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

[the Jester]

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?

Not personally, but I DM a lot more than I play pcs, so I have only played four 5e pcs.

Anyhow, I don't worry about my racial features supporting my concept. But I'm atypical when I make a character- I like to decide what I play by rolling my stats in order. That leads to some strange pcs. I have a bunch of unplayed concepts in mind, and if one suits the stats I rolled, I might use it. But often the concept arises from the stats. For instance, Friendo the Mediocre Magician, who was a physical endurance trainer.

Friendo was a gnome wizard with an Int of 13, whose high stat was Constitution. He was hilarious and very nonconventional, and contributed to the party in unusual ways- she sometimes tanked, her spell choices leaned away from saving throws or attack rolls, and he was prone to change gender constantly via a cantrip. Friendo once shut down much of a dungeon with arcane locks, using them to herd the party's target evil bad guy into a smaller and smaller section of the dungeon.

On the other hand, I'd been wanting to test the multiclassing by playing a classic cleric/fighter/magic-user type, and I rolled stats that were pretty decent for doing so and applied that set of stats to the concept. Some details later and I had Inasaidia, my 5e take on the concept.

My perspective is less "with bounded accuracy, every modifier counts" and more "with bounded accuracy, you don't need every possible modifier."

 

[Marandahir]

I actually think that with bounded accuracy a point or two difference doesn’t matter, but it rather is felt more acutely on a purely emotional level.

You can start with no stat above 14 and the game works just fine, but still having math on your sheet that does nothing to support your concept and boost stuff that is totally tangential to it…just kinda sucks. It isn't an actual mechanical problem, but it still matters because we aren’t rational actors.

Forest Gnome Ancients Paladin. It feels like an obvious choice, but seeing all that wrong math…

Mountain Dwarf Thief Rogue.

Which is why we got Svirfneblin with +2 Str, +2 Con in 4e. They REALLY wanted them to be good Fighters, Paladins, Wardens, and Barbarians.

It's interesting how class and lineage designs fold in on each other when you're thinking about what classes this lineage would be good for, and then choose attributes that align that way (or alternatively, thinking about what lineages a new class or subclass would be good for and choosing the key ability scores based on that alignment). The new lineage system blows that alignment out of the water, making such "obvious archetypal linkages" tougher to make, but at the same time, warding off fears of seeing the wrong math and encouraging more creative combos.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think this opens up the possibility of doing some really quirky campaigns, like everyone playing as Halflings. Using the custom origin or lineage rules, players who want to be warlock or paladin Halflings get to be just as effective as the rogues.

Or have everyone create their own custom origin and be mythical monsters, like Medusa or vampires...

 

[ECMO3]

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?

yes not only would do but have done.

Tiefling wizard-Rogue, Goblin Ranger-Cleric are two that would have been difficult under the old rules.

There are other concepts that would be difficult too. While a drow Elf fighter was doable before, a drow elf gwm was a bit more difficult and there was a wide gap between one of them snd a halforc or v human

TCE fixed all this

 

[d24454_modern]

yes not only would do but have done.

Tiefling wizard-Rogue, Goblin Ranger-Cleric are two that would have been difficult under the old rules.

There are other concepts that would be difficult too. While a drow Elf fighter was doable before, a drow elf gwm was a bit more difficult and there was a wide gap between one of them snd a halforc or v human

TCE fixed all this

I wouldn't say "fixed" but it allowed for more options.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually think that with bounded accuracy a point or two difference doesn’t matter, but it rather is felt more acutely on a purely emotional level.

There are arguments to be made in either direction. As you've said, the system is intended to make it so that Advantage is worth so much more than other stuff, and is your one-stop buff shop, so you get that and you're done. Little point in grubbing for more benefits mechanically. And, on the feel side, hitting on a 16 when you would have missed, and doing 1 more average damage, is pretty small potatoes.

On the flipside, "Bounded Accuracy" only really works as a fitting term if it actually means "bounded accuracy and defenses," so that all of the numbers are bounded similarly. But, at least from my casual examination of the monsters in the books I've read, there's a pretty solid argument to be made, not for "this ONE SINGLE +1 will make ALL the difference," but rather that gunning for the highest AC and highest to-hit you can get makes an outsized difference in the long haul. Because if you can grub up just another +1 or +2 from somewhere, well, that net +3 difference may only matter in 15% of rolls you make, but it's very likely going to jump you up significantly in terms of how many things you can hit with reasonable reliability. Then, from the perspective of feel and relative differences, fifteen percentage points is (very nearly) the difference between "hitting as often as you miss" and "hitting twice as often as you miss." That could be a pretty huge deal, if the DM is using enemies that ride a bit high on the AC curve.

You can make similar arguments about the 4e method, where the numbers go up a lot and there's innate scaling. On the one hand, "you're on a treadmill," so you're incentivized to grub for whatever bonuses you can (which may be plentiful, if non-obvious) in order to "get ahead." On the other hand, the system bakes in the idea that there are plenty of monsters you simply couldn't hit even if you wanted to, so you only move the "how much of the DMG can I reliably hit now" meter up a small amount, and many of the best bonuses don't come from self-focused things (or are trivial to get, like spending one feat or picking a high-proficiency weapon) but rather from teamwork. Then, on the feel side, because the math is clearly laid out for you rather than aiming for 5e's kinda-sorta 'black box' approach, you can choose where you want to end up--e.g., I like to build Dragonborn Paladins that don't have 18 in either of their main stats, because I can compensate for that in other simple ways (use +3 proficiency swords, pick up a feat, grab an at-will with a hit bonus, etc.) and still end up with a perfectly viable character that is more of a generalist.

So...yeah. In the long run, I'm not actually sure that BA addresses either the "feel" side OR the "math" side, unless you were kinda already inclined toward its perspective to begin with. It makes a different situation, where the reasons for bonus-seeking change. But the reasons are still there, and (much to my chagrin) the over-use of Advantage induces its own problems.

 

[ECMO3]

I guess if there is a Barbarian subclass where you can suck at hitting things and still have something to contribute in a fight, then Ancestral Guardian is it.

With reckless attack any Barbarian can be awesome at hitting things and if you combine it with eagle totem you can dump strength to 8 and be very effective as a Barbarian archer. Sharpshooter with extra attack while using bonus action dash to keep an enemy from closing with you can be very powerful.

You can also do a hit and run finesse weapon character with this build, sing a BA dash to go in and attack and the disadvantage on AOOs helps eliminate the need for disengage. With a halfling you could up this mobility even more because you can move through your enemies, so they can't put up a blocking force, go right through them with BA dash to get to the squishy character in the back, the way the reckless attack works the advantage is not applied until you make the attack, so you can move past enemies and they get disadvantage on AOOs because of the Eagle Totem and then you make your attacks after that with advantage.

 

[Undrave]

with reckless attack any Barbarian can be awesome at hitting things and if you combine it with eagle totem you can dump strength to 8 you can be very effective as an archer or a hit and run melee finnesse character using your bonus action dash to keep enemies from hitting back on their turn. with a halfling you could up this mobility even more because you can move through enemies.

... If you don't want to use the Rage class feature on which the entire Barbarian is built, yeah sure, let's do that???

No offense dude, but what kind of D&D do you play?! You're always ditching entire chunks of a class' design with apparently no ill effect?!

 

[ECMO3]

... If you don't want to use the Rage class feature on which the entire Barbarian is built, yeah sure, let's do that???

No offense dude, but what kind of D&D do you play?! You're always ditching entire chunks of a class' design with apparently no ill effect?!

Rage still works perfectly. You get all the benefits of rage except the weapon damage bonus. The extra damge is the only thing you miss by going finesse melee, and that damage is significant, but it is hardly an entire chunk of the class design. With extra attack, advantage and brutal critical you are still doing reliable, substantial, damage with a finesse weapon. Other things like damage resistance, extra movement, advantage on dexterity saves, ferrell instinct - they all still work the same and unarmored defense (another key barbarian class feature) works better than it does with a high strength.

A sword and board plate fighter with dueling at level 8 is doing 17 DPR on average vs AC 15 foe. A finesse Barbarian built as above with a shield has the same AC and is doing 18DPR with advantage. Additionally he has advantage on dex saves, a lot more mobility, more hps, more skill proficiencies and can rage for half damage and comparable strength-athletics checks. A basic 1d8 Rogue is doing 17DPR if he is getting sneak every turn but is not getting advantage. Drive AC above 15 and that swings even more in the Barbarian's favor.

If you go archer you miss out on a bit more damage, and you can't keep up with a fighter in damage, because you don't get the fighting style. You will be about 2 DPR behind at 8th level (more if the fighter took sharpshooter) . But you still have all those other perks and not only does rage works fine, in addition it is easier to stay in rage because you don't have to worry about not having an enemy within movement to get in an attack in. As long as there is an enemy somewhere on the battlefield you can shoot at him and stay in rage.

 

[Bolares]

Responding to the OP... Well, this is not exactly your question, but what made me house rule racial scores (in a similar way that tasha's did later) was when a player of mine wanted to make a sailor air genasi storm sorcerer, but when he built the character he got very underwhelmed by his stats (ended up with a 15 in charisma). So I changed his stats, because we both felt he was punished by his fun character choices, the made sense to was (Why wouldn't an air genasi be a good storm sorcerer?).