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

[Guest 6801328]

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 havDe different things they are best at.

Oh, come on. None of those are even remotely as useful as the +1 to your prime stat. Sure, the other bonuses aren't completely useless, but neither can you really compare them.

So, yes, you ARE playing a character that's just worse than the other one. It's clearly worse in their most important functions, and clearly better in their less important functions.

 

[billd91]

Oh, come on. None of those are even remotely as useful as the +1 to your prime stat. Sure, the other bonuses aren't completely useless, but neither can you really compare them.

Sure we can. The fighter with the additional +1 might be a little better in a fight than the one without, but the one with a better Charisma is going to do better in some of the other things PCs do. From a player perspective, that fighter with the other stat like Charisma is going to have fewer times in the game when he's sidelined because he can't effectively contribute to a scene than Mr. Muscle with the dumped mental stats and skills. And that's probably a more important metric than doing a little more damage.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure we can. The fighter with the additional +1 might be a little better in a fight than the one without, but the one with a better Charisma is going to do better in some of the other things PCs do. From a player perspective, that fighter with the other stat like Charisma is going to have fewer times in the game when he's sidelined because he can't effectively contribute to a scene than Mr. Muscle with the dumped mental stats and skills. And that's probably a more important metric than doing a little more damage.

So let me get this straight...with +2 to his primary combat stat he "might do a little better in a fight", but with +2 to Cha he's suddenly going to be noticeably more useful in social situations?

I don't buy that.

What about the reverse? Will the Sorcerer who gets +2 to his Str also find that being able to climb and swim better makes up for being -1 to Hit and -1 to his save DCs?

I don't buy that, either.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Oh, come on. None of those are even remotely as useful as the +1 to your prime stat. Sure, the other bonuses aren't completely useless, but neither can you really compare them.

So, yes, you ARE playing a character that's just worse than the other one. It's clearly worse in their most important functions, and clearly better in their less important functions.

We play different style games.

You create a fairly standard 1st level fighter. You put your best score in STR, then next in CON, third DEX, the next probably WIS for a decent Perception. You get +6 to hit with your greatsword with 2d6+4 damage each time you hit. You have a pretty good amount of HP, a normal AC, and a passable Perception score. You are the best you are going to be at doing damage as a 1st level fighter.

I want to play something different. I don't feel the need to "be the best at doing damage" to still feel like I am making an interesting character. I put my best stat in CHA, then STR, then CON, then DEX. I am equipped the same as you are. I get +5 to hit with my greatsword for 2d6+3 damage. I have 1 less HP than you, I have one less AC than you. But what I do have is a Persuasion score of +6 versus your +0 or -1 (depending on where you put your 8).

The GM has us trotting down the road and we get separated. Both of us are attacked by bandits. You, using your superior combat ability pull out your greatsword, dash into combat, and lay the bandits low with a quick series of kills. I use my persuasion to try to get them to let me pass by peacefully, which makes one of the bandits sit this fight out, getting into an argument with his buddies about letting me go. I pull out my greatsword, dash into combat, and lay the bandits (minus one member) low in roughly the same time and with the same damage as you did.

Different paths....same end result. Your character isn't "better" than mine, its just different. If you can't understand this, then you must play a style of game that ONLY is interested in what your character sheet says about combat and doesn't allow for different paths through the story. There is nothing wrong with this style of game, but its not the only style of game and certainly not the style that I enjoy.

NOTE: My 1e Al-Quadim character is literally a fighter with CHA as his highest stat, followed by STR, CON, then DEX. He does just fine in battle and just fine outside of it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

We play different style games.

You create a fairly standard 1st level fighter. You put your best score in STR, then next in CON, third DEX, the next probably WIS for a decent Perception. You get +6 to hit with your greatsword with 2d6+4 damage each time you hit. You have a pretty good amount of HP, a normal AC, and a passable Perception score. You are the best you are going to be at doing damage as a 1st level fighter.

I want to play something different. I don't feel the need to "be the best at doing damage" to still feel like I am making an interesting character. I put my best stat in CHA, then STR, then CON, then DEX. I am equipped the same as you are. I get +5 to hit with my greatsword for 2d6+3 damage. I have 1 less HP than you, I have one less AC than you. But what I do have is a Persuasion score of +6 versus your +0 or -1 (depending on where you put your 8).

The GM has us trotting down the road and we get separated. Both of us are attacked by bandits. You, using your superior combat ability pull out your greatsword, dash into combat, and lay the bandits low with a quick series of kills. I use my persuasion to try to get them to let me pass by peacefully, which makes one of the bandits sit this fight out, getting into an argument with his buddies about letting me go. I pull out my greatsword, dash into combat, and lay the bandits (minus one member) low in roughly the same time and with the same damage as you did.

Different paths....same end result. Your character isn't "better" than mine, its just different. If you can't understand this, then you must play a style of game that ONLY is interested in what your character sheet says about combat and doesn't allow for different paths through the story. There is nothing wrong with this style of game, but its not the only style of game and certainly not the style that I enjoy.

NOTE: My 1e Al-Quadim character is literally a fighter with CHA as his highest stat, followed by STR, CON, then DEX. He does just fine in battle and just fine outside of it.

I agree, and none of that contradicts what I'm saying. I think we are saying different things.

I will agree that it's great when people play characters, like you are describing, that don't put their stats in the most obviously optimal order. And players should absolutely have that freedom. The fighter who invests in non-fighter things (like talking) isn't a better or worse character than a fighter who focuses exclusively on combat. In fact, I think that's a "better" or at least more interesting character concept.

But in terms of purely mechanical effectiveness, getting that +1 on the Charisma ability checks just isn't going to have as much impact on the game as getting the same +1 to Strength ability checks....plus every single melee combat attack and damage roll.

So is the optimized fighter a better concept? No. But is it more effective statistically? Almost definitely. (I'm sure there are outlier campaigns and DMs where this isn't true.)

But here's the really important thing: while I totally support everybody's right to play a suboptimal character if they want to (I, for one, never grouse at the table when somebody does it) that's totally different than telling somebody that if they want to play race X and class Y it must be such a suboptimal character.

What I think is boring and unimaginative and unnecessary is that the assumption that Tiefling fighters (for example) must be the kind of fighter you are describing, because it says right there in the book that they always put their +2 in Cha. Because what happens is that you say, "No, no, take the Tiefling! You can play the charming fighter who may not be the best at fighting, but has a quick tongue!" And nine times out of ten the player is going to say...."Hmm. Naw, I guess I'll play a Half-orc after all."

Which I don't think is a desirable outcome.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What I think is boring and unimaginative and unnecessary is that the assumption that Tiefling fighters (for example) must be the kind of fighter you are describing, because it says right there in the book that they always put their +2 in Cha.

You don't put your +2 in Cha. You have a +2 to Cha to add to whatever you put in Cha.
I think that there might be some confusion between racial bonuses and actual ability score generation.

Because what happens is that you say, "No, no, take the Tiefling! You can play the charming fighter who may not be the best at fighting, but has a quick tongue!" And nine times out of ten the player is going to say...."Hmm. Naw, I guess I'll play a Half-orc after all."

Which I don't think is a desirable outcome.

Me neither, but the very fact that it happens nine times out of ten with the people you play with means that we are probably part of very different playing circles.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You don't put your +2 in Cha. You have a +2 to Cha to add to whatever you put in Cha.
I think that there might be some confusion between racial bonuses and actual ability score generation.

Oh lord.

Fine: you have the bonus...and then you put it on the character sheet in the right place.

Whatever.

Me neither, but the very fact that it happens nine times out of ten with the people you play with means that we are probably part of very different playing circles.

Sure.

So does that mean that if the +2/+1 ASI were floating, not much would change at your table?

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:

The disrespect you are showing here - using real-world death and tragedy to back up an argument over game math - is not acceptable. You're done in this discussion. Please use this as an opportunity to reconsider how you approach such discussions.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Oh, and @Scott Powell - it isn't funny. Don't use the laugh emoji on moderation posts in the future, or mockingly in general.

 

[Not a Hobbit]

Okay.