Halflings - What's the Attraction?

[Liquidsabre]

Just started playing a halfling rogue in a new 4e campaign. With a 16 Dex and 16 Cha I'm set pretty nice as an Artful Dodger with a total +5 AC vs OAs. I'm able to throw my wayward little halfing into the fray and able to sneak attack with the Paladin in our group while still being able to get out if he really needs to in a pinch. Combined with the Backstabber feat he wield's a dagger for the extra attack bonus quite effectively thus far.

Just dodged a dreadful crit the other night from a strong fighter type that would have really hurt and in a later combat avoided a nasty bite from a Stirge thanks to Second Chance. I'm loving this encounter power. So far it allows my rogue to fight a little recklessly and to get into advantageous positions early in a fight and then back-out if I end up using it.

Honestly there just aren't any drawbacks to being small anymore like there used to be. I still move 6 squares in combat and use mostly the same combat weaponry I would have if playing another race.

All in all pretty nice. Can't say we see any significant racial advantages of one over any other in game-play. Our party thus far consists of my Halfling Rogue, a Dragonborn Paladin, a Tiefling Warlock (Infernal), a Dwarf Cleric, and an Eladrin Wizard. We were all a little surprised not to see a human in the mix.

 

[Saeviomagy]

That's not really true for rangers and fighters. With fighters, you always take Cleave, and then Reaping Strike if you're two-hander or Tide of Iron if you're weapon-and-shield. Sure Strike is just weak no matter what. Same thing with rangers - you take Twin Strike and then Hit and Run for two-weapon or Nimble Strike for archery, but you never want Careful Attack. The extra at-will is only useful if you're trying to be good at both aspects of the class, which is inherently suboptimal.

First up, I don't think that sure strike is necessarily a waste of time for a fighter who uses a two hander. I don't think I've seen the maths on that one, and the maths that makes careful attack so bad (ie - you have access to twin strike instead and your weapon's contribution to damage is significantly lower) does not apply to the fighter at all. Furthermore, reaping strike is not necessarily a waste of time for a fighter using a shield. It's not great, but it's better than making a basic attack, especially if you've got some benefits that will boost your damage.

Next, even for rangers, I was under the impression that careful attack was in fact better than twin strike in certain niche circumstances, simply that those circumstances were rare enough that one would never bother taking it normally. I can't search the forums to find the thread however.

 

[Rystil Arden]

First up, I don't think that sure strike is necessarily a waste of time for a fighter who uses a two hander. I don't think I've seen the maths on that one, and the maths that makes careful attack so bad (ie - you have access to twin strike instead and your weapon's contribution to damage is significantly lower) does not apply to the fighter at all. Furthermore, reaping strike is not necessarily a waste of time for a fighter using a shield. It's not great, but it's better than making a basic attack, especially if you've got some benefits that will boost your damage.

Next, even for rangers, I was under the impression that careful attack was in fact better than twin strike in certain niche circumstances, simply that those circumstances were rare enough that one would never bother taking it normally. I can't search the forums to find the thread however.

The Careful Strike vs Twin Strike thing is about a 1% (or less) occurrence (the enemy has to have such high AC that you only hit on a roll of 19 with one of the two Twin Strikes, which usually can't happen in 4e unless your GM is being an ass), and it requires you to have strong metagame knowledge of the exact defenses of the enemy. Much the same applies for Reaping Strike (especially since you do damage on a miss nearly as much as Sure Strike does on a hit!) unless you are facing a single minion alone (since it's immune to the miss effect of Reaping), in which case it really doesn't matter at all if the Fighter has a slightly higher chance of hitting it, since it's a single minion alone (heck, with the right stance, you can autokill one minion alone).

 

[Otterscrubber]

Actually I found halflings make great defenders with extra AC vs. opportunity attacks and larger opponents. Also they can force a reroll once per encounter, usually that one big roll that would normally lay them out. Didn't think they'd be that effective but after playing a halfling pally pre-gen I changed my tune.

And of course they make great rogues too.....

 

[Verdande]

The extra at-will is only useful if you're trying to be good at both aspects of the class, which is inherently suboptimal.

You must've meant inherently awesome .

 

[Gloombunny]

You must've meant inherently awesome .

Both, really! I mean, I totally want to play a cleric of the Raven Queen who cuts enemies down with a scythe and also blasts them with deathly radiance, because that's badass, but I'm not gonna pretend I'll be as effective as the cleric of Kord who takes bastard sword proficiency and concentrates fully on the physical beatdowns.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

I really think the people who think halflings and elves are bad haven't played in a group with them. Those encounter abilities are definitely getting used in every encounter, and almost always to a good effect. Yeah their other stuff is slim but all their other abilities are atleast marginally useful.

Feystep is nowhere near the usability of those two encounters in a combat situation.

Half-elves actually do completely suck, but I mean, come on its tradition . (I haven't played in a group with one so I really shouldn't be making this generalization considering what I said up there, but on paper, they suck, they suck a lot)

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Why people are attracted to halflings? Pedophilia, of course.

As for humans, the extra at-will is very class specific, but right now they are so clearly the best race for wizards that I wonder if we'll see any eladrin wizards at all.

 

[Nifft]

You must've meant inherently awesome .

When you've got a class that actually has 3+ good At-Wills which key off the same stat -- Wizard, Infernal Warlock, Wizard, Con-Star Warlock, Wizard, and possibly Warlord -- then it's good.

For many classes, it's a waste. That's sad, and maybe the splat-books will fix it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Gloombunny]

This is veering way off the original topic, but I wonder how well it would work to give humans a bonus encounter power from their class instead of an at-will. Too strong? It would need to scale with level in some way, but maybe shouldn't always be of the highest level you have encounter powers of...