D&D 5E Shoe Horning the Races by Class?

ccs · Jul 17, 2019

GreenTengu said:
Every edition had attribute bonuses. Every single one. They also had attribute penalties which the current edition does not have. The current edition also has attribute caps which previous editions did not. That means it is both easier and more feasible to play against type than it has been in ANY previous edition of D&D.

Would you like me to quote my 1e PHB or will you just concede that you're wrong?

GreenTengu said:
Probably the only race in the whole PHB that wasn't built in this way but unfortunately grants only bonuses towards playing a small handful of particular classes is the Half-Orc. Aside from that singular example, none of the races are built in a way that encourages a person towards any particular class--

Except for those Ability Score bonuses.

GreenTengu said:
or 3rd edition smacking the player with an attribute penalty that ensured they would never remotely be feasible in a ton of classes. Especially since there was no attribute limit cap, so even if one gained attribute points, the race that started +4 points above the other was always going to be +4 points higher which meant a +2 on all abilities.

Oh please. Assuming you've not rolled poorly, there's enough ways to gain +s in 3x/PF to make any race decent at any of the classes.
I know because I've spent the last 12.5 years doing it.
And if a character is non-viable to you because you're missing another +2 to a die roll? Then I'm afraid that you're just not a very good player....

GreenTengu said:
In fact, when it comes to Wizards, AD&D and 3rd edition both had bonus spells and maximum spell levels which made the Intelligence attribute so much more important to boost as high as possible. Such things do not exist within 5E.

Well, your casting stat does effect the Save DCs of your spells.
Though it'd be nice if it still gave bonus spells & affected max spell lvs.

GreenTengu said:
And not just Wizards, because 3rd edition also had attribute limits on all of the feats which meant unless you already had super high attributes in your class's chosen attributes-- something that just could not happen if you started at a penalty-- you would be forbidden from taking the important feats making you far, FAR worse than the race that got a bonus there.

Ah, but there were so many feats you could surely find something useful.

I know I did. Again, I've been doing it for these past 12.5 years.... And I've done it mostly with rolled stats. So sometimes I started golden, many times fair to middling, sometimes....well you end up with my special needs 1/2ling Garth.
See, there's billions (figure of speech) of ways to make a viable character. Every ______ I make doesn't need the same feat package. Or set of stat bonuses. If I end up forever +2 points behind some hypothetical paragon example of my class? "Eh, I'm fine. Nor am I at all concerned vs my fellow PCs.

GreenTengu said:
No matter how you cut it, 5E allows for a far greater range of race/class combinations to be viable.

Eh, depends upon your definition of viable. But Ok.

GreenTengu said:
Anyone who says otherwise has literally never picked up and looked through the books of any other edition.

Well I say otherwise & have played every edition save OD&D (though I do have a copy on the shelf - sadly no one I play with wants to go that retro)

5ekyu · Jul 17, 2019

ccs said:
Would you like me to quote my 1e PHB or will you just concede that you're wrong?

Except for those Ability Score bonuses.

Oh please. Assuming you've not rolled poorly, there's enough ways to gain +s in 3x/PF to make any race decent at any of the classes.
I know because I've spent the last 12.5 years doing it.
And if a character is non-viable to you because you're missing another +2 to a die roll? Then I'm afraid that you're just not a very good player....

Well, your casting stat does effect the Save DCs of your spells.
Though it'd be nice if it still gave bonus spells & affected max spell lvs.

Ah, but there were so many feats you could surely find something useful. I know I did. Again, I've been doing it for these past 12.5 years.... And I've done it mostly with rolled stats. So sometimes I started golden, many times fair to middling, sometimes....well you end up with my special needs 1/2ling Garth.
See, there's billions (figure of speech) of ways to make a viable character. Every ______ I make doesn't need the same feat package. Or set of stat bonuses. If I end up forever +2 points behind some hypothetical paragon example of my class? "Eh, I'm fine. Nor am I at all concerned vs my fellow PCs.

Eh, depends upon your definition of viable. But Ok.

Well I say otherwise & have played every edition save OD&D (though I do have a copy on the shelf - sadly no one I play with wants to go that retro)

"Eh, depends upon your definition of viable. But Ok."

For me, capable of working successfully; feasible.

In an RPG (say 5e) that includes fun for me, enjoyable for others, able to contribute meaningfully in two of the three pillars.

And yeah, dwarven wizards or other spellcasters classe are fine at that.

Krachek · Jul 17, 2019

I play a half orc warlock. Am i doing it wrong?

lowkey13 · Jul 17, 2019

*Deleted by user*

gyor · Jul 17, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
You might want to check that: dwarves could be Clerics, too. (In addition, when the classes were added, they could be alchemists and psionicists as well.)

Also, every race had at least one class in which their progression was unlimited. As I recall, that was Thief for dwarves. (Possibly all races.)

AD&D had a lot of bad, useless rules.

gyor · Jul 17, 2019

Krachek said:
I play a half orc warlock. Am i doing it wrong?

No, you can build a viable Half Orc Warlock, no problem. People also forget that all races have the same maxium for stats, so eventually your Half Orc Warlock can be as charismatic as the Tiefling.

jasper · Jul 17, 2019

Zardnaar said:
In 5E virtually every new player regardless of ability score generation tends to match up their main racial bonus with their class.

This means unless your race has a plus 2 whatever orcare the variant human you will never see a Dwarf Wizard for example.

Back in AD&D you had racial restrictions and ability score negatives but you would often see races in classes where they lacked a relevent bonus. Probably due to multclass rules and racial packages.

Just something I have noticed. You can usually have a decent guess at a players class by their race.

THAT IS A FACT JACK! And why is it a problem?

Jer · Jul 17, 2019

Krachek said:
I play a half orc warlock. Am i doing it wrong?

No. If you're having fun with it you aren't doing anything wrong. You don't have to take the race with the highest bonus for your chosen class in 5e, just a lot of people do because it looks like the thing you're supposed to do. It's not like in 3e where it looked like you could do anything but ability score penalties for stats and increasing difficulty numbers on monster saves and AC would kill a concept dead in the water if you tried to go outside of the stereotype lanes they'd set up and your game got to a high enough level for it to start to matter.

GlassJaw · Jul 17, 2019

This has not been my experience. I've seen two things:

1. New players want to make the character they want, regardless of optimization, or
2. Experienced players realize that the stat bonuses have a minor effect on overall power and make the character they want.

Sure, optimization sometimes comes into play (which I'm ok with) but "fixing" it is a solution looking for problem.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a stat choice within each race. For example, giving the Dragonborn +2 Str or Con along with +1 Cha. That would instantly make the Dragonborn a better option for Warlock and Sorcerer.

Blue · Jul 17, 2019

ccs said:
You're right. On top of being more interesting it's often flat out better.
Hmm, let me see;
I could invest 4-8 levels to get a +2 on what I can already do quite well....
Or
I could pick up two completely new abilities & have more options (both mechanically & RP wise)....

Yeah, it's very build and table dependent what is "better", and even there "better" is usually defined within a limited number of pillars of play (such as just combat). I really do pick both myself. My last two characters that leveled up were one feat and one was +2 CHR (for a bard, looking for more Bardic Inspiration uses as well as the other benefits).