D&D General why are dwarves harder to think of varients for?

[Aldarc]

If one needs to min/max their stats to achieve their 'character concept', sure.

Yes, and it will also be the case even if they don't need to min/max their stats to achieve their character concept. That's the nature of having floating options: you have a choice in where you want to put your ASI. But none of that erases the point that I had made: it means that there will be greater variation between dwarves.

As long as folks admit its all about that +1, sure.

It seems like there is little to no chance of any good faith discussion if you are going to reduce any contrary opinions to yours like this.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, and it will also be the case even if they don't need to min/max their stats to achieve their character concept. That's the nature of having floating options: you have a choice in where you want to put your ASI. But none of that erases the point that I had made: it means that there will be greater variation between dwarves.


It seems like there is little to no chance of any good faith discussion if you are going to reduce any contrary opinions to yours like this.

If one puts all there stats wherever they want, and then applies a species based ASI, there is still variation both within the species, and externally. No 'character concept' is prevented, only in terms of maximum effectiveness.

This is not an argument in bad faith. I've had this discussion many many times here, and it always boils down to that +1, which is 100% fine and valid as a concern, it just is what it is. Now personally I dont think 5e balance is remotely tight enough to worry about this. Its not PF2, and I feel there could (should) be other levers to play with this balance, like magic items, but really its a basic thing.

Is the +1 worth losing the (small!) difference between species? For some yes, for others no. Thats all.

I'm not looking to fight over it, and am more than happy to just agree to disagree unless you feel you can open my eyes to the reality of the situation.

 

[Aldarc]

If one puts all there stats wherever they want, and then applies a species based ASI, there is still variation both within the species, and externally. No 'character concept' is prevented, only in terms of maximum effectiveness.

Do you agree or not that all else being equal there is greater likelihood that two Hill Dwarves with +2 Con and +1 Wis to be similar in their stats than two Hill Dwarves with a +2 Any and +1 Any?

I'm not looking to fight over it, and am more than happy to just agree to disagree unless you feel you can open my eyes to the reality of the situation.

I'm more concerned with you reducing any and all contrary arguments about this issue to being just about the +1 or min/maxing because that's where you cross the line by ascribing ulterior motives to others.

 

[Scribe]

Do you agree or not that all else being equal there is greater likelihood that two Hill Dwarves with +2 Con and +1 Wis to be similar in their stats than two Hill Dwarves with a +2 Any and +1 Any?

Given the same class? Without a doubt.

I'm more concerned with you reducing any and all contrary arguments about this issue to being just about the +1 or min/maxing because that's where you cross the line by ascribing ulterior motives to others.

I honestly, no trolling, no dismissiveness, after all the time and many many many threads and discussions, have never seen a reasoned argument that a character is PREVENTED, by not having floating ASI.

If its not about net effectiveness, I havent seen it, in terms of mechanics within the actual game system, I havent seen it. There are other reasons presented, sure, but those are personal ones that still dont have a basis in the mechanics of the game.

People may have their own motives, but mechanically, within the game system is there really anything else beyond the +1 and multiclass considerations that could still be met without floating? Honest question.

 

[Aldarc]

Given the same class? Without a doubt.

Doesn't matter. Floating ASIs increase variation between dwarves of the same kind. This verifiably increases the options available and variation of characters across the board.

I honestly, no trolling, no dismissiveness, after all the time and many many many threads and discussions, have never seen a reasoned argument that a character is PREVENTED, by not having floating ASI.

What a coincidence. I've never seen a reasoned argument that races should have fixed stats and that the game is negatively impacted by floating ASIs.

If its not about net effectiveness, I havent seen it, in terms of mechanics within the actual game system, I havent seen it. There are other reasons presented, sure, but those are personal ones that still dont have a basis in the mechanics of the game.

People may have their own motives, but mechanically, within the game system is there really anything else beyond the +1 and multiclass considerations that could still be met without floating? Honest question.

Why do the aforementioned garner no consideration but the mechanical issue does? Like if the designers ethically believe that having racially fixed ASIs sends the wrong messages about the bioessentialism of race and ethnicity, then why does anything else matter?

 

[Voadam]

As a DM I prefer for the PCs to be mechanically balanced against each other and not advantaged or disadvantaged because they individually went with classes that synergized or not with their racial ASIs. I therefore prefer the floating ASIs.

I think characterizing it as a desire for min/maxxing instead of as a desire for balanced options against other character options is where you are rubbing people the wrong way.

 

[Scribe]

As a DM I prefer for the PCs to be mechanically balanced against each other and not advantaged or disadvantaged because they individually went with classes that synergized or not with their racial ASIs. I therefore prefer the floating ASIs.

I think characterizing it as a desire for min/maxxing instead of as a desire for balanced options against other character options is where you are rubbing people the wrong way.

And thats 100% fine, its a consideration of keeping balance the same (assuming people dump and pump the "correct" stat I suppose?) between folks at the table, and not min/max, sure.

I had a longer post, but it doesnt matter. Apologies @Aldarc for taking the thread off course. Nobody will move on these hills.

 

[Charlaquin]

broad structure you are right but Drizzt did not cause a grope of good dark elves who where not already a thing.

Not directly, no. But he contributed to a broader shift in the perception of drow.

it was an inevitability that some one wanted a bad guy option and make it a popular good guy that it was made for a licensed product was more unique.

dwarves never seem to get a staring role as drizzt only really worked because he was a protagonist, and dwaves tend to not be protagonists

and lack much to distinguish the few types we have let alone craft a new one.

Yeah, it’s a difficult situation for dwarves, and the solution of “write more dwarf characters that break the standard dwarf stereotypes” isn’t helpful in the short term. But, ultimately that is what’s needed to make dwarves more diverse.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Dwarves are elves-meet-miners. They're industrious, hard working, an technological - but they are hidebound because if you mess around in a mine and your tech breaks it's going to get people killed. And we don't have very miners in the world thanks to automation and that it now takes only a handful of people to take the top off a mountain.

Which means that the three obvious barely tapped place for dwarfs are oil rigs (or equivalent), space, and having been driven out by something that extracts the minerals from mountains.

 

[Thunder Brother]

One direction I'd like to try taking dwarves sometime is to shift the emphasis of their social structure from clans to trade unions. A dwarf who doesn't work is no dwarf, and not being properly remunerated for your work is the deepest insult. So every dwarf joins the trade union for their chosen field of work, be it crafting or sanitation or military defense. And that union handles everything from training to promotion to juggling all the contracts between the different unions so that the results of their labor are properly distributed and paid for.

Basically, trying to downplay the "drunken Scottish Viking" idea down a bit, and play up the lawful and hard working elements more.

That idea reminds me of the Mostali from Runequest.

I took a similar approach when brainstorming my now dormant homebrew setting. For mainline dwarves, the whole concept of family is basically subsumed into professional guilds, with only juvenile dwarves being guidless.

They were also asexual, carving their children from stone in a secret and sacred ceremony.