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

[Paul Farquhar]

• in 1e the only classes possible to the Dwarf were either Fighter or Thief, but now in 5e a Dwarf Rogue rarely happens.

I don't think I ever saw a single classed dwarf thief in 1st or 2nd edition, despite it being allowed. I saw several multiclassed fighter/thieves and fighter/clerics though. The popularity of single classed dwarf thieves/rogues has remained fairly constant in my experience.

 

[Oofta]

It’s WAY MORE noticeable on casters because in addition to missing more often and having their spells saved against more often, they can prepare fewer spells.

Maybe you haven’t seen this happen, but I absolutely have. Missing 5% more often is noticeable, especially over the course of an adventuring day, especially in a bounded accuracy system like 5e’s. When players, especially new players, notice that they’re doing the same stuff as everyone else, but consistently doing just a bit worse at it, they get frustrated.

Given that all experiences are anecdotal, I've never seen it make much of a difference. It mattered more in previous editions, but in 5E it's just a minor limitation on flexibility which is not a huge deal for most players and less than a 5% difference on successfully hitting. Rolling for ability scores has far more impact on PC effectiveness than racial modifiers.

While I think negative modifiers should go away (unless applied across the board) I find the minor adjustments help races feel distinct from one another. Personally I like having a different feel to the races.

But we also don't know exactly what's going to change, it may just be optional things you can swap out. It may be as simple as mountain dwarf gets a different benefit other than armor training that doesn't ever apply because of their class, maybe my high elf doesn't care about longbows. We'll see what the real rules are and I'll decide whether I use them at that point.

 

[Oofta]

On a related note, my games tend to rely heavily on non-combat encounters. On a somewhat regular basis skills and non combat related checks make a big difference. So if you dump your strength for example, good luck climbing that wall or opening that stuck door when you're trying to escape that thing with too many tentacles reaching for you from the fog.

I try to reward players for building more balanced PCs and not just min-maxing as much as possible, the game isn't just about combat.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

14 and NEVER raising it? So you play a character who fails at its primary role and wear it like a badge of honor?

That is a very extreme accusation.
What is that character's primary role?

Maybe you haven’t seen this happen, but I absolutely have. Missing 5% more often is noticeable, especially over the course of an adventuring day, especially in a bounded accuracy system like 5e’s. When players, especially new players, notice that they’re doing the same stuff as everyone else, but consistently doing just a bit worse at it, they get frustrated.

How would the people who feel like that about missing 5% more often, going to feel about missing 3% more often by not playing a halfling?

Yep, but that also entails that you have an identical 16str and 14str character in the same game. If you don't then that bit of comparative evidence is even harder to achieve.

Also, that character with the 14 Str is going to be better than the one with 16 Str at some other things.

 

[Undrave]

That is a very extreme accusation.
What is that character's primary role?

It's a Barbarian, you don't take a Barbarian for their stellar out of combat utility... And even if you did, most of their utility comes out of Athletics (STR).

A Barbarian hits thing with STR or they don't gain the benefit of their major class feature, Rage. Low STR means lower accuracy and lower damage.

I guess if you really pump up your CON (Stout Halfling gets +1) and your DEX (+2 for Halfling) you could just stand there and soak hits? Which, I guess, isn't THAT bad either... Hmmm...

I guess I just had bad experiences with players who field inneficient characters and become a drag on the party 'for flavor' and are proud of it... As if being an interesting character and be good at your job was mutually exclusive. In one SW:SAGA game we had a free droid scoundrel player who, whenever fight broke out, would instantly drop prone and waste his turn aiming. Then, when people started dropping he'd stopped shooting and would just crawl around looting body. That was funny once, but after a while the DM was better off not counting him as part of the encounter when designing them and everybody was tired of his shenanigans.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's a Barbarian, you don't take a Barbarian for their stellar out of combat utility... And even if you did, most of their utility comes out of Athletics (STR).

Are you sure? It sounds like that character would have decent Knowledge and Social skills? That's pretty good utility.

A Barbarian hits thing with STR or they don't gain the benefit of their major class feature, Rage. Low STR means lower accuracy and lower damage.

I guess if you really pump up your CON (Stout Halfling gets +1) and your DEX (+2 for Halfling) you could just stand there and soak hits? Which, I guess, isn't THAT bad either... Hmmm...

I feel that there is a distinction between "slightly less effective in combat but slightly better out of it" and "fails".

 

[Undrave]

Are you sure? It sounds like that character would have decent Knowledge and Social skills? That's pretty good utility.

It is well documented here that I don't find 'has X skill' particularly impressive as far as utility go. Skill proficiency add flavor to a character, but I don't consider them 'good utility' because they're the baseline. It's not even like that Barbarian can trade STR for INT to learn more Skills.

And if that character spends on INT and CHA then not only are they not spending on STR, they're not spending on CON or DEX either, which is, again, part of the Barbarian's core role.

 

[Kurotowa]

Statistically, 5% is barely noticeable. But there is a psychological factor that you can't ignore. As soon as you miss by one (5%) you will blame it on that missing 5%. That is why as a DM I try to co.pensate for that missimg 5% with a relevant magic item.

See, this is where people being bad at probability math really shows. They look at a +1 bonus to hit and say, "Oh it's just a 5% difference." Well the thing is, that 5% difference doesn't mean you hit or miss 5% more often. And that chance to hit is what really matters.

Say you need to roll an 11 or better, giving you a 50% chance to hit. If you add a +1 then your chance to hit has gone up by 10% of its old value. That's a noticeable amount. Now say you need a 16 or better to hit a heavily armored boss type foe. Pushing that to a 15 means your chance to hit has gone up by a full 20%. That's a massively noticeable level.

So don't undersell the value of a single +1 to hit, especially in 5e with bounded accuracy. That +1 matters a lot.

 

[billd91]

See, this is where people being bad at probability math really shows. They look at a +1 bonus to hit and say, "Oh it's just a 5% difference." Well the thing is, that 5% difference doesn't mean you hit or miss 5% more often. And that chance to hit is what really matters.

Say you need to roll an 11 or better, giving you a 50% chance to hit. If you add a +1 then your chance to hit has gone up by 10% of its old value. That's a noticeable amount. Now say you need a 16 or better to hit a heavily armored boss type foe. Pushing that to a 15 means your chance to hit has gone up by a full 20%. That's a massively noticeable level.

So don't undersell the value of a single +1 to hit, especially in 5e with bounded accuracy. That +1 matters a lot.

They're not bad at probability. In the question of turning a miss into a hit, it only affects 5% of the possible outcomes. What they're not doing is showing it from the perspective of change compared to the previous baseline. That's not being bad at probability, it's just not using that other factor in the analysis. And I'm not convinced it needs to be or is really more noticeable than recognizing it only makes a difference 1 outcome in 20.

 

[billd91]

It's a Barbarian, you don't take a Barbarian for their stellar out of combat utility... And even if you did, most of their utility comes out of Athletics (STR).

You might not, but you aren't everybody.