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

[Helldritch]

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

I would say that it would only encourage players to play the same optimized characters over and over again. At first, you'll see diversity. After a while, you'll paterns. And a bit further, you'll see the pattern repeat themselves over and over again.

Edit: Changed words that the autocorretor changed itself.... I hate these things...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I would say that it would only encourage players to play the same optimized characters over and over again. At first, you'll see diversity. After a while, you'll paterns. And a bit further, you'll see the pattern Repentigny itself over and over again.

Lets say this does happen at someones table....

Is that a problem with the system or a problem with the players? Prioritizing optimization is a player choice, the system doesn't force it.

 

[Helldritch]

Lets say this does happen at someones table....

Is that a problem with the system or a problem with the players? Prioritizing optimization is a player choice, the system doesn't force it.

In every games where there was floating ASI, be it through a system of flaws and qualities or simply pick bonuses at creation, you will see that some pattern will appear with players and as time goes on, these patterns will be more and more irritating as they will constantly repeat themselves. No matter the system, this it what will happen. With, systems like D&D, if you want to play the underdog, it is quite feasible and it opens RP opportunities that a floating system will kill in the long run. With floating systems there is no such things as an underdog. You only see optimized characters.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I would say that it would only encourage players to play the same optimized characters over and over again. At first, you'll see diversity. After a while, you'll paterns. And a bit further, you'll see the pattern Repentigny itself over and over again.

To me, this sounds like a wash, If your players are picking only optimized choices, changing what's optimized will change what they pick to a different set of optimized choices, yes, but that's the only change. This rule won't change optimizers into non-optimizers.

But that was never the goal: the goals were to reduce race essentialism (and I really don't want to re-hash that here so let's just say it's a goal and move on), and to make more combinations "viable."

Viable is not optimized, but it's also not ignoring character effectiveness. It's a middle ground between the two ideas, where the player feels they need to hit certain standards for the character to be effective enough to be fun and/or not a drag on the rest of the game. The more flexibility you have at chargen with core stuff like ability scores, the more options become viable.

Which means for a subset of players, this will increase diversity of characters. For other subsets, it will not increase diversity, but it also won't decrease it.

The only thing you lose is the mechanical reinforcement of the idea that elves are more graceful than humans because they have slightly higher dex scores on average. This is a loss, so I hope they include other ways to represent elven grace in future editions.

 

[Helldritch]

To me, this sounds like a wash, If your players are picking only optimized choices, changing what's optimized will change what they pick to a different set of optimized choices, yes, but that's the only change. This rule won't change optimizers into non-optimizers.

But that was never the goal: the goals were to reduce race essentialism (and I really don't want to re-hash that here so let's just say it's a goal and move on), and to make more combinations "viable."

Viable is not optimized, but it's also not ignoring character effectiveness. It's a middle ground between the two ideas, where the player feels they need to hit certain standards for the character to be effective enough to be fun and/or not a drag on the rest of the game. The more flexibility you have at chargen with core stuff like ability scores, the more options become viable.

Which means for a subset of players, this will increase diversity of characters. For other subsets, it will not increase diversity, but it also won't decrease it.

The only thing you lose is the mechanical reinforcement of the idea that elves are more graceful than humans because they have slightly higher dex scores on average. This is a loss, so I hope they include other ways to represent elven grace in future editions.

If you had read my earlier posts, you would know that my players do not always optimize their characters. We had a halfling barb, a thiefling fighter, a half orc rogue and many other non optimized characters such as these. Floating ASI or a system of flaws and qualities only encourages optimization.

And with such a system you are right. You lose the flavor that elves are good archer and wizards. You lose a lot more than what you think.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If you had read my earlier posts, you would know that my players do not always optimize their characters. We had a halfling barb, a thiefling fighter, a half orc rogue and many other non optimized characters such as these. Floating ASI or a system of flaws and qualities only encourages optimization.

And with such a system you are right. You lose the flavor that elves are good archer and wizards. You lose a lot more than what you think.

Elves are still good archers and wizards; they get bonus proficiencies, bonus spells, and/or the ability to hide in light cover, which is crazy good for a ranger. Elves are already a lot more than +2 dex, so losing that won't make them suddenly not-elves.

But more importantly: dwarves being good rangers doesn't make elves bad rangers. It just means dwarves are also good rangers.

 

[Cadence]

But more importantly: dwarves being good rangers doesn't make elves bad rangers. It just means dwarves are also good rangers.

Is every race equally good at it?

 

[Helldritch]

Elves are still good archers and wizards; they get bonus proficiencies, bonus spells, and/or the ability to hide in light cover, which is crazy good for a ranger. Elves are already a lot more than +2 dex, so losing that won't make them suddenly not-elves.

But more importantly: dwarves being good rangers doesn't make elves bad rangers. It just means dwarves are also good rangers.

My experience tells me you're wrong in your assumptions. When any character can be anything without problems or weaknesses, the choices become meaningless and every players, and I mean every single one of them will fall in the optimization traps. I have seen it so often that anything said won't make me change my mind. Hell!!! I even fell in this trap my self in Vampire the Masquerade and Heroes.

Having to find ways to make an underdogs with fixed abilities is way more rewarding and memorable. The halfling barb was a thing to behold exactly because it was a halfling barb with the standard array. All its ASI went to strength and the little bugger was surprisingly efficient. But with floating ASI, no surprise, no cost, no sacrifice would have been required. The halfling would have simply been an other optimized barbarian.

I have nothing about optimization. It is a good thing most of the time. But when optimization makes it that what would be a strange character concept just becomes a simple skin for an optimized character type... I simply feel that the choice is just a make up, a simple mask that has been put on to give a funny look on your character. And believe me, funny look don't strike anyone as memorable. They are forgotten quickly.

But when your choices involve actual sacrifices in effectiveness, people remember the character for life.

 

[Campbell]

I think the heart of this issue is that 5e over rewards specialization. There is no real point at which you gain more from branching out than doubling down.

Like if there was some kind of diminishing return on specializing this would be much less of a thing.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Is every race equally good at it?

Not unless you remove all race rules, which hasn't been proposed.