Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 1642676" data-attributes="member: 2067">True, and that's why they're not game-breaking. But if you had a choice between a dwarf and a warforged to make a front-line armored tank, which one would you choose? They're both filling the same 'racial niche,' so to speak: a race that's good at being the Fighter-type. Take the Halflings and the Changelings...they both fill (mechanically) the same racial niche: a race that's good at being the rogue-type. They take it in different directions (small lucky atheletes vs. masters of disguise), but do so in ways where which one you choose is mostly a matter of style, not power. But a Warforged Fighter and a Dwarven Fighter...the choice seems goofily obvious. One gets tired, gets level drained, gets poisoned, the other doesn't. Yes, this doesn't screw over a general party in any way (unless they're all warforged, but that's not likely and they'll have obvious weaknesses). But it does make that person who wants to play a straight Dwarven Fighter at the same time their friend wants to play the straight Warforged Fighter feel a bit like they're being overshadowed...whlie a changeling rogue and a halfling rogue could be beside each other and neither one would feel generally useless... They're not game-breaking. But they are more powerful than the standard races, from what I've seen, heard, and played (admittedly, not much yet). Like FR's regional feats: not game-breaking, but more powerful than standard feats. This makes me want to know the motives for it, how they played out in testing, why they were Construct (living) and not Humanoid (constructed), to see how the designers themselves made their decisions. But perhaps if we wish to continue this, a new thread is advisable....hmmm....</blockquote>

Verification