Talk:Warforged Charger (4e Race)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Bear in mind Oversized is really an NPC ability. It can be unbalancing for PCs to have it. -- Sepsis 05:47, 6 December 2008 (MST)

It IS overpowered in the hands of a PC tbh, as is the +3 to Strength and Constitution and the three skill bonuses. Another thing is that just as Sun Elves, Ghostwise Halflings ect. so should a different type of Warforged. If the balance is sorted out though, this could be a nice race. ShadowyFigure 04:24, 5 June 2009 (MDT)

Balance Considerations[edit]

  • Weight: I understand where you're coming from with this, but you may want to consider dropping this down to 300 pounds or less. As it is now, a character playing a warforged charger could never build a character focused on mounted combat. Whenever a race is barred from a particular build, I tend to shy away from it.
  • Ability Scores: A race should have a +2 bonus to two ability scores.
  • Skills: A race should have a +2 bonus to two skills, and it should not have any penalties.
  • Oversized: As Sepsis and ShadowyFigure mentioned above, this was intended as an ability for NPC races, not for PCs - Wizards has made a point of removing it from every new race that has come out, even if the race previously had it in an earlier book.
  • Adamantine Fist: This power should only use one ability score (probably Strength) to determine damage. Although it has no statistical effect, you may want to consider removing the martial keyword - racial powers do not have power sources like class powers do.

Thank you for your time. --Dracomortis 13:03, 5 June 2009 (MDT)

Warforged Chargers look like crazy metal gorillas. They're optimus prime in his beastwars version. If they can't go mounted... so what? The 4e rules for mounted combat are really awful anyway, and are practically non-existent. Nobody will miss them. And it's not like they're "totally barred", they just need a really strong mount. Honestly, it's probably easier to make a warforged charger mounted then it is a halfling fighter tank, even if the chargers are hugely heavy. I agree that the +3 needs to be removed, as odd ability scores are just a bad, bad idea. But there's nothing saying that a race can't have +2 to three different skills (although I would remove the penalty). Oversized alone likely isn't an issue, but is when combined with the +2 str. Dropping it is a very good idea, but it can still be built around. And do any actual NPCs HAVE the "oversized" ability listed in their stat blocks? Multiple powers allow multiple ability scores to damage. There's nothing wrong with Adamantine Fist doing it - you can't even complain about "WOTC didn't!" , because they totally did. The bigger problem is that Adamantine Fist isn't actually marked as a weapon-using power. Now, I'm going to point out what I think should be fixed as the obvious - make the stats +2 str +2 con or +2 str +2 dex, removed Oversized, make Adamantine Fist a racial feature that's a weapon as good as a one-handed or two-handed (depending on if they use a shield or not) weapon of your choice that's always on. These guys are crazy metal gorillas, they ought to charge people and pound them to pulp. Keep the racial power the same, but rename it to "Furious Charge" or "WARFORGED SMASH" or somesuch, and also allow it to be usable on a charge and clarify that it's a weapon. I'd also consider actually upping the speed to 7. "Strong, tough, fast race that smashes things with its fists" is a pretty interesting niche. Dragon Child 13:19, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
Your wrong, Oversized is a problem with the strength bonus or without it. +1 to damage and hit (if martial class) will make no difference when it comes to my large sized mordenkrad. You really need to leave this stae of mind that oversized is ok. its not. its an npc only abbility. Other then that I agree almost 100% with you, especially about the mounted combat rules. Also I'm wandering what power/s you think use multiple abbility scores, for the damage. ShadowyFigure 13:42, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
Really. I find your lack of math... disturbing. Let's actually crunch the numbers. Assume no +2 str, and assume that the +2 con isn't being added to damage right now. Simply put, this is a choice between +2 to your attack and damage stat (we'll say it's str) vs oversized. For a two-handed weapon wielder, oversized can give at MOST +2 damage. +2 str is +1 hit and +1 damage. So this is a difference between +1 hit and +1 damage, which is better... a cinch to calculate. Find your accuracy, and turn it into the number of numbers you hit on. For example, if you have a 50% chance of hitting your opponent, that's equivalent to a "10". Then find your damage. Whichever is lower, that's the one you'd prefer. So, oversized is better if you hit on more numbers then your average damage, and the strength is better if your average damage is higher then the numbers you hit on. At least, pure damage wise... then consider that the bonus to strength makes you more likely to hit and cue off additional effects (bleeds, stuns, trips, pushes, etc, on your attack), the higher strength will help out with more powers (like Cleave and Reaping Strike), and the higher strength adds to your fortitude defense and several skills. Knowing all that, are you really going to claim that oversized is overpowered and better then +2 strength?
Now, what powers add multiple stats to damage? Several fighter powers, such as Crushing Blow (THESE are the most likely to be problematic for balance reasons on the warforged charger, but I honestly don't think it's a problem - +1 damage on a few attacks that aren't even at-will?). Or the Paladin at-will, Holy Strike. Yup, at-will, two stats to damage. Any Rogue with Brutal Scoundrel can add strength to damage on sneak attacks... and then Sly Flourish, an at-will, gains dex and cha to damage. Yes, three stats to damage, right out of the box. Dragon Child 15:15, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
Dragon Child, at the risk of sounding accusative, may I ask why your comment seems to assume that I do not understand the material being commented on? I am well aware of what a warforged charger is, and I am not inherently opposed to things simply because "WOTC didn't!", as you so eloquently put it - your comment seems to suggest that we have had past discussions on the topic, although I am quite certain we have never had the opportunity to discuss such an issue as of yet. Focusing on mounted combat is not just difficult for a warforged charger as written - it is literally impossible, as no published mount that I know of has a Strength score sufficient enough to carry it without putting the mount at a heavy load (a Strength of 38 or higher [31 or higher for a quadruped] would be required for the lightest warforged charger). I agree that a race could have a +2 bonus to three skills, but it would have to be balanced against the rest of the bonuses the race receives, such as having racial traits that are slightly weaker; however, that seems like much more effort than simply dropping one of the skill bonuses, especially given that there is very little wriggle room with the charger's current abilities. Then again, most of the bonuses of living construct are nice but situational - I certainly don't find myself needing to make a death saving throw very often, and ongoing damage lasts an average of 2 rounds even without bonuses, so perhaps it is already offset.
Warforged chargers are kinda obscure to begin with. And apologies - the reason I thought your issue was that WOTC didn't do it is your comment on the skills, on what a race "should" have - I assumed you were basing it off of what WOTC did, and other comments were doing similar. My honest apologies. In any case, I find the mounted combat thing to be... well, not all that big of a deal. Nobody is going to make a warforged charger wizard, either. There may be a problem in that they keep up with the party over long overland travel, or can't ride flying mounts up to the cloud giant fortress... but "Can't be a cavalier" to me is so minor as to not matter. Dragon Child 15:07, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
My comment on mounted combat might have been poorly-worded, for which I apologize. I did not mean to imply that the warforged charger's inability to fill a specific role was somehow under/overpowered - obviously, as you pointed out, every race is inherently bad at a variety of roles based solely upon its ability modifiers, even before you consider racial traits. I meant only that, since its weight is little more than flavor text, it might be something for the author to consider changing in order to open up an additional playable role without significantly altering the race. It's far from necessary, but including as many options as possible is always a plus. --Dracomortis 21:04, 9 June 2009 (MDT)
On the issue of oversized...I'm not sure if any published NPCs have it listed. The racial traits in the back of the Monster Manual were intended for cases where the DM wanted to make an NPC out of an unusual race, so I doubt Wizards has even bothered to publish any example using them - it would be rather pointless, as it wouldn't have any new powers or abilities not already accounted for. I am also aware that some powers use multiple ability scores for damage - however, my previous statement still stands. Adamantine fist is already a very powerful racial power without getting two ability scores worth of damage (both of which the warforged has a bonus to). I'd agree that a natural weapon would be called for and would not alter the balance of the race in any way. --Dracomortis 13:46, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
My point is, calling it an "NPC Trait" is deliberately misleading. NPCs don't have traits and stats like this. In fact, I'm not even sure if it even exists outside this race. If it doesn't, calling it an "NPC Trait" is just being downright unfair. And Adamantine Fist's wording needs to be cleaned up (change to: "The target is pushed 1 square and immobilized until the end of your next turn."), and as-written it doesn't gain any sort of bonus to hit from weapon proficiencies, making it extremely inaccurate and a bit weak as-written. Dragon Child 15:18, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
Again, my wording may have been misleading, so I apologize. I meant "NPC trait" as in "a trait that has been given to several of the NPC races", such as those found on pages 276-279 of the Monster Manual. I refer to them as NPC races only because the Monster Manual specifies that the statistics listed for them are more in line with monster stats than PC stats. Of the NPC races, two have the oversized trait, which is exactly the same as the version the warforged charger has - namely, they are the bugbear and the minotaur.
Dragonchild, I meant racial powers that use multiple ability score modifiers for damage, seeing as this is a race. Also I have maths skills, you say that "For a two-handed weapon wielder, oversized can give at MOST +2 damage." It not all to do with the maximum damage. For example a medium sized battle axe, does 1d10 damage. Correct? A large sized battle axe does 2d6. this changes the range of numbers that can be rolled from 1-10, to 2-12. Mordenkrad medium sized, deal 2d6 damage, 2d8 when large. so that a range of 3-16. +4 to damage over its medium counter part. Even without the strength bonus it is STILL overpowered. But where never going to see eye to eye on this. ShadowyFigure 04:37, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
You didn't say racial powers. Besides, I don't see why the fact that it's a racial power matters. Also, I didn't say maximum damage. Don't pretend I did. If your battle axe goes from 1d10 to 2d6, that's a difference in average damage from 5.5 to 7. That's 1.5. Last time I checked, 1.5 is less then 2. 2d6 average damage is 7, 2d8 is 9. That's a difference of 2, best case scenario. That is NOT +4 damage. It's +2 average damage, and using any other number is incorrect. And no, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, because you accuse ME of using maximum damage when I'm using average damage, and then go using maximum damage yourself! Maximum damage doesn't matter one damn bit - average damage does. Or do you think an attack that deals ongoing 5 damage is overpowered because its maximum damage is "infinity" ? The fact is, you're math is wrong.Dragon Child 08:10, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
No I dont think 5 ongoing damage is overpower, do you know why? BECAUSE ITS NOT WEAPON DAMAGE. Sorry but if the maximum damage of your weapon does matter then we should just have static numbers for damage. The fact is my maths was not wrong, it was just about something completely different. How did you not understand it was racial powers? We where discussing a racial power... ShadowyFigure 08:17, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
Let me get this straight. 4 weapon damage is overpowered. Infinite non-weapon damage is not. That is the honest reading of your statement. Stop. Think about what you said. Re-read what I said. Consider. My point is this: We cannot ever look at maximum damage and compare with just that. As an example, if you find the maximum damage of "1 ongoing damage (save ends)", that maximum damage is infinity. It is obviously not that good. Instead, we need to look at the average damage it deals (which is 2). This example is obvious hyperbole, but shows the problem with your calculations and process. When dealing with statistics, checking the extreme ends of the issue is a great way of telling us if our logic holds. And as we can see, the logic of assuming maximum damage matters does not hold. We must rely on average damage.
I assumed you did not mean racial powers because you didn't use that word. Your exact question was this: Also I'm wandering what power/s you think use multiple abbility scores, for the damage.
I answered it honestly, naming several powers. I didn't see why if they were racial powers or not mattered. There are normal powers that use two stats to damage. There are normal powers that can use three stats to damage. Why can't a racial power? Dragon Child 08:29, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
Arithmetic means take all possible outcomes into equal consideration. They consider the maximum. They consider the minimum. They consider outliers, inliers, topliers, bottomliers, sideliers, and chronic liars. They consider everything. The maximum is not being left out, it's the reason that the average is so high. --Daniel Draco 09:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
Correction, Dragon Child. 4 Weapon Damage is not overpowered. 5 (Save Ends) (Sure its possible it could be infinite.) is not. Any way, I'm fed of pointless argumenting. (Creating words is fun), You asked if whether it was a racial power mattered. I'd say yes, though over powers are designed following all the same guidelines, there are sort of sub categories that change these guide line, I think these are... Feat Powers, Attack Powers, Utility Powers, Racial Powers, At-Will Powers, Encounter Powers and Daily Powers. Thats why I think it would matter. The Dragonborn, has Dragon breath and only uses one ability modifier, for damage. Three for attack. Sure you could have three, but then we'd have to think, why doesn't the dragonborn. ShadowyFigure 10:02, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
Because the dragonborn's power is both Minor and Blast 3, which is pretty awesome. It's worth noting... humans and half-elves can grab any of those at-wills for two stats to damage. Stop arguing "This is wrong because WOTC doesn't do it EXACTLY this way", and maybe start composing logical arguments with actual points and math. Dragon Child 10:07, 6 June 2009 (MDT)
Thats not what I'm thinking, its not "This is wrong because WOTC doesn't do it EXACTLY this way" I just balance my stuff based on their stuff. ShadowyFigure 11:37, 6 June 2009 (MDT)

(Reset the Indention) Ok, so...
Oversized:You can use weapons of your size or one size larger than you as if they were your size. You claim this is not overpowered, so using a common example, and mathematics... I will show WHY it is overpowered.
One-Handed Weapon

Longsword Medium Sized, 1d8 Damage. Average Damage: [1W] = 4.5 [2W]= 9 [3W]= 13.5
Longsword Large Sized, 1d10 Damage. Average Damage: [1W] = 5.5 [2W]= 11 [3W]= 16.5

This means that a Large Longsword has a +1:[1W] average over the medium.

Two-Handed Weapon

GreatswordMedium Sized, 1d10 Damage. Average Damage: [1W] = 5.5 [2W]= 11 [3W]= 16.5
Greatsword Large Sized, 2d6 Damage. Average Damage: [1W] = 7 [2W]= 14 [3W]= 21

This means that a Large Greatsword has a +1.5:[1W] average over the medium.

Its even worse if you look at the range of numbers you can actually roll.

One-Handed Weapon

Longsword Medium Sized, 1d8 Damage. 1[W] Range of No. = 1-8. 2[W] Range of No. = 2-16. 3[W] Range of No. = 3-24
Longsword Large Sized, 1d10 Damage. 1[W] Range of No. = 1-10. 2[W] Range of No. = 2-20. 3[W] Range of No. = 3-30

Two-Handed Weapon

Greatsword Medium Sized, 1d10 Damage. 1[W] Range of No. = 1-10. 2[W] Range of No. = 2-20. 3[W] Range of No. = 3-30
Greatsword Large Sized, 2d6 Damage. 1[W] Range of No. = 2-12. 2[W] Range of No. = 4-24. 3[W] Range of No. = 6-36

I dont see how you see any of this as "balanced". ShadowyFigure 12:30, 7 June 2009 (MDT)

Ok, again. THat part where you say it's "even worse" because of the range? Everything under that part doesn't. Effing. Matter. Remember that a +1 to hit turns a number that's a "0" into a "whatever your damage is". That's going to be a bigger increase in range than whatever the large size bonus is, pretty much guaranteed. Remember, I said this is OK IF YOU ARE GIVING UP +2 STRENGTH FOR IT. Please actually include the part of my comment, and not pretend I'm saying something other then what I am. Let's do some math. We'll assume the character started with 16 strength, and has 18 if he took +2 strength. We'll also assume he's got a +2 sword, or +2 damage from some other source (maybe he started with 18 strength and has a +1 sword). I'm just making that up for no particular reason, besides the fact that looking at level 1 only is silly.
Now, to read these numbers - I'm going to give a % chance to hit. If your chance to hit is exactly that %, it doesn't matter what you use for damage (and remember that means that +str is superior, due to getting effects off more often, skills, defenses, etc). If you're under that %, you're better off with +2 str for damage (and, indeed, there's no reason you'd want to use oversized at all). If you're above that %, you're better off with oversized for damage.
Here we go.
Longsword. d8/d10
1[W] - +2 str is ALWAYS superior
2[W] - 75%
3[W] - 40%
Greatsword. d10/2d6
1[W] - 115%
2[W] - 42.5%
3[W] - 32%
Greataxe. 2d6/2d8
1[W] - 65%
2[W] - 33%
3[W] - 33.75%
Aaaand stop.
So what does this tell us? Well, for starters, if you're using a longsword you pretty much never want the oversized. It just isn't worth it. Even for a greatsword, it's kind of a bum deal. The only time you would use oversized is if you're wielding a 2d6 weapon... which already make a +damage -hit trade to begin with. Now, is getting a very minor damage increase (for example, if you're at 40% accuracy with a 2[W] weapon, and have to choose between the +2 or the oversized, the average damage boost from oversized is only 0.2 damage!) is it actually worth it? You're giving up more accuracy so you're less likely to get your special effects off, you have -1 to fortitude defense, -1 to a bunch of skills, -1 to some class features as well likely (stuff like Cleave and Reaping Strike), and most likely your at-wills are weaker. For 0.2 damage when you use 2[W] attacks. THAT is how big the difference is. Honestly, I bet your thinking is off by a factor of 10. Remember that this also becomes WEAKER as you level. While X[W] attacks become more common, they don't go up too high. Instead, you're more likely to be adding in flat damage from magic weapons, class features, powers, etc. And the higher the damage, the better the +hit is. Dragon Child 13:28, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
Just so I know if where thinking on the same street when it comes to building characters, why if I didn't have a +2 Str, would I not have a high strength? An 18 in strength, means I still have the benefits of the oversized, and I'm still hitting at 1st level without to much difficulty (bar bum rolls of course). It's as if you seem to think just because someone doesn't have a bonus to an attack stat they wont make it high so that they can still benefit from that extra damage, while not letting classfeatures and defences suffer. Other then that yes, with a longsword strength is always better, and yeah a greatsword is worth but we both know people are morelikely to be using weapons such as the Mordenkrad alongside oversized to deal high amount of damage. ShadowyFigure 13:35, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
If you increased the strength, it would make +2 strength even MORE worth it, by boosting the average damage. You're aware of that, correct? I chose 16 for two reasons. The first, you complained that not every character needs to start with an 18 before. The second, I was being nice to you! If I had chosen 18, it would have made oversized even LESS useful. If you want, I can go back and redo the calculations with 18 strength, making it so that oversized is even LESS likely to be used. And yes, we know that. But is that 0.2 damage worth it? Honestly? That's how little these numbers are coming out to be. Dragon Child 13:41, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
How is the average damage boost from oversized 0.2? Where did you get that from. Thats what I want to know because tbh, I didn't once see 0.2 come up when I was calculating the difference between the averages. ShadowyFigure 14:02, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
To quote: (for example, if you're at 40% accuracy with a 2[W] weapon, and have to choose between the +2 or the oversized, the average damage boost from oversized is only 0.2 damage!). In short, you're only calculating average damage on a HIT, and forgetting the fact that +2 strength will cause MORE hits. Your math is flawed, as you're not taking in the full picture, and instead are insisting like maximum damage still means something. In any case, we ought to move this to a new talk page, as the author has removed the trait. Dragon Child 14:05, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
Thats the thing, in the full picture, just because you may hit say 40% of the time that doesn't mean oversized is balanced. You say my maths is flawed, when in fact you view on 4e design is what is flawed. To hit bonuses are lot more easy to come by now, and so whether or not if you took oversized instead of having +2 strength almost never matters. Maximum Damage does mean something, as does average it all is relevant. And eys this really should be discussed elsewhere. ShadowyFigure 14:24, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
Let me get this right. Repeatedly, in this conversation, you have misrepresented my point. So I do actual math. Lots of math. I provide actual numbers. You then say "my view on design is flawed", say I'm wrong, and provide NO numbers to back it up? I'm sorry, but you have no argument. Show me some math, or shut up. You have NO argument until you provide some actual numbers like I did. If you think the bonus is greater than 0.2 - if you think the bonus is ever greater then ONE - give some proof. Give an example WHEN it is. Otherwise, stop making pointless arguments that have no backing. Debate honestly, or don't debate at all. Dragon Child 14:31, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
Ok, I give up. Dragon Child Wins blah, do your happy dance or whatever. Oversized is overpowered. You only have to look at certain weapons to see the damage it can do to game balance. Me and you obviously look at balance in different ways, I would never allowed a race with oversized in my games. I just haven't got the energy or the time to waste on you, I've already wasted time I should have been designing for my campaign setting on you. To the original poster of this article, sorry the tal page was de-railed. ShadowyFigure 17:01, 7 June 2009 (MDT)
The problem comes in with weapon abilities that weren't really designed for size increases. Consider a Vorpal Executioner's Axe: 2d6 brutal 2, reroll 6s and add them again. You have almost a 1/4 chance for each die of dealing an extra d6 damage (which should also be subject to the brutal/vorpal combo). This area is where oversized breaks down a bit. So here's a simple solution. You wanted oversized to increase damage without increasing accuracy right? Then do that. Just give these guys a flat bonus to damage with one-handed weapons and a flat bonus with two-handed weapons. Maybe +1/+2 or +2/+3. --Aarnott 06:47, 9 June 2009 (MDT)
(Mordenkrad gives you better average damage with Brutal 1) --TK-Squared 10:40, 9 June 2009 (MDT)
Agreed, but I think when combined with Vorpal the axe ends up higher. Lower die types are more desirable to trigger the vorpal damage. On the axe, it ends up adding about 2 extra average damage per die. --Aarnott 11:02, 9 June 2009 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors