have tieflings factor heavily into fiendish politics or Blood Warring, or into the legacy of Bael Turath style fallen or corrupted empires. How monstrous they look should be up to DMs, though I wouldn't mind a progression that starts very subtle and becomes increasingly heinous.

Deva: While being the offspring of an angel is cool, and adding Nephilim and biblical aspects to this race would also be cool, I also dig the reincarnation aspect that comes with the 4e Deva. I think those cosmological specifics should vary from setting to setting, but some form of promised one, or enlightened one, again another one of those 'more than mortal' types skewed toward heavens and higher planes is a compelling addition. Like the tiefling, I wouldn't mind the lineage of any Deva or Nephilim to begin very subtle and become more and more pronounced the higher in level they go.
 
Last edited:

Mercule

Adventurer
Dragonborn: I hated these guys, on first blush. Then I had one played in my game. They really grew on me as an interesting race with a lot of potential. I think they're a keeper. As a bonus, they add a token alien race to the PHB.

Dwarf: I'm a traditionalist. I really see dwarf, elf, human as the most basic genre races. Even if they aren't in every D&D campaign, I think it would be bizarre to not include them in the PHB.

Eladrin: I actually consider the 4e eladrin to be the same race as the 1e elf. Not sure why they got renamed, but they're core.

Elf: Despite the above statement, I realize there are a lot of people who see wood elves as being the vanilla elf. I can live with that.

Gnome: My choice for short folk has always been the gnome. They're just more interesting than the halfling. Quite honestly, paint drying is more interesting than the halfling race, IMO. The two races should probably be merged, but I'd keep the gnome name because "halfling" is really kind of a lame racial name.

Human: I don't really have to justify this one, do I?

Optional (not in my vote):
Goliath: If we have an obligatory "wee folk" race, these guys would make a good balance. Just make sure they can wield over-sized weapons.

Half-Elf: Tradition, but I'm not sure if they're really that interesting. Should include clarification that the stats are identical for half-eladrins.

Half-Orc: For tradition, but I'd actually prefer them not be included.

Hobgoblin/Goblinoid: I've had hobgoblins as a playable race in my home brew since 1e. They're a major race in Eberron, too. Including them in the PHB would be nice, but leaving them out keeps them as "monsters" which is fine.

Tiefling: Probably better for a PHB2, but they're okay. I'm okay with either the 3e or 4e back-story, but I definitely would prefer the 3e ability to generally pass for human.
 

Kaodi

Hero
There are some concepts that I really like Dragonborn for. I had this idea for a sky islands campaign where the different clusters were ruled by dragonborn of different clans (who all had the same breath weapon). But somewhere along the way I got tired of the name. Draconian, Dray, or something else that does not depend on another creature which may or may not exist in a given world would be better...
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
That is quite different from saying:

"I hate halflings and I hate dwarves. Why? Because halflings are almost never played as anything more than the "spunky sidekick" or the "joker" character who does nothing more than be silly and goofy and abuse the fact that they're short. Why do I hate dwarves? Because I've never met a player who didn't want to be the drunkest, smelliest, most Irish-parody dwarf in existence. While I enjoy some off-color humor, I despise racial and cultural stereotypes being used as a source of personal entertainment."
It is perhaps a more reasonable and less anecdotal statement, but it accomplishes the same thing of showing why I feel as I do.

Just because you never met anyone who doesn't play a Dwarf in the way you describe does not mean they don't exist. There are many posts in this thread by people that seem to differ from your experience. In fact I bet there are actually very few Dwarves played that match your stereotype.
Of course not, but the same applies to people who say "well, noone has ever played a Tiefling at my table." I'm only pointing out that different tables like different things, and the "Core Four" are not universally accepted as the most ideal selection of base races.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top