D&D 5E Race Class Combos, Design, Roleplaying and the fear of the new

[OB1]

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] - it took me a few days to find the time to do a quick analysis that this thread made me think of. Per the 538 numbers, 15% of the characters created were of a race without a bump to their class' prime attribute. To your point, that means that what looks to be a vast majority of players are choosing the de facto races for a particular class (or de facto class for a particular race).

Honestly, given how little that 5% makes a difference in 5e, I was surprised the number was so low, I was expecting it to be somewhere between 20 and 25%, still a solid minority, but a more significant one. Of course, I play a Gnome Feylock/WildSor with only 16 Cha at 11th level, so I could be biased in my assessment regarding the popularity of such choices.

And it could be that number is right were WoTC expects/wants it to be. The option to play outside of expected combos is a viable one (otherwise I expect the percentage would be much lower) but the system also strongly suggests certain combinations as part of the "story" of a particular race or class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Reading through all this, I have a few thoughts.

To begin with, I think I am fine with the way things currently stand in 5e. The +2/+1 dynamic does encourage certain easier paths, but it is still easy enough to break away from those lines either for other abilities (I loved playing a Gnome Cleric for my insane mental saves) or for story reasons. We're at a good balancing point, IMO.


I definitely do not want to go further into Race X must be the best at Class Y. I remember the discussion where someone wanted to change High Elves to make them even better wizards, because High Elves are supposed to be the best wizards. I don't agree with that position, that is a bridge too far for me and I think is a worrisome potential trend that would lead us back closer to "Elf the Class" ect.


However, I would not be entirely against going the opposite direction, moving some of the stat bonuses to backgrounds and classes. I find the idea that becoming a Fighter or a Wizard entails enough hard work and study that your body or mind is trained in response. That your background gives you enough experience and work that again, it changes you physically. However, on top of not thinking this is necessary, I would find two major problems with it.

1) It simply shifts the problem from Race to Background. If all Criminals get a bonus to dexterity, you'll see a lot more rangers and monks who used to be criminals, because dex is a very important stat for them. Or, it could shift the burden onto classes. There are multiple ways to build each class, focusing on different stat arrangements. Some aren't optimal, but they are currently still viable, this could change if the class begins directing the arrangement.

2) There is too much opinion and interpretation. Let us take Criminal, dex bonus because you constantly ran from the Law. Why not a wisdom bonus because you were constantly the look out and became keener of eye? Or an Intelligence Bonus because you were a criminal mastermind with complicated plots who sat in his room forging documents and counting gold instead of being out in the streets? Strength bonus for being the Thug who broke people's knees and kicked in doors? Charisma bonus for being a Grifter? You could make the argument for a lot of different routes, each one potentially valid, and the same thing, to a smaller degree, could be done with classes. Should a fighter get Dex, Strength or Con? All three could be argued.




I definitely agree with the desire to have each race and each class be more distinctive. Why do Dwarven Clerics pray in Temples instead of Forges? What does it mean that all Elves know how to use the Sword and the Bow? Would a Goliath Wizard act and practice the same as a Human Wizard? Is a Firbolg Druid really doing the same things as a Dragonborn Druid?

But to get these all to a place where I would completely happy with all of them would require a complete rewrite of everything, and that is far too much effort for a game when I could just write a novel series instead.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, given how little that 5% makes a difference in 5e, I was surprised the number was so low

When there aren't may bonuses and everyone is advancing at the same rate (however slow or fast that rate may be), every 5% really counts. If you were a 3e fighter you could count on your 1:1 BAB to keep you relatively capable in combat, even if your STR wasn't hardcore maxxed. In 4e or 5e, you 'need' to max your primary, because your 1/2-level/proficiency bonus is the same as everyone else's.

I was expecting it to be somewhere between 20 and 25%, still a solid minority, but a more significant one

I'm gratified that it's as high as 15%. But, again, the correlation isn't necessarily all powergaming or otherwise system-driven. Races have become associated with classes they have good stats for, and have been, at times, intentionally given good stats for classes they have genre association with, until it's almost a chicken/egg thing. So some of those race-bonus|class-primary correlations may be conceptual, because halflings are obviously hobbits who are archetypically thieves because 'Burglar Baggins,' and half-orcs are clearly barbaric, etc...

 

[OB1]

When there aren't may bonuses and everyone is advancing at the same rate (however slow or fast that rate may be), every 5% really counts. If you were a 3e fighter you could count on your 1:1 BAB to keep you relatively capable in combat, even if your STR wasn't hardcore maxxed. In 4e or 5e, you 'need' to max your primary, because your 1/2-level/proficiency bonus is the same as everyone else's.

Have to agree to disagree here. I think the only time you are at a true disadvantage is if your primary stat isn't at least +2. Anything over that makes combat easier, but isn't necessary. I think of the extra +3 you can get from increases to the prime stat in a similar way as getting magic weapons, they actually make you better against expected rather than being baked into the challenge level.

I'm gratified that it's as high as 15%. But, again, the correlation isn't necessarily all powergaming or otherwise system-driven. Races have become associated with classes they have good stats for, and have been, at times, intentionally given good stats for classes they have genre association with, until it's almost a chicken/egg thing. So some of those race-bonus|class-primary correlations may be conceptual, because halflings are obviously hobbits who are archetypically thieves because 'Burglar Baggins,' and half-orcs are clearly barbaric, etc...

Completely agree here and think that it is working as intended.

 

[Satyrn]

Reading through all this, I have a few thoughts.

Reading through that, I had one thought: Maybe just drop the whole idea of ability score bonuses at character creation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think of the extra +3 you can get from increases to the prime stat in a similar way as getting magic weapons, they actually make you better against expected rather than being baked into the challenge level.

Assuming you start with a +2 bonus from your prime stat, you will be able to increase it to a +5 via ASI, by level 12. Given that feats are optional and there's little reason not to spend ASIs that, way, it's reasonable (though designers & players, alike, are hardly constrained to do what's reasonable!) for that level of stat to be assumed. Another system artifact pointing at that assumption is the DCs of saving throws monsters force. They generally range from 13 up to 19, tracking what a PC caster with a starting stat bonus of +3 to an ending +6 Prof and +5 stat bonus would set for spell DCs.

Also, magic items were explicitly called out as making you 'just better,' while ASIs or high stats were not.

 

[OB1]

Assuming you start with a +2 bonus from your prime stat, you will be able to increase it to a +5 via ASI, by level 12. Given that feats are optional and there's little reason not to spend ASIs that, way, it's reasonable (though designers & players, alike, are hardly constrained to do what's reasonable!) for that level of stat to be assumed. Another system artifact pointing at that assumption is the DCs of saving throws monsters force. They generally range from 13 up to 19, tracking what a PC caster with a starting stat bonus of +3 to an ending +6 Prof and +5 stat bonus would set for spell DCs.

Also, magic items were explicitly called out as making you 'just better,' while ASIs or high stats were not.

1. The stat bonus from a + magical weapon is indistinguishable from the + from your ASIs when attacking or taking damage. So if a +1 Sword makes you 'just better' so must a +1 from an ASI make you 'just better'.

2. Yes, feats are optional, and so is the option to take nothing but feats in games where they are allowed, a good indication that the game is balanced around a static attack stat bonus.

3. Whether by Point Buy or Standard array, if you don't have a racial bonus to add to your top score, the best you can get is a +2 in your primary stat. This combines with the only advice regarding Ability Score assignments in the book, which is repeated in each class, that you put your highest stat in score x, strongly suggesting that the expected bonus to your prime attack attribute is +2. If it was required, they could have put the CharGen ASIs into Class decision instead of Race decision. The fact that you can select a race without a bump to your Class Prime Attack Attribute means that it is not required.

4. Nowhere in the book does it advise that PCs use their ABIs to increase their prime attack attribute before other considerations. If this was expected, instead of giving players the choice, they could have simply had the first two ABIs be +2s to the prime attack attribute for the class.

Again, my argument is that the game is 'balanced' around a +2 score in your primary attack attribute. You will not fall behind the published combat difficulty curve if you never increase that stat beyond +2 and spend those points somewhere else. It was designed that way to give players true choice in the design of their characters.

There is nothing wrong to rushing to 20, but the importance of doing so is greatly overstated and not indicative of the design of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. The stat bonus from a + magical weapon is indistinguishable from the + from your ASIs when attacking or taking damage. So if a +1 Sword makes you 'just better' so must a +1 from an ASI make you 'just better'.

'Just better' than what? It's relative. A +1 from an ASI is something every class gets at 4th level. You can put it different places, or trade it in for a feat, but you're not 'just better' than the next guy who puts his ASI in his primary stat.
You're both better than the monsters you were fighting last, but that's the curve. Magic items put you ahead of that curve.

2. Yes, feats are optional, and so is the option to take nothing but feats in games where they are allowed, a good indication that the game is balanced around a static attack stat bonus.

More plausibly, an indication that it is not balanced around the feats, thus making feats DM-opt-in optional.

3. Whether by Point Buy or Standard array, if you don't have a racial bonus to add to your top score, the best you can get is a +2 in your primary stat.

I agree that starting at +2 is just fine. IMHO, starting at +3 is /expected/, but +2 is adequate. Both will get you to 20 before the typical AP finishes around 15th level.

4. Nowhere in the book does it advise that PCs use their ABIs to increase their prime attack attribute before other considerations.

Does it really need to be?

Again, my argument is that the game is 'balanced' around a +2 score in your primary attack attribute. You will not fall behind the published combat difficulty curve if you never increase that stat beyond +2 and spend those points somewhere else. It was designed that way to give players true choice in the design of their characters.

It's not hard to confirm that, just look at the monsters: Do their attacks scale from a +4 at CR 1 to a +8 at CR 20? Do the saves they force scale from DC 12 to DC 16?

There is nothing wrong to rushing to 20, but the importance of doing so is greatly overstated and not indicative of the design of the game.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with meandering to 20. There's also nothing dreadfully wrong with being a bit behind the assumed curve - never has been, in any edition - heck, in the early game, you could be 'behind,' quite literally, due to different exp awards.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Reading through all this, I have a few thoughts.

To begin with, I think I am fine with the way things currently stand in 5e. The +2/+1 dynamic does encourage certain easier paths, but it is still easy enough to break away from those lines either for other abilities (I loved playing a Gnome Cleric for my insane mental saves) or for story reasons. We're at a good balancing point, IMO.


I definitely do not want to go further into Race X must be the best at Class Y. I remember the discussion where someone wanted to change High Elves to make them even better wizards, because High Elves are supposed to be the best wizards. I don't agree with that position, that is a bridge too far for me and I think is a worrisome potential trend that would lead us back closer to "Elf the Class" ect.


However, I would not be entirely against going the opposite direction, moving some of the stat bonuses to backgrounds and classes. I find the idea that becoming a Fighter or a Wizard entails enough hard work and study that your body or mind is trained in response. That your background gives you enough experience and work that again, it changes you physically. However, on top of not thinking this is necessary, I would find two major problems with it.

1) It simply shifts the problem from Race to Background. If all Criminals get a bonus to dexterity, you'll see a lot more rangers and monks who used to be criminals, because dex is a very important stat for them. Or, it could shift the burden onto classes. There are multiple ways to build each class, focusing on different stat arrangements. Some aren't optimal, but they are currently still viable, this could change if the class begins directing the arrangement.

2) There is too much opinion and interpretation. Let us take Criminal, dex bonus because you constantly ran from the Law. Why not a wisdom bonus because you were constantly the look out and became keener of eye? Or an Intelligence Bonus because you were a criminal mastermind with complicated plots who sat in his room forging documents and counting gold instead of being out in the streets? Strength bonus for being the Thug who broke people's knees and kicked in doors? Charisma bonus for being a Grifter? You could make the argument for a lot of different routes, each one potentially valid, and the same thing, to a smaller degree, could be done with classes. Should a fighter get Dex, Strength or Con? All three could be argued.




I definitely agree with the desire to have each race and each class be more distinctive. Why do Dwarven Clerics pray in Temples instead of Forges? What does it mean that all Elves know how to use the Sword and the Bow? Would a Goliath Wizard act and practice the same as a Human Wizard? Is a Firbolg Druid really doing the same things as a Dragonborn Druid?

But to get these all to a place where I would completely happy with all of them would require a complete rewrite of everything, and that is far too much effort for a game when I could just write a novel series instead.

I have been thinking about moving racial stat boost to backgrounds for a while and I think the main issue is that you would need a healthy jump in the number of backgrounds. It is problematic if the only way to get +2 to dex is to be criminal/spy, but if there were three or four ways to do it, that isn't such a problem. Additionally, you would need to stick to the "story drives mechanics" idea--if it makes sense for the outlander to get +2 con, +1 wis because outlanders are hearty and tend to keep an open eye out for where their next meal is coming from, and that isn't the most optimal combination for a ranger or barbarian, too bad.

 

[Nevvur]

ASIs do enough to combat race essentialism or whatever we're calling it here. Optimization will always appeal to a large portion of the D&D player base, but failure to optimize on race-class lines isn't as heavily penalized in 5e as previous editions. At least, not enough to warrant house rules for racial bonuses, as far as I'm concerned.

The complaint seems to reduce to "optimizers exist," though I understand that wasn't the intent. At a table where it's essential for PCs to have parity with one another in their attack stats, magic items can close the gap until optimized and non-optimized characters reach level 12 and everyone can have a maxed primary stat if that's what they want.

In terms of the narrative, specifically how racial bonuses suggest members of a given race prefer a given class, that's entirely in the hands of the DM. There are no wood elf monasteries in my setting, for instance, because culturally speaking, my wood elves don't place a high premium on self-discipline and stillness of mind. A wood elf monk would be a real oddball, but that's standard fare for PCs.

edit: I see I've just basically restated [MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION] 's points. This is what happens when you start writing a post and come back to it a couple hours later.