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

[Cadence]

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.

It'll be pretty noticeable after several adventuring days, but it feels like it shouldn't be that noticeable after just one day of 50 or 100 swings based on just the results.

If there's a 50% chance of hitting for one and 55% for the other, then the chance of having statistically significant evidence of a difference after 100 swings is only around 14% - and that assumes the weaker player suspects they're weaker. [The better one wins the total of the day about 74% of the time, the worse one about 22%, and a tie around 4%]. Only 50 swings in the day drops the chance of significant evidence under 10%. [The better one wins the day about 65% of the time, the worse about 27% of the time, and a tie about 8%).

If it's something hard with an 15% vs. 20% , then the chance of getting significant evidence goes up to19% for 100 comparisons (better wins 80% of days, worse wins 15%, and tie 5%). It's 10% with 50 (better wins 70% of days, worse 21%, tie 9%).

Crank it up to 500 swings, and you get a 64% chance of having statistically significant evidence for the 15% vs. 20% case, and the weaker one only has a 2% chance of winning or tying the match.

Of course if it's a 0% vs. 5% that's really noticeable... but it feels like they shouldn't be running into those that often.

Or another way, if you look at it in terms of an ELO chess rating, a 50% chance of success vs. 55% chance of success is only 36 points. For 15% vs. 20% it's about 54 points. Again, that doesn't seem like a lot.

Edit: Left out that I was using the arbitrary alpha=0.05 cutoff. Insert rant on why hypothesis testing is usually not what most folks actually want to do with their data

 

[Helldritch]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

It'll be pretty noticeable after several adventuring days, but it feels like it shouldn't be that noticeable after just one day of 50 or 100 swings based on just the results.

If there's a 50% chance of hitting for one and 55% for the other, then the chance of having statistically significant evidence of a difference after 100 swings is only around 14% - and that assumes the weaker player suspects they're weaker. [The better one wins the total of the day about 74% of the time, the worse one about 22%, and a tie around 4%]. Only 50 swings in the day drops the chance of significant evidence under 10%. [The better one wins the day about 65% of the time, the worse about 27% of the time, and a tie about 8%).

If it's something hard with an 15% vs. 20% , then the chance of getting significant evidence goes up to19% for 100 comparisons (better wins 80% of days, worse wins 15%, and tie 5%). It's 10% with 50 (better wins 70% of days, worse 21%, tie 9%).

Crank it up to 500 swings, and you get a 64% chance of having statistically significant evidence for the 15% vs. 20% case, and the weaker one only has a 2% chance of winning or tying the match.

Of course if it's a 0% vs. 5% that's really noticeable... but it feels like they shouldn't be running into those that often.

Or another way, if you look at it in terms of an ELO chess rating, a 50% chance of success vs. 55% chance of success is only 36 points. For 15% vs. 20% it's about 54 points. Again, that doesn't seem like a lot.

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.

But my bigger issue is that over the course of an adventuring day you may make 50 attacks and you'll have 2.5 more misses with the 14 str vs the 16 str. I've never once been in an adventure where I can say hitting randomly 2.5 more times over the course of the day would have made any probable difference in the outcome. Encounters and Adventuring days can't be created that are that finely balanced because combat, even over an adventuring day is fairly random and that randomness means that most of the time 2.5 more misses out of a whole adventuring day won't really matter.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Yea, I think it's more psychological than statistical.

I no longer worry about individual character DPR differences below 20% and barely pay attention to ones between 20% and 33%. Those sound like big numbers but when you view D&D as a team game - upping your DPR by 20% is probably only a party damage increase of about 5%.

 

[Horwath]

In 5E best way to remove race/class mismatch is to allow exchange of +2 racial bonus for a half-feat.
Then that +1 from the feat can go into class primary ability and you can start with 16.

 

[Haldrik]

It is?!

For example, the Anglo-Saxon medical text that mentions elfshot, probably dates to about the 900s.

"Or it was the shot of an elf."
oððe hit wǣre ylfa gescot.

But note, the text mentions hags and aesir also send shots. In any case, elves with bows is an Anglo-Saxon concept.

 

[Haldrik]

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 assume the new freeform abilities will have longterm consequences. It reminds me of removing the 1e race class level restrictions. It did give birth to new character concepts. For example,

• in 1e an Elf Druid was forbidden, but by 5e it is a trope
• in 1e a Dwarf Cleric was forbidden for a player character, but by 5e it has become a trope

I look forward to the freeform abilities, and the ability to actualize certain character concepts mechanically.

At the same time, I feel those who are worried about the loss of tropes, have legitimate concerns.

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

Players who care about certain tropes need to figure out how to advocate for them to preserve them for future editions.

Mechanics have consequences.

 

[Undrave]

Yea, I think it's more psychological than statistical.

I no longer worry about individual character DPR differences below 20% and barely pay attention to ones between 20% and 33%. Those sound like big numbers but when you view D&D as a team game - upping your DPR by 20% is probably only a party damage increase of about 5%.

I, for one, don’t trust the die and would rather make their impact as minimal as possible. Missing 5% more of the time is just more frustrating times when the dice rolls low so I would rather not have to deal with that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I, for one, don’t trust the die and would rather make their impact as minimal as possible. Missing 5% more of the time is just more frustrating times when the dice rolls low so I would rather not have to deal with that.

I was really a fan of the 4e essentials human ability. Once per short rest (encounter back then) you could give yourself a +3 bonus to hit. That alone mitigated the loss of +2 to your main stat, since you got a bigger bonus, when you actually needed is and missing a crucial hit by 1,2 or 3 was not a thing for humans.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

20 STR halfling barbarian.