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

[Undrave]

Yes, & yes. Although that was long ago.
So I'll answer it in context of this century.



Of course. Who hasn't?



Nope. I've made them anyways. Because if I find the concept interesting I'll make it work. Another +, or the lack there of, is not more important to me than playing the character. Sometimes it's even a defining feature of the character.

For ex; Like many others here I have a 1/2ling barbarian in my folder. 1/2ling, barbarian, & optimal are not 3 words that ever really go together. Any two for sure, but not all 3. Barbarian though is exactly what best described the character class wise. So barbarian it was.
I've had one well meaning young guy (18? 19?) at the local shop earnestly explain to me how not choosing a + Str race of medium size was making my character less efficient. You should've seen the look on his face when he learned my character also only has a 14 str. (and that I'll never raise it), a decent Int, a good Cha, is LG, & reads/writes ancient D&D Egyptian/Arabic.... Oh, and doesn't like to fight.
He was very confused. Afterall, this is.... not how you build a barbarian.... Right?
He didn't really understand that the character was indeed very efficient at being that character. That I was playing a character, not just a race/class combo of modifiers & special abilities.
We've been in a few games together since then. He understands better now.

So no, I will not let a lack of synergy/+s, or even negatives, sway me from playing something.

14 and NEVER raising it? So you play a character who fails at its primary role and wear it like a badge of honor?

 

[Undrave]

I think that, rather than just not having the stat for the class, seeing the racial features that you DO have not playing well with your class is probably more annoying...

like the mentionned Gnome Bard witg good INT and not being rewarded in any way for it...

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but by failing the quest they miss out on the potential rewards and suffer the potential consequences. At low tier that might mean they don’t get paid, which may lead to them struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies.

The things you mention here as consequences wouldnt cause anyone to risk character death are laughable.

At mid-tier it may lead to the destruction of entire cities.

If the city is going to fall because 4-5 adventurers retreated due to a stroke of bad luck then it's just goina fall...

At high-tier it might mean the end of the world. Setting appropriate consequences for failing adventures is important.

Great Hook! Now we get to redeem the world!

Sounds like smart play, and good roleplaying.

Yes, and most notably it eliminated the attrition issue.

 

[ccs]

Ever play an 8str 8dex 8con fighter? (Or whatever stat mins you use)

Yes.
My one character, Garth (yet another halfling)? The best you can say about his stats is that "He doesn't have a negative to his Con score."
That's right, the highlight of his stats is a +0 in Con.
Everything else is a -1 to a -3.

For the record 3 is the base. We use 4d6-1 when rolling & I always roll if that's an option.

 

[Cadence]

Random encounters bring no exp, no treasure and do not even count toward the monster's number in a dungeon or keep.

I hadn't read 5e about Random encounters yet, but I didn't see any of those. One of the sample ones in the DMG gives magic berries.

Are those part of the house rule to enforce the 6 to 8 encounters per day?

And we use the rules written in the game. No house rule save the strict enforcing of the 6 to 8 encounters per day.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is no way that a -1 is causing that big of a noticeable performance difference. Absolutely none. -1 means you'll fail 1 additional check out of 20. It's barely noticeable - especially on casters.

It’s WAY MORE noticeable on casters because in addition to missing more often and having their spells saved against more often, they can prepare fewer spells.

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. When players, especially new players, notice that they’re doing the same stuff as everyone else, but consistently doing just a bit worse at it, they get frustrated.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I think something is going to be fun and I have the option I'm going to play it. Mountain dwarf rogue? Yep. Half-orc monk? Been there, done that.

My only real problem is not having time to play all the fun concepts that I have. I'd love to play that high elf barbarian, even if it will die almost immediately*. In past editions I've played dwarven wizards, halfling fighters, the list goes on. Had a friend who play a dwarven sorcerer in 3.5 when they had a penalty to charisma.

But I have to admit, half the reason I play any particular combination is because I find a cool mini that I want to paint and use.

*Any elven or half-elf I've ever played in any edition dies by 3rd level or before.

I once ran a series of "gladiator" style arena matches with my friends. At the end of each session, each of us would grab two minis at random from my huge collection, make a character that as closely as possible mirrors that figure and the next week we'd run them against each other. It was a ton of fun, and a great use of 4th ed's combat rules IMO.

 

[Charlaquin]

The things you mention here as consequences wouldnt cause anyone to risk character death are laughable.

Over the long term it can end up causing character death.

If the city is going to fall because 4-5 adventurers retreated due to a stroke of bad luck then it's just goina fall...

And it’s gonna be on the adventures’ heads. I’m not saying that will stop them from retreating if they need to, but weighing the consequences and benefits of abandoning the mission is the kind of roleplaying that makes D&D great.

Great Hook! Now we get to redeem the world!

Agreed. That’s the idea.

Yes, and most notably it eliminated the attrition issue.

I guess, in the same way that learning to play Tetris well eliminates the falling block issue.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also wish there were other options to choose from than the mountain dwarf armor proficiencies. It's a decent ability but useless on half the classes.

Actually that might be intended, since they get +2 Str which is usually good for classes that get tge aemor prificiency anyway.

I made a tiefling ranger for an upcoming campaign, in part because I found an awesome picture for him online. But man, it was a struggle to reconcile his attribute bonus. The Charisma and Int increases are both a complete waste for a Ranger.

I'm not even trying to "play against type". I just want a character to be as good a beginning ranger as any human or elf.

I really don't get the idea that we'll "lose something" if we can play any race/class combo we like, and have them being on equal footing mechanically.

Are they really a great waste? Or are you a ranger because you solve problems by negotiating with the creatures around you and your knowledge about them?

Probably it is a mix of both. I too am always sad if I can't mechanically use my stats (besides doing skill checks).
If you use point buy, I feel that allocating your bonuses as you wish is nice, because having stat bonuses to the wrong stats feels like you just have to pay a race tax at times. Actually you could just give some more stat points and done.
If you do standard array however, using your +2 to negate the 8 does not feel totally bad. So you can put an 8bin charisma and are not socially awkward (by the fact that you don't auto succeed DC 5 checks per DMG optional rule).

 

[CleverNickName]

14 and NEVER raising it? So you play a character who fails at its primary role and wear it like a badge of honor?

People really over-emphasize their stats sometimes. When your character is making checks at plus-one-to-TWENTY, the difference between a +2 and a +4 is pretty small, and will only matter about 10% of the time. Heck, sometimes your stat won't even matter at all (in the cases of 1s and 20s, which also happen about 10% of the time.)

My advice is to play the character you want to play, and ignore the math on your character sheet. Besides. There are lots of ways to fail at your "primary role" that have nothing to do with your ability scores.