• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Dwarves and other races

I am not sure, if this was already discussed to death, but I really wonder:
What kind of pot did the 3.5 design team smoked when they changed the 3.5 dwarf?

Maybe my copy of the SRD has an error, and the Dwarf is actually an ECL +1 race, but I doubt so :)

The 3.5 dwarf gets all the benifts and drawbacks he had in 3.0:
+2 Constitution, -2 Charisma
Darkvision 60 ft
20 feet base speed
Stonecunning
+2 bonus vs. spells, poisons and disease(?)
+4 Dodge Bonus against Giants
+1 attack against Goblinoids and Kobolds (IIRC)
Favored Class: Fighter

Now, he does also gain:
No speed loss in medium or heavy armor.
+4 bonus against bull rushes and trips.
Weapon Familiary: Dwarfen Ugrosh and Dwarfen Battle Axe are martial weapons instead of exotic ones.

The Dwarf in 3.0 was reasonably powerful, I think. But in 3.5, the Dwarf seems definitely overpowered.
A Dwarf Fighter has definitely the most useful bonus he can get - he is as fast as every Human, Half Orc or Elf with the same armor if he uses the typical heavy armor Fighter tend to use (Full Plate). He can oppose Trips and Bullrushes better then they do (which can be very important regarding the new Trip rules). He can spare one feat in regard to the others if he wants to use a quite powerful weapon (The Dwarfen Battle Axe is as good as the Bastard Sword, the typical fighter weapon in D&D), and he gains some minor combat bonus against typical low level threats and a moderate combat against typical medium to high level threats. On top of all this, he gains more hitpoints in exchange for a low charisma Fighters usually have no use for anyway.

If he decides to play a Cleric, he as basically the same advantages, minus the weapon thing (and he could have used his charisma for turning).
If he chooses Barbiarn, the same Benefit as with a fighter (the Con becomes even a bit more useful since the Rage lasts longer)
If he chooses Wizard, he has at least more hp and might even have a chance when someone tries to trip or bullrush him.
If he chooses Monk, his speed becomes a disadvantage, but the bonus to trip and bullrushes can be quite useful in regard to the risk of countertripping.
Stonecunning and his bonus against poison and darkvision are quite helpful.

The Con bonus is a good thing for every class - you can never have enough hitpoints. :)
The Charisma Penalty is actually only a severe penalty for Bards, Paladins and Sorcerors, and a weak penalty for Clerics and Rogues.

On the other hand, we have the Half Orc.
+2 Strength, -2 Intelligence and -2 Charisma
Darkvision 60 feet
Orc Blood
Favored Class Barbarian

I tend to agree that a bonus to Strength is quite powerful for a fighter class, but unfortunately, it is effectiveley useless for any class not focusing on melee combat, and the penalties to Intelligence are always a disadvantage if you want to be able to do more than hitting with the largest stick. The penalty to Charisma makes several classes completely uninteresting.

So, what did they think? Giving nothing to the Half Orc, but giving several benefits to the Dwarf?
(And they could also have done more to Halfings and Gnomes - these small races may be able to use reach weapons in 3.5 - though this also allows one-handed reach weapons for medium size characters with a small penalty - but they can still forget bullrush, grapples and trips, and they can even forget trying to Intimidate anyone worth it, since Intimidate now also grants size bonus and penalties...)

Mustrum Ridcully
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Darklone

Registered User
Dwarves rock and they always did that. WotC designers stated things like not enough people played dwarves in 3.0... IMC I had 50% dwarves in nearly every group, but well...

The only thing I can't understand is why people think halforcs would be weak.

Especially if you play point buy thingies and want strength 18 (with the proposed points of 25 or 28 instead of the rather common 32 to 40 points), the halforc might even get better net values than the other races.
 
Last edited:

Li Shenron

Legend
Well, honestly I don't really think Half-Orcs are weak, I was kind of joking :)

But Dwarves and Gnomes and Elves and Halflings get many interesting things here and there that find their usefulness for many characters. Humans on the other hand get completely customizable bonuses (any feat, any skill, any class).

Half-Orcs (besides Darkvision, ok...) get only the +2 Strength which is otherwise unavailable and therefore is crunchy useful for any melee-oriented charater, but that's it. Play anything else than a melee combatant and you are basically left with no bonus at all except the vision, and -2 to two scores (and at least the 1 skill less is going to hurt you somehow).

I don't like to have a race which has nothing else... The races who get free proficiencies, +2 Dex or +2 Con, even mere skill bonuses are going to make a player feel more satisfied by the choice. At least more bonuses help fleshing out a race better against the others, why not giving HO a bonus to Intimidate? A bonus to Cha-based skills (or Sense Motive) and checks against Orcs? I am just making these up, just to say that they won't make HO too powerful, nor they would make it much more useful for non-melee classes, but if you are not a PC who relies on Strength (and there are many) there is absolutely no reason in the world to play a Half-Orc, really.
 


Oh, to make this clear: The point of my question is not if the Half Orc is a (mechanically) weak race (he probably is, but who cares :) ), but it is: Aren`t Dwarves simply to good to be true?

Mustrum Ridcully
 

Darklone

Registered User
Hey, I already agreed, now let me go on with my highjack :D

Nah, you're right. Dwarves ARE too good to be true. But it's tradition. Holy Cow. Dwarves HAVE to be like that... I was surprised they didn't give them Endurance automatically...
 

frankthedm

First Post
3.5 went one step too far with the armor and urgosh and waraxe. A 2 point hit to DEX instead of Charisma might make up for it.

IMG i yanked the Free waraxe and urgosh and instead gave dwarves one medium and martial axe, hamer or pick like the elves and the long sword bit.
 

Gez

First Post
For a strange reason, I'm less bothered by dwarven munchkinism than by elven munchkinism. They could give the dwarves a +2 Str bonus and a free Endurance feat on top of that, it would annoy me less than if they gave something like free foolproof unspyable telepathy or disease immunity to the elves.

Probably because fanboy dwarf players are less vocal, or at least less obnoxious, than fanboy elf players.
 

DwarvenBrew

First Post
DEX vs CHA

frankthedm said:
3.5 went one step too far with the armor and urgosh and waraxe. A 2 point hit to DEX instead of Charisma might make up for it.

Honestly I would say the opposite. When you're walking around in full plate you won't miss the DEX. On the other hand, I'm constantly stuggling with Dwarven Cleric and Paladin builds because of the hit to CHA. You could get so much more milage out of a Dwarf if you could throw in some Paladin levels, Turning, and the Divine feat chain more efficiently.

From a min/max perspective, I'd rather have a high CHA than DEX, because the only DEX that I really want is a 12.
 

Remove ads

Top