4e Elves

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (madfox) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:38:22 GMT

Tiburon Silverflame wrote:
Yeah, they'll have to assert that in FR, but trying to make FR history and 4E details compatible is gonna require some serious hand-waving.

Actually, they already refersed this trend in 3E. The migration to Evermeet stopped and if I remember correctly there were attemtps to reestablish the...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:06:15 GMT

Both solutions would wipe out the need for that large collection of aquatic beings.

I dunno; we'll have to see. Part of the issue, of course, was that collection of races just generally accumulated over the entire lifespan of D&D. Given that there were no centralizinig, unifying concepts, there wasn't much choice but to say, ok, we'll define a new one-off race. There was never any house-cleaning, to speak of, to toss out any of them.

The...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (zadoc) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:41:52 GMT

My gut feeling is, they're gonna convert the 2 major groups (aquatic and winged) into something other than "elves" but otherwise keep them around. The aquatics will probably be redefined as some standard mermen...of which, again, we seem to have more variations than needed. Dunno about the winged, but I'd be happier if they did just disappear.

However, the simplest thing of all would be to create templates for 'aquatic...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:32:19 GMT

One thing they specifically mentioned in, IIRC, R&C, was...they went through all the books...core, campaign, splat, racebook, etc. They found something over 100 (!) total races, and...I wanna say something like 2 or 3 DOZEN variations on *elves*. Some ridiculously large number, don't recall exactly.

My gut feeling is, they're gonna convert the 2 major groups (aquatic and winged) into something other than "elves" but otherwise keep them around. The...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Cthon) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:09:22 GMT

Also, nothing is stopping FRCS from having different sorts of elves than in 4e core.

Wait, they do that already!

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:31:09 GMT

I think the age difference is to avoid some of the more strange issues...like, why isn't a 450 year old elf 47th level, and why aren't the majority of elves 15th to 20th level?

In a home-grown world, especially if using PoL...elves don't have to be seen as diminishing. Yeah, they'll have to assert that in FR, but trying to make FR history and 4E details compatible is gonna require...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Arbitrary Aardvark) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:44:08 GMT

Iron mouser wrote:
I like it. They have moved Elves out from their role of the first ancient civilization (that others can understand (I am looking at you FR)) and back into the woods.
Did anyone else notice that they cut the life expectancy by about 50%? It is about 350 years now to 200 according to the fluff, and they age to maturity at the same as humans.

I imagine that the Eladrin might be easy to...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:37:24 GMT

zadoc, note that I said "seems like" diminishing returns. Yes, since AC is scaling somewhat in proportion with attack bonuses, what you say is true. However, if you're reaching the point where only a 1 misses, the +1 to hit is also almost useless, and even if a 2 misses, a re-roll means you go from missing 5% of the time, to missing only 1% of the time. You don't really need *either* of them at that point.

And, if you're highly likely to hit...say, a 5...I...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (zadoc) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:09:37 GMT

A plain +1 to hit also has a sense of diminishing returns...if my TAB is +32, then 1 point doesn't feel particularly meaningful. The re-roll should never lose its advantage.

It seems like diminishing returns, but when your TAB is +32, you are probably rolling to hit 40, so it's just as helpful as it is when your bonus is +12 and you're swinging for 20.

If this isn't true, than your re-roll is becoming less and less useful,...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:15:33 GMT

A plain +1 to hit also has a sense of diminishing returns...if my TAB is +32, then 1 point doesn't feel particularly meaningful. The re-roll should never lose its advantage.

I don't have IH, so can't speak too well on it...but...ket raises a good point. Consider, let's say, a feat chain like this:

WF
Wpn Prowess (+1 damage)
Imp Wpn Prowess (another +1 to hit and damage)
Sup Wpn Prowess (another +2 damage, +2 on crit confirmation rolls)
...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (keteryck) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:40:24 GMT

The IH feat chains build to be very powerful, whereas WF really doesn't in IH. I'd be surprised that people don't try to work it in eventually, but I'd imagine your first focus in IH is on the killer feat chains or on the 'oooh, new and nifty' ones.

I don't _like_ Weapon Focus (or Spell Focus, for that matter), but assuming you can pretty reliably work it to trigger on 98% of attacks (which is generally the case), it's more powerful than most feats...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Confused Jackal Mage) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:27:09 GMT

Hmm, I think Weapon Focus is one of the stronger feats. It significantly increases your damage output. It's boring, perhaps, but as far as bonuses go, it's quite strong.

I find the fact that's it's rarely if ever taken in Iron Heroes to be very telling. IH feats at low levels are the same power level as D&D feats, you just have a ton more variety. This tells me that WF is only chosen as often as it is in D&D because, well, it's...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (keteryck) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:01:51 GMT

I was surprised it wasn't +5.

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Confused Jackal Mage) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:56:22 GMT

Half the time when that +2 actually does something, the +1 from Weapon Focus would *also* have done it. But WF helps on everything else. Sometimes it'll even prevent you from having to reroll at all.

That's why I say WF is better. The reroll feat is only a tiny bit better than WF in a situation that'll only happen once per encounter. WF is better than the reroll feat at every other time. Sure, I'll curse the gods of optimization if I take WF and then the reroll on my...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (keteryck) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:52:18 GMT

Weapon Focus, a feat that is already lackluster

Hmm, I think Weapon Focus is one of the stronger feats. It significantly increases your damage output. It's boring, perhaps, but as far as bonuses go, it's quite strong.

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:02:49 GMT

OK, but what about at higher levels? Say you need an 11 to hit something, and you decide to pull out one of your big-gun, high-damage combat maneuvers against something nasty. With the re-roll available, you're getting an effective +5 to hit.

A re-roll means a LOT if you pick the right time to use it. A little math, nothing fancy:

Let D = the roll I need to hit.

Then: P(miss), per swing, = (D-1)/20 = P1
If I swing twice, the chance I miss both swings is...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Confused Jackal Mage) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:35:30 GMT

Well, I consider it substantially worse than, say, Weapon Focus, a feat that is already lackluster and merely has a decent following because there isn't much else you can do with Core feats. I'd take +1 on every attack roll (including my reroll) any day over a +2 to a single roll per encounter. I would honestly take a +1 to two rolls per encounter over a +2 to just my reroll.

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (keteryck) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:07:18 GMT

The feat is actually not _that_ bad ('skill focus in all your skills', etc). Every encounter you get +2 to hit on a roll of your choice, so to speak. That's a lot better than many other 'Luck' feats I've seen.

I find that feat and the no surprise one pretty lackluster, however. The toughness, perception, and golden wyvern feats all seem quite solid.

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (IceFractal) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:04:12 GMT

Regardless of how strong feats in 4E will be vs 3E, the elven feat presented was extremely weak by what we've seen of 4E standards. Seriously, you'd be better off taking Skill Focus in all your skills. Now I've heard that attack bonuses might be rarer in 4E - but that doesn't matter. Rarity doesn't help the actual utility of the feat, and the actual utility of the feat is a +10% chance to hit, once per encounter. An order of magnitude worse than Weapon Focus, already...

Re: 4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (Tiburon Silverflame) — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:55:14 GMT

A quick side note: if we are going to see many more feats, then individual feats *need* to be a bit weaker, because we'll have more ways to make synergistic feat combinations. There will also be synergistic combinations with class abilities. Finally: the fact that we may be seeing many more feats, will mean we won't mind to any great degree, taking the occasional 'weak' feat. It's the Fighter Feat Issue, in reverse: by 8th to 10th level, the fighter's class ability of...

4e Elves

feeds@yuku.com (razorboy25) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:55:11 GMT

As posted on wizards.com by Bill Slavicsek:

Elf

Quick, wary archers who freely roam the forests and wilds.

Racial Traits

Average Height: 5' 7"-6' 0"
Average Weight: 100-130 lb.

Ability Scores: +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom
...