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

[cbwjm]

I have never been swayed against a race/class combo. No matter the combo, even with point buy you can start with a +2 in your main stat which is all I really feel you need.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think there’s any one thing doing it. It’s a staple of the genre. It’s an ingrained part of the pop culture concept of elfy-ness.

It's only as ingrained as we maintain it. Say D&D allows half orcs to go +2 Int +1 Dex. Allowing them to make superb wizards wizards due to their relentless endurance feature. After enough time of that being the norm in D&D the genre staple shifts such that half orcs are viewed as some of the best wizards.

 

[Campbell]

What's not optimal about a half orc paladin? Charisma is not super crucial to a fair number of builds. You are not generally casting spells with saves. They have strong racial abilities that help with damage or defense.

I would not really use one to make an Oath of Conquest Paladin, but they pretty strong.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have never been swayed against a race/class combo. No matter the combo, even with point buy you can start with a +2 in your main stat which is all I really feel you need.

I can agree that +2 is playable. +3 is highly effective though. It's a big enough difference that it gives me pause in creating a +2 main stat character.

 

[FrogReaver]

What's not optimal about a half orc paladin? Charisma is not super crucial to a fair number of builds. You are not generally casting spells with saves. They have strong racial abilities that help with damage or defense.

I would not really use one to make an Oath of Conquest Paladin, but they pretty strong.

Yea. Str, Con bonus is amazing for paladins. I prefer str, cha personally - but the rest of the half-orc racial package is pretty good for a paladin as well.

 

[Undrave]

Why is there some sort of 'value' placed on playing against type, or playing an 'uncommon' combination? Why is there some sort of judgement value placed on 'optimizers' who just like having a +3 to their damn main stat exactly?

Why would being able to play a 16 STR Halfling Barbarian make it any less surprising IN FICTION that the character is a dangerous barbarian?? It's not like we're playing a MMO and all the tables are in the same universe or connected somehow. If your PC use alternate racial traits, then that could just mean they are special IN UNIVERSE as well. What's the story behind that Halfling? Why is he so fierce? Was he raised by a clan of Goliath? Or maybe just in a rough and tumble neigbhorhood and decided not to let the Twiceling walk all over him? PC options don't have to become the norm.

Pretty sure Warlocks are way rarer in universe than they are among D&D players, for exemple.

 

[cbwjm]

I can agree that +2 is playable. +3 is highly effective though. It's a big enough difference that it gives me pause in creating a +2 main stat character.

Soon as you hit level 4 you can boost to that +3. I find there isn't that much difference between them in play due to the swingy nature of the d20.

 

[humble minion]

I like the IDEA of playing a stereotypically big strong race as a rogue. I'm thinking of things like Midgard minotaurs, or dragonborn, or half-orcs etc. Huge menacing beefy character who plays on the 'witless brute' stereotype to get people to underestimate him. But Str is one of those weird stats. It's great if you're a melee combatant, it's almost worthless for anyone else. Dex, and Con, and Wis are always good for any class, and Cha and Int have consistently useful niches, but if you're not whacking someone with a big heavy thing for fun and profit, then you'll only benefit from your +2 Str in the rarest of cases. You still CAN play it, of course, but you're going to be measurably (not dramatically, but measurably) less useful to the party.

What's a bigger deal to me is how certain spellcasting classes require high ability scores to be useful. Race/class combinations are generally a matter of +2 or so in a stat, that's not gamebreaking or experience-ruining. But playing against ability score type can be. High charisma for a bard makes perfect sense as they're basically in showbiz, as does high intelligence for a wizard who're wrestling with complex arcane formulae all day. But having to be high-charisma to be a competent warlock or sorcerer has always bugged me. Surely an archetypical warlock character concept is the surly resentful unpleasant type who bargained for power to get back at everyone who shunned him? And sorcerous power is generally meant to be hereditary - I can't see any logical link there that means all competent sorcerers should have great people skills. And this one CAN make a concept unviable. If I want to play a miserable smelly self-pitying warlock who is tiresome to be around, I either have to come up with some tenuous rationalisation as to why this guy is particularly charismatic, or else grit my teeth, shove that 8 in Charisma and resign myself to the fact that his social ineptitude means he's doomed to be just plain bad at warlocking for his entire career.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why is there some sort of 'value' placed on playing against type, or playing an 'uncommon' combination? Why is there some sort of judgement value placed on 'optimizers' who just like having a +3 to their damn main stat exactly?

Why would being able to play a 16 STR Halfling Barbarian make it any less surprising IN FICTION that the character is a dangerous barbarian?? It's not like we're playing a MMO and all the tables are in the same universe or connected somehow. If your PC use alternate racial traits, then that could just mean they are special IN UNIVERSE as well. What's the story behind that Halfling? Why is he so fierce? Was he raised by a clan of Goliath? Or maybe just in a rough and tumble neigbhorhood and decided not to let the Twiceling walk all over him? PC options don't have to become the norm.

Pretty sure Warlocks are way rarer in universe than they are among D&D players, for exemple.

I agree, but the way D&D is setup is that characters are built via incremental features that add something to the character. I'm not opposed to a system that just says set your stats independent of race/heritage/etc and then explain why you are the way you are. It's just such a system doesn't really scream D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

But having to be high-charisma to be a competent warlock or sorcerer has always bugged me. Surely an archetypical warlock character concept is the surly resentful unpleasant type who bargained for power to get back at everyone who shunned him? And sorcerous power is generally meant to be hereditary - I can't see any logical link there that means all competent sorcerers should have great people skills. And this one CAN make a concept unviable. If I want to play a miserable smelly self-pitying warlock who is tiresome to be around, I either have to come up with some tenuous rationalisation as to why this guy is particularly charismatic, or else grit my teeth, shove that 8 in Charisma and resign myself to the fact that his social ineptitude means he's doomed to be just plain bad at warlocking for his entire career.

On some level you've just got to pick the least worst stat to tie character power to. I mean you could design a game around not doing that - but it wouldn't be D&D IMO.

There's just not a better stat for warlocks than charisma. Everything else makes even less sense. Besides, the charisma you have may be after your patron's blessing not before

Sorcerer - Con makes sense conceptually but has mechanical problems in the rest of 5e design. You would end up with a sorcerer with more hp than most fighters and dwarves would make the best sorcerers which is kind of strange. Also moving sorcerers (or warlocks) away from charisma would break years of historical D&D precedent - which is also a very important consideration.