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.
But that might just be me...
