What in the literally @#^$#%@ hell. I am going to tear out this stupid anti-virus software. It cuts off my access to ENworld mid-post and erases the entire hours worth of #$^%$#@! typing I just did.
So, round two. Likely with less detail.
No. You asked where in the PHB or Mordenkainen's it said X, so I let you know. You're the one who brought setting specific dwarves into this, not me. The conversation went like this.
Me: The PHB describes ways that the Mountain Dwarf and Hill Dwarf stat bonuses can be explained.
You: But they have the same culture.
Me: They don't have the same culture(which is obvious as they live in different areas and focus on different things).
You: Where in Mordenkainen's or the PHB does it say that.
Me: Mordenkainen's does on page 71. Now, I was looking at the general dwarf section there where it describes how some dwarves went to do X and the others stayed and did Y. A cultural difference.
You: Okay then, let's talk about the setting specific dwarves of the Forgotten Realms.
Me: Fine. Then I'm going to the setting book that would be the best and most in depth authority on those dwarves. And look, here are some ADDITIONAL explanations for those bonuses.
You: Now we have a problem.
1) I did not remember that the Sword Coast Guide had dwarf information. I did not read that book closely, and it has been years since it came out.
2) There is no such thing as a "non-setting specific dwarf" in this context. Not only are both the Mountain and Hill dwarves called out as being 1 to 1 related to specific setting dwarves in the PHB, but they are not given any distinguishing features that make sense for them being seperated. The way Hill Dwarves are described as having "keen senses, deep intuition, and remarkable resilience" is something that could be easily applied to any dwarf. They could be born to two mountain dwarf parents, or even trained to have those traits.
3) The PHB does not tell us where they live. The only way you could argue that is to say that it comes directly from the names. But even that is circumstantial at best, and since mountains and foothills are definitionally next to each other, I do not see any way that that could be used to describe enough of a cultural drift and shift to show the differences we are talking about.
4) Most important. You are missing the point I was trying to make. The point is not about a single sub-race, but at looking at the sub-races side by side. The PHB explicitly tells us that the Gold Dwarves and the Hill Dwarves are the same. Yet, they hold opposing views and ways. Same with the Mountain Dwarves and the Shield Dwarves.
This was the original point I was making. We cannot say that "Hill Dwarf" culture gives us the +1 Wisdom, because between the Hill Dwarves and the Gold dwarves we have opposing cultures, but the same score. This is the contradiction, that taken together, they do not match close enough to justify being the same race, and yet they are.
There's nothing to square away. They are not in any book "suspicious and secretive towards everyone." They are in one book secretive and suspicious of people who don't flaunt wealth, but many, if not most merchants and nobles do flaunt their wealth, and those are the people that they would be eager to trade with. And one can be secretive and suspicious, and still be optimistic.
That is a poor reading of the test. Full Quote: "
Gold dwarves who interact with other races (including shield dwarves) tend to be suspicious, taciturn, and secretive, and especially distrustful of anyone who doesn’t show outward signs of wealth."
They are suspicious of everyone, and
even more suspicious of those who do not flaunt their wealth. So, sure, they may be less suspicious of a wealthy merchant decked out in gold, but less just brings them back down to the baseline level they treat all outsiders including other dwarves with.
Also, if you are suspicious and secretive with people, it is because you fear the worst. That is the opposite of optimism, which is hoping for the best. Maybe they can be optimistic about other things, but according to Mordenkainen's tome speaking specifically about the dwarves of the Forgotten Realms, Gold Dwarves are reacting with pessimism to every other race of beings they encounter. Which does not tend to make one a optimist
Sure. They are slow to trust, unlike Mountain Dwarves who are slower to trust. That makes them more open and likely to make friends with outsiders. And they haven't fought everyone, and most of those that they have fought would be orcs and goblins. So again, we don't have a situation where anything said in one book is in opposition to anything said in the other. It's certainly not the clearest way to say it, but that's part and parcel of 5e. The writing has been pretty poor across the board.
And this still makes me chuckle. To rerewrite your first sentence without the pronouns. "[Mountain Dwarves] are slow to trust, unlike Mountain Dwarves who are slower to trust."
See, these two races are so similiar, you can't even tell when I switch from talking about one to talking about the other. Because Shield Dwarves are Mountain Dwarves, not Hill Dwarves.
They are such similiar cultures though, it is trivially easy to confuse them. And I'm not sure blaming bad writing is in any way a good escape hatch from this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know why it didn't occur to me before, as it is blatantly obvious, and it may have already been discussed in this thread, but the new make-your-own race is just flat out better than the Variant Human, which was already considered one of the strongest options in the game. I mean, instead of getting +1 to two stats, a skill and a feat, they get +2 and +1, darkvision or skill, and a feat. That is just flatly better.
This has several implications, the first of which, to my mind is that having flexibility is valuable. So despite Jeremy's insistence that it doesn't matter where you put the bonus stats, being able to put it anywhere does effect balance.
Second, just as the Variant Human is no longer a viable alternative, the fact that it was supposed to be balanced with the Standard Human that has +1 to all stats is also a problem. Seeing as how the Standard Human is almost universally considered to NOT be equal to the Variant human, and is in fact much weaker, then the Standard Human needs a boost. I am... Wait...
Okay, I am literally interrupting my planned message to add this. Jeremy said that the +2/+1 can not be placed in the same stat, so you can't get a +3. But it gets a feat, just like a Variant Human, and one of the big things about getting that feat is that you could get the so-called "half feat" which gives you a +1 to a stat and then a feature. So the new race could absolutely get a +3. So if you want a wizard, put your 15 from standard array in Int, get the do-it-yourself race and put the +2 in Int, then take a feat that adds +1 to Int and you start with an 18 in your primary stat at first level.
So how is this not a balance issue again?
Anyway, back to my previous message. Hmmm... Oh yeah! Standard Human. Needs a boost. I was going to say add a proficiency to Standard Human, but now I am thinking they should just get a feat. Variant Human would just be replaced with the new option. In this way the Standard Human can potentially get a +2 in a stat, and the Variant Human (now really just Variant Species) gets the powerful potential +3 in a stat.
Or am I missing something?
I ended up seeing the need to also mentioned
@Oofta and
@Helldritch since they seemed to miss the things you got wrong in this analysis.
The biggest thing is, as far as I have seen (and I went back and double checked) there is no way to add a feat to a race at this point in time, other than the variant human.
So, with no feat, you can't get a +3 at level 1, you have to wait for your feat at level 4, like always.
With no feat, the Variant Human keeps its place as a powerful choice, because it remains the only way to get feats at level 1.
Also, Crawford's point still stands. It was always assumed in the game balance that a class would be able to get a +3 or even a +4 in their stats from early on. So, switching to having a +2 Strength to having a +2 Intelligence does not change that. The classes were also balanced with the idea that they could get any set of racial abilities.
And remember, they were balanced with rolling in mind, so the classes were already balanced for an INT 16 Dwarf Wizard with Medium armor, because that was a possible thing that rolling could get you. This is just being more reliable, instead of based on the whims of the dice.
Some interesting points raised above.
As for the "human in a rubber suit" argument, I agree that this is a problem that should be avoided. I don't remember where I read it, it might not even be D&D, but one reason put forth as to why many races were more stereotypical while humans remained flexible was that the "mythical" races were more closely bound to their gods. For example, dwarves were made by Moradin, elves were made by Corellon Larethian, orcs were made by Gruumsh, etc. So even if a dwarf left the worship of Moradin or an orc left Gruumsh, they are still bound to that god because they are literally created by their gods to be like their gods. Humans, having no single creator deity, were free to be whatever they wanted and did not have to fight against their own natures to do so. Anyway, it was just an interesting idea.
See, but there are a lot of problems with this idea that removing these attributes means they will all be humans in rubber suits.
Firstly, they are going to be humans in rubber suits.... because we are humans putting on the suits. I literally cannot play something with a completely alien mind-set. I am human, even as I try my best to warp and twist things into a non-human perspective, I am simply making a more and more detailed mask to overlay my human mind.
Secondly. the stats are the worst way to represent them being non-human. Especially with the V. Human being able to get any +2/+1 combo they desire via half-feats. Instead, look towards the things that are actively non-human. Elves live much longer than us and do not sleep. That is two core aspects of humanity that are removed from their perspectives. How would that affect them? certainly on a much deeper level than being "graceful" would.
How about the fact that Tieflings have horns and tails? This seems minor at first, but one thing to remember is that horns typically have a lot of blood flow and are meant to disperse body heat. So, Tielfings wouldn't blush. They in fact, likely cannot. Their tails are generally shown as prehensile, and being part of the spine they would be much more instintively moved. A Tiefling's tail might seem to have a mind of its own, and lend itself to an entirely different set of body language than we are used to.
We can make them non-human, as best as human's can portray, without the need to say "well, +2 con means I have 1 more hp than you, and I'm really tough" Because that could easily be a difference between humans, it doesn't tell us anything about how they act.
