Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 1716931" data-attributes="member: 22882">Dwarves can be bad at things?  In D&D 3.5?  Well, they're a bit less personable than humans, but, really, if any of the core races deserve an LA of +1, it's dwarves.I love dwarves, always have, presumably always will.  Their culture, their attitude, their look; everything just clicks for me.  You just can't go wrong with a race of short, subterranean Confucian saxons.With that said, 3.5 has made dwarves far too good.It's not the Con for Cha trade - paladins, sorcerers, bards, rogues, clerics, and almost 25% of all good PrCs make good use of Charisma.  (A *real* min/maxer knows that abusing Divine Grace and the various Divine feats is much better than relying on, say, Strength)  It's the net +3 on saves against poison and Fort save magic, and +2 to saves against *all* magic, that makes dwarves so incredibly good.  Bonuses against two common creature types and the melee acumen to be toe to toe with them doesn't hurt, and neither does weapon familiarity with the dwarven waraxe.I've benefited from the 3.5 exalting of the dwarf, but also recognize it as unbalanced.Finally, dwarves, unlike elves (who, with their long childhoods and Con penalty *look* like a race in decline) have no logical reason not to be dominating every fantasy world by the rules as written.  They make great warriors and wizards, decent rogues, breed early and often considering their long lifespans, wield massive economic influence, and are renowned as great magic item crafters.  How can this race not be dominating the allegedly more plentiful humans, orcs and halfings?</blockquote>

Verification