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

[Sacrosanct]

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

But that makes zero sense. They don't count for less/are less important if they have a bigger impact. it's literally the opposite. Because we're not needing to hit huge numbers, that +1 bonus matters more to the die roll because it's a larger % of the overall equation.

In simple terms:

If I am rolling a d6 and need a 6 or higher, then having a +1 modifier is going to give me many more successes than if I'm rolling a d100 and need 100 or higher with a +1 modifier. (33% vs 2% to be exact).

 

[Guest 6801328]

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).

I agree it's not noticeable, in the sense that if you were watching a game and couldn't see the dice rolls, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 14 stat and the 16 stat just from watching successes/failures.

But...is that relevant? The fact is that the 16 is going to succeed more, and about 5% of the time the player with the 16 is going to think, "Whew! Good thing I have the 16!" and about 5% of the time the player with the 14 is going to say, "Damn! If I had a 16 I would have hit." In that sense it's very noticeable. I'd argue that people who care about the +1, and are thinking about it, in this way it actually feels like a larger effect than it really is because you take less notice of the rolls that wouldn't have been affected.

(And that doesn't even factor in how frequently it takes one fewer hits to drop an enemy, if we're talking about Dex and Str.)

 

[Cadence]

But...is that relevant? The fact is that the 16 is going to succeed more, and about 5% of the time the player with the 16 is going to think, "Whew! Good thing I have the 16!" and about 5% of the time the player with the 14 is going to say, "Damn! If I had a 16 I would have hit." In that sense it's very noticeable. I'd argue that people who care about the +1, and are thinking about it, in this way it actually feels like a larger effect than it really is because you take less notice of the rolls that wouldn't have been affected.

Certainly if they're looking at each others dice and bonuses and know the targets they would think that. If character sheets were secret, or if the DM rolled, or if they didn't follow the other players rolls all the time, would they still worry about it? Only if they thought they didn't optimize? Only folks who feel they need to optimize?

I'm certainly not going to argue that people don't worry (or fail to worry) disproportionally about all types of things. If that was the original argument I saw posted above, I would have gotten more random chores done today instead of posting

(And that doesn't even factor in how frequently it takes one fewer hits to drop an enemy, if we're talking about Dex and Str.)

And if someone posted the ACs and HP for the group of monsters I might have to further avoid doing chores and simulate that...

 

[DND_Reborn]

But that makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Please stop showing me examples. I GET THAT. I have graduate degrees in Mathematics including Statistics; you don't need to explain rudimentary math to me. Ok?

So, as I said in my other post, if an outside observer was watching two PCs, knowing only that one gets a +1 more than the other, they would have a nearly impossible time figuring out which one it is simply by the results (success or failure) of the d20 rolls. The d20 is large enough that +1 does not make a perceptible difference. Players who want the extra +1 feel it psychologically sometimes, depending on the person; they might feel better knowing they have it, but that's about it.

Now, if the die was smaller, such as a d6 (or maybe even a d10), the change in rate of success would more likely be enough that the observer would notice the difference. Larger rolls, such as the d100, would be virtually impossible for an observer to determine who has the extra +1.

If that still doesn't make sense, the point I am making, then don't worry about it because I'm not going into it further.

 

[FrogReaver]

It makes perfect sense.

Please stop showing me examples. I GET THAT. I have graduate degrees in Mathematics including Statistics; you don't need to explain rudimentary math to me. Ok?

So, as I said in my other post, if an outside observer was watching two PCs, knowing only that one gets a +1 more than the other, they would have a nearly impossible time figuring out which one it is simply by the results (success or failure) of the d20 rolls. The d20 is large enough that +1 does not make a perceptible difference. Players who want the extra +1 feel it psychologically sometimes, depending on the person; they might feel better knowing they have it, but that's about it.

Now, if the die was smaller, such as a d6 (or maybe even a d10), the change in rate of success would more likely be enough that the observer would notice the difference. Larger rolls, such as the d100, would be virtually impossible for an observer to determine who has the extra +1.

If that still doesn't make sense, the point I am making, then don't worry about it because I'm not going into it further.

which makes for a good argument why the damage bonus is the more important aspect. a d8 is a smaller range (even 2d6 is).

Also the effects of the extra +1damage on hit are cumulative.

 

[TwoSix]

But...is that relevant? The fact is that the 16 is going to succeed more, and about 5% of the time the player with the 16 is going to think, "Whew! Good thing I have the 16!" and about 5% of the time the player with the 14 is going to say, "Damn! If I had a 16 I would have hit." In that sense it's very noticeable. I'd argue that people who care about the +1, and are thinking about it, in this way it actually feels like a larger effect than it really is because you take less notice of the rolls that wouldn't have been affected.

Exactly. I compared it in another thread to having a pebble in your shoe. It's not a big deal, but it causes a little bit of discomfort every time you take a step (or make a roll, in this case). Every time I roll an attack, there's a little voice saying "Oh, that +4 bonus could have been a +5" or "that +2 damage could have been a +3".

It's certainly an issue of my personal psychology, but I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way. Leaving meaningful bonuses on the table, just for the sake of promoting a character vision, just feels bad. Especially when there are nigh-infinite character visions I could be playing instead.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's certainly an issue of my personal psychology, but I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way. Leaving meaningful bonuses on the table, just for the sake of promoting a character vision, just feels bad. Especially when there are nigh-infinite character visions I could be playing instead.

There will always be a hierarchy where certain abilities are more useful to your build than others. Maybe in the absence of ASI's that becomes gnome magic resistance or half orc's relentless endurance or wood elfs extra movement speed or high elfs cantrip or tabaxi's movement burst or variant humans feat.

Whatever ends up as the most useful ability is going to always feel bad to give up for something inferior - and as you noted, there are infinite character visions you could be playing that include the optimal mechanical choice.

That is to say - you aren't solving the actual problem by changing to floating ASI's - you are just kicking it down the road.

 

[TwoSix]

There will always be a hierarchy where certain abilities are more useful to your build than others. Maybe in the absence of ASI's that becomes gnome magic resistance or half orc's relentless endurance or wood elfs extra movement speed or high elfs cantrip or tabaxi's movement burst or variant humans feat.

Whatever ends up as the most useful ability is going to always feel bad to give up for something inferior - and as you noted, there are infinite character visions you could be playing that include the optimal mechanical choice.

That is to say - you aren't solving the actual problem by changing to floating ASI's - you are just kicking it down the road.

Yea, but it doesn't feel the same (to me). Math bonuses are either-or, either I have a higher bonus or I don't. Racial abilities all have some value, it's much easier to justify losing a cantrip to gain a speed boost, or vice versa.

Again, this is anecdotal psychology, but I've built characters around getting certain bonuses for my chosen class. I've chosen a class for my character because it synergized the best with my chosen race. But as long as the ASI's fit, that's when I let favored concepts guide my decision.

What I'm saying, quite literally, is that if ASIs float, I would build my character's race-class combination purely on character concept. That's the ONLY thing I feel a need to optimize around.

 

[Haldrik]

What I'm saying, quite literally, is that if ASIs float, I would build my character's race-class combination purely on character concept. That's the ONLY thing I feel a need to optimize around.

Same here. The whole point of customizing mechanics is to optimize a specific character concept. For the sake of flavor.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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 can't argue with your preference, but to fully judge the two characters you have to factor in where the fighter with the lesser to hit has a higher score than the other. Do they have a better DEX and shoot a bow better and have better AC? Do they have more CON and HPs? Do they have a better CHA and do much more outside of combat? It's not like you are playing a character that's just worse than the other, they just have different things they are best at.