Race Character Optimisation: Just Choose Dwarf

[Aulirophile]

Certain: Dwarves can be Str/Con or Con/Wis.
Certain: They can function better in Str/Con classes.

Uncertain: They may function better in Str/Wis classes, but there is still a trade-off between increasing Str and increasing Wis.

Opinion: The difference between a dwarf and a character of any other race in a Str-based defender class is so large that anyone who is optimizing will choose to play a dwarf.
Opinion: IMO, it really depends on what you are optimizing for. The trade-off between complete racial packages (including ability score bonuses, racial abilities and feats) is not always that clear-cut and precise.

Str/Con Fighter, aka, Battlerager. Of all races which gets one that supports this build the most, by offering additional THP? Answer: Dwarf. That isn't an opinion. The list is similar for all mentioned builds. Is a flat fact.

 

[scylis]

Yes, it is. The difference is big enough that anyone who is optimizing, and I really need to point that out because of course people who don't care or don't know any better will still play other races (wonder where we could find some of those), will always pick Dwarf. Dwarves had one disadvantage from being the go-to choice for Str/Wis (I concede, you actually need to make use of the Con, so Fighter have to get Plate... gee darn) and Str/Con classes (and Con/Wis, Wrath Invoker had Dwarf as a Gold option. Gee, when the stats line up, Dwarves are a Gold choice... funny, that seems somehow relevant), that disadvantage no longer exists.

So, to recap: Top tier choice with one of the most serious disadvantages, accuracy on attacks taken during your turn. Serious disadvantage: Gone. Other things: Unchanged. What do you call something that was almost a default choice that got better? The default choice.

And, again, this only applies from an optimization perspective. I don't care what unoptimal builds people want to trot out and say they are going to play, that doesn't prove anything.

I still don't see the difference as being big enough to warrant a gold rating.

Are they at the top of the list for several classes now? YARP!

Are you "literally hurting yourself if you don't take this choice" by playing something other than a dwarf for these certain classes (the standard definition for gold rating)? Narp.

Are there classes where rolling dwarf isn't even a sky blue pick? Yarp.

There are things that other races bring to the table that dwarves do not that still makes them a more wanted choice in some parties than a dwarf. Is this situation more rare now than before? Sure, possibly by a long shot, but there will still be times where a dwarf wouldn't be flat out better. Thus, they cannot be gold. Certainly not for every class ever (as the OP's title suggests).

As for the last little bit of the OP, I'd rather have options be provided for everybody else that are on par with what has been given to dwarves rather than see nerfs.

 

[FireLance]

Str/Con Fighter, aka, Battlerager. Of all races which gets one that supports this build the most, by offering additional THP? Answer: Dwarf. That isn't an opinion. The list is similar for all mentioned builds. Is a flat fact.

Yes, dwarven battleragers get good support: about +1 temporary hit point more per tier when he hits with an Invigorating power compared to a fighter that takes the equivalent feat for the other races.

However, I don't think you can just look at one aspect in isolation. How does the complete dwarven package stack up against the complete goliath package (including a feat that allows you to roll twice and taking the better result on the first attack roll in an encounter) or the complete warforged package (including a feat that grants you a +1 bonus to melee attack rolls against an enemy that is adjacent to an ally)? IMO, the answer is not so clear-cut.

 

[nnms]

I'm not a big optimization guy, but I've never been disappointed by choosing human and have never had a player regret the choice either.

So is there actually something to this "humans suck" business?

 

[Aulirophile]

Yes, dwarven battleragers get good support: about +1 temporary hit point more per tier when he hits with an Invigorating power compared to a fighter that takes the equivalent feat for the other races.

However, I don't think you can just look at one aspect in isolation. How does the complete dwarven package stack up against the complete goliath package (including a feat that allows you to roll twice and taking the better result on the first attack roll in an encounter) or the complete warforged package (including a feat that grants you a +1 bonus to melee attack rolls against an enemy that is adjacent to an ally)? IMO, the answer is not so clear-cut.

There was a poll on Enworld asking how many melee users got a Superior Weapon Proficiency. Answer: Nearly all of them. From an optimization perspective, you can simply ignore any race that does not get a primary stat boost, a usable secondary stat boost, and a Proficiency+Weapon Focus feat (including invalidating the extra feat humans get, since they'd need to take two feats to equal the Dwarves one), unless there is a very compelling reason not to. Dwarves had a reason compelling enough, their Feat support. Now they get all of the above and their feat support hasn't changed.

From that alone, Dwarves win. Everything else is gravy. And that Goliath feat is terrible, sorry. It is the first attack roll. Optimized Fighters from level 7 to level ~23 will open with Come And Get It against multiple opponents, and then use Daring Shot in round 2 to re-mark them, locking them down for two rounds. Rolling twice on one attack roll when you're attacking 3-9 opponents? Meh.

The difference doesn't have to be big when you're objective is a top tier, completely optimized build. It just has to be big enough that there is a clear choice 100% of the time. Now there is.

This isn't even new. Best Archer Ranger? Elf. It isn't exactly news that one race is vastly superior to all others for optimizing some builds. But it is kind of lame that the Dwarf was so very balanced against the other top tier choices so it was a tough decision, and now that is gone.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not a big optimization guy, but I've never been disappointed by choosing human and have never had a player regret the choice either.

So is there actually something to this "humans suck" business?

No, unless you are a number cruncher and consider that a human will give you an average result of 9.8 and Dwarves will give you an average of 10. In the short run, dwarves are great low-level characters, but in the long run as things start to even out, the benefits you gain are fairly negligible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There was a poll on Enworld asking how many melee users got a Superior Weapon Proficiency. Answer: Nearly all of them. From an optimization perspective, you can simply ignore any race that does not get a primary stat boost, a usable secondary stat boost, and a Proficiency+Weapon Focus feat (including invalidating the extra feat humans get, since they'd need to take two feats to equal the Dwarves one), unless there is a very compelling reason not to. Dwarves had a reason compelling enough, their Feat support. Now they get all of the above and their feat support hasn't changed.

From that alone, Dwarves win. Everything else is gravy. And that Goliath feat is terrible, sorry. It is the first attack roll. Optimized Fighters from level 7 to level ~23 will open with Come And Get It against multiple opponents, and then use Daring Shot in round 2 to re-mark them, locking them down for two rounds. Rolling twice on one attack roll when you're attacking 3-9 opponents? Meh.

The difference doesn't have to be big when you're objective is a top tier, completely optimized build. It just has to be big enough that there is a clear choice 100% of the time. Now there is.

This isn't even new. Best Archer Ranger? Elf. It isn't exactly news that one race is vastly superior to all others for optimizing some builds. But it is kind of lame that the Dwarf was so very balanced against the other top tier choices so it was a tough decision, and now that is gone.

You don´t want to understand, do you?

Dwarves just got +1 wisdom in your shown stat distribution.
(Or they got +2 strength and -2 wisdom in the 16/16/16 or 16/14/18 or 16/15/17 build.)

So how much are they better?

+1 to hit with opportunity attacks at level 1-3 Depending on if you raise Con or Wis at level 4 you have +1 hp, +1 surge at Level 4-7, or exactly nothing...

If dwarf is your default choice now, it either was before, or you were just too retarded (to say it in your words) to build the dwarf correct.

(Also dwarves still have -1 to hit compared to other fighters that optimize on to hit, because no dwarf would utilize a +3 proficiency weapon.)

 

[Aulirophile]

You don´t want to understand, do you?

Dwarves just got +1 wisdom in your shown stat distribution.
(Or they got +2 strength and -2 wisdom in the 16/16/16 or 16/14/18 or 16/15/17 build.)

So how much are they better?

+1 to hit with opportunity attacks at level 1-3 Depending on if you raise Con or Wis at level 4 you have +1 hp, +1 surge at Level 4-7, or exactly nothing...

If dwarf is your default choice now, it either was before, or you were just too retarded (to say it in your words) to build the dwarf correct.

(Also dwarves still have -1 to hit compared to other fighters that optimize on to hit, because no dwarf would utilize a +3 proficiency weapon.)

And Dagger Rogues out damage Rapier Rogues with "just" +1 to hit.

And they still lose out on feat quals if they have to buy an 18 Str pre-racials, so they gained +1 to hit overall, as I pointed out three or four times now.

 

[scylis]

And Dagger Rogues out damage Rapier Rogues with "just" +1 to hit.

And they still lose out on feat quals if they have to buy an 18 Str pre-racials, so they gained +1 to hit overall, as I pointed out three or four times now.

Most dwarf fighters already had 18s in STR, so they didn't, in fact, gain a +1 to hit overall. They gained more points to put elsewhere, so they probably gained a +1 to hit on OAs, if anything.

If they didn't have an 18 STR starting, that puts them -2 compared to the +3 proficiency bonus weapon Fighter from a race that did get a +2 to STR, so getting the STR bonus still makes it a -1.

For a BVR Fighter, they'll be hands down better than any race that lacks STR+CON bonuses, possibly better than any of the ones that do get STR+CON bonuses. They'll certainly narrowly out damage them and will be a feat up on them if both builds want a craghammer. So far a BRV Fighter is about the only contender for "non-choice", though I'm still iffy on it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And Dagger Rogues out damage Rapier Rogues with "just" +1 to hit.

And they still lose out on feat quals if they have to buy an 18 Str pre-racials, so they gained +1 to hit overall, as I pointed out three or four times now.

Can you give an example, which feat you can´t take if you start with

18 Str, 15 Con, 15 Wis, (old dwarf)

compared to

18 Str, 15 Con, 16 Wis, and dex 11? (new dwarf)

IMHO, the dwarf was not made much more powerful, but now dwarven fighters don´t look all the same...
Which is the difference, as I pointed out 3 or 4 times before?

edit: of course you can go 18,15,15, Dex 13 to get shield expertise at epic... but the spread above was your suggestion...

edit 2: A dwarven fighter could have strength 18 before and have nearly the same stats as a human fighter. Now he has +2 constitution or +1 wisdom compared to that. You know what is the most ridiculous thing: your mentality gave us +2 Strength, so just stop complaining.