D&D 5E (2014) Race/Class combinations that were cool but you avoided due to mechanics?

[Dausuul]

Every time I want to make a tiefling character, I end up looking at the tiefling stats, shaking my head sadly, and moving on.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the types are far too deeply ingrained in the genre to be eroded by something as simple as removing ability score adjustments. As long as people are reading/watching Lord of the Rings, nimble elven archers and stout dwarven warriors will be the baseline from which people deviate.

Yea, this. Once there's no mechanical incentive towards or away a certain race, you'll see tropes and general aesthetics take over as the driving factor. WoW is a good example of this.

 

[Mistwell]

Another side thought based on the changes in TCoA and the decoupling of several racial features from races. Has anyone thought of a cool concept of a PC they wanted, but when creating the character, saw that the mechanics of how racial features didn't really support it well from a mechanical standpoint? I'm not just talking about optimization, but in general. With bounded accuracy, every modifier counts, so have you ever been swayed to avoid a particular concept that you would do if features were decoupled?

I've chosen human when I preferred another race for RP reasons because of the feat the humans get.

I've also chosen a race that has darkvision over a race without darkvision, despite wanting the other race for RP reasons, because of the darkvision.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yea, this. Once there's no mechanical incentive towards or away a certain race, you'll see tropes and general aesthetics take over as the driving factor. WoW is a good example of this.

I don't think we're looking at no mechanical incentive here, though, just a lesser one. Which I guess is not entirely dissimilar to WoW.

The other issue that is dissimilar to WoW is that aesthetics are more much bigger factor because:

A) Each race has a specific, narrow, defined look that you cannot significantly deviate from. All Blood Elves are good-looking in a particular (I'd say "Californian") way. All Tauren males are hulking brutes. All Tauren females are curvy. And so on. This is not the case in pen and paper RPGs. If Goliaths existed in WoW, you could guarantee all males would be giant hulking monsters, like a linebacker on heavy steroids, and females would look like Victoria's Secret models who spent slightly more time in the gym (than the already large amount they do).

In D&D, though, if you want a scrawny Goliath, or a ripped-AF Elf, or a beardless Dwarf male, or bearded Dwarf female, or a gothy Elf, or whatever, all this is within your purview. Almost every DM will agree to anything like that.

B) You actually have your character on-screen, being seen by you and others, all the time. This is very different to D&D where many people don't even have portraits of their PCs, and certainly not ones that everyone is looking at all the time you're playing (even minis are different, because for 95% of people, they're only vaguely representational of the character, and not subject to the same scrutiny).

So overall, aesthetics will be far less of an issue.

But tropes will play in a bit, that is definitely true. But a big part of that will be people flipping and sending up tropes, too - people love to play against trope.

 

[Dausuul]

long term I think removing mechanical disadvantage will remove the ability to play against type.

If you think "types" are defined by optimal combinations of mechanics, it will always be possible to play against type by picking a sub-optimal combination, whether the mechanics are labeled "race" or "lineage traits" or something else.

If you think "types" are defined by the traditions of fantasy literature, it will always be possible to play against type by picking a combination that's less common in the literature.

Either way, it will always be possible to play against type.

 

[GlassJaw]

I've made one simple change to racial ability scores to open up options for non-standard characters:

If a race increases an ability score by 2, you may instead increase that score by 1 and increase another ability score of your choice by 1.

My games always use point-buy for character creation so being able to put a +1 in a stat of your choice helps a TON.

 

[Oofta]

If I think something is going to be fun and I have the option I'm going to play it. Mountain dwarf rogue? Yep. Half-orc monk? Been there, done that.

My only real problem is not having time to play all the fun concepts that I have. I'd love to play that high elf barbarian, even if it will die almost immediately*. In past editions I've played dwarven wizards, halfling fighters, the list goes on. Had a friend who play a dwarven sorcerer in 3.5 when they had a penalty to charisma.

But I have to admit, half the reason I play any particular combination is because I find a cool mini that I want to paint and use.

*Any elven or half-elf I've ever played in any edition dies by 3rd level or before.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

If you think "types" are defined by optimal combinations of mechanics, it will always be possible to play against type by picking a sub-optimal combination, whether the mechanics are labeled "race" or "lineage traits" or something else.

If you think "types" are defined by the traditions of fantasy literature, it will always be possible to play against type by picking a combination that's less common in the literature.

Either way, it will always be possible to play against type.

you are correct but to a point.

when there is no disadvantage to playing against type in game the uncommon becomes common or at least more common in game.

a half orc Paladin is much less surprising since we have removed the inefficiencies from a mechanical standpoint.

I understand some people won’t mind that and honestly some never had the firm archetypes from earlier edition imposed by limitations in mind anyway. A gain for some players, kind of a let down from my perspective. The game will move forward as always.

just in a less cool way IMHO.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Or Kobolds. I love Kobolds. I'd love to play a Kobold. I'm not, however, playing a race which has a totally unnecessary penalty that other races don't have, and nothing to make up for it - and less than +3 to the other stats (including no +CHA which means Kobolds don't even make good Sorcerers, despite it being the classic combo). Terrible racial abilities top of that too.

Yep. Every time I want to play a kobold and see that massive penalty, I'm turned away.

I've chosen human when I preferred another race for RP reasons because of the feat the humans get.

I've also chosen a race that has darkvision over a race without darkvision, despite wanting the other race for RP reasons, because of the darkvision.

I always wished halflings had darkvision. Their main trope is a rogue, so to be a dungeon rogue without darkvision isn't even on theme.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But I have to admit, half the reason I play any particular combination is because I find a cool mini that I want to paint and use.

I'm absolutely guilty as well of this very thing