Dwarves make as good/better primal characters than elves.

[lukelightning]

I like primal dwarves.

Enough of this subterranean miner stuff — I want my dwarves living on mountains, not in them, in snowy alpine longhouses, surrounded by carved runestones and totem poles. Sure they are expert miners, but they don't live in there...except for perhaps some eccentric spirit-touched hermit. And those axes? Great for chopping down trees.

If you think of dwarves as the vikings of the hills, you can easily see their primal connection; the Scandinavian cultures had strong shamanic elements (not true shamanism, mind you... that was for the Lapps). And the stereotypical viking is pretty much the same as the stereotypical barbarian.

 

[bganon]

Well, I think our differences are getting smaller, so maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether elf or half-orc is better. Arguing about what is arguable is getting a bit too meta for me...

But I hardly think elves are doing too badly. They may not be the "optimal" race for a huge number of builds (IMO they're best for at least archer ranger; I could see argument about pursuit avengers and predator druids). But they're awfully good at a lot of other builds. Wild Step and speed 7 give maneuverability that's useful for a lot of classes, and Elven Accuracy remains one of the best racial powers in the game.

Much of the time in 4e, I think the difference between "optimal" and the next-best thing really isn't that large. So looking at just the "optimal" race for each build may not give the best idea of the true value of a race.

 

[Bolongo]

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.

ONE build that MIGHT be better?

Didn't read my post at all, did you?

 

[Obryn]

Much of the time in 4e, I think the difference between "optimal" and the next-best thing really isn't that large. So looking at just the "optimal" race for each build may not give the best idea of the true value of a race.

I agree. This is particularly true with secondary stats... Honestly, the difference in value between a primary and a secondary stat is huge. (With a few possible exceptions, like an Eladrin Warlord who gets tons of mileage out of Commander's Strike.)

-O

 

[Wormwood]

Coincidently, one of my players just made a Warforged Warden MC'd as a druid, reskinned as a treant. So, technically a treant who turns into a ...something, but we're treating it as a human who turns into a tree.

This right here? Yeah, I'm stealing it for my next character.

*yoink*

 

[Stogoe]

Coincidently, one of my players just made a Warforged Warden MC'd as a druid, reskinned as a treant. So, technically a treant who turns into a ...something, but we're treating it as a human who turns into a tree.

My next character is using the shaman class, but in the story he's actually being haunted by the vestige of a dead god instead of summoning nature spirits. I love reskinning.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

If you want limited options, take a look at the poor eladrin: great Wand Wizards, and, uh... not much else.

I'm sorry, I just had to say something about this. My Eladrin Greatspear Fighter that I made for a one-shot was freaking awesome. He could teleport through the enemy line, hit the two back row controllers and send them each flying 5 squares in different directions and then shift 5 squares back to where he started. Nobody else can do that.

Also, my Fey Charging Eladrin Greatspear Fighter/Rogue/Kensai was absolutely awesome on paper (seriously, like 80% chance or so to hit with Brash Strike, and you keep Fey Step on a hit), but my DM banned him before I got to use him. He would have been a lot of fun though, and not possible to build with another race.

There's more to race/class selection than matching stats. There are also racials powers, feats and paragon paths to consider. One of the things that helps Elven Archers pull ahead of Razorclaw Shifters for example? Elven Archer. Oh, and probably the feat where they don't expend Elven Accuracy unless they miss. Eat that Razorclaw Shifting!

 

[Bolongo]

I'm sorry, I just had to say something about this.

Actually, I agree with you. Perhaps it wasn't as clear from the context as it could have been, but I was really arguing by example against the Mad Arab's assertion that matching stats is the most important thing.

But since he didn't even respond to my two blunt examples proving him wrong by his own logic, I guess I was expecting too much of his thought processes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, I agree with you. Perhaps it wasn't as clear from the context as it could have been, but I was really arguing by example against the Mad Arab's assertion that matching stats is the most important thing.

But since he didn't even respond to my two blunt examples proving him wrong by his own logic, I guess I was expecting too much of his thought processes.

Tsk tsk, be nice.

People don't always agree with your logic, and there is only so much time in the day to spend going back and forth on these things.

I get that everyone else in the world seems to think defense is worthless for archers. I humbly submit they are at least partly wrong, and sometimes very badly wrong.

If you have a party consisting of 4 melee characters and an archer, then you have the situation where the archer's defenses are of the least value they can be. Even so there are a wide variety of situations where those defenses are of primary importance. Such as the case where the archer is the only character who can effectively attack certain monsters that have to be defeated, or anything analogous to that. If the archer goes down or is locked up by status effects constantly then the party is in trouble.

In cases where ranged attack capability predominates then the defenses of the ranged attack capable characters becomes a critical factor. More important than raw offensive capability per round. In these situations the party's ranged attack capability outmatches that of the monsters almost certainly, and thus the equation of success is which side can overall dish out and take damage at a rate that results in their victory, just the same as is the case of melee combat. Again, status effects are pretty important here and defense is the only real response to those.

From an overall tactics standpoint I maintain that the most effective kind of party is one that destroys its enemies from range, and the optimum setup to do that are ranged attackers that can shrug off whatever ranged attacks the enemy has and keep hitting back. The second part of the formula is control, the ability to force the enemy to remain at range and prevent them from easily closing or push them away. So overall if you consider the most effective party tactics defense for archers is a critical part of the mix.

Not that it makes a razorclaw some kind of vastly better archer, or even better than an elf, nor even always as good as an elf. But the way the players in my neck of the woods think, it is a pretty good way to go.

 

[Bolongo]

People don't always agree with your logic, and there is only so much time in the day to spend going back and forth on these things.

It just amuses me that apparently you have infinite time to back and forth on elves vs. razorclaw as archers, yet you have no time at all for the examples that actually fit your original criteria for being optimal...