Excerpt: Racial Benefits

[shadowlance]

We're coming at this from two different angles I think, which is fine really. Dodge and other dexterity-related forms of damage avoidance strike me as being at odds with how I'd perceive the iconic defender type. The fact that heavy armor neutralizes dexterity bonuses to armor reinforces that and justifies the idea that feats that grant bonus armor on an avoidance- or dodge-basis would likewise suffer penalties for heavier armor.

In other words, if you're weighed down by heavy armor you really can't scamper and dart between a large-size enemy's legs. If you aren't wearing heavy armor, you start with a much lower base armor class and it becomes a very good question as to whether or not your dexterity/dodge-type bonuses will make up the difference.

It's also a bad idea to assume a defender will "almost always" be up against large size creatures. One of the demo modules involved fighting swarms of small-sized kobolds.

Well, for Lost in the Crowd, the creatures only have be be larger than the halfling. Since the halfling is small, that means medium or larger. It's probably NOT a bad idea to assume that the defender will "almost always" be up against medium size or larger creatures. The occasional kobold/goblin swarm notwithstanding.

As for dodge style bonuses being clipped by heavy armor....while it's possible, that's not how it works in 3.x (aside from the dex bonus itself) and we haven't seen anything (that I know of) that indicates it will be true in 4e either. Heck the pregen halfling paladin from DDxp has plate mail AND Lost in the Crowd. But the fact that heavy armor will apparently still inhibit dex mod AC bonuses is a valid one that is certainly on point.

 

[Spatula]

In 3.x, all dwarves got the fiddly +1 to Giants.

+4 bonus, not +1.

In 4e, you choose to take it, which means it isn't fiddly, you conciously choose the feat (Fighters don't forget about Power Attack).

And in 3e, you chose to take Dodge, you consciously chose the feat. It's a minor situational bonus, another thing to keep track of, another thing to forget about or slow down the game with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

+4 bonus, not +1.

And in 3e, you chose to take Dodge, you consciously chose the feat. It's a minor situational bonus, another thing to keep track of, another thing to forget about or slow down the game with.

I think I already posted this, but there are differences:
The Dwarf bonus requries you to only check if the enemy is larger then you, and you know if you get the bonus.

To get the bonus from Dodge, you need to select the target on your turn, do whatever stuff you do on your turn, wait till other characters act, and have to remember the dodge bonus when the enemy attacks. If it attacks at all that round, and isn't busy with someone else this round.

That's also different to how a mark operates. To mark someone, you need to something a little more in line with what you already do - you have to hit him. In addition, the penalties caused by the mark apply in a lot more situations, especially in situations where he's not attacking you. (It's stll a bit more difficult then the Dwarfs "Giant Bonus")

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, the Dwarf feat isn't nearly as fiddly as Dodge, and is easily 1/4 as fiddly as marking.

 

[JohnSnow]

That doesn't really matter. What matters is: can you build a (surprisingly) effective halfling defender? Might they even be more effective than dwarven or human defenders?

I kinda doubt that. Dwarves have some pretty cool racial powers that synergize nicely with being a defender. For example, based on Kathra (the DDXP dwarf), all dwarves (I assume) get an ability called "Stand Your Ground." That lets them resist powers that push, pull, or slide you around the battlefield (like, say Tide of Iron). Offhand, that sounds like a pretty nice benefit for a fighter type.

Similarly, that dwarven resilience that lets them use Second Wind as a minor action is another handy power for Defenders. Top that off with the fact that dwarven weapons training seems to include a bonus to damage along with axe/hammer proficiency, and I think there's still plenty incentive to play dwarven fighters.

I'd guess some of the other Human feats will make humans as effective as dwarves. We know they get either an extra second wind or bonus healing surges or something. Again, a very useful benefit to a fighter character. The extra at-will power will give them more tactical options, and the bonus feat means they'll probably be able to pick up some very effective feats that enhance the fighter build more easily than a halfling can.

I seriously doubt halflings will be more effective than human or dwarven defenders, but they might be able to be nearly as effective (if slightly counterintuitive). Honestly, that's probably a good thing.

Presumably, the halfling fluff has them being evasive and tricksy, slippery like a fish and reactive like a fly. Hard to pin down and swat.

If they can make very effective fighters and paladins, then their rules (AC bonus) will be at odds with their fluff (scurrying around), because a fighter or a paladin mostly wants to get attacked, while a slippery halfling mostly wants to get away from their attacker.

This might lead to some players going "Buh?" and 4e seeing a lot of halfling defenders, despite the fact that it is at odds with the halfling fluff.

Well, as long as they also make effective strikers, it doesn't really matter if the halfling can benefit some by "playing against type."

Similarly, as long as the dwarven racial abilities make them effective as a defender or leader (their traditional roles), it's not so bad if dwarves also make excellent wizards. As a matter of fact, it's good if you can occasionally benefit by "playing against type." It'll encourage more variety and fewer cliché parties. And that's a good thing.

IMO, of course.

 

[SlagMortar]

Argument #2: (As stated above) A halfling fighter with an AC 4 higher than his compatriots offers monsters no incentive to attack him. Even while marked, they can hit his friends easier than they can hit him. Therefore, half the Defender schtick (having more HPs and more healing surges than the rest of the party) is lost if you play that kind of a Fighter.

Consider these two scenarios, one with a halfling fighter and one with a dwarven fighter:

Scenario 1: A halfling fighter (with higher AC than the party, but not many more hit points or healing surges) and his friends are fighting a monster. The monster can decide to attack the halfling who it is likely to miss or the monster can attack his squishy friends with a -2 penalty. You are saying that in this case the monster will attack the halfling's friends because the monster is more likely to hit them.

Scenario 2: A dwarf fighter (with similar AC to his party, but more hit points and healing surges) and his friends are fighting a monster. The monster can decide to target the dwarf who will easily shrug off the attacks due to his high hit points, healing surges, and second wind or the monster can target the his squishy friends with -2 penalty. You are saying in this case the monster will attack the dwarf instead of his friends because they can hit the dwarf. However, if the dwarf has gobs and gobs of hit points (or potential hitpoints through the use of healing surges), then the monster's attacks that hit the dwarf are not really much more effective than the attacks that miss the halfling.

A defender with lots of healing surges actually may provide more incentive to attack his friends who are capable of triggering a healing surge.

Why does the monster care that the fighter is shrugging off its attacks due to lots of hit points or due high AC? In either case it is going to take awhile to get rid of the defender.

 

[Cadfan]

1. Halflings look to make ok paladins. They can have high AC, and magic that punishes enemies who refuse to attack them. This is a good defender-ish combination because it creates a sort of no-win situation for their foes.

2. Halflings look to make good rogues, too. With a rogue they can have high AC, and high damage output. This creates a situation where a foe might want to attack an allied defender instead of the halfling.

3. I don't know which is better.

4. The overland movement feat seems... dumb. Now obviously we can't know for sure without seeing the full text, but... overland movement isn't that important. And the skill bonuses are low. I'm the sort of player who thinks taking Skill Training: Nature is a worthwhile decision so that your Elf Rogue can track, but... overland movement? Really? The feat is incredibly fluffy, very Tolkienesque, but that's not what I want feats for. If one of my players took this feat, I'd feel obligated to warn him that I've never tracked overland movement rates, and never expect to do so in the future. A feat like this should belong not in the PHB, but maybe in a book entitled "Worthless Feats No Player Character Will Ever Use But Which Give Lizard Chills." Maybe they could release it as print on demand. Oh well. If it gave +1 square movement, I'd love it. I want to like this feat. But I really don't. I was being sarcastic earlier in this paragraph, but very seriously- if they want to make crappy feats that provide crunch for worldbuilders who need crunch, put them somewhere else. Reserve the Player's Handbook for things that are Player relevant.

5. I like the dwarf AC bonus. Its not tough to track. Is my foe bigger than me? Yes/no. Really, its for the DM to track- I'll just make a note on my character entry for a dwarf with that feat. Where it says "AC: 22," I'll add in parenthesis "23 v Large or Larger."

6. I've come to terms with the Elven Precision feat. It enhances a per encounter ability. Who knows, I may even take it. I hate missing things.

7. My haiku contribution

dragonborn have boobs
dragonborn can also fly
flying draco-boob

 

[Dinkeldog]

Doesn't quite scan correctly for a haiku. Try this instead:

Dragonborn can fly;
Make sure not to look upwards
When they fly above.

Not haiku, but I like it.

Dragonborn, dragonborn in the sky
You go peepee in my eye
I'm no baby, I don't cry
I'm just glad that dragons don't...oh, crap weasels.

 

[SlagMortar]

As a matter of fact, it's good if you can occasionally benefit by "playing against type." It'll encourage more variety and fewer cliché parties. And that's a good thing.

This is a really good point that I whole heartedly agree with. The true ideal, in my opinion, is to have all races be equally viable in all roles, but to feel the differences in how the races fulfill those roles. As long as the dwarf is as good as the best defender, I don't have any problem with the halfling being an equally good defender.

For example, the dwarf fighter is standing out there holding his ground and taking a beating while methodically pushing back the enemy. He takes a critical hit, but no big deal, he just uses his second wind and keeps right on going.

The halfling fighter is dodging and weaving and isn't even hit in the first couple of rounds. He takes a critical hit and another lucky shot and all of a sudden he's bloodied. He might go another 4 rounds without being hit, or the enemy might get lucky again, who knows?

At the end of the fight, both the halfing and fighter end up at 40% of their hit points and have used up a similar fraction of their healing surges, but the fight felt different for the dwarf vs. the halfling.

 

[DrSpunj]

Similar to others that have posted, I had problems with the racial levels, mostly conceptual. In hindsight I think it was because it was a "whole level package". While one PC spent the last month (game time) learning how to force the powers of magic to do more of their bidding, or better understanding the tenets of their deity, another PC instead...became more dwarfy.

Racial feats I can work with much more easily. Someone earlier commented on cultural vs inherent (can't remember their exact terms). The cultural type traits are easily explained by focused training and whatnot.

The inherent traits, however, I conceptualize this way:
Just like some humans are double jointed or able to curl their tongue or whatever, many/most aren't/can't. I can mentally run with those who've taken a particular feat simply manifesting a trait that is found not uncommonly in that particular race. That trait just shows up in some individuals, may be stronger in some families or clans or regions or whatever, and can happily manifest easily at most any age or time (ie. character level).

I like that.