538 blog talking about D&D race/class combo rarities

[Shipyard Locked]

So you know that blog 538, originally put together by Nate Silver? Got a lot of press during the last two elections?

Well they did an analysis of race/class combinations in D&D and the results are interesting:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/

 

[Ladybird]

Pleased to see Tieflings in the upper-half for Paladins. They're so good at it, both mechanically and narratively.

Dragonborn have also got really popular, really fast!

 

[TristramEvans]

Whats a Genasi?

 

[Raleel]

Whats a Genasi?

An elemental-human. Forgotten realms based

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Dragonborn have also got really popular, really fast!

I guess some serious pent up demand has finally been adequately met. I'm curious if it was a demand for lizard people or dragon people specifically.

The druid being in bottom place was a surprise to me. Wild shape is very powerful at the levels that matter, and my anecdotal sample of players has skewed heavily toward druids. Personally, it's a class I've long hated because I feel it does not 'fit' well alongside the multi-purpose cleric, especially when the last few editions have included the 'nature' domain for clerics. o_O

 

[Ladybird]

I guess some serious pent up demand has finally been adequately met. I'm curious if it was a demand for lizard people or dragon people specifically.

I think they hit a lot of "monster person" and "honourable alien warrior" archetypes; plus, dragons are inherently cool. And yes, playable half-orc characters have always been there, but the dragonborn don't carry the same "designated bad guy" baggage that they do; orcs are the generic fantasy opposition, even outside of D&D, and their description even has a "grudging acceptance" boxout to reflect that they're not really liked by many NPC societies.

 

[Raleel]

I think they hit a lot of "monster person" and "honourable alien warrior" archetypes; plus, dragons are inherently cool. And yes, playable half-orc characters have always been there, but the dragonborn don't carry the same "designated bad guy" baggage that they do; orcs are the generic fantasy opposition, even outside of D&D, and their description even has a "grudging acceptance" boxout to reflect that they're not really liked by many NPC societies.

Not to mention the inherent dumb guy baggage that was there from 1e. They decided on a more noble barbarian streak, which is fine and all, but I don’t know if it’s particularly creative.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Not to mention the inherent dumb guy baggage that was there from 1e. They decided on a more noble barbarian streak, which is fine and all, but I don’t know if it’s particularly creative.

Creative or not, half-orc barbarian clearly works for a very large number of players (judging from the chart). As I've been told many times, creativity appears to be often overrated in RPGs compared to intuitive familiarity.

 

[Mankcam]

That's probably true for an rpg like D&D, which is, by nature, based on it's own Gygaxian fantasy tropes.
This also demonstrates that in D&D it remains 'how good you are' in contrast to 'who you are' when it comes to characters, demonstrated by the emphasis on the class/race combination and the effect of such on capabilities. Actual characterisation feels like an after-thought, an 'add-on' to the character abilities, rather than the other way around. Feels like an mmo, although D&D 5E does tries to address this with Personality Traits, Flaws, etc but it still feels like all that isn't integral to the character and you could almost get away with writing nothing down there at all and still play.
However I guess still it must work quite well on the gamism level, otherwise people wouldn't keep flocking to it.

 

[The Butcher]

Not to mention the inherent dumb guy baggage that was there from 1e. They decided on a more noble barbarian streak, which is fine and all, but I don’t know if it’s particularly creative.

True, and when introduced (D&D4) dragonborn were pegged to one of the badass ancient empires (Arkhosia) of the Nentir Vale setting, so they also had the "ancient and noble" thing going on for them.

Come think of it, my two D&D4 PCs were dragonborn (a ranger and a paladin) so I guess I like the race better than I realized.

That's probably true for an rpg like D&D, which is, by nature, based on it's own Gygaxian fantasy tropes.
This also demonstrates that in D&D it remains 'how good you are' in contrast to 'who you are' when it comes to characters, demonstrated by the emphasis on the class/race combination and the effect of such on capabilities. Actual characterisation feels like an after-thought, an 'add-on' to the character abilities, rather than the other way around. Feels like an mmo, although D&D 5E does tries to address this with Personality Traits, Flaws, etc but it still feels like all that isn't integral to the character and you could almost get away with writing nothing down there at all and still play.
However I guess still it must work quite well on the gamism level, otherwise people wouldn't keep flocking to it.

You realize these things are less about system and more about play style, right?

 

[Ladybird]

That's probably true for an rpg like D&D, which is, by nature, based on it's own Gygaxian fantasy tropes.
This also demonstrates that in D&D it remains 'how good you are' in contrast to 'who you are' when it comes to characters, demonstrated by the emphasis on the class/race combination and the effect of such on capabilities. Actual characterisation feels like an after-thought, an 'add-on' to the character abilities, rather than the other way around. Feels like an mmo, although D&D 5E does tries to address this with Personality Traits, Flaws, etc but it still feels like all that isn't integral to the character and you could almost get away with writing nothing down there at all and still play.

This is purely an automated survey about race / class combos though, not about the actual personality and characterisation of these characters; of course it isn't going to cover the RP side, there wasn't even an attempt to.

And as has been said so many times before... you can't force players to roleplay if they don't want to, and you can't stop them from roleplaying if they really want to. There's plenty of RP opportunity in D&D5; just as much as any other modern RPG, really.

Not to mention the inherent dumb guy baggage that was there from 1e. They decided on a more noble barbarian streak, which is fine and all, but I don’t know if it’s particularly creative.

I like that they've got rid of racial attribute penalties, so you can do race/class pairs that shouldn't really work, and you're just less good rather than rubbish. A half-orc wizard isn't going to be the best wizard in the world, but they're going to be tougher than most other wizards, and that's an advantage all on it's own.

Creative or not, half-orc barbarian clearly works for a very large number of players (judging from the chart). As I've been told many times, creativity appears to be often overrated in RPGs compared to intuitive familiarity.

Yeah, as long as people are playing a character they like, it's all good.

 

[Mankcam]

This is purely an automated survey about race / class combos though, not about the actual personality and characterisation of these characters; of course it isn't going to cover the RP side, there wasn't even an attempt to.

And as has been said so many times before... you can't force players to roleplay if they don't want to, and you can't stop them from roleplaying if they really want to. There's plenty of RP opportunity in D&D5; just as much as any other modern RPG, really.

I was more remarking on the emphasis, but considering this study was focusing purely on the class/race combo anyway... so yeah, definately my bad this time, I should of gathered my thoughts before shooting that post off this morning

 

[Mankcam]

You realize these things are less about system and more about play style, right?

Yep of course. And yeah...my bad :-)

 

[opaopajr]

In honor of the most popular combination, and to oppress others :p:rolleyes:, I shall make another Human Fighter.

Poh'pyū•lar (as the "Wicked" broadway song)
Human Soldier Fighter
Lv. 1. AL: LG. PB: +2.
HD: d10. HP: 12. AC: 16 (18 w/ shield)

STR 14, DEX 14, CON 14, INT 11, WIS 14, CHA 14

Saves: STR, CON.
Skill: Athletics +4, Insight +4, Intimidation +4, Perception +4.
Tools: Game Set, Vehicle (Land).
Armor: light, medium, heavy, shields.
Weapon: simple, martial.

Lang: Common, +1 lang.

Traits & Features:
Fighting Style - 2 Weapon Style.
Second Wind.

Background - Soldier
Feature: Old Military Contacts
Personality: Gentle Giant. Ideal: Protector. Bond: Family & Oaths. Flaw: Alcoholism. ;)

Chain Mail, Shield, Whip, Handaxe x2, explorer's pack, rank insignia, trophy, dice set, common clothes, belt pouch - 7gp, Javelin x6.

 

[CRKrueger]

you can't stop them from roleplaying if they really want to.

Sure you can. Every time you engage with an OOC mechanic that requires a choice that the character doesn't know exists, let alone is capable of, you, by definition, stop roleplaying that character to make that choice as a player. After the choice is made, you can go right back to roleplaying, but you do stop.

When such a choice is presented as a possibility with every roll, if not mandated with every roll, then you're talking about a roleplaying game that sure wants you to do a lot of non-roleplaying.

Can people still enjoy themselves? Of course. One of the reasons you play those systems is because you want to add that additional layer to the roleplaying, so the adding of it, and the moving back and forth between IC and OOC is one of the attractions of that system. You're trading roleplaying and getting something else you want in return.

Mankcam, don't be so quick to mea culpa. Sure the article was just about data, and doesn't speak to how people are playing those characters, but people have to face the fact that 5e has a lot of 4e under the hood, and 4e PCs are builds of special powers on timers, the MMO comparison is apt, even if 5e trimmed back a ton of the dissociated tactical decisions from 4e.

I'd like to give 5e props for returning the plain ol' Human Fighter to prominence, but with 6 freak races on top of the demi-humans, and 5 caster classes, the special snowflake vote got fragmented.

 

[Nick J]

I'm just impressed the number one option wasn't "Dark Elf Ranger with dual-wielded scimitars and pet panther."

 

[Shipyard Locked]

but people have to face the fact that 5e has a lot of 4e under the hood, and 4e PCs are builds of special powers on timers, the MMO comparison is apt, even if 5e trimmed back a ton of the dissociated tactical decisions from 4e.

Shhh you fool! Don't draw attention to WotC's sleight of hand! It Saved The HobbyTM!

 

[Ladybird]

Mankcam, don't be so quick to mea culpa. Sure the article was just about data, and doesn't speak to how people are playing those characters, but people have to face the fact that 5e has a lot of 4e under the hood, and 4e PCs are builds of special powers on timers, the MMO comparison is apt, even if 5e trimmed back a ton of the dissociated tactical decisions from 4e.

And Old Geezer has discussed how, in the olden days, characters were viewed more like pawns or playing pieces than actual characters in the game world. This is just the age-old "your game isn't real roleplaying, it has too many rules for combat" argument; and while you're not entirely wrong about modern D&D characters still operating just fine if you ignore the RP side of the game, I think allowing diverse play styles like that is part of why D&D5 is so easy to get into and so popular.

I do agree about 5e sharing a lot of mechanics from 4e... but the non-combat stuff in 4e, the simplified skills system, proficiency bonuses, classes that are designed to work together and make a cohesive group, those were good mechanics that worked. No sense in throwing everything away.

I'd like to give 5e props for returning the plain ol' Human Fighter to prominence, but with 6 freak races on top of the demi-humans, and 5 caster classes, the special snowflake vote got fragmented.

4e players really liked their Fighter too, and how they could dominate and control a battlefield, even if they weren't necessarily the best for raw damage.
But I was chatting with some 5e players a few nights ago, and one of them was very excited about getting to play a Tabaxi Bardlock (Multiclassing Bard and Warlock) in an upcoming campaign, so, that's got to be worth a few snowflake points, amirite? I tried to explain to her how the correct choice of class is Paladin, always, for everything, but she said she left that sort of thing to players who were better at roleplaying it. I chose to take that as a compliment, but she may just have thought I looked like the type to have a stick up my ass :p

 

[The Butcher]

I'd like to give 5e props for returning the plain ol' Human Fighter to prominence, but with 6 freak races on top of the demi-humans, and 5 caster classes, the special snowflake vote got fragmented.

U crazy bro? The D&D4 Fighter was the best friggin’ class in the friggin’ game. The Battlerager Fighter was a thing of beauty.

 

[Akrasia]

I'm surprised that the druid is the least favourite class. The druid is my 2nd favourite class (at least in any edition I've played), and seems quite powerful in 5e.

At least the sorcerer is the 2nd least favourite class! (Sorcerers: wizards for lazy slugs.)

 

[CRKrueger]

This is just the age-old "your game isn't real roleplaying, it has too many rules for combat" argument

Not even remotely close to the same thing at all, actually. ;) It's an observation on how the mechanics themselves work, and what the similarities/inspirations are, not necessarily how you use them.

while you're not entirely wrong about modern D&D characters still operating just fine if you ignore the RP side of the game, I think allowing diverse play styles like that is part of why D&D5 is so easy to get into and so popular.

Of course. Old D&D characters operated just fine if you ignore the RP side of the game too. Roleplaying is a mental state, there is no such thing as an IC roleplaying mechanic. Even personality mechanics that force roleplaying a certain way, are inherently OOC as they are essentially "stage directions" to the player. Any traditional RPG can be used to roleplay...or not, freely. It's only when you start adding mechanics to do something else besides be a verisimilitude engine that you get mechanics that try and force you to do something that *isn't* roleplaying.

That's the major difference between 4e and 5e. They removed as much as possible, the dissociated tactical boardgame play allowing you to ignore those OOC decisions and not present as much of a barrier to IC roleplay.

I do agree about 5e sharing a lot of mechanics from 4e... but the non-combat stuff in 4e, the simplified skills system, proficiency bonuses, classes that are designed to work together and make a cohesive group, those were good mechanics that worked. No sense in throwing everything away.

Why not? WotC fails to understand that they fundamentally altered the core assumptions and gameplay of D&D in 3rd edition, and have been trying to fix it ever since, and failing miserably. If 4th hadn't existed, and WotC went from 3rd to 5th, the charges of "not-D&D", "MMO-on-paper", etc would have been there as well. 4e was so unbelievably aberrant, that they only had to trim it back some to get people thinking 5e was a return to the roots of D&D, a concept that is pretty laughable I think.

Tabaxi Bardlock

Case in point.

 

[CRKrueger]

U crazy bro? The D&D4 Fighter was the best friggin’ class in the friggin’ game. The Battlerager Fighter was a thing of beauty.

Yeah, and my Warrior in WoW is my favorite character too (athough Paladin and Druid are cool), what's your point?

Plus, I said Human FIghter, not Battleborn Under a Silver Moon Half-Dwarf Half-Elder God. ;)

 

[Akrasia]

If 4th hadn't existed, and WotC went from 3rd to 5th, the charges of "not-D&D", "MMO-on-paper", etc would have been there as well. 4e was so unbelievably aberrant, that they only had to trim it back some to get people thinking 5e was a return to the roots of D&D, a concept that is pretty laughable I think.

I'm not so sure about this. I ignored 4e completely (never played it; only read halfway through the PHB before abandoning it). But I find 5e to be closer to AD&D -- or at least much easier to play in an "AD&D-style" -- than 3e.

I came to loathe 3e, especially as a DM. 5e, in contrast, is pretty fast and easy to run. (Not as fast and easy as AD&D or OD&D, but far more so than 3e.)

Sure, 5e is definitely not AD&D or OD&D. It's not an 'old school' game. But it's closer -- or at least there fewer barriers to running it in an 'old school' way --than 3e.

 

[CRKrueger]

I'm not so sure about this. I ignored 4e completely (never played it; only read halfway through the PHB before abandoning it). But I find 5e to be closer to AD&D -- or at least much easier to play in an "AD&D-style" -- than 3e.

I came to loathe 3e, especially as a DM. 5e, in contrast, is pretty fast and easy to run. (Not as fast and easy as AD&D or OD&D, but far more so than 3e.)

Sure, 5e is definitely not AD&D or OD&D. It's not an 'old school' game. But it's closer -- or at least there fewer barriers to running it in an 'old school' way --than 3e.

Hmm. I'll have to disagree, my brother. Just because it's easier and faster to run doesn't make 5e closer to AD&D or B/X any more than it makes 5e closer to Tunnels & Trolls or Traveller. All WotC D&D is similar in that making a PC is essentially a deck-building exercise, with widgets and combos. Very cRPG/MMO inspired as opposed to classic TSR D&D.

3e was pretty divergent, and changed many default setting assumptions, but I'd argue 5e does just as much, if not more, it's just a hell of a lot easier to run than 3e and a lot better for IC roleplaying and campaigning than 4e.

5e is a good game, it's just terrible as a system for all currently existing D&D settings (except maybe Dark Sun or Eberron). Scarred Lands, or Super Spiky Bitz Warhammer/AoS it would kick ass.

Of course AiME shows the engine can be taken off crystal meth and made to run, it just requires you to come up with a completely new set of widgets to build your classes with.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

All WotC D&D is similar in that making a PC is essentially a deck-building exercise, with widgets and combos. Very cRPG/MMO inspired as opposed to classic TSR D&D.

Pre-WotC D&D = Final Fantasy 4
Post-WotC D&D = Final Fantasy 5

5e is a good game, it's just terrible as a system for all currently existing D&D settings...

Oh? This sounds like you've encountered some very specific issues. Could you elaborate?

Is it the short/long rest cycle and number of hit points?

 

[Baulderstone]

The race/class min/max model is one of the things that pushed me back to using B/X as my D&D baseline. You simply pick the class you want to play rather than looking for that sweet combo. There are plenty of additional variants on racial classes to provide options for people that don't want all elves to have the same class. Those options are usually more flavorful too. The Dwarven Craftpriest class from ACKS gives dwarves more color than just having them be clerics, just like humans.

 

[Voros]

I skipped 3e and 4e, grew up with 1e and 2e and don't see how 5e is somehow 'fundamentally' different' than those editions. Hell the difference between B/X and BECMI and other editions is regularly overstated even though those are probably my favourite editions. It all comes down to some mechanical differences in character options that nerds love to obsess, trainspot and argue over but ultimately the core of the game is the same.

I was surprised to see the Half-Elf Bard, don't recall anyone playing that combo.

 

[Raleel]

I skipped 3e and 4e, grew up with 1e and 2e and don't see how 5e is somehow 'fundamentally' different' than those editions. Hell the difference between B/X and BECMI and other editions is regularly overstated even though those are probably my favourite editions. It all comes down to some mechanical differences in character options that nerds love to obsess, trainspot and argue over but ultimately the core of the game is the same.

I was surprised to see the Half-Elf Bard, don't recall anyone playing that combo.

Half elf bard is strong because of a charisma mod and high flexibility. It’s been a thing since Dragonlance, IIRC.

 

[Akrasia]

Hmm. I'll have to disagree, my brother. Just because it's easier and faster to run doesn't make 5e closer to AD&D or B/X any more than it makes 5e closer to Tunnels & Trolls or Traveller. All WotC D&D is similar in that making a PC is essentially a deck-building exercise, with widgets and combos. Very cRPG/MMO inspired as opposed to classic TSR D&D.

3e was pretty divergent, and changed many default setting assumptions, but I'd argue 5e does just as much, if not more, it's just a hell of a lot easier to run than 3e and a lot better for IC roleplaying and campaigning than 4e...

My point wasn't that 5e is "close" to AD&D (or any version of TSR D&D), but simply "closer" than 3e (in the sense that one can run 5e in a style similar to AD&D, if one wants to, without too many problems).

I disagree that 5e is "further" from AD&D than 3e. As I said, I skipped 4e entirely, and so do not have experience with that "outlier". But in practice -- having run 3e, 5e, and of course a lot of AD&D and TSR D&D (and related 'clones') -- 5e certainly feels less divergent from TSR D&D than 3e did.

Also, I'm not sure about the "deck-building exercise" claim. Players have to make a few key choices as their characters develop in 5e, but there is nothing like the 3e "feat chains" and "prestige classes". In fact, 5e's elimination of feats from the core system is one of the things that made me decide to give it shot.

 

[The Butcher]

Yeah, and my Warrior in WoW is my favorite character too (athough Paladin and Druid are cool), what's your point?

Plus, I said Human FIghter, not Battleborn Under a Silver Moon Half-Dwarf Half-Elder God. ;)

Krugs. I’m sorry. But it looks like your D&D5 hate-boner is making you hold it to an unattainable standard of old-schoolness. And to be honest, the second paragraph suggests that you know very little about D&D4.

Character optimization is a thing, to some degree, in every trad RPG. (Tell me how people picked class in AD&D1 without looking at their ability scores. Or how the Magic-User PC who never, ever bothered memorizing sleep or magic missile. Go on, I’m waiting.)

The degree to which mechanical optimization is important to D&D5 actual
play is lesser than any previous WotC edition, if still greater than just about every TSR edition (except maybe Skills & Powers).

Besides, the idea that any degree of character optimization above a certain rhetorically convenient threshold is antithetical to roleplaying is a metric ton of excluded middle bullshit.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, it’s up to the players to make characters that fit the GM’s world, and up to the GM to sustain a world that players are interested enough to create characters for.

Creating and developing your character to be effective at one thing doesn’t mean you are not interested in roleplaying. Even if this one thing is combat.

Hack & slash gaming has been a reality since the dawn of the hobby. Some systems cater to this playstyle more than others — D&D4 caters to it a lot. But to suggest that D&D5 is even close to its predecessor strikes me as ill-informed, to say the least, on either or both editions.

 

[CRKrueger]

Krugs. I’m sorry. But it looks like your D&D5 hate-boner is making you hold it to an unattainable standard of old-schoolness. And to be honest, the second paragraph suggests that you know very little about D&D4.

Which paragraph, the one about dissociated tactical maneuvers? You're challenging that?

Character optimization is a thing, to some degree, in every trad RPG. (Tell me how people picked class in AD&D1 without looking at their ability scores. Or how the Magic-User PC who never, ever bothered memorizing sleep or magic missile. Go on, I’m waiting.)

Oh please. A greatsword does more damage than a dagger, so that's the same as Pun-Pun? Come on. Even with kits and Skillz & Powaz, true MMO style build culture was introduced with WotC.

The degree to which mechanical optimization is important to D&D5 actual play is lesser than any previous WotC edition, if still greater than just about every TSR edition (except maybe Skills & Powers).

You're basically saying what I did. It's closer, but it's still deck building by selecting slotted powers as you level.

Besides, the idea that any degree of character optimization above a certain rhetorically convenient threshold is antithetical to roleplaying is a metric ton of excluded middle bullshit.

How fortunate for me I didn't say that, then. It's the dissociated nature of 4e that is antithetical to roleplaying, not the charop.

But to suggest that D&D5 is even close to its predecessor strikes me as ill-informed, to say the least, on either or both editions.

Are you kidding? Short/Long rests by themselves mark 5e as a 4e variant, forget anything else I can come up with.

 

[Voros]

Half elf bard is strong because of a charisma mod and high flexibility. It’s been a thing since Dragonlance, IIRC.

Ah got it. Who is the Half-Elf Bard in Dragonlance? Isn't Tanis a Ranger?

 

[Raleel]

Ah got it. Who is the Half-Elf Bard in Dragonlance? Isn't Tanis a Ranger?

you are probably right, and I am probably wrong. it's been a long time. It might have been me remembering that in 1e they could become bards or something.

In any event, they've been popular as bards for a while. For a while it was because they were the only ones that got a charisma bonus (probably early 3e days) I think. Too many editions in my head now.

 

[Baulderstone]

you are probably right, and I am probably wrong. it's been a long time. It might have been me remembering that in 1e they could become bards or something.

In any event, they've been popular as bards for a while. For a while it was because they were the only ones that got a charisma bonus (probably early 3e days) I think. Too many editions in my head now.

I seem to recall 3E was when they picked up the Charisma bonus. I remember online sniping about how their flavor text was all about being outcasts in both the human and elven worlds, but mechanically, they had high Charisma, so they were the most liked of all races.

 

[Akrasia]

It might have been me remembering that in 1e they could become bards or something.

In both 1e and 2e half-elves were the only race other than humans that could become bards. Hence if one wanted to play a bard, half-elf was an attractive option (given its special abilities).

I guess that connection was carried over (in various ways) to later editions.

 

[The Butcher]

Which paragraph, the one about dissociated tactical maneuvers? You're challenging that?

I'm referring to this exchange:

U crazy bro? The D&D4 Fighter was the best friggin’ class in the friggin’ game. The Battlerager Fighter was a thing of beauty.

Plus, I said Human FIghter, not Battleborn Under a Silver Moon Half-Dwarf Half-Elder God. ;)

The Battlerager Fighter was a Fighter subclass introduced in Martial Power and absolutely playable as a Human. My point is that your dismissal suggests to me that you disn't read or play a lot of D&D4.

Oh please. A greatsword does more damage than a dagger, so that's the same as Pun-Pun? Come on. Even with kits and Skillz & Powaz, true MMO style build culture was introduced with WotC.

I firmly believe it's a difference in degree rather than kind, and one has to consider that the extensive and intricate character development mechanics introduced by D&D3 (some of which were presaged in some form by S&P) thrived because they found fertile ground in a preexisting hack-and-slash subculture within D&D fandom.

You're basically saying what I did. It's closer, but it's still deck building by selecting slotted powers as you level.

"Selecting slotted powers as you level" is definitely a centerpiece of D&D4 play. D&D5, not so much outside of a couple of classes — most characters just pick a subclass and add predetermined abilities as they level up, like God and E. Gary Gygax intended. ;)

How fortunate for me I didn't say that, then. It's the dissociated nature of 4e that is antithetical to roleplaying, not the charop.

Care to elaborate? Because the only "dissociated mechanic" in D&D4 that bothered us was the existence daily and encounter martial powers. (Which might have been easily fixed if you used a fatigue point system and pegged a fatigue point price to each maneuver. Ah well.)

Are you kidding? Short/Long rests by themselves mark 5e as a 4e variant, forget anything else I can come up with.

That's one mechanic. Really? Then I suppose the wild die pegs Savage Worlds as a WEG D6 variant... :o

 

[CRKrueger]

The Battlerager Fighter was a Fighter subclass introduced in Martial Power and absolutely playable as a Human. My point is that your dismissal suggests to me that you disn't read or play a lot of D&D4.

Nah, just that I'm familiar with racial loadouts in 3e and 4e. You might have played a human fighter (although didn't you say Dragonborn somewhere), but Humans not having special abilities of their own to synergize through emergent complexity weren't usually considered favored races with the craziest power builds, hence my making fun of the WotC racial creep.

I firmly believe it's a difference in degree rather than kind, and one has to consider that the extensive and intricate character development mechanics introduced by D&D3 (some of which were presaged in some form by S&P) thrived because they found fertile ground in a preexisting hack-and-slash subculture within D&D fandom.

Were there always munchkins? Yeah. Sometimes however, the sheer scale is so different that it really becomes a different thing. It's like calling a Tsunami "moist" or calling the Holocaust "murder". It could be considered technically correct, but is so ridiculously understated that you realize choosing a longsword and a complete 20-level build planned before the character starts the game...are not the same thing at all.

"Selecting slotted powers as you level" is definitely a centerpiece of D&D4 play. D&D5, not so much outside of a couple of classes — most characters just pick a subclass and add predetermined abilities as they level up, like God and E. Gary Gygax intended. ;)

Umm, every caster counts since now with cantrips, those spells ARE special abilities. In fact every class counts since the New Feats are much more powerful than the old.

Care to elaborate? Because the only "dissociated mechanic" in D&D4 that bothered us was the existence daily and encounter martial powers. (Which might have been easily fixed if you used a fatigue point system and pegged a fatigue point price to each maneuver. Ah well.)

Aw man, read the Alexandrian essay. I'll go torrent up a copy if you want specific examples, I deleted it off my hard drive after the first couple dozen I came across. But yeah, AEDU for non-magical abilities, as well as weaboo fightan magic and purely tactical boardgame decisions were the mainstay of the problem.

That's one mechanic. Really? Then I suppose the wild die pegs Savage Worlds as a WEG D6 variant... :eek:

Other than those being two completely different game systems from different companies with different mechanics as opposed to successive editions of the same game from the same company with similar mechanics...great analogy, by that I mean nearly the worst one ever.

 

[opaopajr]

Huh, of the Base D&D four, the Halflings are low represented in all but rogues! Time for rectitution of systemic injustice! :mad: (j/k:p)
We'll start easy with a wizard with rogue tendencies...

Glinty-eye Brokennose, a.k.a. "Fairstaff Loreseller"
Halfling Wizard Charlatan
Lv. 1. AL: CN. PB: +2.
HD: d6. HP: 8. AC: 12

STR 8, DEX 14, CON 14, INT 14, WIS 12, CHA 14

Saves: INT, WIS.
Skill: Deception +4, History +4, Insight +3, Sleight of Hand +4.
Tools: Disguise kit, Forgery kit.
Armor: none.
Weapon: dagger, dart, lt. crossbow, q-staff, sling.
Lang: Common, Halfling.

Traits & Features:
Halfling
Lucky - reroll 1s on d20 rolls.
Brave - Adv vs. frightened.
Nimble - move through larger creatures' spaces.
Stout - Adv vs. poison, & Poison Resistance.

Charlatan
Copyist - can forge documents if have example copy.

Wizard
Spell Recovery - 1/2 Lvl (min 1) spell slots per Short Rest (1/day).
Spell Casting
Rituals
Spell Focus

Spells - Arcane
Slots: at-will/2. Attack: +4. Save: 12. Cantrips: 3.
Cantrips: Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation.
First: Charm Person, Comprehend Language, Detect Magic, Disguise Self, Identify, Sleep.

Background - Charlatan
Feature: Alias - "Fairstaff Loreseller"
Personality: Bon Vivant. Ideal: Luxury. Bond: Safety of Civilization. Flaw: Merciful.

Gear: (qkst) Quarterstaff, Component Pouch, Scholar's Pack, Spellbook. (bkrd) Disguise Kit, Inks, Fine Clothes, Belt Pouch. (buy) Darts, Sling, Forgery Kit, cozy stuff & props, etc.

 

[Raleel]

Those damn stat modifiers. It’s not like they can’t be overcome, but they make your character seem less than good. Funny enough, in 5e, it is slightly more exaggerated because a +1 ends up being more powerful due to the lack of Plus ones otherwise. Definitely a thing I prefer in classic fantasy, where there are a few more avenues to success in weapon combat, and stats are overcome more easily with training.

 

[Baulderstone]

Those damn stat modifiers. It’s not like they can’t be overcome, but they make your character seem less than good. Funny enough, in 5e, it is slightly more exaggerated because a +1 ends up being more powerful due to the lack of Plus ones otherwise. Definitely a thing I prefer in classic fantasy, where there are a few more avenues to success in weapon combat, and stats are overcome more easily with training.

I think stat modifiers also became a bigger deal when the game became more focused on challenge ratings and adventure paths. In 3E, your skills could keep going up every level, but you challenges went up at the same rate, meaning a weak stat modifier could effectively drag you down your whole career.