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

[Helldritch]

@Undrave
1) No jealousy there. I have been a DM since 1983. Almost always have been a DM first and foremost. So the jealousy about me not having the same easiness does not hold. What have I seen in many games where you pick your bonuses yourself, be it Gurps, Rolemaster, MERPG, Champions, Marvel and the various iteration of Vampire the Masquarade, Werewolf and so many others, is that as soon as this is allowed, someone, somewhere will find the optimal character build for such and such concept. In the end, if the DM does not enforce or ban some choices/combinations all characters will start to look alike as variations of the same optimal build but with different bland tasteless stories to justify the choices... And if a DM dares to ban/restrict some part or the entirety of the cheery picking process he gets the role of a bad, restrictive and antagonistic DM.

I have played all these games as a player. I am the kind of player that finds loopholes and use them to their maximum potential. It takes about two or three character generations to find them. We tested 5ed edition in combat simulations before doing a campaign. It took us about 6 weeks with different fights and character concepts. We saw the sorlock almost immediately. The Paladin/warlock got under the spot very fast as were the feats GWM and SS.

I have been burned enough times about these kind of character building methods to be extremely wary of these.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's only as ingrained as we maintain it. Say D&D allows half orcs to go +2 Int +1 Dex. Allowing them to make superb wizards wizards due to their relentless endurance feature. After enough time of that being the norm in D&D the genre staple shifts such that half orcs are viewed as some of the best wizards.

That’s just silly. D&D is not the be-all, end-all of the fantasy genre. Everyone playing D&D has preexisting idea of what an orc is, and being able to play an orc wizard without penalty is not going to magically start making them think of orcs as frail, bookish, magically-inclined peoples. It’s just going to give them the opportunity to explore playing a frail, bookish, magically-inclined orc without the game putting them at a disadvantage. All the literature, film, and video game material portraying orcs as big, strong, physically-inclined creatures will still exist, and even within D&D, the other orcs the player encounters will likely fit that archetype as well.

 

[humble minion]

On some level you've just got to pick the least worst stat to tie character power to. I mean you could design a game around not doing that - but it wouldn't be D&D IMO.

There's just not a better stat for warlocks than charisma. Everything else makes even less sense. Besides, the charisma you have may be after your patron's blessing not before

Sorcerer - Con makes sense conceptually but has mechanical problems in the rest of 5e design. You would end up with a sorcerer with more hp than most fighters and dwarves would make the best sorcerers which is kind of strange. Also moving sorcerers (or warlocks) away from charisma would break years of historical D&D precedent - which is also a very important consideration.

Yeah, the game logic entirely makes sense, but it still bugs me from an in-world perspective.

If it were up to me i'd mildly wound a sacred cow (well, is a cow sacred if it was only born in 3e?) and let warlock choose between Cha and Int as their casting stat, and let sorcerers choose between Cha and Wis. Bit like how melee warriors can effectively choose between Str and Dex as their attack stat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Soon as you hit level 4 you can boost to that +3. I find there isn't that much difference between them in play due to the swingy nature of the d20.

I don't know that I agree. When it takes the +3 starting stat PC 4 hits to kill an enemy and you have a +2 that means by the time he's killing the enemy you have a good chance it will take you an extra attack to do so.

There is one thing that really minimizes the issue though. DM's rarely set up encounters such that needing 1 fewer attack to down an enemy makes a real difference in success or victory. That is encounter building rarely ever pushes you to the threshold where that small difference would really matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

Soon as you hit level 4 you can boost to that +3. I find there isn't that much difference between them in play due to the swingy nature of the d20.

Meanwhile the player who started with a +3 is either getting +4 or a Feat at the same time. Any way you slice it, a character who starts with a +2 in their primary stat is forced to play catch-up until 12th level, which the majority of campaigns won’t even get to.

 

[Charlaquin]

(well, is a cow sacred if it was only born in 3e?)

3e is older than many of the people playing D&D these days.

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s just silly. D&D is not the be-all, end-all of the fantasy genre. Everyone playing D&D has preexisting idea of what an orc is, and being able to play an orc wizard without penalty is not going to magically start making them think of orcs as frail, bookish, magically-inclined peoples. It’s just going to give them the opportunity to explore playing a frail, bookish, magically-inclined orc without the game putting them at a disadvantage. All the literature, film, and video game material portraying orcs as big, strong, physically-inclined creatures will still exist, and even within D&D, the other orcs the player encounters will likely fit that archetype as well.

Thinking that isn't the case is what is silly. D&D isn't everything, but it is big enough to influence the rest of the genre over time. Alternatively it's also big enough to diverge from the rest of genre conventions and have it's own independent conventions (it already does in many ways).

You can't just brush away the long term consequences of the proposed change because dealing with them isn't convenient.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Are you saying that you can cancel the Disadvnatage with Reckless Attack and THEN get advantage from the Help Action?? Because that's not how Advantage and Disadvantage work, you can't stack 'em like that. Any source of Advantage will cancel any source of disadvantage, even if there is multiple of one.

Under RAW, sure but then we have this from XGE:
SIMULTANEOUS EFFECTS
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature's turn. If Two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster's turn,the person at the game table-whether player or DM-who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character's turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.

Sometimes when you ask for something the DM says yes. If you can get Advantage great, if not...then you don't need to Reckless Attack.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know that I agree. When it takes the +3 starting stat PC 4 hits to kill an enemy and you have a +2 that means by the time he's killing the enemy you have a good chance it will take you an extra attack to do so.

There is one thing that really minimizes the issue though. DM's rarely set up encounters such that needing 1 fewer attack to down an enemy makes a real difference in success or victory. That is encounter building rarely ever pushes you to the threshold where that small difference would really matter.

It matters if the DM is setting up challenges that span adventuring days instead of just individual encounters. Taking one more turn to finish a fight probably won’t make the difference between winning and losing that fight. But over a 6-8 encounter adventuring day, taking one extra turn every encounter is 2-3 extra encounter’s worth of resource attrition, and might end up making the difference between succeeding and failing in your goal for the day.

 

[FrogReaver]

It matters if the DM is setting up challenges that span adventuring days instead of just individual encounters. Taking one more turn to finish a fight probably won’t make the difference between winning and losing that fight. But over a 6-8 encounter adventuring day, taking one extra turn every encounter is 2-3 extra encounter’s worth of resource attrition, and might end up making the difference between succeeding and failing in your goal for the day.

IMO. Attrition has never made the game harder. It only makes you rest more often - most often making the game easier.