Andy Collins' "Personable Dwarves" Variant Rules from Dragon #308

[Gez]

Honestly, I like weapon familiarity. Especially for dwarves, it goes well with their militaristic society.

However, as for why it is not, indeed, stupid, it allows to explain a bit more why adulthood lasts so much more time for them than for humans (and half-orcs, who don't have WF).

 

[Felon]

I don't think balance had anything to do with it. I think they just want Urgoshes to be used. Has anyone seen one in a game? Same with the DWA. Cool weapons no one touches.

Yes, I've played a dwarven urgosh and waraxe fighter. All the way up to epic level, in fact (the campaign started about a year before 3e's release, and lasted until last year). It actually took a long time for that old-school DM to even learn the names of the weapons. He'd drop greataxes and battleaxes as treasure and kept wondering why I never made a grab for them. I kept explainging that as far as Thull Grimax was concerned, mere martial weapons were good for the likes of the paladin and barbarian. "An elite warrior uses an elite weapon."

Of course, now the elite has been made mundane.

 

[Technik4]

Well look at it like this. How many dwarves have you seen using dwarven waraxes. Ok, now how many NON-dwarves have you seen use it.

Now, how many different characters (and thereby races) have you seen using the battle-axe? How many dwarves?

Now, to determine if your campaign needs dwarven waraxe as a weapon familiar to dwarves just compare those results to what you want them to be. For instance, if you find a lot of non-dwarves take d. waraxe and dwarves dont bother, then perhaps giving it to a dwarf for free will make it more prevelant among the correct "favored" race.

Do you have an axe-heavy campaign in general? Maybe you have orcs that go for battle axes and shields over greataxes, and other races using battleaxes, so its nice that the dwarves' have their own axe which they prefer to use.

Personally, I don't think I will allow it for my dwarves, not without some sort of "nerf" on one of their powers (perhaps changing the +2 vs spells and spell-like effects to be against something the dwarves encounter often, conjurations perhaps). I will allow the dwarven urgosh as a racial familiar weapon though.

Also, personally, I will be granting the orc double-axe to half-orcs raised by orcs. They don't really need a "nerf" counterbalance, and its a double weapon besides.

Re Elite: Its still elite, now all dwarves are considered to be elite axe-wielders compared to humans, elves, and other races who must spend a feat to use the dwarves' axe. Although, as I said, I won't be using it without nerfing something from the already-house dwarf.

And, I do like the difference between dwarves' and elves' weapon proficiencies.

Technik

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hmm. Seems like I missed out on a paradigm shift here. When did Constitution get relegated to the "secondary abilities" category? Did hit points stop mattering so much at some point, or did they just become easier to come by somewhere along the way? Is Andy just exhibiting grapefruit-sized cajones at his suggestion that this is an equitable trade? What do you guys think?

I don't think that's what he's doing. Charisma IS a secondary ability, right? Therefore exchanging a penalty in it for a penalty in dex on a one-to-one basis is effectively doubling the penalty. Dwarves are (supposedly) balanced for the stat mods they have now. So theoretically, increasing their stat penalties should lead to them becoming unbalanced.

The bit below is a bit confusing though...

Here's the part that gave me a bit of a jolt. Says Andy: "Of course, a penalty to Dexterity is harsher than a penalty to Charisma, so you might consider offsetting this by increasing the dwarf's Constitiution modifier to +4.

This agrees with what I said above.

While this seems like a big adjustment, a good Constitution doesn't make a character nearly as potent as a high Strength or Dexterity".

While technically correct in terms of the dictionary definition of potent, this sentence is a little bit confusing.

I think he's trying to say that we shouldn't worry too much about an extra bump in constitution, and that to his mind it has less of an impact than giving the dwarf a bonus to strength (for instance). If that's so, then I agree.

 

[bwgwl]

i've been doing dwarves as -2 Dex, +2 Con since about a week after the PHB hit the shelves.

i also gave them +1 natural armor to somewhat counterbalance the Dex hit, but then changed some of their other abilities. (can't remember what off-hand; haven't run that campaign in a year-and-a-half.)

 

[Technik4]

I think if dwarves were -2 Dex, +4 Con you'd see a lot more dwarves. Its like having elves that were -2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Con (which is actually according to the DMG, selling them a little short!).

Whats next? -2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Wis Halflings?

Technik

 

[jgbrowning]

I think if dwarves were -2 Dex, +4 Con you'd see a lot more dwarves. Its like having elves that were -2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Con (which is actually according to the DMG, selling them a little short!).

Whats next? -2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Wis Halflings?

Technik

If they simply let dwarves move at 30 (like almost every single medium sized creature in the rest of the DnD world) you'd see a lot more dwarves.

joe b.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Whats next? -2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Wis Halflings?

Maybe +4 Con, -2 Str Gnomes

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: Andy Collins' "Personable Dwarves" Variant Rules from Dragon #308

I don't think that's what he's doing. Charisma IS a secondary ability, right? Therefore exchanging a penalty in it for a penalty in dex on a one-to-one basis is effectively doubling the penalty. Dwarves are (supposedly) balanced for the stat mods they have now. So theoretically, increasing their stat penalties should lead to them becoming unbalanced.

Unless the supposition is flawed and they were unbalanced to begin with. Since Charisma is a secondary ability, Con is not, that is pretty much the case (unless you can make an arguement that it got the shaft somehwere else along the way that it hasn't been compensated for). Saying that the Con bonus should be increased to +4 to preserve the discrepency, rather than just accept that it's now got a balanced ability score echange, has the ring of poor reasoning.

 

[Mercule]

Well look at it like this. How many dwarves have you seen using dwarven waraxes. Ok, now how many NON-dwarves have you seen use it.

Now, how many different characters (and thereby races) have you seen using the battle-axe? How many dwarves?

At least as many dwarven Fighters (and a Paladin, actually) have used the DWA in my game as human Fighters have used the Bastard Sword.

Actually, I wouldn't care if only humans wielded the WarAxe, Urgrosh, or Double Axe. As far as I'm concerned, the racial names for those weapons are only flavor text and show only a slight propensity for use by the race in question.

As far as the elven bonus proficiencies, my interpretation was that they were a step down from the +1 elves were granted with those weapons in previous editions. In all honesty, I expected them to be stripped from 4E (wasn't exactly predicting a 3.5). Apparently, my guess was wrong.