If you could change anything about any of the races, what would it be, and why?
(I understand as a DM you can do that anyway)
We call dragonborn 'dray' in our games.
I made the argument that dragonborn was a rather generic name (like calling tieflings 'devilborn' or dwarves 'rockborn' 
). I submitted that a better name was available.
There was a draconic race by the same name in the 2e version of Dark Sun. In the 4e version, dragonborn were reflavored as dray. My suggestion stuck .
I'd give rock gnomes another ability. Right now their stats are bad (only useful to one class), their skill ability niche, and their tinker ability not very impactful. Yet they are far and away the coolest race.
I'd allow the bird-men to treat their unarmed attacks as finesse weapons. As it stands right now, their talons racial feature is pretty much useless for every single class in the game.
I'd make the shorter races taller.... visualizing heroic figures that are only about 3' high is very difficult for me, so I'd bring gnomes and halflings up to at least 4' and push dwarves closer to 5'.
I'd make Halflings look more like they did in 3.5, and less hobbit-like as they are depicted in the 5e PHB illustrations.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
I'd change the Goliath to also have a +2 on Constitution, instead of it's normal +1. They are basically built like 7-8' tall Dwarves, you're telling me a Dwarf will be more hardy?
I'd also change it so Warforged would be called Taskforged, as I don't see them all being built for war, and they would get a +2 to any one stat.
Dwarves, I agree, around the 5' range is about right. I've always felt they should be around that tall.
Dragonborn, I just don't like as a race that much. I'd prefer if they kept dragons as the enemy, not something you can play half of.
Tieflings I felt have changed drastically since 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons. In 4th they became so obviously hellish, it was a bit painful. I preferred when they had just a couple outlandish features, not a whole body morph.
Also, Elves need to be about human height, same with the Drow, no reason for the Drow to be shorter.
I'd remove speed and weapon restrictions from the small races or add some bonuses for being small.
I'm getting ready to start a new campaign with new players and my idea now is to leave in the 'heavy' atribute but then have a different weapon property that can only be used by small races without disadvantage.
I would make the damage resistance (fire) and innate spellcasting for Tieflings variable, based on heritage (basically sub-races), for daemon, demon, and devil blood.
I would change the name of the bird race to "birdmen".
Farmer42 wrote:
The high elvers from 4th ed. the eladrin, could come back with a little change in the name "celabrin"
And I would offer the option of the to replace some racial trait with a racial feat from a exclusive list. I would like halflings and gnomes could be good no-stealth classes.
I wouldn´t add natural weapons wouldn´t be useful in a real combat, like fangs, horns or the spines by skarns (a new race from Magic of Incarnum).
Little humanoid races need some type of warrior class but without heavy armour, for example the swashbuckler.
The blueskin goblin and the fraals (little gray aliens) should be PC races in the handbook of psionic powers.
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
I like the way the halfling's Lucky and Brave traits are more descriptive than they are game term-y, so I would change Halfling Nimbleness to Nimble and do the same for all of the other racial traits accordingly.
Slit518 wrote:
For me, I'd nix the tinker ability from rock gnomes as that was never a thing for gnomes in AD&D settings except for Dragonlance (and just later add a tinker gnome sub-race). I'd also alter tieflings to include 2e-style tieflings (where the physical features aren't homogenous, nor necessarily drastic), and have (like Brock suggests above) varied energy resistance and innate spells based on their fiendist heritage.
Kentus wrote:
I would change half-orcs from +2 strength +1 constitution to +2 strength +1 any ability score to reflect the half-human heritage, which I'm sure is the justification for half-elves having some variable ability scores. I would like to see half-orcs at least considered for non-brutish builds.
I would change tieflings similarly too, though I'm not exactly sure which ability score to change. My initial thought is to change the +1 intelligence to +1 any ability score, but then they would have a lot of overlap with half-elves.
I'm interested to see how the warforged are redesigned as the latest UA article indicated. The mention of the body types makes me hopeful, but I also hope they get more than +1 to 2 ability scores unless the other racial abilities are really, really good.
Shifters need a bit more customization to emulate the 3.5 shifter feats. My favorite part of shifter characters was selecting combinations of shifter feats, especially Extra Trait, to come up with a new concept each time. For now, I have some homebrewed Extra Trait and allowed that to be taken twice.
Changelings should have variable ability scores too. They can adapt to anything, so why should they be limited to dexterity and charisma? Dexterity races are overrepresented anyway.
I would remove the variant human
I'd change the name of the dragonborn. The name worked best with the 3e version of the race, which made being (re)born a major aspect, and now it's just kinda awkward, especially for someone like me who games in Finnish and has to figure out what to call them besides "lohikäärmesyntyinen."
Diffan wrote:
I'd make rock gnomes stronger. Tinker is cool, but give it a boost. For example, spend a week to build a device that adds +2 to an ability score of your choice. Spend a week to reconfigure the device to augment a different ability score.
I'd make non-variant humans cooler.
I'd make half-elves a little weaker; they make other races feel like traps for charisma-based characters.
Brock_Landers wrote:
If I could change anything about any race it would be Genasi instead of Con as the primary ability score I would have done Int because no class looks at Con as the primary ability score it should have went to earth Genasi as a secondary ability score! Just saying Con is nice second sucks as primary! Plus Genasi were known for wizardry and sword mages (which is another issue not for this thread).
I'd either make all races gain powers with leveling up, or make sure none of them do.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
The main problem with "Dragonborn", is those phallic noses!
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
I'm not really a fan of how race mechanics ended up in 5e. There are too many generic or cultural features that don't feel unique. IMO.
If i were designing the race blocks...
- i'd leave all the learned, cultural things out so that the player can freely choose whether to play to cultural tropes or not and...
- i'd give each race one or more unique racial qualities and/or active abilities that can't easily be replicated by any old 1st level character (i.e. like every spellcaster in the party showing up with the same cantrip that's supposed to be your racial feature). Things like limited teleporting, turning into shadow, melding with stone, etc, are cool because every 1st level character shows up with something that feels unique to their race.
- Also, i'd try to design racial features so that they work with almost any class. If a racial a feature keys off of a melee attack, for example, it's going to be worthless to most caster classes. Some features, like an eladrin teleport, are useful to pretty much any build, on the other hand.
- I'd limit ability modifiers. Since 3.5, i've seen over and over how players choose a race and class combo based on what abilities score modifiers line up. Someone wants to be a wizard and ends up gravitating toward a high Int race or plays a cleric and finds a high Wis race. It's understandable that people would want to optimize this way but i don't see this design as helping diversity in a way that i'd like. My group got to the point in 4e where we let players choose any ability mods they wanted for their build instead of sticking with the racial options and suddenly we had people making a variety of race/class combos instead of just sticking with the numerical bonuses. i wouldn't mind going that way with any future editions.
GhostStepper wrote:
I describe halflings as being 4 feet tall (like they are in 4e) instead of the 3 feet tall (like they are in 3e and 5e). They're a bit heavier in 5e (40 to 45 lbs) than they are in 3e (30 to 35 lbs). In my description, they're closer to 80 lbs.
In one of the Wizards Presents preview books, Richard Baker tells about the decision to make halflings *bigger* in 4e. To paraphrase, a 3 foot tall halfling is about the size of a three-year old child. The designers decided to get the race closer to the nine and ten year old range. Halflings went back to being 3 feet tall again in 5e (guess they changed their minds or forgot ).
CCS wrote:
Slit518 wrote:
No hairy feet for halflings. No big schnauzes for gnomes (per PF). Forest gnomes as small as 2', per 2e and 3e.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Halflings seem about 1" too tall. 
Azzy1974 wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
I'd make some of the Half-elf features a subrace and add a Tuathan subrace.
Brock_Landers wrote:
I'd give every race a second pair of arms.
Change things up.
I would change the ability scores, I would just use the array and give everyone a +2 to one ability score and a +1 to a different ability score.
RCanine wrote:
Back to AD&D attribute adjustments. No change for humans, a bonus and a negative for non-humans. I think we've gotten to the point where the attribute pool is utterly diluted by bonuses and player-friendly rolling systems. A character with no negative attributes should be rare and exceptional, not the norm.
Back to AD&D attribute adjustments. No change for humans, a bonus and a negative for non-humans. I think we've gotten to the point where the attribute pool is utterly diluted by bonuses and player-friendly rolling systems. A character with no negative attributes should be rare and exceptional, not the norm.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
D&D already has a perfectly good name for Dragonborn; Draconian.
I would give the Genasi more arabic sounding names. They are supposed to be descended from Genies, not just be humans with bending powers.
I'd remove nightvision for elves (high- and woodelves) and maybe give them a +2 perception bonus instead.
I picture elves as being active during daytime (and not at night) so it makes not much sense to me that this species should have developed nightvision.
Brock_Landers wrote:
adembroski11 wrote:
Probably the biggest thing that I would change about the races would be separating culture from biology. Culture is basically a second background, I'd treat it that way.
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Well,
First I would get rid of the "half" races, no respectable elf would mate with a human and no respectable (or even disreputable) human would mate with an orc. They personally never sat right with me and most gamers elf-madien fetish belies actual elven culture. The last player who played a half-orc learned his lesson when his group entered an elven forest and he became the object of thier hunt...they won...cause legolas
Second, Kender > halfings, though FR halfings got better in 3rd edition, if halfings were hobbits then fearless is a poor trait for them as they would not go anywhere...almost ever.
Third, Where did dragonborn come from? Who birthed them? Shouldn't they be Dragonlike or dragonmen? I can see a line of dragons giving us the "not me" expersion. As interesting as they are, they don't fit, why is what looks like a monsterous creature getting a + to charisma? Breath weapon and resistance are too strong a racial unless you make the a powerful race and dock some XP.
Fourth, drow as PC, I know it has been said, but F you good drow, you are ruining your race's evil name and becoming dark fantasy of gamers who thought of you when they heard the title "fifty shades of grey". Drow should be evil, should stay evil and the last meeting between them and the PCs would likely end in the PC being sacrificed not swooned over.
Fifth, tieflings and assimar, I was sad when they said all tieflings now look a like, I was so sad that I simply ignored them and kept using my Planescape tiefling apperance table. Blood war over? Not so fast berk you can take that chant and pike it (but that's an arguement for another thread). The planetouched should be weird and alien to humanity...lets make sure those playing the races experience others reactions to them.
Six, Other races, don't we have enough (which I always recommend making on of your own...mine replaces half-orcs). When did it become wrong to just be human (who are completely over powered 5th), elf or dwarf. We barely mix well in this world, think of the strife in a fantasy world where your player is a troll beserker (sounds fun honestly)? Too many dull the tried and true and most are simply too powerfull than the last batch of races, not to forget that most worlds and societies are still xenophobic (yes my players have been driven out of town with pitch forks and torches....for being an elf mage... it was small town).
Seventh, Almost forgot, but i would cut demi-human lifespan in half. 200 for dwarf and 300 for elf. Being alive for centuries is something none of our familiar with and I wonder if the orginal creators actually grasped how much has changed in 500 years let alone a thousand. D&D is lucky that the technology level is mostly unchanging, but that itsn't realistic. A creature 500 years old would either be stupid or would outstrip any human understanding which would not bode well for humans. (but again thats more an arguement over proper story lines, which I perfer birthright elves as if they do live long times I thnk they would hate us).
Well you don;t have to agree but my two cents and some food for thought. Enjoy.
Why do hags (whose name means an ugly old woman) have Charisma of 13, 14, and 16? Because Charisma is NOT "beauty" or "comliness". I get so tired of seeing people equate charisma to attractiveness. You can be an ugly MF and still be charismatic. To invoke Godwin's Law, Hitler wasn't the most attractive looking dude in the world, but he was charismatic as hell. Who's to say dragonborn aren't more predisposed to that despite looking ugly.
As for myself, I already changed a number of things. There are no evil enemy races such as goblins, gnolls, and orcs. They aren't any more likely to be evil marauding monsters than humans or elves. A settlement of them may be evil, but there are also the same with human or elf (non-drow) settlements. Gnomes aren't trickster illusionists, halflings don't exist, drow aren't evil spider worshippers, variant humans don't exist. Dragonborn have subraces based on their dragon ancestry type (chromatic, metallic, etc) and are called kobolds while the MM kobolds are deformities of the player race, goblins look closer to Warcraft goblins, orcs aren't savage marauding brutes, gnolls aren't savage slave-taking raiders, among other changes.
Yeah, as I read this thread all I keep thinking is: I just hope all you people speaking up on what you wish you could do differently actually understand that you can. And should. I hope you all are making any of these changes that you think will make your games more fun and not just wringing your hands wishing it were different.
Power to the people!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
First of all you CAN change something you don't like. Unless you are bound by Adverturer's League the rules are merely guidelines and are meant to be changed, adjusted and even bypassed depending on the nature of your interests and campaign.
One thing we always allow is the ability to swap bonuses to befit the build you want. Any race can alter dramically from each other. Even those listed by default as evil alignment does not mean every single member of the race is evil. Within each race there is diversity (especially humans) and little things like adding +1 to str vs int means absolutely nothing in the long run and thrusting a player into a class with a race they do not want because of min/max rules is silly. Further than this serious discussion is required by all players and anyone who also DMs but in general swapping equally measured buffs and features is usually not an issue.
One example is an npc concept I made within our Eberron compaign. I wanted a living construct (not exactly a warforged but a one off) that had the ability to change it's own form into another construct and even summon contructs. I simply made him a Moon Druid but instead of beasts/elemental summons he could do contructs only and minor tweaks to spell list. It still plays using normal rules and that is what I find is important to maintain. I do not like adding additional rules to resolve what the game already has rules for.
If you host your own independent games go crazy and make things up!
AL has its own forum.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Oh! I'd also make the half-orc and half-elf subraces of human.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Slit518 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
CCS wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Just be a drow warlock and make sure to take Mask of Many Faces. Day-to-day problem largely solved.
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Why lots of players like monster PCs? Because it is as fun as wearing Halloween costumes or deguises. And drows are cool because they are the D&D equivalent to Christian Gray (and the evil cousin of Blade the vampire hunter from marvel comis). Drows are maybe one of most charismatics antagonists from D&D fiction. Why do children play to be pirates?
And because it is like a therapy. Lots of teenages like to roleplay characters who feel social rejection and lack of understanding.
* I love templates and monster classes.
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
What I would like would be the dragonborn's breath weapon to recharge like a regular dragon's does. It might or might not need to do less damage, but I could be fine with that.
Slit518 wrote:
Dunther_the_Great wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CCS wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dunther_the_Great wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Just because it's called Dungeons and Dragons doesn't mean the game is all about exploring dungeons and slaying dragons. In late 3.5e and through 4e, they specifically said that, given the name, they felt it was important that you could play a Dragon. Though, this led to people wondering if there'd ever be a Dungeonborn race. ;)
Marandahir wrote: