D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Dwarves Best Race?

[Steverooo]

Because of the overwhelming tendency for players to create character with races that give bonuses specifically benficial to their class, we never see Halfling Barbarians or Half-Orc Bards.

I have a Halfling Barb...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think all the races should get some weapon familiarity (and IMC, will). The only exception might be the half-breeds and humans.
Dwarves: Urgrosh and War-Axe
Halfling: Warsling and Skip-Rock
Elf: Thinblade
Gnome: Gnome Battlepick.
Orc: Double Axe

Elves will keep their racial proficiencies, but they won't extend to the elven thinblade.

Humans (and Half-Elves) might get even more freedom in their favored class, in that they can choose any one class (not the one with the most levels).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

IMO, this significantly unbalances the races unless humans, half-elves, and half-orcs either all get an additional bonus feat or get some weapon familiarities of their own (maybe bastard sword, double sword, dire flail, repeating crossbow, and spiked chain since, not having any other race's name by them, those are obviously human inventions Actually, bastard sword and double sword would probably be sufficient and spiked chain would be over the top).

However, the real problem with this is that, by creating race based mechanical advantages to weapon choices, you'll see much less variety in the choice of weapons. Rather than seeing something like:
Primary weapons
Composite Longbow 15%
Longsword 20%
Battle Axe 10%
Greatsword 23%
Greataxe 15%
Falchion 5%
Scimitar 5%
Heavy Pick 2%
Shortsword 5%
bastard sword 6%
Dwarven Waraxe 7%
Spiked Chain 6%
Morning Star 2%
Other 5%

and having that distribution fairly even across the races (although elven clerics and wizards bump the numbers for longswords and bows), you're more likely to see something like this:

Primary Weapons by Race
Dwarf
Waraxe 70%
Greatsword 10%
Morning Star 15%
Other 5%

Elf
Thinblade 60%
longsword 15%
composite longbow 20%
Other 5%

Etc. etc.

I think all the races should get some weapon familiarity (and IMC, will). The only exception might be the half-breeds and humans.
Dwarves: Urgrosh and War-Axe
Halfling: Warsling and Skip-Rock
Elf: Thinblade
Gnome: Gnome Battlepick.
Orc: Double Axe

Elves will keep their racial proficiencies, but they won't extend to the elven thinblade.

Humans (and Half-Elves) might get even more freedom in their favored class, in that they can choose any one class (not the one with the most levels).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

IMO, this significantly unbalances the races unless humans, half-elves, and half-orcs either all get an additional bonus feat

Totally out of the question. One additional is enough, especially since they can be everything, and even allow you to take more than one of those "Can only be taken by a 1st-level Character" Feats..

or get some weapon familiarities of their own (maybe bastard sword, double sword, dire flail, repeating crossbow, and spiked chain since, not having any other race's name by them, those are obviously human inventions

Then they aren't human any more. Humans aren't inherently specialized in anything.

Well, the bastard sword has their name already...

However, the real problem with this is that, by creating race based mechanical advantages to weapon choices, you'll see much less variety in the choice of weapons. Rather than seeing something like:
Primary weapons
Composite Longbow 15%
Longsword 20%
Battle Axe 10%
Greatsword 23%
Greataxe 15%
Falchion 5%
Scimitar 5%
Heavy Pick 2%
Shortsword 5%
bastard sword 6%
Dwarven Waraxe 7%
Spiked Chain 6%
Morning Star 2%
Other 5%

and having that distribution fairly even across the races (although elven clerics and wizards bump the numbers for longswords and bows), you're more likely to see something like this:

No, surely not.

There are already Primary Weapons by Race:
Elves already use Bows, Longswords and Rapiers, cause they're proficient with those weapons. All elves (not just fighters, as it would be with weapon familiarity). They also tend to use weapons that are graceful, not some brutish big things.
Dwarves are clearly favoring axes of any sort, and hammers.
Halflings and their stones and slings.
Orcs and big, brutish weapons like greataxes.

War clerics of all races influence the lists, since they can get free proficiency and focus with that weapon.


With weapon familiarity, it won't change that much, since they don't get proficiency with those weapons, but can treat them as martial weapons. While an elven wizard may wield a longsword, a dwarven rogue cannot use a dwarven waraxe without penalty or using a feat for it.

Primary Weapons by Race
Dwarf
Waraxe 70%
Greatsword 10%
Morning Star 15%
Other 5%

Absolutely not. The only thing that changes is that the battleaxe all but disappears from the list. We should have many dwarven war axes, many warhammers, and then greataxes and mauls (and the occasional urgrosh). Surely no greatswords or morning stars.

Elf
Thinblade 60%
longsword 15%
composite longbow 20%
Other 5%

What about the rapier??? Rogues cannot use the thinblade without proficiency, and so they use the rapier. They'll also favor the composite shortbow, because of the size (and the damage die one step higher doesn't concern them overmuch).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Totally out of the question. One additional is enough, especially since they can be everything, and even allow you to take more than one of those "Can only be taken by a 1st-level Character" Feats..

If it would be totally overpowered for humans, half-orcs, and half-elves to get an additional bonus feat (or even a predetermined feat like strong soul, iron will, luck of heroes, etc) then what does that say about dwarves, gnomes, and elves (already as strong a choice as human for most character concepts) effectively getting one or two free predetermined feats?

Then they aren't human any more. Humans aren't inherently specialized in anything.

Why not? In a fantasy world, humans are a race like any other. If all other races have proclivities to certain exotic weapons that enable them to use them without spending a feat, why wouldn't humans have a proclivity to certain weapons?

Well, the bastard sword has their name already...

Then maybe humans, half-elves, and half-orcs should get weapon familiarity: bastard sword.

There are already Primary Weapons by Race:
Elves already use Bows, Longswords and Rapiers, cause they're proficient with those weapons.

Non-fighter elves use those weapons. Elves who are fighters, barbarians, rangers, or paladins have no particular incentive to use longswords or rapiers unless it fits with their character concept.

All elves (not just fighters, as it would be with weapon familiarity). They also tend to use weapons that are graceful, not some brutish big things.
Dwarves are clearly favoring axes of any sort, and hammers.
Halflings and their stones and slings.
Orcs and big, brutish weapons like greataxes.

And where does this information come from? The elf information is largely a reflection of the D&D rules as they have come down to us over three editions. (In LotR and the Silmarillion, elves do use a lot of swords and bows but so does everyone else. The only distinctions in armarment is that Gil Galad is mentioned to have carried a spear and the Galadrim and elves of the mirkwood were known as archers). The dwarves information is a reflection of Warhammer. (Before people start on LotR, they might want to consider the weapons of dwarves other than Gimli. The dwarves of the Silmarillion were noted for the masks they wore in battle rather than their weapons and the most notable blow any of them struck was, IIRC a dwarf from Nogrod or Belegost who stabbed Glaurung with a dagger. Thorin used a sword. And Dain's dwarves carried great mattocks when they marched to the battle of the five armies). And as far as I know, outside of Warhammer, orcs had no special use for two handed weapons before 3e. (In LotR, they used pretty much every weapon everyone else did).

War clerics of all races influence the lists, since they can get free proficiency and focus with that weapon.

Sure. But that's setting dependent. If FR, clerics of Torm and Haela Brightaxe probably bump greatsword a couple spots up on the list. In Greyhawk, flails, and longswords or battle-axes get a boost depending upon the version of Heironeous in use. In your campaign, it's anyone's guess until you tell us.

With weapon familiarity, it won't change that much, since they don't get proficiency with those weapons, but can treat them as martial weapons. While an elven wizard may wield a longsword, a dwarven rogue cannot use a dwarven waraxe without penalty or using a feat for it.

With fighter as a favored class, you can count on a lot of dwarves taking at least one level. (IME, the only dwarf characters I've seen without fighter levels are a couple of clerics and a wizard (and the wizard is 1st level). And with waraxe familiarity, there will be few dwarves who choose a d8 one-handed weapon.

Absolutely not. The only thing that changes is that the battleaxe all but disappears from the list. We should have many dwarven war axes, many warhammers, and then greataxes and mauls (and the occasional urgrosh). Surely no greatswords or morning stars.

I would predict no warhammers. It's equal to the battle axe but strictly inferior to the waraxe. Greatsword is at least as common among dwarves I've played with as greataxe and I would predict that it would become more popular vis a vis the greataxe rather than less since, as a two handed weapon, its mechanical superiority to the waraxe is slightly more pronounced than the greataxe's. Thus, if a character is going to take a two handed weapon, the greatsword makes more sense.

And I suspect you'll still see quite a few morning stars in the "no martial weapon proficiency camp."

What about the rapier??? Rogues cannot use the thinblade without proficiency, and so they use the rapier. They'll also favor the composite shortbow, because of the size (and the damage die one step higher doesn't concern them overmuch).

OK, I'll admit rapier belongs on the list. However, levels of fighter or ranger look pretty attractive to rogues and with thinblade familiarity too, it would be equivalent to getting two feats with the fighter level or an extra feat with the ranger level. Favored class rules are probably the only thing that would hold most elvish rogues back.

And rogues may use composite shortbows. I've only seen one non-halfling character ever carry one though.

However, I think quibbling about the details of probable weapon distributions misses the point--a game with "weapon familiarity" type abilities will see a marked decrease in the variety of weapons used. (And, IMO, given dwarves other advantages +2 save vs spells, +2 saves vs. poison, +2 con, +1 to hit certain races, +4 AC vs. giants, etc. the weapon usage by fighters could well hit 60% dwarven waraxe, 40% everything else).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If it would be totally overpowered for humans, half-orcs, and half-elves to get an additional bonus feat (or even a predetermined feat like strong soul, iron will, luck of heroes, etc) then what does that say about dwarves, gnomes, and elves (already as strong a choice as human for most character concepts) effectively getting one or two free predetermined feats?

A free feat is much better than something that is predetermined, unless the latter is very versatile.

No, surely no additional free feat. It's better to give them something else, but something that fits.

Why not? In a fantasy world, humans are a race like any other.

No, at least not in D&D. And in many other worlds, it isn't the case either (not that they counted).

In D&D, humans are the standard every other race is defined by. They are absolutely versatile, and while they're seldom the best in something, they aren't the worst in it either. While you can give every other race certain traits that will hit the mark more often than not (elves being graceful, halflings being nomadic, drow being evil etc.) you cannot do that for humans. There is no Joe Average who represents the human as a whole, or even the majority.

And in most campaign settings, humans are the dominant race.

If all other races have proclivities to certain exotic weapons that enable them to use them without spending a feat, why wouldn't humans have a proclivity to certain weapons?

Because when you imagine the average dwarf, you see some kind of axe or hammer. When you see an elf, you see either a swordsman or an archer. Halflings we depict as sling-users. Humans? Could be anything, depending on what kind of human (as their ethnic groups are much more diverse as with other races, except maybe when subraces are involved). Whatever weapon you would take, it would be no more or no less appropriate.

Then maybe humans, half-elves, and half-orcs should get weapon familiarity: bastard sword.

I just got an Idea: Humans should get one exotic weapon as a martial weapon for free. Which one they can decide. Half-elves, being like humans in that matter, should get the same. Half-Orcs should follow their orc parents with that.

Non-fighter elves use those weapons. Elves who are fighters, barbarians, rangers, or paladins have no particular incentive to use longswords or rapiers unless it fits with their character concept.

And those non-fighter elves make up a sizable part of the elven race. And bows and swords very often fit the character concept of elves. I have seen more elves with those weapons than with other ones.

And where does this information come from?

Just take a look at the iconic characters. They are the examples on how these characters are pictured. Also, I have played D&D for some time and read a couple of novels. That's the pictures I usually get. And then, you can look at the favored weapons of the pantheon chiefs of the races, especially Corellon and Moradin, and on some of the racial PrC's.

And Dain's dwarves carried great mattocks when they marched to the battle of the five armies).

What are mattocks if not hammers.

I would predict no warhammers. It's equal to the battle axe but strictly inferior to the waraxe.

It has one extreme advantage: some people might want to play a dwarf with a warhammer (or maul).

Greatsword is at least as common among dwarves I've played with as greataxe

I haven't seen a single dwarf with a greatsword. I have a barbarian with a marcurial greatsword, and once I played in a campaign where there was a quasi-chinese dwarven war-cleric with a longsword.

and I would predict that it would become more popular vis a vis the greataxe rather than less since, as a two handed weapon, its mechanical superiority to the waraxe is slightly more pronounced than the greataxe's. Thus, if a character is going to take a two handed weapon, the greatsword makes more sense.

Not at all. If you like your crits more often, you take a greatsword, and if you like them more devastating, you take the axe. All the dwarf characters I knew decided for the latter. The players that played those were big dwarf fans and went for power over finesse, and that style practically dictates a weapon with a high crit multiplyer but small threat range - axes.

And I suspect you'll still see quite a few morning stars in the "no martial weapon proficiency camp."


Well, if there are that many (as you have already said: they often have at least one level of fighter).

OK, I'll admit rapier belongs on the list. However, levels of fighter or ranger look pretty attractive to rogues and with thinblade familiarity too, it would be equivalent to getting two feats with the fighter level or an extra feat with the ranger level. Favored class rules are probably the only thing that would hold most elvish rogues back.

I'm not sure everyone likes to lag one level behind in their sneak attack and special powers, just for an average of 1 point of damage per hit. I'm sure I don't

And rogues may use composite shortbows. I've only seen one non-halfling character ever carry one though.

I have seen several, usually rogues. Many people, me included, don't care whether it's a d6 or d8 with the rogue, since it's many extra d6 sneak attack anyway, and smaller weapons are more fitting.

(edit: some coding errors)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is silly; somehow I got involved in a discussion about Kae'Yoss's house rules when this thread is supposed to be asking whether 3.5e dwarves are the best race.

My answer: they're certainly very attractive for most classes:

Barbarian: Definitely one of the best choices out there. Favored Class: fighter means dwarves have very attractive multiclass options. No movement reduction in medium armor will let dwarf barbarians in medium armor move just as fast as human barbarians in medium armor or fighters in light armor. The con bonus is very significant for barbarians who like to stay alive and comes at a lower cost than the half-orc's strength bonus. The bonusses to hit will help a bit, the bonus to saves against magic helps negate the barbarian's weaknesses; Weapon Familiarity Waraxe and Urgrosh also mean that dwarf barbarians have access to better one handed and double weapons than barbarians of other races.

Bard: Not likely. The charisma penalty really hurts.

Cleric: A very strong choice--favored class fighter and weapon familiarity make Dwarf probably the best choice for multiclassed combat clerics. (Half-orc is the other non-human choice but the charisma penalty will hurt)

Druid: Dwarves are still a strong race but don't have as many advantages as druids b/c of the weapon and armor restrictions and the fact that wildshape makes physical ability scores less relevant.

Fighter: Dwarves are the best fighter race bar none. Only humans and half-orcs come close. Their better hit points and saves, and automatic waraxe proficiency place them firmly ahead of humans in almost all categories except mobility based fighting.

Monk: Dwarves probably make decent monks although I expect humans are still better.

Paladin: Dwarves make excellent paladins; although the charisma penalty will hurt them.

Ranger: Dwarves will make excellent rangers also. Their waraxe and Urgrosh familiarity will go well with the two weapon fighting line of virtual feats. Their darkvision will also enable them to scout at night and in the darkness. Favored class: fighter is not bad for rangers but is something of a limitation.

Rogue: Dwarves will still make excellent rogues. Waraxe and Urgrosh familiarity will make a big difference for multiclass rogues. (One level of fighter would potentially give TWF and Urgrosh proficiency). Darkvision is also essential for scouting in dungeon environments.

Sorceror: The charisma penalty will make dwarves suboptimal sorcerors.

Wizard: Dwarves' con bonus and save bonus will make them excellent wizards (all wizards need hit points and fort saves). Humans with their bonus feat and elves with favored class: wizard, a number of multiclass prestige classes, and bow proficiency shouldn't be overlooked though.

The end result of the changes, IMO, is to change two of the things that I liked most about 3e.

1. Humans were a viable race in nearly any role and no race was simply better. Now dwarves are simply better fighters and barbarians than humans.
2. There was a large selection of equally viable weapons out of which none was clearly mechanically superior to all the others (at least for fighter types). Now, for the best fighter race, Dwarven waraxe is the obvious choice.

 

[Fenes 2]

All I can say is that imc, if I had a dwarven fighter taking advantage of a "free feat exotic weapon: Dwarven Waraxe" any human fighter would get a free exotic weapon proficiency as well.

 

[nimisgod]

If you play a race for it's bonuses, you aren't really role-playing, IMO.

As has been previously said, taking a race for its bonuses does not mean that you aren't role-playing.

If an elven archer takes the bow, one might say its bec. of the concept. However, the bow is one of the more powerful ranged weapons in the game... and your character knows that, hence the concept of the archer's popularity.

Likewise, if a player chooses a dwarf because a dwarf is tougher, meaner and just downright nastier than most of the other PHB races does that mean its bad role-playing?

Does the quality of role-play deteriorate with the choice of race?

IMO, no. I could pick a dwarven fighter for its con bonus and bonus against orcs yet play a effeminate dwarf guy.

Role-play: to play a role

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

Druid: Dwarves are still a strong race but don't have as many advantages as druids b/c of the weapon and armor restrictions and the fact that wildshape makes physical ability scores less relevant.. Favored class: fighter is not bad for rangers but is something of a limitation.

The Con-Bonus still helps wildshaped Druids, because hit points don't change when changing form.