I agree with Johnathan drain - half orcs make better barbarians. You're forgetting d) mobility. 40' movement is significant, and only the monk and the barbarian are capable of that speed. It's a major class feature, not an incidental perk. The barbarian's ability to close and then decimate is very important, and not easily discounted.
What are the barbarian's primary strengths? a) Doing lots of damage, b) Sucking up lots of damage, and c) Going into a rage to improve A and B.
If we assume the dwarf barbarian can move 30' in medium armor (which based on the phrase "unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations" suggests to me is the case), then the half-orc barbarian does have a mobility advantage, yes -- but the dwarf barbarian still has better mobility than any heavily-armed non-barbarian. I'm not discounting the mobility class feature -- I'm saying that its presence effectively wipes out the dwarf's major disadvantage.
As for c), I agree with Johnathan again that it's much more important to get the extra +2 to Str than an extra round of rage. The number of fights where the barbarian's rage played out too early is in the minority in my experience. And in the cases where it does play out too early, that extra round is not significant. Which is better: +4 to Str for 5 rounds or +6 to Str for 4 rounds? I'd say the later.
My experiences are just different, I suppose. I've had plenty of encounters where the rage ended and the fight dragged on. But to put it more fully into context, which is better: +4 Str / + 6 Con for 5 rounds, or +6 Str / +4 Con for 4 rounds? Str gives you to-hit and damage, Con gives you hp, durability, and Fort saves. I'd say Con wins, but as I originally said, just barely.
Edit: I was curious about whether dwarven barbarians would get slowed down by wearing medium armor, so I looked it up in the SRD, and it seems ambiguous to me. Is there a ruling on this of which anyone is aware? Here is what the SRD says:
Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).
Does the this bolded above refer to the dwarf's base land speed (which for a barbarian is 30') or the 20 ft?
As above, the SRD says, "Fast Movement (Ex): A barbarian’s land speed is faster than the norm for his race by +10 feet. This benefit applies only when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor and not carrying a heavy load. Apply this bonus before modifying the barbarian’s speed because of any load carried or armor worn." And re: the dwarf, it has the phrase "unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations" so I would take that to mean that a dwarf barbarian's land speed was thus raised to 30 when wearing medium armor (but not heavy).
And again, I have to point to all the other things the dwarf has going for them. Assuming all the base stats (before racial mods), level, and equipment are the same...
Who has more skills for those times when the axe is not the answer? The dwarf.
Who can more easily shrug off those pesky enchantments that make warrior-class characters' lives hell? The dwarf.
Who has more attack bonus to spend on Power Attack against those classic melee mobs of orcs and goblins? The dwarf.
Who's got a MUCH better AC when fighting, say, a troll? The dwarf.
Who has a better chance of shrugging off a venom attack? The dwarf.
Who can use that sweet, sweet dwarven waraxe (custom made for barbarians) without blowing a feat on it? The dwarf.
Is all of that _really_ a fair trade for +1 to hit, +1 damage, +10' of movement? I'm sorry, I just can't see it.
-The Gneech
Again, you're equating "more abilities" with "better". How often do you actually fight giants to get that +4 to AC? Giant is one of fifteen possible monster types, so that's a rough average of one quarter of a point to AC. How often, above low levels, do you fight a goblinoid that's actually challenging? And how often is the party actually targeted by a spellcaster, and when they are, how often is the fighter targeted out of a party of four?
A lightly armoured barbarian's speed is 40ft for a half-orc, but only 30ft for a dwarf - admittedly, they both move 30ft in medium armour since armour doesn't slow a dwarf. Most of the dwarf's abilities are reactive, or defensive - most of the time he doesn't benefit from any of them.
Let us take two greatsword wielding barbarians as an example - 18 Strength, 16 Con, before racial bonuses. The half-orc rages for eight rounds with 24 Strength (+7 to hit, +10 damage). The dwarf rages for nine rounds with 22 Strength (+6 to hit, +9 damage). Assuming one hit per two rounds that's 40 damage by the half-orc, 40.5 damage by the dwarf. However, the dwarf is less likely to hit (reducing that to an effective 38.5) and also takes longer to deal the same damage (in the first eight rounds the dwarf's strength adds only 34).
This is even assuming that the combat will last at least nine rounds. It's also ignoring that our first level barbarian can only rage once per day, and the half-orc gets his bonus to attack and damage permanently, on every hit he deals. He is roughly 5% more likely to hit, and deals more damage when he does hit.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My experiences are just different, I suppose. I've had plenty of encounters where the rage ended and the fight dragged on. But to put it more fully into context, which is better: +4 Str / + 6 Con for 5 rounds, or +6 Str / +4 Con for 4 rounds? Str gives you to-hit and damage, Con gives you hp, durability, and Fort saves. I'd say Con wins, but as I originally said, just barely.
hp is cool, but only if you're getting hit a lot. I'd rather have the higher strength, a better chance to hit, and thus take my foe out of combat sooner rather than soak more damage. In D&D, the best defense is a good offense.
All this thread needs now is for someone to pop up and start arguing that Cha is a more important stat for paladins than Str. (Or worse yet, Wis.)
Again, you're equating "more abilities" with "better". How often do you actually fight giants to get that +4 to AC? Giant is one of fifteen possible monster types, so that's a rough average of one quarter of a point to AC. How often, above low levels, do you fight a goblinoid that's actually challenging? And how often is the party actually targeted by a spellcaster, and when they are, how often is the fighter targeted out of a party of four?
The idea I'm trying to get across is that just going by stats, the half-orc and dwarf would be comparable, and THEN the dwarf gets a bag of goodies on top of that, while the half-orc gets, well, to be green.
How often do I fight giants? Considering I just finished a 3.5 adaptation of "Against the Giants," pretty darn often. :)
How often is the party targeted by a spellcaster? Pretty much at least once per adventure.
How often is the fighter targeted out of a party of four? Every time a Willpower save is involved, if the enemy spellcaster has any brains.
There's a reason I keep picking on those abilities -- they are important abilities! I agree, the half-orc does hit a bit more often and do a bit more damage, but that is a miniscule edge when you look at the whole picture.
There is a lot more to a character than raw round-by-round melee damage output, even when that character is a barbarian.
-The Gneech
Ah, so the dwarf gets to make use of his +2 bonus to saves vs spells once or twice in an adventure, and even then it's only most important if he has to make a Will save. In comparison, the half-orc gets his bonus in every combat of the adventure, which might be twenty combats, of which he is afforded the bonus every single round.
Of course, all I'm saying is that the half-orc is superior in offence, which is what's most important for a barbarian. The dwarf is superior in defence, which is more important for a fighter but still important to any character. I think the dwarf is better overall, and the sheer number of abilities he gets makes him a more attractive choice, but for pure melee beefiness the half-orc is still a reasonable choice.
All this thread needs now is for someone to pop up and start arguing that Cha is a more important stat for paladins than Str. (Or worse yet, Wis.)
Welllll.... Now that you mention it, I think I'd rather have a paladin with 10 STR, 12 WIS, and 16 CHA than almost any other combination of those numbers. I always try to put a 15 or 16 in CHA for a paladin and a 12 in WIS. The CHA gives him all the cool bonuses and abilities and the WIS lets him cast bull's strength to make up for his most obvious shortcoming. If you shortchange the paladin on his WIS and CHA scores, you get a Warrior with a free horse and better skill selection. But Hey! That's just my $0.02.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
All this thread needs now is for someone to pop up and start arguing that Cha is a more important stat for paladins than Str. (Or worse yet, Wis.)Welllll.... Now that you mention it, I think I'd rather have a paladin with 10 STR, 12 WIS, and 16 CHA than almost any other combination of those numbers. I always try to put a 15 or 16 in CHA for a paladin and a 12 in WIS. The CHA gives him all the cool bonuses and abilities and the WIS lets him cast bull's strength to make up for his most obvious shortcoming. If you shortchange the paladin on his WIS and CHA scores, you get a Warrior with a free horse and better skill selection. But Hey! That's just my $0.02.
Argh! Okay, okay, let's try this:
Charisma is the most important stat for a sorcerer. Can we all agree on that?
(for pallies, Str is used in each and every single [melee] combat. Cha is important, but not to the same extent. You're best stat should be Str, then Cha. Wis should be 14 at the absolute highest so that you can get all of your spells. Granted, you shouldn't take pallie unless you've got two good stats to put in Cha and Str to begin with - otherwise, you're right, you've just got a fighter with a horse.)
Ah, so the dwarf gets to make use of his +2 bonus to saves vs spells once or twice in an adventure, and even then it's only most important if he has to make a Will save. In comparison, the half-orc gets his bonus in every combat of the adventure, which might be twenty combats, of which he is afforded the bonus every single round.
On the other hand, in my last campaign, that dwarf would've been making irritating comments to the other PCs, bragging about how awesome his +2 on saves vs spells was, until I finally got sick of it and had an NPC Polymorph Any Object to turn him into a Half-Orc and shut him up. Start throwing outsiders and enemy clerics in, and see how awesome that +2 can be when it makes the difference between 75 damage and 150. (Especially if half of that damage happens to be Vile damage)
Then, any time I build a Paladin, I put his highest score in Charisma. Then I make sure he's got at least a 14 Wisdom. Then I look at his Strength. All the damage output in the world will avail you nothing if you fail that save vs death. Sure, you can't go prancing about in full plate with a low strength score, but the traditional Knight in Shining Armor doesn't really appeal to me anyway.
And frankly, I don't really see how Strength is the "best score" anyway. In a few games, we've dropped the charisma penalty off the half-orc, making it an even exchange, and still nobody will touch that race with a ten foot pole. In melee combat, I can admit that strength is important. Outside of melee, though, it's almost completely irrelevant. Myself, I'd rather just get a Bard or a Marshal if I wanted to increase damage output. Then the character would have something better to do than get drunk and belch loudly when we got back to town.
Nah, I prefer a cleric myself.Me too... and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid.
I just said i'd rather play a cleric than a druid...
D&D is a lot about melee, at least when you're not an arcane spellcaster. It's not the best ability score for all classes, but it's generally good.
Sorry Sebastian, I'm going with Ulric on this paladin issue. Maybe I'm just a green DM but I'm willing to put my money on the DMG chapter on NPCs. "Paladin starting stats: Str 14, Dex 8, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 15." While strength is important for any warrior, it's charisma that really defines the paladin both in terms of mechanics (smite evil, class skills), role-playing and historical reference (Lancelot, Tristan).
Sorry Sebastian, I'm going with Ulric on this paladin issue.
I also agree with Amal and Tequila, and have played an overly large number of Paladins to back myself up. Charisma improves ALL of a Paladin's saves, his smite attack roll, lay on hands, Diplomacy and Handle Animal, and Turning (which is already pathetically weak as is). Strength would probably be second in a well balanced Paladin, followed by Wisdom (which is really just a couple more spells per day at high levels), Constitution, Dexterity (Ride and ranged attacks), and finally Intelligence.
Granted, that hasn't stopped me from playing low-Charisma Paladins and Paladins with Intelligence as their highest stat. But that's just me.
Ah, so the dwarf gets to make use of his +2 bonus to saves vs spells once or twice in an adventure, and even then it's only most important if he has to make a Will save. In comparison, the half-orc gets his bonus in every combat of the adventure, which might be twenty combats, of which he is afforded the bonus every single round.
...
At this point, there's nowhere to go but to start bouncing back and forth "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!"
I still maintain that half-orcs got the very short end of the stick -- and that they do not even fill their intended role as well as a dwarf does; but if you hold up +2 Str as being the holy grail of melee (which I do not), we're just going to have to politely disagree.
-The Gneech
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Doh! I thought I'd get at least one person to agree on the paladin Str v. Cha argument. I agree that it's not a no-brainer, but I still maintain that it is true. You smite a small amount of the times that you attack. The +1 to saves is marginal because you already have good saves as a paladin. Lay on hands is incidental as is turn undead if you've got a cleric in the group. The paladin's main job is to be a melee fighter and Str is the most important score for being a melee fighter. Cha is a support stat. I'm not going to quibble over Cha being one point higher than Str, but if you're looking at a two point spread, give the love to Str.
I still maintain that half-orcs got the very short end of the stick -- and that they do not even fill their intended role as well as a dwarf does; but if you hold up +2 Str as being the holy grail of melee (which I do not), we're just going to have to politely disagree.
The barbarian's role is offensive fighter, the fighter's role is more defensive.
I do agree with you, though the dwarf is better! We're just going to have to agree to agree :)
Doh! I thought I'd get at least one person to agree on the paladin Str v. Cha argument. I agree that it's not a no-brainer, but I still maintain that it is true. You smite a small amount of the times that you attack. The +1 to saves is marginal because you already have good saves as a paladin. Lay on hands is incidental as is turn undead if you've got a cleric in the group. The paladin's main job is to be a melee fighter and Str is the most important score for being a melee fighter. Cha is a support stat. I'm not going to quibble over Cha being one point higher than Str, but if you're looking at a two point spread, give the love to Str.
Actually, Paladins only get good Fortitude, like Fighters. I disagree that lay on hands is incidental (though turning is, even if you don't have a cleric) because at mid levels you could be looking at 20 - 40 hps of healing that the Paladin can direct as he chooses. He can do 1 point and stabilize a fallen ally, or all 40 to restore all of the caster's health.
And you might smite a small number of times compared to normal attacks, but if you use your smites conservatively, they will count for more than the rest of the attacks combined. One Paladin of mine uses a scythe and did a smiting critical for 75 damage, slaying his spiked-chain wielding foe on the first round of combat. The smite counted for half that damage.
I'm not going to say that you can play an effective Paladin with subpar Strength - a 14 is nearly essential - but Charisma seems much more important to me.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually, Paladins only get good Fortitude, like Fighters. I disagree that lay on hands is incidental (though turning is, even if you don't have a cleric) because at mid levels you could be looking at 20 - 40 hps of healing that the Paladin can direct as he chooses. He can do 1 point and stabilize a fallen ally, or all 40 to restore all of the caster's health.
And you might smite a small number of times compared to normal attacks, but if you use your smites conservatively, they will count for more than the rest of the attacks combined. One Paladin of mine uses a scythe and did a smiting critical for 75 damage, slaying his spiked-chain wielding foe on the first round of combat. The smite counted for half that damage.
I'm not going to say that you can play an effective Paladin with subpar Strength - a 14 is nearly essential - but Charisma seems much more important to me.
Sorry - I meant that they receive good saves because of their Charisma. The additional +1 is gravy.
Given your last statement, I think we're pretty close to being on the same ground. I don't mean to say Cha is irrelevant, and I don't think you're saying that about Str.
Here's my last little bit of argument. Suppose you're top stats are an 18 and a 14. If you put the 18 in Cha, you get +2 to all your saves, +2 hp of healing per level, and a bonus to turning. Your smite is actually better with an 18 Str and 14 Cha than the other way around (you still get a total of +6 to hit from Str and Cha, and with an 18 Str, you get an extra +2 to dmg as well). With an 18 Str you get a +2 to hit and a +2 to dmg.
Now compare the price of a +2 weapon (8000+ gps) with the price of a cloak of resistance +2 (4000+ gps). This method discounts the healing ability (there isn't really a good magic item to match it up to), but I think it sets up a decent baseline comparison. The discrepency isn't as bad when the difference is +1, which is why I am more indifferent at that level. But when it is +2 or higher, you are giving up a bonus to saves and some healing for a bonus to hit and damage. That strikes me as a worthwhile trade (though I do have to admit, I tend to be offensively oriented).
For a generic paladin, I would place my stats in the following order (highest to lowest): Str, Cha, Con, Wis, Dex, Int
By the time you need a high Wis, you can afford an item that gives it to you, give me the hps every time.
Given your last statement, I think we're pretty close to being on the same ground. I don't mean to say Cha is irrelevant, and I don't think you're saying that about Str.
...
(though I do have to admit, I tend to be offensively oriented).
I suppose it does come down to a bit of play style. A more gritty Paladin would call for a higher Strength than Charisma, but both *are* important.
I think we can agree to disagree here (and it's a small disagreement) and unhijack this thread. Sorry, all... er... um... kobolds! *runs and hides*
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Just to play devel's advocate, JR and Sebastian are arguing ove a creature that won't surive to 10th or 11th level anyway. I have unfortunately never met someone who would de-rage to save their own lives. If you play by the rules, -10 HP's is dead. Peroid. At 5th level, your dwarven barbarian dies. Period. The first time he is knocked unconcious, he loses his bonus HP because of CON, and he catapults over -10. Period.
I considered this argument, but I don't think it's very persuasive on the subject of half-orc vs. dwarf for barbarian. The fact that the dwarf has a higher con is irrelevant to the loss of hp caused at the end of the rage. The loss is entirely due to the +4 Con you get from raging. Thus, both a dwarf bbn10 with a 30 Con and a half-orc bbn10 with a 12 Con lose 20 hp at the end of their rage. If anything, the dwarf has an advantage because their rage lasts a round longer, allowing them to get healing before they lose the bonus hp.
For the broader point of how to keep barbarians from dying due to the loss of bonus hp, I agree that is a danger of being a barbarian. I don't see it as a problem with the system though - just something to which players should pay attention.
Prompted by discussion in another thread ("You Son of an Orc!") I was looking at the comparative virtues of orcs vs. half-orcs and decided to add hobgoblins into the mix, and something jumped out at me:
Hobgoblin Characters
Hobgoblin characters possess the following racial traits.
* +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution.
* A hobgoblin’s base land speed is 30 feet.
* Darkvision out to 60 feet.
* +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
* Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Dwarven, Infernal, Giant, Orc.
* Favored Class: Fighter.
* Level adjustment +1.
Okay. Look at the hobgoblin for a minute, then compare it to a dwarf. Does anything jump out at you?
I have finally come to a realization on this whole topic, which is that half-orcs aren't underpowered -- the problem is that dwarves as written should have a +1 LA. Especially if you take the view that a penalty to Charisma is not that big a deal, then the dwarf is surely comparable in power to a hobgoblin, especially since the hobgoblin is likely to be wearing speed-reducing armor.
So, I'm going to house-rule that dwarves are +1 LA in my games from now on; I heartily recommend to Wizards that they do the same!
-The Gneech
So, I'm going to house-rule that dwarves are +1 LA in my games from now on; I heartily recommend to Wizards that they do the same!
-The Gneech
I feel that I have to chime in at this point to disagree. Dwarves are not overpowered and hobgoblins are. Dwarves get a bonus to a totally defensive score, even if it universally beneficial and get a penalty in a totally offensive score (whether used for spells or charisma based checks). Hobgoblins get two bonuses, with no counterbalancing penalties, have racial hit dice and better speed (even though a bugbear's armor would typically reduce such speed). And besides, do you really want ELVES to be more appealing to players than dwarves?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I feel that I have to chime in at this point to disagree. Dwarves are not overpowered and hobgoblins are. Dwarves get a bonus to a totally defensive score, even if it universally beneficial and get a penalty in a totally offensive score (whether used for spells or charisma based checks). Hobgoblins get two bonuses, with no counterbalancing penalties, have racial hit dice and better speed (even though a bugbear's armor would typically reduce such speed). And besides, do you really want ELVES to be more appealing to players than dwarves?
I agree with TS. Dwarves are a good race, probably the best right after humans, but not +1 LA.
(and if they are +1 LA, IMO, the other races should receive a bump up to make them all +0 LA.)
I have finally come to a realization on this whole topic, which is that half-orcs aren't underpowered -- the problem is that dwarves as written should have a +1 LA.
No, hobgoblin gets +2 Dexterity extra and doesn't suffer the Charisma penalty or speed penalty in light armour. Compare that to the elf which gets +2 Dexterity and suffers -2 Constitution for it - Dexterity is valuable. It's getting +2 to two ability scores, without even any penalties, that puts hobgoblin over one of the the limits of what a normal race can have.