Dwarves make as good/better primal characters than elves.

But several optimal builds have been mentioned right here already.
In fact the classic races are still the best for some classes.
Humans are never going to be the best, but they are always viable.
Elves are the best archer rangers (perhaps bar shifters, but clearly not half orcs).
Half-elves are the best valorous bards.
Halflings are probably the best trickster rogues.
Ranged clerics are as good as a Dwarf, Elf or Human as any other race.
And Dwarves should make optimal shamans and druids.

Moving away from what's optimal, I'm impressed with the number of viable and interesting builds in 4th (having initially been dubious).
Between my various games we have an impressive eladrin fighter, not to mention several dwarf fighters (thoroughly viable), a dwarf paladin who entertains and manages to play fairly well, along with many other viable and fun characters, optimal or not.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think elves make pretty decent Archer Rangers, but they aren't better than half-orcs or shifters. I would consider STR to be pretty key for any martial class. WIS is certainly useful to an Archer, but not decisive. There are ways to build one that work well with either race. Razorclaw Shifters are also definitely on a par with elves as Archer Rangers.

Let's talk about elven archers for a second... First off, STR is simply not key for every martial class; I can't understand why you would think that it is. STR is, in fact, pretty close to a dump stat for an archer ranger, as CON is the better choice. STR isn't useful for powers, and there aren't any archery feats with a STR prerequisite, but Hide Specialization at least requires CON 15, and there are plenty of feats (especially in MP) with a WIS prerequisite. If you think +1 to attack is a big deal, shouldn't you be aiming for Improved Prime Shot? And how can you argue that +1 to attack is a big deal and then ignore the fact that many Ranger powers let you add your WIS modifier to the attack roll?

I'm not saying half-orc archers are bad... they're pretty good, and the differences may not be huge in the long run. But is seems silly to me to even pretend that they're somehow more optimal archers than elves. The STR bonus is nearly useless for a pure archer, Swift Charge is useless for a non-melee character, and if you do the math Furious Assault over many encounters is quite equivalent to Elven Accuracy (no better, but at least no worse). Meanwhile, the proliferation of "shift X" ranger powers makes Wild Step enormously useful, and +1 speed is quite powerful (it's like having paragon feat from level 1!)

Razorclaw shifters are closer, but they're like elves with all the racial benefits replaced by one shifting power. It's a nice power, but it gives no offensive benefit, unlike Elven Accuracy. And it seems kind of funny to me to argue that a defensive benefit is more valuable to a striker than an offensive benefit.
 

Let's talk about elven archers for a second... First off, STR is simply not key for every martial class; I can't understand why you would think that it is. STR is, in fact, pretty close to a dump stat for an archer ranger, as CON is the better choice.

Because an archer ranger is just a twin strike ranger that uses a bow once in a while?
 


Because an archer ranger is just a twin strike ranger that uses a bow once in a while?

So an "optimized archer" is a two-blade style ranger who uses a bow once in a while? That doesn't seem to make sense.

Or is this the old argument that archery style is never optimal? I never really bought that argument. But even if I did, I think a two-blade style ranger who otherwise focuses all on ranged powers would be a perfectly good "archer", and best race for this would still be the Elf, for all the same reasons I mentioned previously. If you're optimizing for ranged powers you never need STR, and WIS is quite useful.

And if the argument is "optimizing for ranged powers with a ranger is non-optimal"... I don't even know how one could argue that a build based on ranged powers is "less optimal" than a build based on melee powers. They're just different, in completely situational ways.
 

Let's talk about elven archers for a second... First off, STR is simply not key for every martial class; I can't understand why you would think that it is. STR is, in fact, pretty close to a dump stat for an archer ranger, as CON is the better choice. STR isn't useful for powers, and there aren't any archery feats with a STR prerequisite, but Hide Specialization at least requires CON 15, and there are plenty of feats (especially in MP) with a WIS prerequisite. If you think +1 to attack is a big deal, shouldn't you be aiming for Improved Prime Shot? And how can you argue that +1 to attack is a big deal and then ignore the fact that many Ranger powers let you add your WIS modifier to the attack roll?

Hmmm, really? I don't see one single PHB1 ranger power that mentions WIS at all. I didn't go through MP, so there may be a whole slew of them there, but wouldn't most of those be beast master related, not especially archer?

Skill-wise CON vs STR is pretty much a wash. STR gets athletics, which IMHO is probably overall a better skill than endurance, but YMMV.

Feat-wise there are certainly some feats that are good for a ranger if you have WIS or CON. But there are plenty of good feats that a Half-orc can take as well, that are just as good. It isn't relevant WHICH feats you get, just so you get ones that are equally useful.

I'm not saying half-orc archers are bad... they're pretty good, and the differences may not be huge in the long run. But is seems silly to me to even pretend that they're somehow more optimal archers than elves. The STR bonus is nearly useless for a pure archer, Swift Charge is useless for a non-melee character, and if you do the math Furious Assault over many encounters is quite equivalent to Elven Accuracy (no better, but at least no worse). Meanwhile, the proliferation of "shift X" ranger powers makes Wild Step enormously useful, and +1 speed is quite powerful (it's like having paragon feat from level 1!)

Eh, nothing particularly wrong with what you're saying, but I certainly consider it to be a positive benefit that the Half-orc can credibly wield melee weapons as well as a bow, and because a number of their racial feats are applicable to any kind of attack they can actually do more than credibly well at both. Maybe that isn't a HUGE advantage, but is nice and plays to all of their strengths. Sure +1 speed is great, and I agree it the best feature elves have, in general.

Razorclaw shifters are closer, but they're like elves with all the racial benefits replaced by one shifting power. It's a nice power, but it gives no offensive benefit, unlike Elven Accuracy. And it seems kind of funny to me to argue that a defensive benefit is more valuable to a striker than an offensive benefit.

Well, except in the unique case of archers defense really is overall better because the most useful tactic is to simply attrition the enemy away at range. If your defenses are better than his ranged offense, then eventually if he can't close he is dead. And defense helps keep conditions off you, which is the main thing that is going to let people close. I don't really care if I can kill something in one shot with an archer because generally 2 or 3 shots will work just as well (OK, the less the better, but it still is a better trade). I know this goes against the grain of practically every other player's theory of play, but it works.

In any case I'm not arguing that the Elf is bad and I don't object to the viewpoint that it is better, but it really isn't inarguably better, and a race that has one build where it might be better is certainly not one that is favored at all by the rules. My original thesis, that elves are pretty shortchanged overall is I think intact.

I mean consider the difference between the elf and the dragonborn, which is just so clearly superior at paladin builds it is ridiculous almost. Even Eladrin at least has one build it is REALLY good at. Dragonborn, half-orc, and shifters excell at MANY builds each. Half-elves are MAYBE best in one bard build, but again it isn't really a clear win there at all, and they are simply worse at everything else. Dwarves are seriously shortchanged as well. They stack up well in one cleric build, and do OK in some of the PHB2 builds, but overall the classic races are working best in well under half as many builds as the new races, and we haven't even touched on gnomes and halflings... The smallness gimp really is a huge problem for them and actually goes a long ways to negating their advantages even in the builds they are otherwise great for. Halflings will make great Artful Dodgers, but that really is about it.

Just seems weird to me that the newer races appear to be overall better. No race is downright bad, all are quite playable. I just don't quite get it.
 

Wis is the archer ranger's secondary stat, and affects almost every encounter power they can take. It's benefits range from bonus to hit, to shifting, to damage.

Defences are of almost zero relevance to an archer ranger, as is melee combat- What matters is taking down the enemy as fast as you can, before they do too much damage to you front line. If you fail to strike effectively enough for the front line to manage, then who cares whether you can swing a sword- it's game over.

I've seen an elf archer ranger play through quite a few levels, and never need or want to fight in melee, while consistently handing out the most damage in a party. His defences were never relevant, and to be honest he could have lived with 25 HP for all it mattered. Unfortunately the rest of the party got killed by a black dragon, and he quietly slipped away...
 
Last edited:

Hmmm, really? I don't see one single PHB1 ranger power that mentions WIS at all. I didn't go through MP, so there may be a whole slew of them there, but wouldn't most of those be beast master related, not especially archer?
Are you sure you looked?

Just looking at levels 1 and 2, we have...

Evasive Strike (Enc 1)
Fox's Cunning (Enc 1)
Two-Fanged Strike (Enc 1)
Crucial Advice (Util 2)
Yield Ground (Util 2)

And there's a ton more at higher levels.

-O
 

Hmmm, really? I don't see one single PHB1 ranger power that mentions WIS at all.

You must have a different PHB then. Mine has about 25 of them.

Just seems weird to me that the newer races appear to be overall better. No race is downright bad, all are quite playable. I just don't quite get it.

I think this is just the new and shiny aspect. I keep comparing PHB2 races to PHB, and for a lot of builds, the PHB2 classes, the PHB Dwarf just seems like a fantastic option. Both new controller classes make me want to play a human. Dragonborn is easily one of the best choices for a dragon sorcerer. Valorous Bard screams for hal-elf.

It all depends on the build really. The new races are very good too, Half-orcs make fantastic melee rangers and brutal scoundral rogues. Devas were just built for the Avenger class. Goliaths and Longtooth Shifters make great Wardens. The choices don't really seem more or less powerful. They just provide different options.

I have to admit though, I don't see myself gravitating toward the gnome for any build, but I'm sure the race has its fans.
 

I have to admit though, I don't see myself gravitating toward the gnome for any build, but I'm sure the race has its fans.
I pretty much agree. I like them for feylocks. I like them for cunning bards. They would do fine as a Wizard, but I'd rather be Human. Otherwise, frankly, they don't do much for me. I think they have more style than 1e/2e/3e gnomes, and I like the fey connection, but I kinda wish they were better Rogues, at least.

I have a similar reaction to their racial paragon path. "Well, this is nice and all, but I don't know that it fits with any existing character class very well."

-O
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top