Flavor Mish-mash and favored classes (what 4e got wrong)

[pawsplay]

Isn't it perfectly viable, perhaps even in some ways useful to boost only one stat high? The gist of the OP seems to be that all characters have two high stats and the rest just limp along, which sounds like one way to make a character, but not the only one, and perhaps not the best.

 

[Obryn]

If not in the past nine years of 3E, then where is this history? Certainly not in the preceding quarter century, in which they had level limits!

The Favored Class is a pretty good indicator.

Also, while non-humans had level limits in 1e/2e, elves could get to a very workable level as magic-users. Higher than dwarves could as fighters, at least, and dwarves are fairly archetypal fighters.

-O

 

[Dausuul]

The Favored Class is a pretty good indicator.

Actually, favored class is a crap indicator. Elves made sucky wizards in 3.X despite it being their favored class... not least because, if you're a 3.X wizard, you're an idiot if you multi-class, whether it's your favored class or not.

 

[Remathilis]

Isn't it perfectly viable, perhaps even in some ways useful to boost only one stat high? The gist of the OP seems to be that all characters have two high stats and the rest just limp along, which sounds like one way to make a character, but not the only one, and perhaps not the best.

Yeah, I was shooting for which races grant you the 18, 16, 13, 12, 11, 10 (default array + racial mods) because that's one of the most effective builds.

When you look at race/class though that lens, you see a world where dwarves make better shaman than fighters, which is their traditional archetype.

And yes, there are feats (dwarven weapon training, Hellfire blood) and racial abilities (tieflings +2 stealth, dwarves second wind as a minor) that make certain races better suited to their archetypes. But unless your comfortable with that 16 in your keyed score (and either take Expertise early or +3 prof weapons, or both) you're not nearly as effective as a race that grants an 18.

Bah! 4e math bad!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Elves have all this history of being supposedly awesome wizards.

If not in the past nine years of 3E, then where is this history? Certainly not in the preceding quarter century, in which they had level limits!

Its an example of the fluff and mechanics not having logical synchronization. Going through the fluff of the past 3 incarnations of the game, Elves are supposed to be top-notch arcanists...

Yet in those same editions, they had mechanics that were at odd with that fluff- level limits, stat bonuses that didn't match well with the class requirements, etc.

My take? 4Ed flubbed on how they harmonized racial & class fluff and mechanics...but probably not significantly worse than 3.X Ed, and not as badly as some previous editions.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, favored class is a crap indicator. Elves made sucky wizards in 3.X despite it being their favored class... not least because, if you're a 3.X wizard, you're an idiot if you multi-class, whether it's your favored class or not.

It was a crap indicator in play, but a wonderful insight into what the designers wanted. They saw a world where elves were great wizards, irregardless of the fact they statistically made better rogues.

I'm arguing the implied FC here. Some races work well with both mechanics and fluff (elves are the best ranger-archers, halflings the best dodger-rogues) some come out a wash (dwarven fighters) and some just say wah? (tiefling hellocks)

 

[Crothian]

Ah, but you don't have to be maxed. But doesn't it make sense that a race which is supposed to be good at something has some racial proclivity toward that?

The mechanics rarely seemed to support the game fluff in the past, why start now?

 

[fanboy2000]

* The distrusted, disliked, and occasionally hated tieflings, ironically, make great cunning bards. Elves however, do not make good bards at all. Neither do Eladrin. I guess gnomes made all that great elven music and poetry...

For whatever it's worth, the artwork on page 66, the 1st page of the Bard description in PHB2, is of a Tiefling Bard.

 

[Crothian]

If not in the past nine years of 3E, then where is this history? Certainly not in the preceding quarter century, in which they had level limits!

Complete books of elves says it I believes. The 2ed realms has elven high magic. It is in the earlier games as well, even if the mechanics might disagree.

 

[Remathilis]

For whatever it's worth, the artwork on page 66, the 1st page of the Bard description in PHB2, is of a Tiefling Bard.

Yeah, I noticed. I thought gnomes (you know, "iconic bard" in 3.5) or half-elf (the iconic bard since 1e) would get the bard-art nod. But noooooo...

(FWIW: the shaman is a dwarf as well, and I still think it looks goofy.)