Too bad the Ant beats them all. We going to say that Ant PCs are the most optimized martial now?
And I never said halflings were. I never even inferred it. I was making a simple observation based on the math in the game. I never said that they were optimal. Just that the fact was interesting.
Chill out man. It is merely an amusing observation.
Plus ants are not a core race anyways. ;-)
When was he last time your light load rating was three times your own body weight?I have a half-orc barbarian whose light load rating is more than 4 times his own body weight when raging (only about twice when not). And his weight is near max (I rolled 22 on 2d12 and decided to go with it). If his weight was average, the ratios would be over 5 and 2.5, respectively.
Can I ask what level and what str?
Reason I ask is if I am reading it right, assuming your 1/2 orc is 304 pounds that makes his light load about 1216 pounds. Meaning as a medium size biped you would have a strength score of around 36 - 37 while raging.
This would seem to be rather exceptional and has less to do with your race and more to do with yout items, level and powers.
Assuming a similar roll for weight (say a 7 on 2D4) and a similar str score a halfing would have a light load of 912 but the body weight to light load ratio would be about 24.6 to 1. Still technically pound for pound stronger than a half orc.
Which is an interesting anecdote and something to definitely RP with as a halfling but not an optimizing point, in case someone mistakes it for one.
-2 strUsually, I make characters with a point-buy system. The Race Modifiers to my Ability Scores barely matter at all.I don't understand.
Halfling: I pay 10 points to get a 16 STR, adjust it down to a 14.
Human: I pay 10 points to get a 16 STR, adjust it up to a 18.
More likely, I'd actually shell out the 17 points to get a 16 str as a Halfling, if I was going the strength martial route.
No idea how the race modifiers don't matter.
Don't halflings get an additional -2 Str due to their size?
When was he last time your light load rating was three times your own body weight?I have a half-orc barbarian whose light load rating is more than 4 times his own body weight when raging (only about twice when not). And his weight is near max (I rolled 22 on 2d12 and decided to go with it). If his weight was average, the ratios would be over 5 and 2.5, respectively.Can I ask what level and what str?
Reason I ask is if I am reading it right, assuming your 1/2 orc is 304 pounds that makes his light load about 1216 pounds. Meaning as a medium size biped you would have a strength score of around 36 - 37 while raging.
This would seem to be rather exceptional and has less to do with your race and more to do with yout items, level and powers.
Assuming a similar roll for weight (say a 7 on 2D4) and a similar str score a halfing would have a light load of 912 but the body weight to light load ratio would be about 24.6 to 1. Still technically pound for pound stronger than a half orc.
Which is an interesting anecdote and something to definitely RP with as a halfling but not an optimizing point, in case someone mistakes it for one.
I've joked about this, but my current character's actually in this situation. Human, 18 Str at level 1 ... and rolled as minimum on the weight table as possible: 110lbs. She's now at level 7, so you can guess where the bonus point went.
As far as small melee hate? I think it's pointed towards fear of failing, as mentioned before. I've seen the mood start to sour around my game's board when the d20 starts rolling as if it were a d4, and this is a group that's not as experienced. (And which can at times be annoyingly risk adverse. We're working on that.) Honestly, one reason I picked up a copy of D&D 5th was to see just how viable a Strength-based halfling barbarian would be. And liking the results.
Personally, I wouldn't mind exploring the idea, although again I'm a little leery of the 'not doing my job properly' aspect. It's hard to remember that 'good enough' is good enough.
I've also seen players complain that small races are too cute and can't be taken seriously. I suppose some players have very specific rules of machismo, but this really can't be the major part. Fear of failure combined with very specific optimized tactics are probably the biggest deal. A halfling knight sent out on a dog like that could really mess up a set piece strategy.
I've also seen players complain that small races are too cute and can't be taken seriously.
Whoever thinks that has never read Order of the Stick. Case in point.
After reading these I need a halfling whip fighter (lore warden / martial master) with a Napoleon complex.I've been thinking of a setting where the halflings are essentially Romans. A WHOLE race of Napoleon complexes.
Halflings: When will they ever learn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Halflings: When will they ever learn?After reading these I need a halfling whip fighter (lore warden / martial master) with a Napoleon complex.I've been thinking of a setting where the halflings are essentially Romans. A WHOLE race of Napoleon complexes.
After they try and fail to conquer Russia, presumably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To address the original post:
Because people transpose their personal playstyle onto other players. And those people can take their extra damage die and roll em up where the sun don't shine.
I play Gnomes, and I'm the first one to admit that we cannot play like Medium Characters and hope to come out on top; there's better DEX races out there and heaven forbid one of us tries out for the DPS Olympics in STR events. About one of the few instances where we'd shine (again, a situational) is the land of 5' corridors attacking with Mounts/ACs.
Any time you have to pursue an extra feat-tree, the opposing build you are competing against just pulled ahead that much further.
Does that stop me from going toe-to-toe? Hell naw! Nothing funnier than the GNOME Oracle stepping up and TANKING for the team that prioritized DPS. Pint-sized Divine Casters are Blessed for how protected they are.
I play tactically; I apply enough defensive schemes/layers that because the DM is tired of missing my character, I've figured out I could be the anti-kite that maneuvers mooks and BBEG around himself. Our true hole in our defenses are CMB effects.
Getting back to the point: unless they as a Player cannot handle an unoptimal concept, what's the harm? It's another stylistic fight, much like the constant C/M-D debates... oh Cayden Cailean I've said it out loud.
An aside question: Small Template does not automatically impose an STR penalty, I thought that's just factored into the featured Races. Doesn't Blood of Angels state that Aasimars need not be humans, but could also be the offspring of other races, ex: Gnomes and Halflings... so an Angelkin Aasimar of munchkin parentage would have a corresponding +2 bonus instead of a -2 pentalty?
An aside question: Small Template does not automatically impose an STR penalty, I thought that's just factored into the featured Races. Doesn't Blood of Angels state that Aasimars need not be humans, but could also be the offspring of other races, ex: Gnomes and Halflings... so an Angelkin Aasimar of munchkin parentage would have a corresponding +2 bonus instead of a -2 pentalty?
..aaaand now I'm thinking of trying that on an aasimar with halfling or gnome or goblin blood. As some sort of fighty brawly sort.
My wife's gnome titan mauler does just fine.
As long as you're not so fixated on min/maxing that 2-3 points of damage breaks the game for you, there is absolutely no reason you cannot play a small character as pure melee.
Because people transpose their personal playstyle onto other players. And those people can take their extra damage die and roll em up where the sun don't shine.
Since you mentioned it... I think most people who are like that just fail at math. The obsession with high base damage, regardless of circumstances, is a surprisingly widespread thing. I remember a thread where someone wanted to spend two feats just to increase his damage from d2 to d6, as well as multiple people taking EWP Bastard Sword for +1 average damage over a longsword.
Whether this desire for the biggest weapon damage dice is merely a form of compensation, I leave for others to decide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because people transpose their personal playstyle onto other players. And those people can take their extra damage die and roll em up where the sun don't shine.Since you mentioned it... I think most people who are like that just fail at math. The obsession with high base damage, regardless of circumstances, is a surprisingly widespread thing. I remember a thread where someone wanted to spend two feats just to increase his damage from d2 to d6, as well as multiple people taking EWP Bastard Sword for +1 average damage over a longsword.
Whether this desire for the biggest weapon damage dice is merely a form of compensation, I leave for others to decide.
If the issue was compensation, they would all be walking around with greatswords. Why have a slightly longer sword when you can have the biggest sword you can comfortably wield. One that is so large that you need a specialized sheath to carry it, encoraging you to simply walk around with it in the open, there for all others to see and gawk at as you
I would instead blame them being terrible at maths.
That said, its not as little as a small damage dice decrease, at least as far as the core races are concerned. Small and -2 str vs Medium and +2 Str costs you +1 Attack and +4.5 average damage in the case of a Greatsword wielder, which amounts to around 3 feats. That is pretty bad, especially during the very early levels, when that loss will amount to 1/10th of your hits missing instead and 1/3rd of your damage when you do hit being lost. The loss of damage dice is an extra kick in the pants on top of the -2 strength penalty.
Small and -2 str vs Medium and +2 Str costs you +1 Attack and +4.5 average damage in the case of a Greatsword wielder,
No penalty to attack, +1 to AC.
You get +1 to-hit and AC for being small.
My wife's gnome titan mauler does just fine.
Titan Mauler is probably more effective for Small races than for Medium ones. While weapon base damage is increased less, good Medium sized weapons are way easier to get than good Large ones.
This assumes there is nobody in the party who doesn't create magical weapons efficiently.
The halfling paladin with a holy sword was fine. The smiting, laying on hands, and such made up for the size difference.
Spiny the Gnome was like a mini tank. He was a favorite with elvish archers because they could fire over him while melee based enemies couldn't get past him. Also, his armor spikes discouraged evil monks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say I hate small races in melee builds. Thematically, I love the image of a halfling or kitsune or Grippli warrior pounding bigger opponents into oblivion.
Mechanically, they are terrible though, unfortunately.
Mechanically, they are terrible though, unfortunately.
How do you figure that? They get a bonus to AC and attack in exchange for their losses.
Going melee as a small race is a horrible idea, but that's mostly because going melee is a horrible idea. Either go archery or go spells.
I kid, I kid. Someone was to get in the way of the monsters so the heroes can do their thing after all.
Okay, okay, I'm done taking potshots at melee for real now. Though Paizo sure isn't! Stay tuned to the FAQs where they rule that the weapon proficiency feats don't actually give you real weapon proficiency! = w=
|
More seriously, with small characters it's lower base die damage on top of Str penalty.
A 1st level halfling with a 14 STR and a greatsword does 1d10+3 (avg 8.5).
A 1st level human with the same point cost in str has an 18 and her greatsword does 2d6+6 (avg 13).That's an extreme case - two handing makes it worse, but then two handing is generally the best reliable damage option.
Doesn't mean you can't play a small melee character. I've done so. Even Str based one, but the challenges are real.
Well, sure at 1st level, as a Str character. Even assuming Str, by 4th, the Halfling has Risky Striker and this looks more like this:
Halfling: 14 Str, Power Attack, Risky Striker: 1d10+13 (18.5)
Human: 18 Str, Power Attack, 2 other Feats that can't add to damage too much: 2d6+12 (19)
Now, the Human has better to-hit (by +1) and a couple of free Feats, as well as the same AC...but the damage is super similar, the Halfling has better Saves and Perception, and if they both go Nodachi (which is a better weapon choice) the damage goes to 17.5 for the Halfling...and an identical 17.5 for the Human.
That's not to say Halflings are super great at Str-based melee in isolation. They are not. Humans are better...but not miles better.
And all that is leaving aside Dex/Cha melee, which is super effective for several builds (Paladin, Dervish Dancer Bard, Swashbuckler, Daring Champion Cavalier, etc.) and ranged characters (where Small folks have a big advantage in where they can easily take their mounts).
So is Small sized melee viable? Absolutely (though more on Halfling than Gnome...Gnomes lack anything like Risky Striker to close the damage gap). Is it optimal? Only if going Dex-based or having a Mount. Especially if you take a side order of Charisma based abilities.
Going melee as a small race is a horrible idea, but that's mostly because going melee is a horrible idea. Either go archery or go spells.
I kid, I kid. Someone was to get in the way of the monsters so the heroes can do their thing after all.
Okay, okay, I'm done taking potshots at melee for real now. Though Paizo sure isn't! Stay tuned to the FAQs where they rule that the weapon proficiency feats don't actually give you real weapon proficiency! = w=
Having played almost exclusively melee characters...huh?
You wanna argue martials get screwed, you kinda have a point, but melee as a whole? That doesn't match my experiences. Wild Shape Druids seem to do fine. As do Magi. And my Investigator is doing fine in the game I'm playing in (though admittedly, we're only 7th level).
They're not quite the equal of a God Wizard...but then, nothing is. And they do easily on par with most other builds most of the time.
Excuse me while I nitpick a little.
...
Halfling: 14 Str, Power Attack, Risky Striker: 1d10+13 (18.5)
Human: 18 Str, Power Attack, 2 other Feats that can't add to damage too much: 2d6+12 (19)Now, the Human has better to-hit (by +1) and a couple of free Feats, as well as the same AC...but the damage is super similar, the Halfling has better Saves and Perception, and if they both go Nodachi (which is a better weapon choice) the damage goes to 17.5 for the Halfling...and an identical 17.5 for the Human.
That's not to say Halflings are super great at Str-based melee in isolation. They are not. Humans are better...but not miles better.
...
Two feats is a lot. Two feats is Weapon Focus and Furious Focus, for example, which gives another +3 to the human's only attack for the round. If the target has 17 AC, then the human has a 75% chance of connecting, vs a 55% chance for the halfing. That is a difference of 20%, or about 4 rounds vs 5-6 rounds for the ~3 hits necessary to kill a CR4 monster. Giving the opponent another 25-50% more time to act is not trivial.
|
|
Two feats is a lot. Two feats is Weapon Focus and Furious Focus, for example, which gives another +3 to the human's only attack for the round. If the target has 17 AC, then the human has a 75% chance of connecting, vs a 55% chance for the halfing. That is a difference of 20%, or about 4 rounds vs 5-6 rounds for the ~3 hits necessary to kill a CR4 monster. Giving the opponent another 25-50% more time to act is not trivial.
Sure, but if both are, say, Paladins, the Halfling has +2 to all saves (1 from Race, 1 from better Cha), 1 more LoH a day, and slightly better Smites. The +2 to all Saves alone is worth 3 Feats or so.
If he's a Class that has no use for Cha, he's in somewhat worse shape (though I'll note that if both are Fighters, the Halfling can grab the Feats you note and Weapon Specialization, leaving the Fighter with two more Feats, but almost nothing directly offensive to spend them on)...but I never said he wasn't.
My point wasn't that Str-based melee sans mount was a really good plan for a Halfling. It isn't. It's viable, which is to say workable, but by no means optimal.
My point was that people were vastly exaggerating the gap between a Human and a Halfling. And that (given how close that gap is), Dex based melee or mounted combat are both advantage enough to make a Halfling an excellent melee combatant.
|
More seriously, with small characters it's lower base die damage on top of Str penalty.
A 1st level halfling with a 14 STR and a greatsword does 1d10+3 (avg 8.5).
A 1st level human with the same point cost in str has an 18 and her greatsword does 2d6+6 (avg 13).That's an extreme case - two handing makes it worse, but then two handing is generally the best reliable damage option.
Doesn't mean you can't play a small melee character. I've done so. Even Str based one, but the challenges are real.
Well, sure at 1st level, as a Str character. Even assuming Str, by 4th, the Halfling has Risky Striker and this looks more like this:
Halfling: 14 Str, Power Attack, Risky Striker: 1d10+13 (18.5)
Human: 18 Str, Power Attack, 2 other Feats that can't add to damage too much: 2d6+12 (19)
Risky striker only works on large+ size categories? Based on the games I've played more than 50% of enemies are medium or smaller.
