D&D 5E Race Class combo, together, defines a character ‘type’

[Alexemplar]

I disagree. The Paladin "club" wasn't opened up to Dragonborn. Dragonborn were written to pass the "human test" to get into the club. The Paladin still carries very strong humanocentric tones, and always has, tones that don't just resonate in game, but tones that resonate with our real world history. The in-game Paladin is basically what the classical Judeo-Christian Knights always wished they could be and what we dreamed they were. (The Cleric too, but we're talking about Paladins right now.)

By writing Dragonbown as a ancient, deeply religious empire, the Dragonborn were essentially designed to fit into the peg-hole already made for human paladins. There are a wide variety of variant classes (in older editions) for elf paladins, dwarf paladins where they explicitly laid out that these races version of a paladin is somewhat different from the traditional human paladin. Dragonborn do not have that.

Dragonborn were designed to the Paladins. Paladins were designed to be Human. So Dragonborn are designed to be Human Paladins.

All the D&D classes are human-centric as all of them are more or less derived from traditions/vocations found throughout human history. All D&D races also tend to fit into distinctly human archetypes.

 

[Alexemplar]

The Dragonborn Paladin is an ironic type. This the perspective I am speaking from.

The knight-versus-dragon archetype is thousands of years old, deriving from concepts about the storm spirit trampling on the sea spirit. It shows up variously in many cultures: Norse Thorr versus Midgardr Serpent, Canaanite Hadad versus the 7-headed sea, Hindu Vishnu sleeping on the many headed serpent, Christianity walking on water, and the angel Michael defeating the serpent that rises out of the sea, and the medieval romance novels of the knight defeating a more animal-like dragon.

D&D 3e created the Dragonborn that subverts this ancient archetype by conflating both the knight and the dragon into a single person. Perhaps 4e subverted the archetype further by making this Dragon-Knight blend a heroic good guy: the Dragonborn Paladin. Archetypally, the cosmic seaserpent qua dragon is the villain, but by the process of dreamlike conflation becomes − ironically − the noble knight hero who saves the people from the dragon.

To some degree, the Dragonborn Paladin type resonates a deep and ancient archetype, and to some degree this subversion is successful, whence some traction in popularity.

I think D&D really subverted the knight vs dragon archetype when they introduced the idea of Metallic Dragons. Honestly, before I played D&D, I had never really heard of "good" dragons (outside of Asian ones), let alone dragons that actively battled their more evil kin.

Well there was Dragonheart, but that was supposed to be a subversion of the the saintly knight vs evil dragon trope too as the movie had nothing but evil (or disillusioned) knights and saintly dragons.

 

[Sunseeker]

All the D&D classes are human-centric as all of them are more or less derived from traditions/vocations found throughout human history. All D&D races also tend to fit into distinctly human archetypes.

In a way, true. As humans we are capable of writing, and thusly understanding, things only so far outside of our own humanity. But that wasn't really my point.

Over the years, races (the more specific the better) have gained specific lore. Specific elements to their existence that cause them to deviate from from the human perspective. As humanoid races they have fundamental simiarlities. They eat food, require shelter, create things, and thus, many of their drives are powered by these fundamental elements.

Realistically if we encountered an alien race who required food to eat, air to breathe, water to drink, society to participate in, culture to be creative within; would they be that different from humans? They might dress differently. Believe differently, but at the end of the day they would still share some fundamental underpinnings due to the nature of their existence.

Anyway, even if races fall into certain aspects of human existence, exemplifying some and diminishing others, my primary point was that the Paladin class has long presented a very specific bar a character needs to meet in order to be one. Some races simply don't meet this bar. Dragonborn however were designed to meet this bar. Dragonborn were meant to be paladins. They didn't just happen to be good at it by luck of their stats. They were intended by the designers to be able to be good paladins.

 

[Alexemplar]

Anyway, even if races fall into certain aspects of human existence, exemplifying some and diminishing others, my primary point was that the Paladin class has long presented a very specific bar a character needs to meet in order to be one. Some races simply don't meet this bar. Dragonborn however were designed to meet this bar. Dragonborn were meant to be paladins. They didn't just happen to be good at it by luck of their stats. They were intended by the designers to be able to be good paladins.

It was once the case that in D&D, Elves and Dwarves couldn't even be members of the "human only" classes as that would be too powerful when combined with their innate racial traits as represented in their classes. Then they got some access to some classes, but curiously enough but you still couldn't be an Elven Druid or Dwarven Cleric. Dragonborn showed up in 3e when such restrictions disappered, but weren't really mechanically inclined towards Paladins- no more than Elves were inclined towards being Druids or Dwarves Clerics.

The came in in 4e, which coincidentally was also the same edition where Elves became ideal Druids and Dwarves became ideal Clerics. That's three non-human races getting classes that were originally human only and had strongly human flavor that they largely lost in 3e and completely lost in 5e.

Dragonborn aren't unique in this regard.

 

[Ogre Mage]

As a player who prefers spellcasters, my usual go-to race-class combos are:

Human Cleric
Human Warlock
Elf Wizard
Elf Druid
Dwarf Cleric
Half-Elf Bard
Half-Elf Sorcerer

 

[Sunseeker]

As a player who prefers spellcasters, my usual go-to race-class combos are:

Human Cleric
Human Warlock
Elf Wizard
Elf Druid
Dwarf Cleric
Half-Elf Bard
Half-Elf Sorcerer

To kinda get back on topic, as someone who is typically not a caster fan, I default to elf or half-elf for...pretty much everything. I think the human paladin I'm playing in my 3.X game is the first time I've run a human in years and it was mostly for giggles.

 

[Krachek]

Class and Race has favored match since the first edition. And this edition is more "open" for unusual match.

It's funny to read about the concern of optimal Class-race match when the abilities score are rolled at random by raw.

What race-class is optimal when you roll a bunch of 12-13?

 

[cbwjm]

Class and Race has favored match since the first edition. And this edition is more "open" for unusual match.

It's funny to read about the concern of optimal Class-race match when the abilities score are rolled at random by raw.

What race-class is optimal when you roll a bunch of 12-13?

If you roll a bunch of 12-13s, then the most optimal race/class combos will depend on the the stat bonuses. If going a high elf, that would mean a +2 bonus in dexterity and likely intelligence if you get to place the abilities wherever you wish. With those bonuses it would be likely to choose a class that benefits the most from those stats such as any class that can make good on being an archer, or a class with intelligence as a caster stat, or a rogue. Rolls of 12-13s doesn't change the fact that if you want to play a certain class, pairing it with a race that benefits stats related to the class is a good idea.

 

[Mephista]

On the matter of dragonborn.... I do hope they get some love like the tieflings do. I personally always found that the dragonborn abilities in 5e were lackluster, and didn't synergize well with either paladin nor sorcerer. I want to like them, I really do, but I can't help but think that its a failure of design in a real way. And it doesn't help that the sorcerer is in desperate need of love too.

It was once the case that in D&D, Elves and Dwarves couldn't even be members of the "human only" classes as that would be too powerful when combined with their innate racial traits as represented in their classes. Then they got some access to some classes, but curiously enough but you still couldn't be an Elven Druid or Dwarven Cleric. Dragonborn showed up in 3e when such restrictions disappered, but weren't really mechanically inclined towards Paladins- no more than Elves were inclined towards being Druids or Dwarves Clerics.

Nitpick: dragonborn in 3e had Paladin as a favored class. Perhaps you're thinking half-draongs? Or spellscales?

To kinda get back on topic, as someone who is typically not a caster fan, I default to elf or half-elf for...pretty much everything. I think the human paladin I'm playing in my 3.X game is the first time I've run a human in years and it was mostly for giggles.

Eh? Considering that elfs are built towards wizard or ranger tyeps, both who cast... what do you play as, class wise?

My personal favorite are gish types. Paladins, blade warlocks, arcane tricksters, etc. Back in 4e, I liked druids as well, even if I had to accept a penalty to play, but I just enjoyed shape shifting. 5e druid is absolutely not to my taste (I find flipping through the Monster Manual annoying), so I've been playing ranger more. I've recently also grown attached to the 5e assassin and experimenting with poisons, and have been giving thought to the ninja or elemental monk. I usually like bard too, but somethin gabout the 5e bard just feels wrong to me, and not enjoyable.

As a result of my focus, I tend to play elves over humans, and I like going tiefling for paladins and warlocks. After that? Hmm... I wanted to play an aarokosha wind monk once, but I got yelled at for being a flyer and causing all these sorts of potential problems, which I didn't get, because monk. You know, the up close fist fighters. But in the end, I wasn't allowed.

I personally find playing humans boring, so I don't usually play them with any race, and I haven't found any other race to really stoke my interest in doing a monk again (I know wood elves are popular, but I just can't feel it). Lately, been considering going Tabaxi shadow monk.

 

[Yaarel]

@Mephista, your overview of the flavor drift feels accurate and useful now for 5e. Essentially, Lolth Drow culture promoted female Cleric and male Wizard (and probably add Fighter here too). But the free anti-Lolth Drow culture favors Warlock and Rogue.

The genius is, the suboptimal Lolth Drow culture can become a feature, not a bug.

It is abnormal for Drow to be Cleric and Wizard so frequently. But it is the Lolth reign of terror that imposes these classes unnaturally. The Drow performs as poorly as the Half-Orc at being a Wizard. The Drow performs as poorly at being a Cleric as the Gnome does. The spider demon culture goes against the grain of Drow nature.

Part of the reason the rebel Drow prove so successful is, they are discovering survival strategies (combat classes) that Drow traits naturally select for, for an advantageous evolution in Drow culture. The innate advantages of Dexterity and to some degree Charisma, allow Drow to flourish at the implementation of Rogue endeavors, and to a lesser degree Warlock.

Nah. The shift actually started in 3e Eberron. You had the main drow in that campaign setting who served as part of a Lolth-like cult as normal. Then, as more books came out, different drow civilizations appeared. Some were criminal enterprises, some were shadow warlocks and psy-blades, all unconnected to the stereotypical FR drow city type.

Then, when 4e came out, drow were presented as a playable race, but they drew on the Eberron lore and translated it over a bit. Drow in criminal enterprises settled themselves in the surface and ran things from the shadows, while those drow who broke away from Lolth and the standard society (basically rebels) tended to do so with the help of the Dark Pact Warlocks. These were the drow that left Lolth behind. You can see this trend as well in the few drow-specific backgrounds, such as in the neverwinter book. That said, errata came out later where you could swap Cha for Wis, but that no more carried over to 5e than any of the other alterate stats from the errata for other races.

Thus, we come to 5e. We carry over the "anti-hero" rogues and warlocks that started off in 3e Eberron and lasted through 4e, and establish them as the normal PC option for drow, with race features that favor that same style. It has no bearing on the lore or hierarchy of drow cities, but instead a focus on PC types that are less, well, brainwashed.

You'll notice that most of the MM drow still favor cleric, wizard, and the other historical drow classes. However, PCs are the rebels and deviants, so they're a bit stronger willed and driven in different directions than the historical types, and the drow subrace reflects that.

The narrative informs the prominent Drow character types.

A terrorized tradition of female Drow Cleric alongside Drow Wizard and Drow Fighter, versus a free and empowered rebellion of Drow Rogue and Drow Warlock.