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

[Cadence]

Choosing to not maximize the stats driving class features is not the same as not making use of them.

Of course, the other side of the coin with the whole "How viable are PCs without a racial ASI in their main stat?" question is how is the DM running the game.

Are you rolling for stats, especially if you're using something more generous than 4d6k3? Then those racial ASI may not matter nearly as much as when you're using the standard point buy. Does your DM like to throw softball encounters at the group to let them show off? That puts a lot less pressure on the players to optimize than a DM who's always shooting for "challenging" as a baseline and is willing to let the party lose a boss battle and run with it. Is your DM on the more generous side with powerful or personally tailored magical gear? Then a few weaknesses in base character stats are more easily evened out.

We should all remember that there's no good universal baseline for the D&D play experience.

This is one of the big things that makes Magic: The Gathering hard to hop from table to table at a shop. For those who don't play Magic, Commander/EDH is a popular format that is often played socially. A common goal is to have built a pretty good deck that you've thought about, that shows some originality and flair, has a few just for fun cards, and to go for the win eventually but not the jugular right away. At other tables the goal is to blow everyone out in 3 turns or less and to have the deck optimized to annihilate everyone else. And at others they've slapped together 100 cards that they had at home already that seem to match a bit. Showing up at a table that does a different way can be a bit awkward and unpleasant.

I had never thought about it for D&D character optimization before though. Thanks @Kurotowa for pointing it out!

 

[CleverNickName]

You do know you can respond and have a different opinion without being insulting, right?

I would be amazed if anybody at a table is going to notice the difference between a fighter with a 14 strength vs a 16 strength. Anyway, I'm done because I really, really don't care that much. PCs are more than just a collection of numbers, D&D is more than just combat.

All of this bears repeating.

Don't let the numbers on your character sheet push you around and tell you what your character should be doing, or what they should be good at, or what should be fun. Because even if you play a 100% pure combat-simulation game, the numbers on your character sheet are only as important as your DM decides they should be. Period. Your super-high AC and hp won't matter if the DM decides to pit you against flyers that target your Intelligence save. Or against banshees that don't need to make attack rolls to drop you to 0 hp, from range. Or dozens of other hypotheticals.

A good DM is, and will always be, the ultimate "balance mechanic" in the game. So I think it's best to aim for fun and flexible, and let the math figure itself out later. Nobody is going to remember that extra 2 points of damage you did to that orc, six battles ago. But you can bet your donkey they will remember that time you got mind-controlled and killed the cleric, or had to sit out another battle because you got banished, or you blew the party's cover and got three people killed, or...

 

[Guest 6801328]

All of this bears repeating.

Don't let the numbers on your character sheet push you around and tell you what your character should be doing, or what they should be good at, or what should be fun. Because even if you play a 100% pure combat-simulation game, the numbers on your character sheet are only as important as your DM decides they should be. Period. Your super-high AC and hp won't matter if the DM decides to pit you against flyers that target your Intelligence save. Or against banshees that don't need to make attack rolls to drop you to 0 hp, from range. Or dozens of other hypotheticals.

A good DM is, and will always be, the ultimate "balance mechanic" in the game. So I think it's best to aim for fun and flexible, and let the math figure itself out later. Nobody is going to remember that extra 2 points of damage you did to that orc, six battles ago. But you can bet your donkey they will remember that time you got mind-controlled and killed the cleric, or had to sit out another battle because you got banished, or you blew the party's cover and got three people killed, or...

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not so much IMO. Because of BA, modifiers actually count for less because the range is much narrower. When I say "they count for less" I mean they are less important. You don't need huge bonuses because you aren't trying to hit huge numbers.


Not at all.

I know the argument: the +1 modifier bonus from the non-optimized to the optimized races. Sorry, but IMO, not a big deal.

It's literally the opposite. With a narrower range, each integer carries more impact. If the range was 1 to 100, than 1 difference would be 1 percent impact. But if the range is from 1 to 10, then it's a 10% impact.

But also, as many have said, you can't look at the raw math but have to factor in scenarios.

A +1 bonus does not just increase your chances by 5 percent or whatever because the target AC is also varying. It could mean a 100% increase, if you needed a 20 but now need a 19 or 20. And that very much is noticeable in the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You would be wrong to do so.

Probably.

AND it's one thing to not have thought through the math, and another thing to have it explained and then just reject it because...reasons? Maybe because it doesn't support your side of the argument?

Just IMAGINE what would happen if people did that in real-life discussions about things like pandemics and climate and economics.

:-/

 

[Guest 6801328]

A +1 bonus does not just increase your chances by 5 percent or whatever because the target AC is also varying. It could mean a 100% increase, if you needed a 20 but now need a 19 or 20. And that very much is noticeable in the game.

Yup.

In fact, the only time +1 is exactly a 5% increase is when you need to roll a 2 (e.g., +8 bonus vs. DC of 10), and a +1 would turn that into an automatic hit. That changes the success rate from 95% to 100%.

Two other points:

1. This business about "nobody at the table is going to notice" is both true and not relevant. Humans are terrible at noticing statistical trends, even significant ones. Our brains seem to be wired to detect differences on logarithmic scales (which is why, for example, decibels are measured on a log scale.). But that doesn't negate the fact that we know, intellectually, the statistical impact.
2. But, really, that doesn't matter, either. The fact remains that the +2 to the attribute is important to a lot of people, on both sides of the debate (that is, either in that it defines a racial archetype, or that they don't want to play a race/class combination without it) and trying to argue somebody out of their position...or, worse, to try to invalidate their position...because they "shouldn't care" is just asinine.

 

[Cadence]

Yup.

In fact, the only time +1 is exactly a 5% increase is when you need to roll a 2 (e.g., +8 bonus vs. DC of 10), and a +1 would turn that into an automatic hit. That changes the success rate from 95% to 100%.

Two other points:

1. This business about "nobody at the table is going to notice" is both true and not relevant. Humans are terrible at noticing statistical trends, even significant ones. Our brains seem to be wired to detect differences on logarithmic scales (which is why, for example, decibels are measured on a log scale.). But that doesn't negate the fact that we know, intellectually, the statistical impact.
2. But, really, that doesn't matter, either. The fact remains that the +2 to the attribute is important to a lot of people, on both sides of the debate (that is, either in that it defines a racial archetype, or that they don't want to play a race/class combination without it) and trying to argue somebody out of their position...or, worse, to try to invalidate their position...because they "shouldn't care" is just asinine.

I am all on board with the fact that once people get things in their heads that they see things everywhere. There are some nice chapters in some statistical literacy books on that that are fun to go over. I can certainly imagine that if someone knows they are lacking a +1 that they'll start blaming many of the misses on that, even as someone else suggested, the DM honestly made the rolls hidden behind a screen. I bet there are some who would even believe they were doing worse in many cases (unless they kept tally marks) even if they came out tied or ahead over those 100 rolls. And so I have no argument against getting rid of the bonuses because of that - because of your point that it discourages people regardless of how big an mathematical impact it has. (I've conceded them not being worth the cost elsewhere).


My only arguments are with two statistical claims being made when discussing them and the firmness with which they are being used.

Warning: Repeats previous posts in part, but it's either that or do work. (Last time! Dishes and laundry are calling!)

I) As I noted previously, I don't think there is a good statistical argument that the +1 is a particularly noticable over 100 to hit rolls (I'm taking that as an adventure day) if the target (without the plus) is between 3 and 18 (simulation code and results previously). If it's a few hundred rolls, then sure. (Or say, as in another thread, you have a high elf in a tower watching a battle between a few 1000 soldiers where one side is +1 better...). If someone is getting a bunch of target 19 or 20 (or 21) things I would expect it would certainly start to be noticeable too and didn't run those settings (especially that 21 ).

I'm curious how often high targets (players needing to roll a premodified 19+) occur in different games? If they occur frequently, does that greatly change the care with which other enhancements like magic weapons are given out? Or only the balance with which they are distributed?

2) Simply using the ratio of probabilities of successes is problematic. The problems in using them to describe the values of treatments is a common one in statistical literacy classes. Relative risk is a thing, but it doesn't feel like it relates in a nice way to how statistically significant a claim of disadvantage would be after 100 rolls (at least not as straightforwardly as the difference in probability and an endpoint effect seem to).

If someone really wants to go more in depth, we can probably go full out Bayesian and throw cost functions on things. We could give the probability the player would estimate themselves of missing the +1 after 100 rolls (and see.how accurate that assignment was), and we could give the actual expected cost of a missing +1 if we had a distribution of target ACs, and the cost/benefit of each hit and miss.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yup.

In fact, the only time +1 is exactly a 5% increase is when you need to roll a 2 (e.g., +8 bonus vs. DC of 10), and a +1 would turn that into an automatic hit. That changes the success rate from 95% to 100%.

Two other points:

1. This business about "nobody at the table is going to notice" is both true and not relevant. Humans are terrible at noticing statistical trends, even significant ones. Our brains seem to be wired to detect differences on logarithmic scales (which is why, for example, decibels are measured on a log scale.). But that doesn't negate the fact that we know, intellectually, the statistical impact.
2. But, really, that doesn't matter, either. The fact remains that the +2 to the attribute is important to a lot of people, on both sides of the debate (that is, either in that it defines a racial archetype, or that they don't want to play a race/class combination without it) and trying to argue somebody out of their position...or, worse, to try to invalidate their position...because they "shouldn't care" is just asinine.

It's like having the goal be 10ft wide and determining the chance that you miss by an inch.

I find people tend to get caught up on small differences in performance when they really shouldn't be. D&D adventuring days are very swingy. The same party could go through it with a little luck and it would seem like easy. They could have a few bad rolls in the day and suddenly that adventuring day seems quite a bit more difficult. However, the chances that such swingy adventuring days will ever fall in the range where a +5% chance to hit on your character actually matters in determining the adventuring day outcome is so miniscule that it might as well be irrelevant.

 

[DND_Reborn]

t's literally the opposite. With a narrower range, each integer carries more impact. If the range was 1 to 100, than 1 difference would be 1 percent impact. But if the range is from 1 to 10, then it's a 10% impact.

LOL, yeah, I knew that someone would respond to that effect, which is why I wrote:

When I say "they count for less" I mean they are less important. You don't need huge bonuses because you aren't trying to hit huge numbers.

 

[FrogReaver]

One thing that is very important but often overlooked is that players are generally meant to win the encounters - the DM's goal isn't to set up encounters/adventuring days where TPK is common after all. To ensure this happens encounters must be sufficiently beatable for a normal party such that even with some bad luck on the rolls the players can overcome said encounters. The same must be true of the adventuring day. That's the 10ft wide goal I was talking about earlier.

Near character Death, near TPK's, nearly failing your mission are all fairly rare states and it requires these states before a -5% chance to hit makes a difference in outcome.