Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Felon said:
Well, that would explain it.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Dwarf power-ups: Good or bad?
- Thread starter Branduil
- Start date
Well, that would explain it.
Overpowered dwarves
I don't think the weapon familiarity overpowers dwarves for the simple fact that dwarves are already overpowered.
When Wizards first explained why the half-orc was the only race to get only one + to abilities scores but two -s, they said it was because Strength comes into play in the average campaign far more often as a combat stat than do Intelligence and Charisma. Once "primary" stat for two "secondary" stats in essence. If that's true, then WHY does the dwarf get a Con/Cha exchange? Why not Con/Cha/Wis? Or why not Con/Dex if they're so short?
That point alone was enough to make me swear never to play a dwarf (tried it once and didn't mourn much when he died in the first encounter). To continue the comparison between the two races, they both get darkvision. And then the dwarf gets a bunch of other bonuses, and the half-orc gets "orc blood."
By far, the dwarf is the most powerful race in the game (numbers wise, the bonuses to saves, AC and attack are far better than one feat and one skill point). If they really won't have any penalties for wearing heavy armor, then I'll either start making my own dwarves (then they'll be Small again) or just ban them all together. 3e already has too many incentives to min/max. It certainly doesn't need any more.
I don't think the weapon familiarity overpowers dwarves for the simple fact that dwarves are already overpowered.
When Wizards first explained why the half-orc was the only race to get only one + to abilities scores but two -s, they said it was because Strength comes into play in the average campaign far more often as a combat stat than do Intelligence and Charisma. Once "primary" stat for two "secondary" stats in essence. If that's true, then WHY does the dwarf get a Con/Cha exchange? Why not Con/Cha/Wis? Or why not Con/Dex if they're so short?
That point alone was enough to make me swear never to play a dwarf (tried it once and didn't mourn much when he died in the first encounter). To continue the comparison between the two races, they both get darkvision. And then the dwarf gets a bunch of other bonuses, and the half-orc gets "orc blood."
By far, the dwarf is the most powerful race in the game (numbers wise, the bonuses to saves, AC and attack are far better than one feat and one skill point). If they really won't have any penalties for wearing heavy armor, then I'll either start making my own dwarves (then they'll be Small again) or just ban them all together. 3e already has too many incentives to min/max. It certainly doesn't need any more.
MadScientist
First Post
I don't hink these changes will overpower the dwarf to the point that they will be overplayed but overplayed and overpowered are different things. I deffinately think that if someone wants to play a dwarf fighter type it creates a very strong mechanics incentive to use the waraxe over all other melee weapons (which is just bad game design IMO). All dwarves using the same weapon(s) should be a setting thing not a core mechanic.
With this boost there is no mechanical reason for a dwarf fighter to use a battle-axe, and very little reason to use any other medium martial weapon. The "exotic" weapons require a feat to use because they are superior weapons mechanicaly. I'm all for things in a game that add flavor, allowing all dwarves to use the waraxe in two hands adds flavor. Giving away what is essentially a free EWP is a power up and IMHO dwarves are a race least in the need of a power up, especially as "fighter type" characters.
I mean for "fighter types" the +2 con/-2 cha is a very nice advantage balanced by non-disadvantage (barbs, fighters and rangers rarely rely on cha based skills, and could always use more HP's). The +2 save vs. magic is at least equivalent to a feat in power and darkvision is great ability for any character. Right here I think your balanced mechanically with the human when making a "fighter-type". Dwarves have a number of other minor abilities that still plenty useful. The no move penalty in heavy armor and free EWP take them over the top a little bit IMHO. I guess I will hold judgement until I see 3.5 as a whole, but I imagine dwarves in my groups' campaigns won't see these new boosts. (I say this as a dwarf player too.)
With this boost there is no mechanical reason for a dwarf fighter to use a battle-axe, and very little reason to use any other medium martial weapon. The "exotic" weapons require a feat to use because they are superior weapons mechanicaly. I'm all for things in a game that add flavor, allowing all dwarves to use the waraxe in two hands adds flavor. Giving away what is essentially a free EWP is a power up and IMHO dwarves are a race least in the need of a power up, especially as "fighter type" characters.
I mean for "fighter types" the +2 con/-2 cha is a very nice advantage balanced by non-disadvantage (barbs, fighters and rangers rarely rely on cha based skills, and could always use more HP's). The +2 save vs. magic is at least equivalent to a feat in power and darkvision is great ability for any character. Right here I think your balanced mechanically with the human when making a "fighter-type". Dwarves have a number of other minor abilities that still plenty useful. The no move penalty in heavy armor and free EWP take them over the top a little bit IMHO. I guess I will hold judgement until I see 3.5 as a whole, but I imagine dwarves in my groups' campaigns won't see these new boosts. (I say this as a dwarf player too.)
MadScientist
First Post
Re: Overpowered dwarves
I agree completely Outlaw. The Con/Cha exchange was a poor design choice that can lead to alot of abuses. Con/Dex would have been fine flavor wise and much better mechanically. I mean if dex/con exchange is good for elves why not dwarves?Outlaw said:
Gez
First Post
Well, the dwarves do have a drawback, it's their low speed. That's the main penalty of being Small, yet they are medium (so they don't gain the +1 attack/AC bonus). Dwarves are especially good at being fighters and rogues, and the reduced speed is a hindrance in both case (for example, lesser charging range, reduced maneuverability to go into flanking position, etc.).
Still, they do have the most freebies already. Stonecunning, darkvision, attack bonus, dodge bonus...
Actually, elves, gnomes and halflings get lots of nifties too. Automatic scanner that detects secret passage (???), bonus to listen, spot and search, bonus against enchantment, free proficiencies, 4-hour resting trance... I won't list the gnome and halfling lists, who are quite long also.
The real thing is not that dwarves gets a lot of stuff, it's that half-orcs and humans get really few nifties. Especially the half-orc. Humans have few traits, but they are good traits: bonus feat, bonus skill points, any fav class. Half orcs get... orc blood, and ability adjustments. That's all.
Still, they do have the most freebies already. Stonecunning, darkvision, attack bonus, dodge bonus...
Actually, elves, gnomes and halflings get lots of nifties too. Automatic scanner that detects secret passage (???), bonus to listen, spot and search, bonus against enchantment, free proficiencies, 4-hour resting trance... I won't list the gnome and halfling lists, who are quite long also.
The real thing is not that dwarves gets a lot of stuff, it's that half-orcs and humans get really few nifties. Especially the half-orc. Humans have few traits, but they are good traits: bonus feat, bonus skill points, any fav class. Half orcs get... orc blood, and ability adjustments. That's all.
Re: Re: Overpowered dwarves
The catch? He suggested +4 Con/-2 Dex.
Can I get an eye-roll here?
I don't know if you caught my thread about this already, but in this months' Dragon, Andy Collins actually offered dwarves' that very same ablity score tradeoff.MadScientist said:
The catch? He suggested +4 Con/-2 Dex.
Can I get an eye-roll here?
Yes, that was their tradeoff. Now they move just as fast as any other medium-sized creature in medium or heavy armor.Gez said:
But notice that virtually none of that enchances their role in their favored class of wizard. Dwarves make solid fighters.
Last edited:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Hmm, checked with two of the Halfling arcane casters as to 'why', the answer was AC. A halfling with 20 (!) Dex gets +6 to his AC, casts Mage Armor (from a wand) and has an AC better than the fighter in the party! Plus one of them multiclassed as a ranger, and maxed out his sneaking type skills. Net result he has killed more critters than the pure fighter in the party, plugging away with a light crossbow... To make it worse, the DM allowed him to take ranger as his favored class because he's a 'deep woods' halfling... (Guess what? One level of ranger.)
As for the 20' move for dwarfs, most of the games I have watched being run, including my own, spend about half of the PC's time outside, where being a dwarf stinks, and being an elf, (or 'deep woods halfling', gah!) rocks, so it could be a local abberation. Lots of rangers, only one druid...
The Auld Grump, who noticed that nobody tried to defend hand crossbow as an exotic weapon...
As for the 20' move for dwarfs, most of the games I have watched being run, including my own, spend about half of the PC's time outside, where being a dwarf stinks, and being an elf, (or 'deep woods halfling', gah!) rocks, so it could be a local abberation. Lots of rangers, only one druid...
The Auld Grump, who noticed that nobody tried to defend hand crossbow as an exotic weapon...
Similar Threads
