D&D 4E 4E Races, Post-Essentials: Flexibility, You Say?

[BobTheNob]

They get no extra stat bonus, but they still get +1 and, arguably, an incredibly strong encounter racial. +4 to an attack or save you failed is pretty good and reason enough for me to still play a human. Especially since it means I will RARELY miss with a daily unless it's my second one in the encounter.

Dont forget, it states that the +4 is after you know your roll. So you can say "I missed with a daily on a 9! Well, lets that in to a hit shall we".

Adding a +4 *after* the fact. This means you add the bonus once you have a pretty good idea that its going to help, rather than having to speculate that you might need it. That is sensationally good.

Mind you, isnt that just a re-hash of "memory of a thousand lifetimes", but less variable?

 

[BASHMAN]

Now it seems as if Dwarves will be the uber-fighter race. Not only do they take a feat that gives them proficiency w/ crag-hammers and war-axes and +2 damage with them, they also get a STR bonus!

Of course, I suppose the fix will be "any dwarven feats that are from 4e cannot be used with Essentials dwarves"... but if that is the case, then why do they keep saying " you can still use all your 4e stuff.. this isn't 4.5..." I'd agree that it isn't 4.5, if only to add "it's 5.0". And to me, that actually isn't bad. I *like* these changes, it might even get me playing DnD again.

 

[malcolm_n]

similar, but there's a 50% chance your roll will be worse with the deva racial compared; and after a +4, anything above becomes only marginally better.

Yes, sorry I meant to wrap that (you failed) into the whole thing, not just the save. And I dare say I too doubt they lose the bonus to their NADs. (yeah, old joke is old, but still funny)

 

[ourchair]

I think the OP may have a point. More flexibility is also less differentiation. Flexibility and differentiation are both good.

Note that flexibility was supposed to be the human's big selling point, so making everyone else more flexible makes the human less unique, too.

Tony's hit the nail right on the head by describing it exactly how I wanted to. Races now have more options for attribute synergizing with classes, but are now less distinct from one another (before racial feats).

While I think an interesting character concepts should come first, I do think it does greatly benefit the different PC races if they do get more choices in ability score bonuses.

Like for example I hope that Tieflings are now +2 Cha, +2 Int/Dex because it fits better with the race's theme that they'd be good at being Rogues which also fits with history from before (they were always good at being Rogues), along with all the other classes they're already good at being.

The way I see it, a Tiefling is fine as a rogue since they can always be smart, charismatic rogues and still spend their remaining points on Dexterity.

I know this is weird, but I've never found it cost prohibitive to point buy your primary stat if you're already shored up in other areas by your racial bonuses. A lot of your character is how you play, and how your DM responds, not how powerful it is. I've seen characters with all 16s show up the guys who focused everything on their attack and defense stats.

I completely agree. I spoke with my DM earlier, and our conclusion was really that the initial 4E races did a great job of giving each race a distinct flavor while still offering some flexibility, but this really change detracts from the former to benefit the latter where it just doesn't seem necessary. To say that every race is uncommonly good at half of anything that a character can do just seems bland.

Exactly.

I don't think thing Tieflings need that extra DEX bonus to support their roguish background, as their flavor is mechanically supported by being smart (bonuses to History, Religion) and possessing forceful personalities (Artful Dodger build, increased Will, plus to Intimidate, Diplomacy) and having a racial bonus to Stealth and Bluff.

They are already uncommonly good at being rogues without needing something as boringly potent as a DEX bonus.

I'm starting to get the feeling that, while Essentials might make the game arguably worse, mechanically - in terms of consistency, playability, balance, etc - it could still very well succeed in it's more pressing marketing goals: brining in some new and lapsed players without alienating too many existing fans. Sometimes in life, less is more, and sometimes in marketing, worse is better.

Yeah, I was looking forward to Essentials, still am, but some of the minor tweaks irk me now not on a 'personal' level so much as a 'they didn't HAVE to'. The new simplified build structures are great things already for groups looking to recruit more players and DMs, they don't need to put an ass load of power gaming candy in there.

 

[ourchair]

The Mouseferatu fallacy seems that adding a choice to stat bonuses will increase pigeonholing. Pigeonholing, aka, choosing class, then race off of Stat bonuses is a disease of the player, not the system. This will increase diversity in races being played by each class, and classes by each race.

That is actually the underlying subtext of my OP.

I'm not trying to say that the races are more pigeonholed, but rather, players now possess the kind of broad freedom that enables the pigeonholing in the first place.

I guess it's kind of a two-way proposition: imaginative players can now worry LESS about nerfing themselves while developing character concepts that did not originally fit perfectly in the previous mechanics, while min-maxers worry less about how the stat bonuses may impede their optimization efforts.

Let me come at the issue from a slightly different angle.

If a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls becomes significant enough to be noticeable in actual play, then the DM needs to do a better job.

YES.

I know it sounds, ridiculous, but if your players are on good terms with their dice, then the difference between a monster with AC 21 and AC 22 is almost negligible. My group consists mostly of players who are really good at rolling, so I don't see what the big deal is over that +1 to hit.

Even then, whatever deficiences in attack bonus the PCs have, they make up with in combat synergy (acquiring CA, giving leader style buffs, imposing conditions on monsters, applying mark penalties, etc.) I just saw my other Lvl 5 6-PC group rack up a +10 to hit last night on a creature with -2 defenses.

 

[The Human Target]

I'm pro totally ditching racial ability bonuses all together, so I have no problem with it.

 

[Stalker0]

And still at the heart of the problem lies the "I lose 10% damage" mentality...

hitting a little less hard and hitting a little less often is only a problem when monster hp is very high and damage of monsters quitelow... the new damage and monster design guidelines alone should make having a 16 post racial much less dramatic, as encounter will now be filled with a little lower level monsters.

To me the problem is not solely damage in 4e, the problem is two fold.

1) Damage is based on expended resources
2) Conditions are based on attack rolls.

To expand on this.

For number 1, a lot of damage is generated by the 2[w],3[w], to X[w]s of encounter and daily powers...which generally require you to hit to deal that damage. If you miss....that damage is gone for the fight.

In 3.5 if the figher misses with his opening attack....he simply swings again with a swing that is just as powerful. A 4e fighter's damage tends to decrease with combat rounds...and missing just aggravates that.


For number 2, most powers do a special effect on a hit...which is probably the biggest factor. Sure the damage is nice, but the blinding, stunning, knocking him back 10 squares and lighthing him on fire is what I'm going for.

And for the vast majority of all that greatness....requires a to hit roll.


I would definitely argue the degrees people feel is necessary to optimize the attack stat...but I do feel there is more pressure to do so in 4e than there was in 3e.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I don't really have a problem with the 2 stat option. But for story purposes, whilst I like it that certain races suit certain classes, but are OK at others too, I also like the they rarely make good other classes.

If I were to bring in the option of a +2 to any of two stats, I think I will bring back a -2 penalty too. I would most likley make this -2 to a choice of 2 stats too.

Seems dwarf is being used a lot as an eg - I like the idea of grumpy, gruff dwarves with lower Cha. Also like that they are not known for their wizardry or their nimbleness. I would probably go with a -2 to DEX/CHA, as their ingenuity seems to suggest that Int would not be a good option.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is actually the underlying subtext of my OP.

I'm not trying to say that the races are more pigeonholed, but rather, players now possess the kind of broad freedom that enables the pigeonholing in the first place.

I guess it's kind of a two-way proposition: imaginative players can now worry LESS about nerfing themselves while developing character concepts that did not originally fit perfectly in the previous mechanics, while min-maxers worry less about how the stat bonuses may impede their optimization efforts.

YES.

I know it sounds, ridiculous, but if your players are on good terms with their dice, then the difference between a monster with AC 21 and AC 22 is almost negligible. My group consists mostly of players who are really good at rolling, so I don't see what the big deal is over that +1 to hit.

Even then, whatever deficiences in attack bonus the PCs have, they make up with in combat synergy (acquiring CA, giving leader style buffs, imposing conditions on monsters, applying mark penalties, etc.) I just saw my other Lvl 5 6-PC group rack up a +10 to hit last night on a creature with -2 defenses.

Ummmmm, if you're not getting a +10 in that situation there's something seriously wrong. A level 5 fighter with 18 STR, a +3 prof weapon, and Expertise is ALREADY at +9, and almost surely has a +1 weapon for +10 BEFORE any situational bonuses. The same goes for an 18 DEX rogue. Even assuming you DON'T take Expertise (you don't really need it at this point) you're talking a baseline +9 for fighters and rogues, and a baseline +8 for other weapon users with EITHER a +3 weapon OR Expertise. So throw in a -2 to enemy defenses and it would be pretty hard to NOT have a +10 with most any weapon using character. Toss in CA from flanking as a possibility and you're way there.

The thing that people don't get about a +1 to-hit (in particular) is you don't get to high accuracy with some one big thing. It is a process of stacking up several bonuses together to add up to a high to-hit. You can say "Oh, you'll never miss that single +1" but actually it just isn't true. You will miss it. If you don't have it you'll need to be scraping it up somewhere else, and in the case of the dwarf in particular when using an axe there aren't a lot of places to get it from, so the +2 STR is VERY welcome and really does contribute to the desirability of the dwarf as a fighter.

I think racial bumps are OK, and I'd be happy with the choice of second stat bump, except it isn't really needed and it is hard to justify when it is going to have to inevitably lead to a whole bunch of errata to racial feats. If there are iconic class choices that seem to be sub-optimal when they shouldn't be I'd argue instead of hitting maybe up to 5 or more feats with errata it would have been better to just add a couple strategic racial feats, which is how dwarf was designed to start with (amongst others).

I'd have loved to see the game have avoided level based stat bumps though. I really don't get what they added to the game. All they really end up doing is forcing characters to focus on a single primary stat or else jump through flaming hoops to maybe keep up 2. That and messes up skill bonus spreads at high levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And still at the heart of the problem lies the "I lose 10% damage" mentality....

While that's important to a striker, no, it's not all about DPR. Missing is both frustrating, and, for all the non-strikers out there, can keep the various riders that help you fullfill your role from activating. You can be careful with your build and power choices, of course, and minimize that.

hitting a little less hard and hitting a little less often is only a problem when monster hp is very high and damage of monsters quitelow...

I can see the high hit point issue, a very high hit point monster will take a lot of rounds to kill, so the law of averages rears it's ugly head. A 10% difference in DPR will be noticeable, but, it'll only be 10%, it'll take you an extra round to kill the monster, if it's relatively low damage, shouldn't be a problem. A high-damage monster, OTOH, well, if you can't hit it often enough, it kills you. Seems like hitting only becomes more important - maybe luck becomes more important than exact attack bonus, but if you're at the point where it takes luck to survive a standard combat...