Race Character Optimisation: Just Choose Dwarf

[Mand]

Is there a summary of the new stat options for old races?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, in the thread the guy posted yesterday on looking through his review copy of the Red Box.

Dwarves are retardedly strong fighters at this point, leaving every other race flat in the dust. Obviously there's going to be a rather large ripple effect from these racial stat bonus changes. It was a really stupid idea. Practically every racial feat is going to need errata to rejigger things back to sanity.

 

[MrMyth]

Yeah, in the thread the guy posted yesterday on looking through his review copy of the Red Box.

Dwarves are retardedly strong fighters at this point, leaving every other race flat in the dust. Obviously there's going to be a rather large ripple effect from these racial stat bonus changes. It was a really stupid idea. Practically every racial feat is going to need errata to rejigger things back to sanity.

Flat in the dust? Really?

They are very effective Fighters. And Elves are very effective Rangers. And Deva are very effective Swordmages. None of these mean that they are the only combinations played, nor are any of these combinations so effective that others are 'left in the dust' at the table.

The fact that Dwarves have +Str and a racial feat that profits them +1 damage over everyone else, and saves them a single feat... yeah, it's nice, but definitely not the end of the world.

 

[Klaus]

Dwarves are great, but if you wand to play a Slayer, a Thief, a Brawny Rogue, a Tempest, etc, you want a half-orc.

As for the +2 Dex/+2 Con halfling, that fits a hobbit-type like Sam, no?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dwarves are great, but if you wand to play a Slayer, a Thief, a Brawny Rogue, a Tempest, etc, you want a half-orc.

As for the +2 Dex/+2 Con halfling, that fits a hobbit-type like Sam, no?

Yeah, but you're missing the main point Klaus, they may be perfectly well balanced for Essentials classes, they are NOT at all well balanced for PHB1 etc classes.

The problem is by doing this WotC has created one clearly hands down superior choice for a number of classes. Yes, dwarves are absolutely significantly stronger fighters. Losing one point of speed is really trivial when you can have a STR/CON/WIS stat distribution as good as you can get now. It is trivial to get 18/16/14 and that still leaves you with 12/11/8 for your other 3 stats. With a 12 in DEX you can pretty easily make any needed paragon tier feat qualifications that a dwarf is likely to want, and you'll have very reasonable NADs. Toss on DWT and go hammer-happy and there is simply no other race that is going to touch you all around. Sure, you can make quite competent fighters of other races, but it is flat out second choice.

This is not only power creep, it is really much more significant pigeonholing. It really does seem like for many weapon using and divine classes dwarves just shot right to the top of the pack. I'm not sure yet what the exact implications are with elves, but they had significantly less specifically targeted racial feats, so I suspect it is a less significant change there.

I almost guarantee you, there are going to be a cascading series of feat errata over this. It was a stupid idea and doesn't improve the game one bit IMHO.

 

[MrMyth]

The problem is by doing this WotC has created one clearly hands down superior choice for a number of classes. Yes, dwarves are absolutely significantly stronger fighters. Losing one point of speed is really trivial when you can have a STR/CON/WIS stat distribution as good as you can get now. It is trivial to get 18/16/14 and that still leaves you with 12/11/8 for your other 3 stats. With a 12 in DEX you can pretty easily make any needed paragon tier feat qualifications that a dwarf is likely to want, and you'll have very reasonable NADs. Toss on DWT and go hammer-happy and there is simply no other race that is going to touch you all around. Sure, you can make quite competent fighters of other races, but it is flat out second choice.

Ok. So, we've got a level 1 Dwarf Fighter:
Str 18, Con 16, Dex 12, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 8
AC 17, Fort 16, Ref 11, Will 12; 31 hp, 14 Surges, Surge Value 7.
Feat: Dwarven Weapon Training
Melee Basic: +6 vs AC: 2d6 (Brutal 1) + 6 = ~8.6 damage vs AC 15.

Let's compare with, say... a level 1 Human Fighter:
Str 18, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 8
AC 17, Fort 17, Ref 12, Will 13; 29 hp, 13 Surges, Surge Value 7.
Feats: Weapon Proficiency (Fullblade), Expertise (Fullblade)
Melee Basic: +8 vs AC: 1d12+4 (High Crit) = ~8 damage vs AC 15.

So, looks like the dwarf comes out half a damage ahead, up one surge and 2 hp, but 1 less to all Non-AC Defenses. Dwarf has Minor Action Second Wind vs Human's extra At-Will or new Racial power to turn a failed attack/save into a success. Dwarf reduces forced movement, but human has better racial feats like Action Surge... or getting bonuses to saves.

Yeah, the dwarf is good at the job. But certainly not good *enough* to completely blow out all other choices. Its a very good build, absolutely, but there are already plenty of effective race-class combinations; that's inevitable in any system like this! And none of them, thus far, have broken the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

Generally, I don't, but for you sir, I shall indulge.

Do you have those repugnant, imbecilic half-breed half-orcs, which are obviously shots against the mingling of a better race with barbaric, inferior stock?

They are, but they're given a culture, a life, a whole world to them that makes them not simply "mongrel" children. This is what I'm complaining about, the Dwarven race is essentially founded, framed, and finished in stereotypes. While there are dozens of other races that get interesting, unique, and non-stereotype based backgrounds.

How about tieflings, which might easily be seen, with their red skin and infernal heritage, to be thinly veiled stereotypes of "non-European", non-Christians, who were typically cast as "devil worshipers" who would "consort with foul demons" instead of living "enlightened" Christian lives?

You could say that, but you'd be reaching. Most tieflings are portrayed as simply trying to make their way in the world, avoiding being killed on sight and making the best life they can while doing so. In more recent editions, some are even portrayed as good of heart. This is how they break those stereotypes, while it is nearly impossible to find a dwarf who does not love food, drink, stone, and hair, it is readily possible to find a tiefling who is just a normal person who got a band hand in the gene game.

Halflings went from being lower class British folk (hobbits) to being untrustworthy, thieving gypsy-folk. Who else really has the "wanderlust" but dirty gypsies?

Gnomes are clearly a more fey-themed dwarf, so do they get the axe, too?

To be honest, I don't may much attention to halflings and gnomes, so I don't really know how well they fit stereotypes.

OH, don't get me started on warforged! Why, they're obviously a lesser race. Do they actually have souls? And they were quite literally made for unquestioning servitude. I bet that if they were mostly wood and not metal, they'd be of a positively darker hue that a fine white oak. So many times it's found that warforged, when left to their own devices, simply have no idea what to do with themselves. It would be a much more proper arrangement to simply keep them in servitude, wouldn't you think?

My only grudge against warforged is my friend who was obsessed with them, so that's personal. I don't find warforged all that interesting is what it boils down to, they're really just an excuse to allow people to play robots in the classic fantasy setting.

Minotaurs? Unnatural union of man and beast! Why, they used to be monsters, only!

D&D keeps the classic minotaur myth alive within them, and adds well to their culture. Again, my complaint is only that Dwarvs aren't getting a fair deal when it comes to culture and lore.

Goliaths? Only uncivilized barbarians come from the mountain-folk!

Wilden? Tis devious fey magics that makes nature rise up against the people which rule over it!

Shardminds? Ok, you got me on that one. No clue there.

Changelings? Have you even read any of the folklore to the things named "changelings"? Hideous, murderous, evil things left in place of children stolen in the night!

Now you're just getting silly. I've read up on all of these except Goliaths, and they've all got some development to them, the final issue is simply that WoTC has made something unique with them, while they have not with Dwarves.

I can go on and on about pretty much any of the races in 4E, save honest humans, devas, and maybe dragonborn. So, really, why bother? The races these days are much more and better than the myths, legends, and stereotypes that spawned them and to hold those old myths, legends, and stereotypes against them when that is far removed from they have become, in the case of the Dwarves - strong, proud and noble (and often about the richest people around), is... well, it's a little nutty.

TL;DNR: Chill pill, dude. Not being around in a custom setting is one thing, but never around, ever? A bit over the top.

Again, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but I just don't think dwarves are being given a fair deal when it comes to their own culture, but they are unfortunately steeped in so much classic fantasy tradition, that EVERYONE feels that Dwarves have to be poor parodies of the "lesser europeans", means it isn't going anywhere for a while. And woe be on those who do try to break dwarves from their ale and meat and stone loving loves, for they are heathens!

Nutshell: All I want is for Dwarves to really get a culture of their own, not a mis-mosh of stereotypes turned into a history.

 

[Klaus]

Yeah, but you're missing the main point Klaus, they may be perfectly well balanced for Essentials classes, they are NOT at all well balanced for PHB1 etc classes.

The problem is by doing this WotC has created one clearly hands down superior choice for a number of classes. Yes, dwarves are absolutely significantly stronger fighters. Losing one point of speed is really trivial when you can have a STR/CON/WIS stat distribution as good as you can get now. It is trivial to get 18/16/14 and that still leaves you with 12/11/8 for your other 3 stats. With a 12 in DEX you can pretty easily make any needed paragon tier feat qualifications that a dwarf is likely to want, and you'll have very reasonable NADs. Toss on DWT and go hammer-happy and there is simply no other race that is going to touch you all around. Sure, you can make quite competent fighters of other races, but it is flat out second choice.

This is not only power creep, it is really much more significant pigeonholing. It really does seem like for many weapon using and divine classes dwarves just shot right to the top of the pack. I'm not sure yet what the exact implications are with elves, but they had significantly less specifically targeted racial feats, so I suspect it is a less significant change there.

I almost guarantee you, there are going to be a cascading series of feat errata over this. It was a stupid idea and doesn't improve the game one bit IMHO.

Dwarves are certainly good if you want a Str/Con class (battlerager or knight fighter) or a Con/Wis (... I'm drawing a blank here) class.

If you want a Str/Dex (tempest or slayer fighter, two-weapon ranger, brawny rogue, thief rogue) class, you want a half-orc.

If you want a Dex/Wis (archer ranger, seeker, monk) class, you want an elf.

So dwarves are *awesome* for certain builds, not so much for others.

 

[Aulirophile]

Ok. So, we've got a level 1 Dwarf Fighter:
Str 18, Con 16, Dex 12, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 8
AC 17, Fort 16, Ref 11, Will 12; 31 hp, 14 Surges, Surge Value 7.
Feat: Dwarven Weapon Training
Melee Basic: +6 vs AC: 2d6 (Brutal 1) + 6 = ~8.6 damage vs AC 15.

Let's compare with, say... a level 1 Human Fighter:
Str 18, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 8
AC 17, Fort 17, Ref 12, Will 13; 29 hp, 13 Surges, Surge Value 7.
Feats: Weapon Proficiency (Fullblade), Expertise (Fullblade)
Melee Basic: +8 vs AC: 1d12+4 (High Crit) = ~8 damage vs AC 15.

So, looks like the dwarf comes out half a damage ahead, up one surge and 2 hp, but 1 less to all Non-AC Defenses. Dwarf has Minor Action Second Wind vs Human's extra At-Will or new Racial power to turn a failed attack/save into a success. Dwarf reduces forced movement, but human has better racial feats like Action Surge... or getting bonuses to saves.

Yeah, the dwarf is good at the job. But certainly not good *enough* to completely blow out all other choices. Its a very good build, absolutely, but there are already plenty of effective race-class combinations; that's inevitable in any system like this! And none of them, thus far, have broken the game.

Hitting is, far away away, the most important thing in 4e. Not for the damage, but for the riders on nearly every power. Despite the fact that the Dwarf was -1 to hit over every other optimal choice for a Fighter (and debatebly a -2 since you wouldn't ideally use a +3 prof weapon as a Dwarf), they were still optimal for many builds.

This change takes the Dwarf from top tier Sky Blue, to Gold. There is no mechanical reason, ever, to play a Str/Con Warden who is not a Dwarf with this change. Ditto a lot of Fighter builds. Str/Con Runepriest, ditto. Dwarves have the best feat support of any race barring maybe, maybe, Eladrin.

 

[scylis]

Generally, I don't, but for you sir, I shall indulge.


They are, but they're given a culture, a life, a whole world to them that makes them not simply "mongrel" children. This is what I'm complaining about, the Dwarven race is essentially founded, framed, and finished in stereotypes. While there are dozens of other races that get interesting, unique, and non-stereotype based backgrounds.


You could say that, but you'd be reaching. Most tieflings are portrayed as simply trying to make their way in the world, avoiding being killed on sight and making the best life they can while doing so. In more recent editions, some are even portrayed as good of heart. This is how they break those stereotypes, while it is nearly impossible to find a dwarf who does not love food, drink, stone, and hair, it is readily possible to find a tiefling who is just a normal person who got a band hand in the gene game.


To be honest, I don't may much attention to halflings and gnomes, so I don't really know how well they fit stereotypes.


My only grudge against warforged is my friend who was obsessed with them, so that's personal. I don't find warforged all that interesting is what it boils down to, they're really just an excuse to allow people to play robots in the classic fantasy setting.


D&D keeps the classic minotaur myth alive within them, and adds well to their culture. Again, my complaint is only that Dwarvs aren't getting a fair deal when it comes to culture and lore.


Now you're just getting silly. I've read up on all of these except Goliaths, and they've all got some development to them, the final issue is simply that WoTC has made something unique with them, while they have not with Dwarves.



Again, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but I just don't think dwarves are being given a fair deal when it comes to their own culture, but they are unfortunately steeped in so much classic fantasy tradition, that EVERYONE feels that Dwarves have to be poor parodies of the "lesser europeans", means it isn't going anywhere for a while. And woe be on those who do try to break dwarves from their ale and meat and stone loving loves, for they are heathens!

Nutshell: All I want is for Dwarves to really get a culture of their own, not a mis-mosh of stereotypes turned into a history.

And I think that your insistence that they are wholly based on stereotypes is completely blinding you to the fact that dwarves have had, for pretty much their entire history in mythology, their own unique culture and identity. That you choose to not see it upsets me because I do, and I think it's a shame because I think dwarves are great.