[DnD 4E Discussion] Heroes of Shadow. Dhampyr Vryloka Vampire now possible.

15355575859

Posts

  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    What Infidel said seems really rather likely.

    That and I have a feeling Hasbro has finally turned to WotC and told them that this D&D thing needs to turn more of a profit.

    Lezta on
  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    it's kind of shocking, like I said before. if you had told me June 2010 that D&D would be in teh state it's in now...I would've laughed you off. Now I have to disallow shitty races, shitty cards, shitty classes, and consider the old CB "decent" software. :?

    Any guesses as to what caused this across the board decline in quality?

    corporate beancounters?

    angrylinuxgeek on
    sQwJu.png
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    it's kind of shocking, like I said before. if you had told me June 2010 that D&D would be in teh state it's in now...I would've laughed you off. Now I have to disallow shitty races, shitty cards, shitty classes, and consider the old CB "decent" software. :?

    Any guesses as to what caused this across the board decline in quality?

    Well I don't think that they have many shitty classes - a couple definitely but most of the essentials classes (actually, all of them) are really solid. Sometimes mechanically fiddly as hell like the Hexblade Warlock but overall pretty good.

    Now shitty races? Yeah they have that in spades. Shitty cards? Gamma World works brilliantly, but it's like Wizards have no concept of why they work in GW but won't work well in DnD. The shitty tools? I use MS fucking WORD again because it takes LESS EFFORT than using the MB. Isn't that sad? It is truly fucking sad.

    You know, I own nearly everything published in DnD and I can tell you that the release schedule looks immensely disappointing. I can't even figure out if two books are canceled - they've been removed from Amazon's listings now. Class Compendium has exploded (albeit I don't view this as a great loss) and Mordenkainen's Magical Emporium seems to have gone south as well. That book I was looking forward to, because the game lacks decent race items - especially in heroic tier. But it's okay, I'll do all that work on making decent rares as well Wizards. Seeing as you can't be bothered providing guidelines or even decent items to choose from.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • brain operatorbrain operator Registered User
    edited January 2011
    Aegof wrote: »
    Anyone else more bothered by the racial penalty to healing surges than Wizard's faithfulness to a particular strain of vampire myth? Because to me it sounds like someone went "hey maybe racial penalties weren't so bad" when in fact they were completely terrible.

    edit: and still are. Sucks to be you, Small races.
    Racial penalties terrible? I wonder why. It's not that different from lowering the benchmark ability values, after all.

    Unbalanced racial penalties and/or abilities that are unbalanced compared to each other, leading to certain races getting a Raw Deal? That's another matter.

    brain operator on
  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    until the free action nerf this fall and the change to rare items, I never thought of house-ruling anything. now, I've got a list going of things to houserule before my Dark Sun campaign starts next month.

    angrylinuxgeek on
    sQwJu.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Aegof wrote: »
    Anyone else more bothered by the racial penalty to healing surges than Wizard's faithfulness to a particular strain of vampire myth? Because to me it sounds like someone went "hey maybe racial penalties weren't so bad" when in fact they were completely terrible.

    edit: and still are. Sucks to be you, Small races.
    If it were a penalty to attributes, I would be much more negative. But subtracting a healing surge has an effect on all characters of the race, unlike say an Int penalty.

    I'm not a fan of the small races limitations for similar reasons, though the new handling of the Rapier alleviates a lot of that (still leaving the two-handed weapon debacle, unfortunately).

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    What exactly are the current issues with Small PCs? I mean, yeah, I hardly see anyone playing a Halfling (if they're not a Rogue) and I've never seen anyone play a Gnome, but they certainly have weapons available for any class. Even Small Barbarians and Fighters can work pretty well now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    Shit, Small races have feats that make me jealous.

    Rius on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    What exactly are the current issues with Small PCs? I mean, yeah, I hardly see anyone playing a Halfling (if they're not a Rogue) and I've never seen anyone play a Gnome, but they certainly have weapons available for any class. Even Small Barbarians and Fighters can work pretty well now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    Shit, Small races have feats that make me jealous.
    Small races in weapon-based classes are taking at least a 1 point average damage penalty (with the exception of the Rogue). Which their implement-based brethren simply aren't.

    That's not great game balance.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    this is awful thinking. this is 3.5 kinda thinking. it's dumb to penalize small races for being small.

    angrylinuxgeek on
    sQwJu.png
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    What exactly are the current issues with Small PCs? I mean, yeah, I hardly see anyone playing a Halfling (if they're not a Rogue) and I've never seen anyone play a Gnome, but they certainly have weapons available for any class. Even Small Barbarians and Fighters can work pretty well now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    Shit, Small races have feats that make me jealous.
    Small races in weapon-based classes are taking at least a 1 point average damage penalty (with the exception of the Rogue). Which their implement-based brethren simply aren't.

    That's not great game balance.

    Them's the breaks though, isn't it? A four foot tall humanoid with a small blade or hammer isn't going to do as much damage as an eight foot tall humanoid wielding a Buick. He is going to be harder to hit and have an advantage against larger targets, though, and that's somewhat reflected in the feat choices for Halflings.

    And we're just talking about Strength primary weapon-using classes, here; they'll be just fine as any class that's Con or Dex primary.

    Rius on
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    this is awful thinking. this is 3.5 kinda thinking. it's dumb to penalize small races for being small.

    Well, I never played 3.5, so I apologize if my thoughts align with some old stuff. But I've never considered the limitation to Small weapons a penalty, as such.

    Rius on
  • KayKay What we need... Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Well I don't think that they have many shitty classes - a couple definitely but most of the essentials classes (actually, all of them) are really solid. Sometimes mechanically fiddly as hell like the Hexblade Warlock but overall pretty good.

    Question: What's the fiddliness in the Hexblade? Just the inherent confusion around an implement that generates a weapon used as an weapliment and the confusion of a Dagger (light blade) implement generating a Heavy Blade hexblade?

    Because that's stupid, the implement group keywords (light blade in this case) do not cross over to the hexblade, just the magical properties, right, like the +1 to hit and massive crits from an accurate Jagged Dagger?

    Kay on
    ew9y0DD.png
    3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    What exactly are the current issues with Small PCs? I mean, yeah, I hardly see anyone playing a Halfling (if they're not a Rogue) and I've never seen anyone play a Gnome, but they certainly have weapons available for any class. Even Small Barbarians and Fighters can work pretty well now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    Shit, Small races have feats that make me jealous.
    Small races in weapon-based classes are taking at least a 1 point average damage penalty (with the exception of the Rogue). Which their implement-based brethren simply aren't.

    That's not great game balance.

    Them's the breaks though, isn't it? A four foot tall humanoid with a small blade or hammer isn't going to do as much damage as an eight foot tall humanoid wielding a Buick. He is going to be harder to hit and have an advantage against larger targets, though, and that's somewhat reflected in the feat choices for Halflings.

    And we're just talking about Strength primary weapon-using classes, here; they'll be just fine as any class that's Con or Dex primary.
    He's not harder to hit, though. Outside of racial powers. And he doesn't hit less hard, he just gets relegated to smaller weapons. Primary attribute doesn't matter (I can run a 16 Str Halfling just as easily as I can a 16 Str Elf, and Halflings are actually better at Barbarian in terms of attributes than elves now), weapon size does in this case.

    And again, if this were somehow carried over to the non-weapon classes, which also benefit from everything the weapon classes get without any of the penalties, you could construe it as a balancing factor for some other strong racial ability. But it doesn't, so it's selectively segregating gnomes and halflings away from Fighter, Barbarian, etc and towards the classes that use daggers or implements. That's a poor game balance decision. Period.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • HorseshoeHorseshoe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    except for

    screw you gnomes and halflings stay the fuck out of my fighter class

    maybe

    maybe good game decision

    Horseshoe on
    dmsigsmallek3.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Horseshoe wrote: »
    except for

    screw you gnomes and halflings stay the fuck out of my fighter class

    maybe

    maybe good game decision
    On Athas we just killed all the gnomes.

    Saved us the trouble of telling them they can't have greatswords.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Kay wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Well I don't think that they have many shitty classes - a couple definitely but most of the essentials classes (actually, all of them) are really solid. Sometimes mechanically fiddly as hell like the Hexblade Warlock but overall pretty good.

    Question: What's the fiddliness in the Hexblade? Just the inherent confusion around an implement that generates a weapon used as an weapliment and the confusion of a Dagger (light blade) implement generating a Heavy Blade hexblade?

    Yep. The problem is that Wizards CS has given every answer you can imagine on this. Effectively, nobody knows how the rules actually work and it's entirely RAI. While you may say "Well that is pretty fine anyway", I like my rules to be consistent and not merely at the mercy of my own interpretations. Nobody in my games is playing a Hexblade, but I know for a fact if anyone did I would have to sort out this mess on my own judgment. Not that my judgment is particularly bad - most of the things I've houseruled have actually been errata'ed to be similar (or often more severely) to what I thought they should be - but I would like it if you didn't have a class that would have a million variations on how people thought it worked. Especially because I think the Hexblade is a great concept.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    What exactly are the current issues with Small PCs? I mean, yeah, I hardly see anyone playing a Halfling (if they're not a Rogue) and I've never seen anyone play a Gnome, but they certainly have weapons available for any class. Even Small Barbarians and Fighters can work pretty well now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    Shit, Small races have feats that make me jealous.
    Small races in weapon-based classes are taking at least a 1 point average damage penalty (with the exception of the Rogue). Which their implement-based brethren simply aren't.

    That's not great game balance.

    Them's the breaks though, isn't it? A four foot tall humanoid with a small blade or hammer isn't going to do as much damage as an eight foot tall humanoid wielding a Buick. He is going to be harder to hit and have an advantage against larger targets, though, and that's somewhat reflected in the feat choices for Halflings.

    And we're just talking about Strength primary weapon-using classes, here; they'll be just fine as any class that's Con or Dex primary.
    He's not harder to hit, though. Outside of racial powers. And he doesn't hit less hard, he just gets relegated to smaller weapons. Primary attribute doesn't matter (I can run a 16 Str Halfling just as easily as I can a 16 Str Elf, and Halflings are actually better at Barbarian in terms of attributes than elves now), weapon size does in this case.

    And again, if this were somehow carried over to the non-weapon classes, which also benefit from everything the weapon classes get without any of the penalties, you could construe it as a balancing factor for some other strong racial ability. But it doesn't, so it's selectively segregating gnomes and halflings away from Fighter, Barbarian, etc and towards the classes that use daggers or implements. That's a poor game balance decision. Period.

    Know When to Fold, Lost in the Crowd and Underfoot disagree with you.

    So you want to eliminate the Small sized weapon restriction completely? I'm not buying it. And I'm not buying "poor game balance", either; Light Blades are easily the best-supported weapon group by a mile and a half. You don't need big axes or heavy blades with d12 die sizes to do big damage.

    Rius on
  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    what kind of counter argument can you provide outside of "realism" against allowing Halflings to use Fullblades?

    under your line of thinking, Dwarves, Humans, Goliaths, and Drow shouldn't be allowed to use Fullblades, because they have good feats, too.

    angrylinuxgeek on
    sQwJu.png
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I haven't used the word "realism" at all. The closest I've come to that is saying a short guy with a dagger isn't going to hit as hard as a giant with a Buick. Not that the point isn't valid, if you chose to argue that way. A Longsword probably is a Fullblade to a midget.

    I've always thought Superior weapons are a little dumb anyway, but that's also besides the point.

    I am saying that the imbalance perceived by disallowing two-handed weapons to Small races isn't as bad as it's made out to be.

    Rius on
  • KayKay What we need... Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Kay wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Well I don't think that they have many shitty classes - a couple definitely but most of the essentials classes (actually, all of them) are really solid. Sometimes mechanically fiddly as hell like the Hexblade Warlock but overall pretty good.

    Question: What's the fiddliness in the Hexblade? Just the inherent confusion around an implement that generates a weapon used as an weapliment and the confusion of a Dagger (light blade) implement generating a Heavy Blade hexblade?

    Yep. The problem is that Wizards CS has given every answer you can imagine on this. Effectively, nobody knows how the rules actually work and it's entirely RAI. While you may say "Well that is pretty fine anyway", I like my rules to be consistent and not merely at the mercy of my own interpretations. Nobody in my games is playing a Hexblade, but I know for a fact if anyone did I would have to sort out this mess on my own judgment. Not that my judgment is particularly bad - most of the things I've houseruled have actually been errata'ed to be similar (or often more severely) to what I thought they should be - but I would like it if you didn't have a class that would have a million variations on how people thought it worked. Especially because I think the Hexblade is a great concept.

    Well, it seemed pretty straightforward and obvious to me.

    Light Blade is a group, not a property. So a Heavy Blade hexblade made with a dagger implement would inherit the magical properties (such as the Jagged Dagger's crit bonus, and an Accurate dagger's +1 to hit), the non-magical properties (light thrown, which is useless) and enhancement bonuses. In similar ways, using an Astral Holy Symbol (the only one I remember the properties for, right now) would give you +2 damage with radiant powers and +2 range with any attacks made with your hexblade, as well as the enhancement and enchantment buffs.

    This is more about people leaning on the 'wielding/using' versus 'actually thrusting said dagger into an enemy as opposed to the hexblade because we are munchy' thing, right?

    Kay on
    ew9y0DD.png
    3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    What exactly are the current issues with Small PCs? I mean, yeah, I hardly see anyone playing a Halfling (if they're not a Rogue) and I've never seen anyone play a Gnome, but they certainly have weapons available for any class. Even Small Barbarians and Fighters can work pretty well now... you're not swinging a d12, but hey, you picked a Small race, right?

    Shit, Small races have feats that make me jealous.
    Small races in weapon-based classes are taking at least a 1 point average damage penalty (with the exception of the Rogue). Which their implement-based brethren simply aren't.

    That's not great game balance.

    Them's the breaks though, isn't it? A four foot tall humanoid with a small blade or hammer isn't going to do as much damage as an eight foot tall humanoid wielding a Buick. He is going to be harder to hit and have an advantage against larger targets, though, and that's somewhat reflected in the feat choices for Halflings.

    And we're just talking about Strength primary weapon-using classes, here; they'll be just fine as any class that's Con or Dex primary.
    He's not harder to hit, though. Outside of racial powers. And he doesn't hit less hard, he just gets relegated to smaller weapons. Primary attribute doesn't matter (I can run a 16 Str Halfling just as easily as I can a 16 Str Elf, and Halflings are actually better at Barbarian in terms of attributes than elves now), weapon size does in this case.

    And again, if this were somehow carried over to the non-weapon classes, which also benefit from everything the weapon classes get without any of the penalties, you could construe it as a balancing factor for some other strong racial ability. But it doesn't, so it's selectively segregating gnomes and halflings away from Fighter, Barbarian, etc and towards the classes that use daggers or implements. That's a poor game balance decision. Period.

    Know When to Fold, Lost in the Crowd and Underfoot disagree with you.

    So you want to eliminate the Small sized weapon restriction completely? I'm not buying it. And I'm not buying "poor game balance", either; Light Blades are easily the best-supported weapon group by a mile and a half. You don't need big axes or heavy blades with d12 die sizes to do big damage.
    One of those feats is from Dragon Magazine, two of them simply avoid Opportunity Attacks for movement (which is not the same as "being harder to hit") and not a single one of them apply to gnomes. Lost in the Crowd, which is admittedly a house-rocking feat for a halfling meleer, is no Opportunity Gore or Warforged Superiority for actual straight up defending capability, or tons of racial feats that add bonus damage for Strikers, etc. Fundamentally, it's a feat tax for capitalizing on something the game has already seen fit to penalize you for.

    Basically, my point is this; If you are going to play a halfling you're probably going to play a Rogue or a class with implements. They're just that much more attractive, both in terms of built in abilities and support. The point with 4E was that this wasn't supposed to be the case anymore. We weren't supposed to see penalties for race choices. But we do, almost uniquely in small characters in melee classes.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    until the free action nerf this fall and the change to rare items, I never thought of house-ruling anything. now, I've got a list going of things to houserule before my Dark Sun campaign starts next month.

    At least both of those came from a place you could understand. While each was an under supported overreaction they were each addressing valid issues.

    This....

    Fuck.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    I haven't used the word "realism" at all. The closest I've come to that is saying a short guy with a dagger isn't going to hit as hard as a giant with a Buick. Not that the point isn't valid, if you chose to argue that way. A Longsword probably is a Fullblade to a midget.

    I've always thought Superior weapons are a little dumb anyway, but that's also besides the point.

    I am saying that the imbalance perceived by disallowing two-handed weapons to Small races isn't as bad as it's made out to be.

    it's an utterly pointless flaw to a small subsection of races. small races only get negatives with no positives from being small. if they got something like +1 ac/ref /tier then it would be balanced. not allowing certain weapon selections just because someone is small without giving them a mechanical benefit fits the very definition of imbalance.

    angrylinuxgeek on
    sQwJu.png
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I only altered the free action attack rule slightly not to include most class features. I don't mind the free action attack ruling as it does stop a few infinite loops. It should also apply to attacks that are no action as well, which would solve every infinite damage loop in 4E.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    So play a Scout if you want to be a Small class that has no penalties for also being a weapon user. Or an Executioner, Thief or Rogue. Or a Hexblade, that'd probably work out ok.

    This is the only place I've ever heard anyone complain that Halflings can't use Fullblades. I'll admit it's a valid complaint but I guess I just don't care.

    Rius on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    So play a Scout if you want to be a Small class that has no penalties for also being a weapon user. Or an Executioner, Thief or Rogue. Or a Hexblade, that'd probably work out ok.

    This is the only place I've ever heard anyone complain that Halflings can't use Fullblades. I'll admit it's a valid complaint but I guess I just don't care.
    Would you care if Dwarves and Half-Orcs took a die-step penalty on all of their implement-based damage?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    The point is that it should've never happened. They should be able to be just as good at any weapon using class as any other race in the game.

    SJ on
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    So play a Scout if you want to be a Small class that has no penalties for also being a weapon user. Or an Executioner, Thief or Rogue. Or a Hexblade, that'd probably work out ok.

    This is the only place I've ever heard anyone complain that Halflings can't use Fullblades. I'll admit it's a valid complaint but I guess I just don't care.
    Would you care if Dwarves and Half-Orcs took a die-step penalty on all of their implement-based damage?

    I'd probably start by asking why they'd have such a penalty. I don't ask that question with regards to Small race weapon selection.

    Dwarves and Half-Orcs are stupid so they should have baked-in penalties to Implement powers? That's reflected in their attribute selections and how neither of them has an Int bonus. If you pick an Int-based class for a race without +Int, you're making that choice and you pay for it.

    Halflings are not strong, but I don't buy the premise that they have an implicit penalty to Weapon powers. They have an implicit penalty to certain classes; nobody is forcing you to pick those classes. If you pick a weapon based class that likes Light Blades or one that operates off of Dex, then you're just as good as everyone else. That doesn't say "imbalanced" to me.

    Rius on
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SJ wrote: »
    The point is that it should've never happened. They should be able to be just as good at any weapon using class as any other race in the game.

    Not all races are good at all classes. Nobody is complaining that Deva Barbarians suck.

    Rius on
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Not being inherently awesome is not the same as being actively penalized. Halflings are being actively penalized. You're furthermore actively penalizing any player who wants to play that character concept without being screwed.

    SJ on
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SJ wrote: »
    Not being inherently awesome is not the same as being actively penalized. Halflings are being actively penalized.

    They're being actively penalized if they choose certain classes. That statement applies to every race. If you make that choice, for whatever reason, then you cannot complain about it.

    Halflings can have (nearly?) every weapon property and every weapon group except for Reach. They're, however, limited to a d8 die size at max. That sucks, sure, but if I wanted to play a Halfling Barbarian I wouldn't really care about that.
    SJ wrote: »
    You're furthermore actively penalizing any player who wants to play that character concept without being screwed.

    Edit: Oh please. Any player who wants to play a Halfling Barbarian isn't screwed. A d8 Barbarian is a far cry from being a useless character; let's not get dramatic here. They'll never be as strong as a d12 Barbarian, but they're still going to get the job done.

    Rius on
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    SJ wrote: »
    Not being inherently awesome is not the same as being actively penalized. Halflings are being actively penalized.

    They're being actively penalized if they choose certain classes. That statement applies to every race. If you make that choice, for whatever reason, then you cannot complain about it.

    No, it doesn't. If I want to play a Dwarf wizard, I am not optimizing my character, but there is no penalty for me choosing that. I don't have to shrink my damage die for all of my best attacks, I'm just not getting a bonus to my primary stats. Those are not at all equivalent to each other.
    Halflings can have (nearly?) every weapon property and every weapon group except for Reach. They're, however, limited to a d8 die size at max. That sucks, sure, but if I wanted to play a Halfling Barbarian I wouldn't really care about that.

    That literally doesn't matter. The point is that it's bad game design to arbitrarily enforce bad things upon some races with some classes but not to either balance that out in some other fashion or have that as an across-the-board design philosophy. The whole point of 4e is that they weren't going to be penalizing players for their character creation choices and this sticks out like a sore thumb.

    SJ on
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Actually there is a feat that lets small races use a larger one handed weapon (like a longsword) two handed. This makes Halfling Barbarians and such at least somewhat viable. They are still utterly terrible because their stats don't work for a Barbarian at all though.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    edit: ^^^^ small races always had to use Longswords two handed.

    you still haven't provided a real reason to not give small characters decent weapon choices

    angrylinuxgeek on
    sQwJu.png
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SJ wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    SJ wrote: »
    Not being inherently awesome is not the same as being actively penalized. Halflings are being actively penalized.

    They're being actively penalized if they choose certain classes. That statement applies to every race. If you make that choice, for whatever reason, then you cannot complain about it.

    No, it doesn't. If I want to play a Dwarf wizard, I am not optimizing my character, but there is no penalty for me choosing that. I don't have to shrink my damage die for all of my best attacks, I'm just not getting a bonus to my primary stats. Those are not at all equivalent to each other.

    Just because they're not equivalent doesn't mean my point is irrelevant. One is a worse penalty than the other; that doesn't make one magically fair and the other magically unfair. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

    Rius on
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    SJ wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    SJ wrote: »
    Not being inherently awesome is not the same as being actively penalized. Halflings are being actively penalized.

    They're being actively penalized if they choose certain classes. That statement applies to every race. If you make that choice, for whatever reason, then you cannot complain about it.

    No, it doesn't. If I want to play a Dwarf wizard, I am not optimizing my character, but there is no penalty for me choosing that. I don't have to shrink my damage die for all of my best attacks, I'm just not getting a bonus to my primary stats. Those are not at all equivalent to each other.

    Just because they're not equivalent doesn't mean my point is irrelevant. One is a worse penalty than the other; that doesn't make one magically fair and the other magically unfair. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

    Not getting a bonus and getting a penalty are not the same. One is a negative, the other isn't a positive. Not having a stat bump isn't a penalty, it isn't anything. Having a damage die reduced is a penalty.

    SJ on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rius wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Rius wrote: »
    So play a Scout if you want to be a Small class that has no penalties for also being a weapon user. Or an Executioner, Thief or Rogue. Or a Hexblade, that'd probably work out ok.

    This is the only place I've ever heard anyone complain that Halflings can't use Fullblades. I'll admit it's a valid complaint but I guess I just don't care.
    Would you care if Dwarves and Half-Orcs took a die-step penalty on all of their implement-based damage?

    I'd probably start by asking why they'd have such a penalty. I don't ask that question with regards to Small race weapon selection.

    Dwarves and Half-Orcs are stupid so they should have baked-in penalties to Implement powers? That's reflected in their attribute selections and how neither of them has an Int bonus. If you pick an Int-based class for a race without +Int, you're making that choice and you pay for it.

    Halflings are not strong, but I don't buy the premise that they have an implicit penalty to Weapon powers. They have an implicit penalty to certain classes; nobody is forcing you to pick those classes. If you pick a weapon based class that likes Light Blades or one that operates off of Dex, then you're just as good as everyone else. That doesn't say "imbalanced" to me.
    But a Half-Orc Wizard can still have a 16 Int pretty easily, just like how a Halfling Fighter can have a 16 Str pretty easily. A 16 in a primary attribute is completely serviceable, particularly for a Defender.

    But even with that 16 Str, that halfling can't swing a greataxe.

    That's a prohibition that is unseen anywhere else in the game.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Alternately, since a Gnome or Halfling Barbarian can take a feat and wield a Bastard Sword, they're penalized roughly one feat compared to an accurate Barbarian of another race using a Greatsword. I don't consider a single feat to be a massive penalty.

    Terrendos on
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    edit: ^^^^ small races always had to use Longswords two handed.

    you still haven't provided a real reason to not give small characters decent weapon choices

    What is a "real" reason? Is a 3' 5" tall humanoid not being able to wield a 7' long sword a "real" reason? I hate Realism as a foil for a D&D argument but you keep dragging me back to that word.

    The problem here is everyone is obsessed with d12 two-handers and d10 one-handers. This is a problem solely due to Superior weapons. You're perceiving a Halfling as being at a two-step disadvantage because they're limited to d8 instead of d12. That's not the Halfling's fault and it's not the fault of being Small; it's a problem because Medium races can spend a feat to raise their die size.

    The best a Halfling can do is a +3 1d8 High Crit Heavy Blade/Polearm, with an attached +2 damage bonus. This is not a goddamn slouch of a weapon; it is a "decent" weapon choice. It is only a "bad" weapon because a Human can use a +3 1d12 High Crit Heavy Blade.

    I'm going to tell you something that's going to blow your mind, though, and this should be obvious to you if you'd ever played in a serious Epic level campaign.

    DIE SIZE is (mostly) IRRELEVANT when calculating the damage a big beef striker can do.

    When an Epic tier Barbarian has +40 to his damage roll (or more!) and can hit on a 2+, it doesn't matter if he's wielding a d8 or a d12; he's still going to split open whatever he attacks. Dealing damage isn't about die size; it's about accuracy and it's about how many damage bonuses can you stack on your character.

    Small PCs are not restricted from obtaining all the damage bonuses a Medium character can get. All a d8 is, is 2 less average damage per [W]. Even with a 9[W] daily power, that's 18 less damage on an average attack that is probably doing 70+ damage already. With an at-will, it's 4 less damage with a 50+ damage attack.

    I could give Corianan from Broken Chains a rusty Dagger and he'd still be able to crank out hundreds of damage in a single Encounter nova.

    Rius on
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    And there is no reason for that penalty to be there.

    SJ on
Sign In or Register to comment.