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

[FrogReaver]

Frankly, if the long-term consequences of doing away with ability score increases is that the fantasy genre as a whole gets less archetypal and more diverse? So much the better. I don’t believe for a second that would happen, but if it did? Awesome.

I'd rather have strong archetypal diversity and that happening would eliminate it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I find the new players only act like it's a big disadvantage if you do. If you tell them -1 in primary stat isn't actually that big a deal they won't even notice.

This has not been my experience. The players will take my word for it that the -1 isn’t a big deal, and then in practice become frustrated when their character doesn’t perform well compared to the other players and lose interest in their character.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course. Which is why resting in the middle of the dungeon should feel just as likely to result in their characters’ deaths than pressing on, and retreating to a safe place to rest should mean failing the quest.

So they fail their quest... They are alive to fight another day! And knowing PC's they won't let anything get the best of them for long.

Obviously. The key is to set up challenges such that, when factoring in those complications, stopping to rest does not seem like the safer option.

Then push in a bit and then retreat if things don't go really well. If it's end of day attrition that's going to get me I can make an informed guess if I'm ahead of or behind the attrition curve.

 

[Helldritch]

There's almost no way other than contrivance to enforce 6-8 encounters per day. Players can always decide to abandon the current mission.

Yep. And they can also stop playing as well. I play random encounters to the letter. Random encounters bring no exp, no treasure and do not even count toward the monster's number in a dungeon or keep.
Abandoning a mission is a serious blow to your reputation that none of my players will take unless they are in dire circumstances. Of course it is always possible, but there would be consequences. None of which heroes would like to face. Gritty does not mean impossible. But it does require good play and strong group cohesion.

 

[FrogReaver]

This has not been my experience. The players will take my word for it that the -1 isn’t a big deal, and then in practice become frustrated when their character doesn’t perform well compared to the other players and lose interest in their character.

There is no way that a -1 is causing that big of a noticeable performance difference. Absolutely none. -1 means you'll fail 1 additional check out of 20. It's barely noticeable - especially on casters.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep. And they can also stop playing as well.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Undrave]

If we need to sacrifice strict racial statblocks (and, let’s be honest, subraces already do that to an extand) to make diverse players feel more at ease in the game, I think it’s an L we’ll just have to take. shrug

besides, the book is probably already out to the printer by now, or in final proof reading... so let’s just wait to see what the system actually IS before we start saying underdog characters are dead.

Also: a character isn’t just a Race and a Class now, so you could always play against type by giving your Barbarian the Noble background and other such combinations...

 

[ccs]

Yes, & yes. Although that was long ago.
So I'll answer it in context of this century.

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?

Of course. Who hasn't?

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?

Nope. I've made them anyways. Because if I find the concept interesting I'll make it work. Another +, or the lack there of, is not more important to me than playing the character. Sometimes it's even a defining feature of the character.

For ex; Like many others here I have a 1/2ling barbarian in my folder. 1/2ling, barbarian, & optimal are not 3 words that ever really go together. Any two for sure, but not all 3. Barbarian though is exactly what best described the character class wise. So barbarian it was.
I've had one well meaning young guy (18? 19?) at the local shop earnestly explain to me how not choosing a + Str race of medium size was making my character less efficient. You should've seen the look on his face when he learned my character also only has a 14 str. (and that I'll never raise it), a decent Int, a good Cha, is LG, & reads/writes ancient D&D Egyptian/Arabic.... Oh, and doesn't like to fight.
He was very confused. Afterall, this is.... not how you build a barbarian.... Right?
He didn't really understand that the character was indeed very efficient at being that character. That I was playing a character, not just a race/class combo of modifiers & special abilities.
We've been in a few games together since then. He understands better now.

So no, I will not let a lack of synergy/+s, or even negatives, sway me from playing something.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, & yes. Although that was long ago.
So I'll answer it in context of this century.



Of course. Who hasn't?



Nope. I've made them anyways. Because if I find the concept interesting I'll make it work. Another +, or the lack there of, is not more important to me than playing the character. Sometimes it's even a defining feature of the character.

For ex; Like many others here I have a 1/2ling barbarian in my folder. 1/2ling, barbarian, & optimal are not 3 words that ever really go together. Any two for sure, but not all 3. Barbarian though is exactly what best described the character class wise. So barbarian it was.
I've had one well meaning young guy (18? 19?) at the local shop earnestly explain to me how not choosing a + Str race of medium size was making my character less efficient. You should've seen the look on his face when he learned my character also only has a 14 str. (and that I'll never raise it), a decent Int, a good Cha, is LG, & reads/writes ancient D&D Egyptian/Arabic.... Oh, and doesn't like to fight.
He was very confused. Afterall, this is.... not how you build a barbarian.... Right?
He didn't really understand that the character was indeed very efficient at being that character. That I was playing a character, not just a race/class combo of modifiers & special abilities.
We've been in a few games together since then. He understands better now.

So no, I will not let a lack of synergy/+s, or even negatives, sway me from playing something.

Ever play an 8str 8dex 8con fighter? (Or whatever stat mins you use)

 

[Charlaquin]

So they fail their quest... They are alive to fight another day! And knowing PC's they won't let anything get the best of them for long.

Sure, but by failing the quest they miss out on the potential rewards and suffer the potential consequences. At low tier that might mean they don’t get paid, which may lead to them struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. At mid-tier it may lead to the destruction of entire cities. At high-tier it might mean the end of the world. Setting appropriate consequences for failing adventures is important.

Then push in a bit and then retreat if things don't go really well. If it's end of day attrition that's going to get me I can make an informed guess if I'm ahead of or behind the attrition curve.

Sounds like smart play, and good roleplaying.