D&D 5E Fivethirtyeight Article About D&D Race and Class Combos

[billd91]

The dude had a holy sword, and "The hands of a king are the hands of as healer." That's totally paladin with healing magic, sorry, I'm going to flat out disagree with you here.

There's nothing about the sword that's necessarily holy. It's got quite a lineage in a setting where things like that matter, but no evidence of holy in the way D&D treats things as holy. And Aragorn's healing skills can be modeled in a number of ways from skill use (good Medicine skill or Healing from previous editions) to moderate healing spells to laying on of hands. There's nothing necessarily paladineque about it. So right back atcha.

Aragorn is defined by his healing hands, you know. Supernatural abilities innate to the heirs of Numoir is actually a whole thing. That's actually very central to his identity. He also got spirits on his side, and used magical scrying orbs in a direct challenge against the Dark Lord. He's pretty darn magical for Middle Earth's standards.

What's most central to Aragorn's identity is his lineage. He wrests control of the palantir because it's his by right. He calls the legion of the dead to service because he can by right. And he's got enough strength of will, body, and soul to pursue those things that are his by right. But it's ultimately Right makes Might in Middle Earth. That's an element of LotR and Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth that no D&D game has significantly covered in its mechanics.

 

[Yaarel]

Can someone link to the raw data?

 

[Fandabidozi]

^ nerds

 

[Yaarel]

@Parmandur, I found your post. Thanks for the raw list of race-class combos.

 

[Yaarel]

It seems to me, the popular classes, races, and combos, are dominated by players who choose for the flavor of the archetype, and generally ignore mechanics.

If a class is important because of its flavor, how much more important it is to make sure its mechanics are excellent!

 

[Yaarel]

Same with races.

If a race is important because of its flavor, how much more important it is to get its mechanics right.

If players want to play a High Elf that as a Wizard, make sure that this Elf culture can be an excellent − mechanically optimal − Wizard.

And so on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The dude had a holy sword, and "The hands of a king are the hands of as healer." That's totally paladin with healing magic, sorry, I'm going to flat out disagree with you here.

You're pretty much just revising any warrior type into Fighter, by creating unrealistic definitions of other classes and leaving Fighter without its own, and not bothering to give an explanation why anyone should be one, just assuming they are by default. That's BS. I mean, hells, your defense of Wu Xia is "they use weapons!" So can monks!

Your argument is nothing more than confirmation bias.
Aragorn is defined by his healing hands, you know. Supernatural abilities innate to the heirs of Numoir is actually a whole thing. That's actually very central to his identity. He also got spirits on his side, and used magical scrying orbs in a direct challenge against the Dark Lord. He's pretty darn magical for Middle Earth's standards.


Hercules is renowned for his excessive strength and training in the wilderness by wrestling animals. Fighters in 5e are known for their weaponry training and specializations and techniques. Hercules has more in common with the barbarian than the fighter class. None of the legends of Hercules fit with how a Fighter acts. Trying to call Hercules a fighter is very strained.


This argument is basically boiling down to just "any warrior defaults to Fighter if it doesn't fit a narrow definition." And that's something I call BS on.

Agree with everything here. And the same sort of thing happens in discussions about Warlords: "Oh, so-and-so was a leader so he must have been a Warlord."

Overall this thread is entertaining for watching people trying to explain away the data because they would have designed the Fighter class differently, and therefore the WotC version can't possibly be popular.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[kenmarable]

Agree with everything here. And the same sort of thing happens in discussions about Warlords: "Oh, so-and-so was a leader so he must have been a Warlord."

Overall this thread is entertaining for watching people trying to explain away the data because they would have designed the Fighter class differently, and therefore the WotC version can't possibly be popular.

It's also entertaining for long-timers to see the same debates popping up every year or two and seeing how it plays out in similar and in different ways to the past.

Personally, there's never going to be a one-to-one match since they weren't written with D&D in mind obviously. If a character is complex and interesting enough, you can get entirely different "perfect matches" depending on what aspects you take as most important to the character. As with any good fiction, different people will see different aspects as fundamental to a main character.

What is more interesting, to me at least, is looking for where the game designers pulled inspiration from and built it into the game design. (Not to stoke the flames, but in 3.x and Pathfinder, the designers specifically designed many ranger abilities based on Aragorn. Just sayin'.)

 

[Yaarel]

Too bad we lack access to the stats for class archetypes and race cultures.

It seems significant to know if players prefer:
• variant Human v standard Human
• simpler Champion Fighter v complexer Battle Master Fighter
• Drow Elf Rogue v Wood Elf Rogue

And so on.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[OB1]

Same with races.

If a race is important because of its flavor, how much more important it is to get its mechanics right.

If players want to play a High Elf that as a Wizard, make sure that this Elf culture can be an excellent − mechanically optimal − Wizard.

And so on.

I would argue that it is far more important to ensure that whatever flavor you want to play, the mechanics are good enough to succeed. When something must be optimized to be able to succeed, you remove the option to make other choices.

 

[kenmarable]

I would argue that it is far more important to ensure that whatever flavor you want to play, the mechanics are good enough to succeed. When something must be optimized to be able to succeed, you remove the option to make other choices.

Yes, absolutely! It just needs to not be penalized/suboptimal/worse-than-average (not sure best phrasing). That's one of the reasons I really like how 5e (mostly) avoids ability score penalties. No race (for the most part) is bad at any class. Sure, some may be fit better than others, but (other than a couple in Volos ) every race-class combo is at least viable.

 

[Thurmas]

I guess I would look at this data in a different light and question just how close it is to being an accurate representation of played classes. As has been mentioned, just because a class is built in the character builder, doesn't mean it has been played. I would take it a step further.

I would suggest, which at least in my case is true, that the classes being made the most are often not played at all. For example, one of my current two active characters is an Eldritch Knight. To that end, I don't believe I have built a fighter in a builder in months. What I have built are various versions of the next characters that I look forward to playing in the future, but haven't played yet and may never get to play. So the characters being made are the ones that haven't been played yet. I've played and built one fighter, but I've built and theory crafted dozens of other characters.

The second thing I would consider is that, I've built more characters in concepts that I can't get to work then in ones that I have. Barbarian for example, I have never played, but I have a pretty straightforward concept and build that won't change much. I haven't spent much time on trying to redo it because it just works. In comparison, I've spent a tremendous amount of time building Rangers and Sorcerers in the hope of making one that I like. Unfortunately, I find both classes extremely underwhleming and have yet make a build I would like to play. That doesn't stop me from trying, however. In the end, I've built many, many more Rangers and Sorcerers than Barbarians, even though I would likely never play either a Ranger or a Sorcerer with the current ruleset.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Personally, there's never going to be a one-to-one match since they weren't written with D&D in mind obviously. If a character is complex and interesting enough, you can get entirely different "perfect matches" depending on what aspects you take as most important to the character. As with any good fiction, different people will see different aspects as fundamental to a main character.

Exactly.

There are common (or not-so-common) archetypes and themes that...we hope...get distilled into classes, backgrounds, races, etc. But it's impossible to organize it into a strictly hierarchical taxonomy.

Just ask Yahoo, for those who remember what it looked like in the 90's. (Yet Another Hierarchically-Organized Ontology)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Thurmas]

So, there are limitations to the data. No one is saying that it is the law, or the truth. But it is informative (if not dispositive).

The reason why it has credibility is because the data (revealed preferences) happens to closely match the survey results that have been released by WoTC.

And you might note that your specific anecdotal criticisms, which would indicate that Barbarian and Fighters would be underrepresented, while Sorcerers would be overrepresented, are not matched by the data.

While it is good to be cautious with all data (lies, damn lies, and statistics), I have found the more common problem in life is that people reject out of hand any data that does not already prove what they know to be true.

TLDR; some skepticism is always warranted, but given that your specific criticisms are, in fact, not born out in this data set and given that it happens to match what WoTC has already released, it would seem that while caution and further study is warranted, rejection is not.

All true! My personal examples didn't happen to align the best with the point I was trying to make; namely that a good portion of the characters being made aren't actually being played and I gave some personal situations to descibe my thoughts as to why. Not a commentary on which particular combos are being made as much as the overall numbers of combinations being presented.

 

[Imaro]

It seems to me, the popular classes, races, and combos, are dominated by players who choose for the flavor of the archetype, and generally ignore mechanics.

If a class is important because of its flavor, how much more important it is to make sure its mechanics are excellent!

I think that would depend on the trade offs and what exactly making them "excellent" means...

 

[Alexemplar]

The dude had a holy sword, and "The hands of a king are the hands of as healer." That's totally paladin with healing magic, sorry, I'm going to flat out disagree with you here...

Your argument is nothing more than confirmation bias.
Aragorn is defined by his healing hands, you know. Supernatural abilities innate to the heirs of Numoir is actually a whole thing. That's actually very central to his identity. He also got spirits on his side, and used magical scrying orbs in a direct challenge against the Dark Lord. He's pretty darn magical for Middle Earth's standards.

Being able to heal and having a magic sword, invoking promises, and using magic items are about the extent of this "magic". Surely you think that being able to cast half a dozen spells every day using the same system that Morgan la Fay/Gandalf would use is a bit much in modeling that, right?

By that logic, Bilbo/Frodo is an Arcane trickster/Bard rather than a Rogue because as a Hobbit, he's preternaturally stealthy and gains the use of various magical items throughout the story. Supernatural boons and assistance are a classic part of the hero's journey, which would make most any protagonist spellcasting 1/3, 1/2, or full progression by this logic.

You're pretty much just revising any warrior type into Fighter, by creating unrealistic definitions of other classes and leaving Fighter without its own, and not bothering to give an explanation why anyone should be one, just assuming they are by default. That's BS. I mean, hells, your defense of Wu Xia is "they use weapons!" So can monks!

Going to have to agree with this in that Monks have many of the tropes and conceits of Wuxia warriors staked out fairly well.

Hercules is renowned for his excessive strength and training in the wilderness by wrestling animals. Fighters in 5e are known for their weaponry training and specializations and techniques. Hercules has more in common with the barbarian than the fighter class. None of the legends of Hercules fit with how a Fighter acts. Trying to call Hercules a fighter is very strained.

Not really. He only resorted to wrestling the Nemean Lion because shooting arrows and hitting it with his club didn't work and only wrestled the Cretean Bull because it was ordered to be brought to him alive. He ended up just shooting the Ceryneian Hind, the Stymphalian Birds, and . His other foes were slain through a combination of firing arrows and melee combat with sword or club and the occasional bit of ingenuity. I mean one could say that because half his labors involved hunting animals, that he was a Ranger.

But most importantly, he did not fly into rages- the defining ability of the Barbarian that they regularly do several times a day and around which pretty much all its subclass abilities are based. This pretty much drives them to exclusive use of the biggest two handed melee weapon they can find, which is also a defining barbarian aesthetic.

This argument is basically boiling down to just "any warrior defaults to Fighter if it doesn't fit a narrow definition." And that's something I call BS on.

That's kind of how you're defining it, though. Strong/tough? You're a Barbarian. Magical items/boons from background? You're a Paladin/Ranger. Asian martial-artist? Monk. If a Fighter is generally defined as a "Warrior who doesn't have any kind of supernatural/magical aid or items or distinguishing exploration/social/cultural tricks" then yeah, you're going to have a very restricted list of "Fighters" both within and without.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's kind of how you're defining it, though. Strong/tough? You're a Barbarian. Magical items/boons from background? You're a Paladin/Ranger. Asian martial-artist? Monk. If a Fighter is generally defined as a "Warrior who doesn't have any kind of supernatural/magical aid or items or distinguishing exploration/social/cultural tricks" then yeah, you're going to have a very restricted list of "Fighters" both within and without.

I'm pretty sure his point was not that Hercules is a Barbarian and Aragorn is a Paladin. It was that each of them (and every single other one) demonstrate characteristics of more than one D&D class.