Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5279742" data-attributes="member: 82106">I guess my response would be two-fold though. One being you certainly could have gone dwarf before. Given your melee focus most, if not all, of the same feats that would benefit a dwarf fighter also benefited a dwarf cleric, DWT, Hammer Rhythm, the various saving throw based feats, etc. I don't know if dwarf was listed as a 'sky blue' choice for STR cleric or not, but it was certainly one of the better mechanical choices with CON always being useful to a melee character, WIS obviously useful, and the option of an 18 STR still being pretty reasonable.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.The other point is it cuts both ways. Suppose the shifter was the class you DID want to be? NOW instead of playing the mechanically optimum shifter you feel equally compelled to play the mechanically optimum dwarf to the same exact degree. It isn't a net gain from the perspective of the game overall. Certainly it is a net gain for some players in some situations and it is exactly equally likely to be a net loss. The question can really only devolve down to was it worth all the errata and nonsense that now follows for this net gain of well what?The two arguments I've seen that COULD hold some weight aren't very convincing so far. Some hypothetical campaigns with a very limited race choice may work out better, depending on which choices those are. Secondly there is a theory that races and classes MAY now better align with racial stereotypes carried over from basically Old D&D all the way up through to now. The problem with that is I haven't seen any analysis that indicates this is actually the case. Even if it is the case that just begs the question of if the trope "dwarves are good at being fighters and clerics and mostly not so good at other classes" is actually something that the rules need to enforce so urgently that there needs to be a major change to races in order to enact it. I realize there are a couple of races who's optimum choices seem ODD, like Tieflings, and one or two classes that practically state outright in their fluff they're iconic for a specific race (Eladrin and Swordmage) that failed to ACTUALLY match up well, but with those two as the main offenders wouldn't it have made more sense to just write a couple more racial feats for those two races that gave them an edge? Or maybe just add a build choice to those two classes that gave the desired races an edge, rather than revamping the rules simply to make a Tiefling the ideal Infernal Pact Warlock (which ironically is something we don't even know for sure will happen).</blockquote>

Verification