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

[CovertOps]

Likewise NOW with the 18 STR being much lower cost you're correct that the dwarf is an even better choice there, but some other races probably also get a STR option and may well reach the same level. My point overall being that a lot more goes into who is optimum for what class than just ability score alignment.

Small clarification. The new Cleric build is WIS/CON. It basically matches the build I was doing I just have to figure out how to get scale/plate or pass on them until epic if necessary.

Edit: And really my whole point was that we currently have reasons a, b, and c that determine the "who is optimum" question and that we could easily get rid of a (stats) and we'd still have valid reasons why some races are better or worse for a given class and that losing a does not result in a loss of flavor. One less item to determine "optimum" means that people will be more likely to choose based on flavor INSTEAD of "optimum".

 

[BobTheNob]

To be technically correct, dice are horrible probability generators. While a computer system has an equal chance in an "if-then" situation to produce any probable value, dice have to take the force of the roll, spin, table shape, objects and so forth into account.

So yes, technically you can be good at rolling a die, because as a misshapen spheroid it is subject to all the laws of the physical world for it to be able to randomly generate a number.

Whoa. Look out. There are people out there with minds that can encapsulate all of the laws of physics and chaos theory with their incredible complexity in each dice roll.

Casino's of the world, close your doors quickly!

Seriously, if you are implying that people can actually be "good at dice rolls", you had better warn your DM's, or better yet, take up a career in quantum physics.

 

[interwyrm]

Whoa. Look out. There are people out there with minds that can encapsulate all of the laws of physics and chaos theory with their incredible complexity in each dice roll.

Casino's of the world, close your doors quickly!

Seriously, if you are implying that people can actually be "good at dice rolls", you had better warn your DM's, or better yet, take up a career in quantum physics.

In contrast, it's quite possible to have *dice* that are "good at dice rolls".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Small clarification. The new Cleric build is WIS/CON. It basically matches the build I was doing I just have to figure out how to get scale/plate or pass on them until epic if necessary.

Yeah, I was assuming we were talking about STR clerics. The Warpriest I don't really have an opinion about. It is going to be whatever goodness it is going to be. I'd pretty much figure even with the possibility of a STR bonus dwarves will still probably be better off as Warpriests but the specific classes don't really matter.

Edit: And really my whole point was that we currently have reasons a, b, and c that determine the "who is optimum" question and that we could easily get rid of a (stats) and we'd still have valid reasons why some races are better or worse for a given class and that losing a does not result in a loss of flavor. One less item to determine "optimum" means that people will be more likely to choose based on flavor INSTEAD of "optimum".

My hypothesis is that you choose based on optimization or flavor (and more likely a mix of both) and that is a matter of the player and not really of the rules. If you were optimizing yesterday, you'll be optimizing today, the results will just be different. NOW, IF the races are much closer to all being equal for a given class then maybe you will pick based on flavor between those options. I'd have to be convinced though that at least a big chunk of classes end up with that greater equality.

Whoa. Look out. There are people out there with minds that can encapsulate all of the laws of physics and chaos theory with their incredible complexity in each dice roll.

Casino's of the world, close your doors quickly!

Seriously, if you are implying that people can actually be "good at dice rolls", you had better warn your DM's, or better yet, take up a career in quantum physics.

Actually we used to make an amusing game of this when we were bored at the table. You can get pretty good at it. With a d6 you can easily do it. I just now rolled 5 6's on one with a 30 second warmup. You can do less with d20 but most of the high numbers on those are on one end of the die, so it IS possible to shade things in your favor. The whole trick is just to make your rolling motion VERY consistent, like the way you toss the same exact toss in darts each time if you can. At that point if you always oriented the die the same way it will pretty consistently come up the same numbers. You can just rotate the die to a starting orientation that gives you your desired numbers most often.

 

[Sunseeker]

Whoa. Look out. There are people out there with minds that can encapsulate all of the laws of physics and chaos theory with their incredible complexity in each dice roll.

Casino's of the world, close your doors quickly!

Seriously, if you are implying that people can actually be "good at dice rolls", you had better warn your DM's, or better yet, take up a career in quantum physics.

You're assuming that being good at rolling the dice means being aware of everything that's going on, this is not the case. You simply need to be able to understand the basic conceptions of motion, rotation, and friction. And how it "feels" when you roll the die. You don't need to know the actual math.

 

[nnms]

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.

I hope tieflings get +2 Int, +2Cha/Con so they can be the best Infernal Pact warlocks.

 

[CovertOps]

My hypothesis is that you choose based on optimization or flavor (and more likely a mix of both) and that is a matter of the player and not really of the rules. If you were optimizing yesterday, you'll be optimizing today, the results will just be different. NOW, IF the races are much closer to all being equal for a given class then maybe you will pick based on flavor between those options. I'd have to be convinced though that at least a big chunk of classes end up with that greater equality.

For me...racial powers and abilities are more about flavor. Stats are more like that feat you can get that gives you +1 to hit or +1 to damage or +1 to your AC. Since a Rogue with 2 extra points of DEX gets all three of these it's hard to build a Rogue and say.."Well I want to be easier to hit and do less damage so I'll play a Dwarf". To me stats, more than anything else, are what really limit your choice of class for a given race. I'd even be OK if they got rid of them entirely. Even if you're not optimizing a 20 for your main stat, getting a post racial 18 is much cheaper than buying it and maybe that's my problem with the system....if 17/18 were only 2 points each you'd eliminate that particular feeling. I mean if you took the starting array 18(20)/14(16)/11/10/10/8 and instead of 7 points to get that 18 it only cost you 4 you're getting a net 3 points back which still doesn't really do that much for you other than help with some MAD issues. You could have 18/14(16)/12(14)/12/10/8 with those 3 points and is that really all that horrible? (Note that the total "bonus" of that stat array is +9 - but you don't suddenly get better bonuses in your main stats, just off stats to help with some MAD and that 3rd defense - and you're still not going to be really good with skills based off any stat other than your first two)

I hope tieflings get +2 Int, +2Cha/Con so they can be the best Infernal Pact warlocks.

Why they didn't do this to start we'll never know.

 

[tyrlaan]

My hypothesis is that you choose based on optimization or flavor (and more likely a mix of both) and that is a matter of the player and not really of the rules. If you were optimizing yesterday, you'll be optimizing today, the results will just be different. NOW, IF the races are much closer to all being equal for a given class then maybe you will pick based on flavor between those options. I'd have to be convinced though that at least a big chunk of classes end up with that greater equality.

I fall into the "mix of both" category (which I too agree is the most likely scenario - people want to play what they want and not suck while doing it). So for me, adding an extra stat boost option is a very cool thing because some of my "suboptimal" builds can now be just fine.

Sidestepping the dwarf melee combatant debacle, let's look at a hypothetical scenario (heck maybe this is accurate and I missed it). Let's say the tiefling is updated to be +2 INT and +2 CHA or CON.

Prior to this, I'm sure there were plenty of people that wanted to play an tiefling infernal pact warlock (and they probably did). But now if they do they are less suboptimal because they can elect to get a +2 CON. Or perhaps a CON build wizard for a tiefling. Or a tiefling battlemind. And so on.

My point is this: The stat boost changes are not providing you with options you didn't have before. Rather, they are making several options less suboptimal.

Now you're thinking "you're getting a little close to contradicting yourself Tyrlaan." I don't feel I am and here's why:

(a) People don't want to feel like the weakest link in a game AND (b) Optimizers will be happier with their "suboptimal" counterparts in a game, and vice versa.

What am I getting at? If Joe Schmoe is playing a tiefling battlemind with a 16 CON because that's what he wants to play and Bob Diddle is playing a goliath barbarian because it's a 'gold'* build, there's a good chance the two will be at odds as the game progresses. These are dueling player mentalities. But if Joe Schmoe can play said tiefling battlemind and pick +2 CON during chargen, well, he probably has an 18 now. The playing field has been leveled, at least to some degree.

Stat boost alternatives provides additional options to build characters that "don't suck."

For me, that's reason enough to be just fine with their introduction to the game. Conversely, what do they bring to the game that's a detriment? It's not really clear to me why they can be a bad thing.

*As an aside, (a) I used "gold" because I think it's the best of the best as per the color scheme labeling on the char ops forums, (b) I have no actual certainty that a goliath barbarian is a 'gold' choice, and (c) I actually find the whole color coding for optimization kind of irritating in a way that I've yet to find the right words to put together to express it and I'm saddened to see them creeping into enworld posts (and I just did it myself ).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And still we are at: we can do an 18 Con infernal warlock which is quite good already (+2 to non correlated off stats that are secondary for a build)

18 Con, 16 Int, 13 Cha as final stats.

result: all tiefling helllocks look (nearly) the same, and other hellocks are actually seem better for tieflings.

now (with the choice of Cha OR Con) we could have the very balanced 18 Con, 16 int, 14 Cha, 13 Dex or the (too?) strong 18/18/13/11 (with all that feat support) build, or the all in 20/16/11 build.

Actually a bit bigger difference than the dwarven fighter optimization.

When I think about it, i hope Tieflings are +2 Cha, +2 Con or Int. This would more or less retain the overall balance and since tiefling racial relies on charisma would seem to be a better fit.

Also we have a slight hint, that we won´t get a CON/INT race.

 

[CovertOps]

I fall into the "mix of both" category (which I too agree is the most likely scenario - people want to play what they want and not suck while doing it). So for me, adding an extra stat boost option is a very cool thing because some of my "suboptimal" builds can now be just fine.

I'm with you on this "mix of both".

My point is this: The stat boost changes are not providing you with options you didn't have before. Rather, they are making several options less suboptimal.

Yes.

Now you're thinking "you're getting a little close to contradicting yourself Tyrlaan." I don't feel I am and here's why:

(a) People don't want to feel like the weakest link in a game AND (b) Optimizers will be happier with their "suboptimal" counterparts in a game, and vice versa.

Anything that reduces the swing between the "haves" and the "have nots" is good in my book. Just in base to-hit numbers using weapon classes you have a range of +4 (+2 (14) stat, +2 prof) to +10 (+5 (20) stat, +3 prof, +1 expertise, +1 Rogue or Fighter talents) at first level alone. A single +1 might not be that big, but +6 is pretty damn huge when you have both players at the same table. Granted that the only one that can be directly controlled in that list is Expertise and you can suggest to your player that they might want to consider something larger than 14 for their main stat, but you can't force them. Ideally I'd like to see 16-20 as the accepted/expected range (ignoring the +1 for two specific classes) as this would give you anywhere from +5 to +8 which is a much more manageable +3 variance.

Stat boost alternatives provides additional options to build characters that "don't suck."

Yup. Again I liken stat boosts as more like feats. Everyone gets them, they just apply to different stats for each race.

*As an aside, (a) I used "gold" because I think it's the best of the best as per the color scheme labeling on the char ops forums, (b) I have no actual certainty that a goliath barbarian is a 'gold' choice, and (c) I actually find the whole color coding for optimization kind of irritating in a way that I've yet to find the right words to put together to express it and I'm saddened to see them creeping into enworld posts (and I just did it myself ).

Ahhh sky blue...not that I take stock in such things. One man's trash can be another man's priceless treasure. Not all players rate powers based on pure DPR.