Dwarf power-ups: Good or bad?

[Tylias Quill]

Well, I think the Dwarf powerups are a little unbalancing - dwarves have plenty as it is, and all they have that really hurts is the 20' movement.

But who said their rules were about balance? It's probably for the same reason they made Clerics so powerful in 3e... to get people to play them.

Don't like it? Rule 0, man

 

[Red Baron]

I don't care about stability much. The weapon proficiencies, on the other hand, make a great deal of sense to me.

But what I really want to know is, are half-elves still gonna get the shaft? It sure looks that way, and I don't get it. I mean, why tinker with dwarves and gnomes, which were playable as written, and ignore half-elves, which everyone agrees are the weakest race? What are they thinking?

It seems to me, and keep in mind that this is pure conjecture and half-drunk-on-a-Saturday-night-but-came-home-early-rambling, that half-breeds of various sorts got swept up into the fantasy mindset due to a few famous literary characters. (Think LotR, think Shannara,...).

Just perhaps, it is a good thing that half-orcs and half-elves and the like are becoming rarer, just like it's a good thing (I trust most will agree) that twin-scimitar-wielding-dark-skinned-angst-ridden-wilderness-warrior-type-pseudo-faeries are (thanks the gods) edging into obscurity...??

I mean, really -- out of all the heroic characters that should grace the campaigns of all the creative, smart people who frequent these boards, can there be anything so derivative as the half-elf (or half-orc)?

Maybe WotC is doing us a service...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Put me down under the 'Dwarfs Need Something' category. The changes I've heard don't sound overpowering, and in the time since 3e came out I've seen exactly 3 dwarfs being played. Of them 1 was me, one was a pregenerated character the DM handed out (Tordec...) and the 3rd was mine because I wanted to play a tough, grumpy, bearded, cigar chompin' wizard! (And borderline depressive...) The remaining character was a paladin.

Elves I have seen at least 10 of, and humans by the score. And I agree half-elves need something, I have yet to see more than 1 being played, and that was as a lark.

(Game with two female players, who both flirted with the half-elf player. Human female PC: 'Oooh, half elves are so exotic!' Elfin female PC: 'Oooh, half-humans are so well hung!' Lots of fun, if only to see the half-elf's player change color.) Don't know what can be done to make half-elves more enticing, but they do need something.

Giving cultural exotic weapons as martial weapons isn't that powerful of an ability, frankly Exotic Weapon Proficiency is rather underpowered, only rarely is it taken except for truly interesting weapons. And some of those still need yet more feats to use properly. (Spiked chain for example, nice weapon, well worth it, but that's a lot of feats...) I think that a lot of cultures should have weapons that are exotic weapons elsewhere being martial in their homelands. (Including human cultures, for that matter some races should have multiple cultures as well.) Perhaps giving dwarfs a choce of one of the two EWPs would help soothe some nerves?

And yes, exotic weapon can refer to how rare a weapon is as well as how difficult it is to use. Gunpowder weapons are exotic in the game, but part of the reason they spread so fast was because they were much easier to learn to use than a longbow. Crossbows were even easier to use, but gosh darned slow to load. Personally I believe that longbows should be an exotic weapon, but that's for another thread... (If you want to train a longboman start with the grandfather...) And anyone who thinks that a hand crossbow is hard to use, well...

The Auld Grunp

 

[Felon]

Re: Dwarven Bonuses

The Dwarven Bonuses sound interesting, but I don't think they overpower the dwarves.

All righty, folks, we keep seeing posts like this:

"I don't think these three power-ups make dwarves overpowered.

1) +2 Con for -2 Cha--Hmm, that's good but not too bad. Probably a little unbalanced, but making it balanced would mean people wouldn't to play them. Besides, why should races be balanced? Go ahead and let some races be better than others."

"2) +2 vs. poisons--Oh well, that's OK, but they already have good Fortitude anyway thanks to their Con, and besides it makes sense."

"3) +2 vs. all spells and spell-like abilities--OK, that's a lot better than the saving throw bonuses that other races get, but maybe that will encourage more people to play dwarves, instead of constantly choosing half-elves."

"4) Darkvision--Well, that's good but a lot of other races get low-light vision which is only slightly inferior. Dwarves live underground so it makes sense."

Now does everyone see how easy it is to just keep going with this warped logic? You can add a hundred more bonuses to dwarves, and that'd be okay if no single one went overboard. And only if it went waaaaaaaaay overboard, because a little overboard can be rationalized as acceptable.

The key to this rationalization process seems to be A) selectively focus on each ability individually, never looking at the sum total package, which is totally excessive, B) decide whether or not each feature is too good, and if it's not too good use that as evidence that the whole issue isn't a big deal, C) if a feature seems too good, just say "oh well, it's not that bad", "it makes sense", or "enough people aren't playing dwarves so we should bribe players into liking them by lavishing them with perks".

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Whoa Felon, cool off. The fact is most folks don't think that the new abilities make the dwarf overpowered, even taken in total. This isn't an attack against you, or whatever you hold sacred, it's just that dwarfs, as they are in 3e, aren't being played. WotC did send out a questionaire about that about a year ago or so, enquiring 'what do you play?' I am also sure that they have gotten mail about whether this or that class or race is over or under powered. So take a deep breath and chill out.

The Auld Grump

 

[Felon]

Put me down under the 'Dwarfs Need Something' category. The changes I've heard don't sound overpowering and in the time since 3e came out I've seen exactly 3 dwarfs being played....Elves I have seen at least 10 of, and humans by the score.

OK, so how many people did you see playing them before 3e? Lots more? Well, in your opinion what about their racial package changed to make them unappealing? Could it it just be that humans were featureless and now they're actually a good choice? Could it be that half-orcs were dropped from 2e, and now they're sharing the dwarf's spot as primo warrior?

At any rate, it doesn't automatically mean the race needs power-ups. Maybe people you play with just plain don't like dwarves (the LotR movie certainly made elves look badass, while portraying Gimli as comic relief). Does it make sense to add features just to bribe players into playing a race?

If you can point out that a race lacks features (like the half-orc and half-elf), then you have a case for saying some power-ups would help. If you can point out that that a race's features don't do much to compliment its favored class (like elves and gnomes) then you have a case. If you can point out that another a race's features are eclipsed by another race's features (half-elves again, or half-orcs if you allow half-ogres) then you have a case. Now, can you say any of this about the dwarf (and keep a straight face heh)?

Giving cultural exotic weapons as martial weapons isn't that powerful of an ability, frankly Exotic Weapon Proficiency is rather underpowered, only rarely is it taken except for truly interesting weapons.

EWP typically is a slightly improved version of a martial weapon, such as take the damage die up a step or increasing the crit threat range by 1. Well worth it, although it's true many players don't take advantage of them. But giving them away for free doesn't fix that. Doesn't fix anything, really. Just promotes cookie-cutting.

And yes, exotic weapon can refer to how rare a weapon is as well as how difficult it is to use. Gunpowder weapons are exotic in the game, but part of the reason they spread so fast was because they were much easier to learn to use than a longbow.

Gunpowder's kind of a special case. It's exotic because the designers don't want anyone to have easy access to it. They don't WANT IT to spread quickly like it did in the real world. So they decide that being proficient with one includes not just firing one (which is easy) but also learning how to handle gunpowder (which requires special training).

The fact is most folks don't think that the new abilities make the dwarf overpowered, even taken in total.

Currently, the poll seems to indicate that popular sentiment is against the notion that dwarves need more special attention than other races.

This isn't an attack against you, or whatever you hold sacred, it's just that dwarfs, as they are in 3e, aren't being played.

News to me, as the little buggers seem pretty popular (particularly with me), but again I don't see the logic in bribing players into selecting a given race. If you can make a case that they are weak or have some other deficiency that discourages players (see above), please do. Quantitavely speaking though, they and humans have the least to gripe about.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Felon, you're still running a little hot there. And it seems that you are taking disagreement as a personal attack.

News to me, as the little buggers seem pretty popular (particularly with me), but again I don't see the logic in bribing players into selecting a given race. If you can make a case that they are weak or have some other deficiency that discourages players (see above), please do. Quantitavely speaking though, they and humans have the least to gripe about.

It may be news to you, but still for the most part true. Yes, part of it is that hmans have become much more worth playing, humans were my favorite race even in 1st and 2nd editions, where they really got the shaft. As for opinion on this forum being against me *shrug*, as has been mentioned before the folks on this forum are a small subset of those who play D&D. WotC presumably goes off of their polls and questionaires, which is a larger subset of those who play. Still, most likely, not a majority of those who play. (This forum is arguably more informed, and certainly more passionate, than most who play.)

And yes, I did see 'lots more' playing dwarfs in 1st and 2nd edition, though not as many as elves and half-elves. (The half-elf was toned too far down in 3rd, but was a multiclasser's dream in 1st and 2nd eds. And the Complete Elf was a nightmare.)

This observation is not based solely on my own campaigns, I have seen it in far too many to ignore. I have never for example seen more than one dwarf in a party, though I have seen one where the dwarf was the only non-elf. (Yes, I do haunt my FLGS.)

And, to paraphrase an old wargamers aphorism for army lists: 'if you take it every time it's probably overpowered, if you never take it than it's under', folks do need bribing, it's why NPC classes are weaker than PC classes, to bribe players into playing the main classes. I remember when NPC classes were more powerful than PC classes - net result was a bunch of munchkins wanting to play antipaladins and other twinked out classes.

The current weakness of the dwarf (20 ft. base movement) is more crippling in many games than the benefits he enjoys makes up for. I have seen way too many games where most of the opponents are taken down at range before the dwarf can get his stumpy little body over to the enemy. The fact is that D&D is a combat game more than anything else, and that is where the attention is focused in a lot of games. (Too many in my opinion.)

Though honestly I think that the weapon familiarity ability is not to make the dwarf more appealing so much as to make the weapon more appealing. In most games the dwarf generally chooses some other weapon or just uses the thing two handed. It is also why they are giving the half-orc those silly double ended axes.(Silly for actual utility as a weapon, game wise they are fine.)

Personally I like dwarfs, I like playing them, whether they get the power up or not. However I could steer you in the direction of a few power gamers who will go on for some length about the dwarf's, umm, shortcomings. (Mostly that movement thing.)

And I will also admit that there are a few races that I feel need more help than the dwarf. Half-elves just don't get played, and every single half-orc that I have seen has been either a barbarian, a fighter, a ranger, or some multiclass thereof. (With ranger/ barbarian being the most popular, but then everybody seems to take a single level of ranger.) Dwarfs are number three in my estimation for needing a boost.

For some reason halflings seem to get played a lot, esp. as sorcerer's or wizards. And I have yet to see anyone play a gnome at all. (I never paid enough attention to the wee folks to know if they need a boost or not, and while I have heard impassioned speech against them it has always been of the 'I can't stand the little buggers' variety. No meat and bone reason.) I don't know about the 'Lord of the Rings effect', it's possible but...

Gunpowder's kind of a special case. It's exotic because the designers don't want anyone to have easy access to it. They don't WANT IT to spread quickly like it did in the real world. So they decide that being proficient with one includes not just firing one (which is easy) but also learning how to handle gunpowder (which requires special training).

Having used blackpowder weapons, crossbows, and bows I can tell you from my own experience how much easier it is to learn how to load a musket than how to arc your bowfire. Personally I learned to use a bow first, then muzzle loader, then finally a crossbow. As for gunpowder needing special training, the training took about an hour, I can still hit a target with a musket, can't hit with a bow at range at all well. Arcing and windage is a pain in the butt. (Rimshot.) And a hand crossbow is weak, but stupidly easy to use. Hard to make in a primitive society, but easy to use. (Making it might take an Exotic Craft feat, ditto for guns, esp. rifled weapons.)

The Auld Grump, toddling off to bed

 

[Felon]

Felon, you're still running a little hot there. And it seems that you are taking disagreement as a personal attack.

I don't take it personally, although I do find some of the not-so-well-considred lines that keep getting tossed out a bit frustrating and I suspect that's what's starting to show. The casual usage of the "makes sense" contention is exasperating in particular, when it's used as an excuse for excess. Fact is, you could go wild layering feature upon feature to a race based on it making sense. There's a point where give-and-take needs to become a factor.

WotC presumably goes off of their polls and questionaires, which is a larger subset of those who play.

Fair enough, but do you think those polls and questionares are also what led WotC to believe that half-elves should be left as-is because, in Ed Stark's words, "half-elves are extremely popular as PCs. If we changed them significantly....we would do a disservice to fans of those races"? I don't know about anyone else, but if Ed kept a straight face while saying that, then I have some serious doubts about the reliability of WotC's sources of information-gathering.

This observation is not based solely on my own campaigns, I have seen it in far too many to ignore. I have never for example seen more than one dwarf in a party, though I have seen one where the dwarf was the only non-elf. (Yes, I do haunt my FLGS.)

Elves are a good example of the converse of what we're discussing; a race that's popular without having an uber package (particularly for its favored class). People just like playing them. They think they're cool. That doesn't mean they're overpowered or need tweaking just because they're popular.

And, to paraphrase an old wargamers aphorism for army lists: 'if you take it every time it's probably overpowered, if you never take it than it's under',

See above statement regarding elves. That philosophy is all about selling people short. Things are popular or unpopular, common or uncommon, for lots of reasons. In the elves' case it sure ain't raw power, and in the dwarves case, it isn't lack of features.

folks do need bribing, it's why NPC classes are weaker than PC classes, to bribe players into playing the main classes.

I don't get you. NPC classes are weaker because they're supposed to represent weaker characters. Important characters have core class levels, peripheral characters have NPC levels.

I remember when NPC classes were more powerful than PC classes - net result was a bunch of munchkins wanting to play antipaladins and other twinked out classes.

Ah yes, the beloved ninja. Won't soon forget those.

The current weakness of the dwarf (20 ft. base movement) is more crippling in many games than the benefits he enjoys makes up for....The fact is that D&D is a combat game more than anything else, and that is where the attention is focused in a lot of games. (Too many in my opinion.)

It's a close-combat-oriented for the most part (hence the various 30-ft restrictions on many abilities). The majority of monsters are geared towards tearing it up in melee and are generally happy to bring the fight straight to my dwarf. Certainly in most dungeons and close quarters even a 30ft charge can reach most foes. Now, if the DM's tossing them out at the party in wide open plains like clay pigeons, then that's a problem for a whole lot o'reasons. Like the stunty said, dwarves are very dangerous over short distances.

Though honestly I think that the weapon familiarity ability is not to make the dwarf more appealing so much as to make the weapon more appealing. In most games the dwarf generally chooses some other weapon or just uses the thing two handed. It is also why they are giving the half-orc those silly double ended axes.(Silly for actual utility as a weapon, game wise they are fine.)

I don't understand why a particular weapon needs good press. I don't think anyone suffers for the whip or hand crossbow's unpopularity. As for the double-axe, I always just saw them and most other double-weapons as quarterstaffs with tricked-out ends (ever notice how many folks don't make the quarterstaff connection to Darth Maul's dual-saber?). Btw, I don't think the half-orc's getting WF with it, although orcs are (which another strike against the concept IMO).

Personally I like dwarfs, I like playing them, whether they get the power up or not. However I could steer you in the direction of a few power gamers who will go on for some length about the dwarf's, umm, shortcomings. (Mostly that movement thing.)

Well, don't get me started on elves lol...oh wait I already did, heh.

And I will also admit that there are a few races that I feel need more help than the dwarf. Half-elves just don't get played, and every single half-orc that I have seen has been either a barbarian, a fighter, a ranger, or some multiclass thereof. (With ranger/ barbarian being the most popular, but then everybody seems to take a single level of ranger.) Dwarfs are number three in my estimation for needing a boost.

My list:
Half-elves (buff them or drop them altogether)
Gnomes (having a specialist wizard as a favored class is lame, and make the bonus to INT, not CON)
Elves (figure out whether they're effete, nebbishy bookworms or wild, semi-feral huntsmen, then assign abilities and favored class appropriately)
Half-orcs (something minor, like a +1 natural AC bonus)

For some reason halflings seem to get played a lot, esp. as sorcerer's or wizards. And I have yet to see anyone play a gnome at all. (I never paid enough attention to the wee folks to know if they need a boost or not, and while I have heard impassioned speech against them it has always been of the 'I can't stand the little buggers' variety. No meat and bone reason.) I don't know about the 'Lord of the Rings effect', it's possible but...

Flavor plays a role, no doubt about it. Halflings have the same speed as dwarves, and nothing about their package makes for especially good spellcasters. They pretty much have "rogue" stamped on their little foreheads, and even at that class it's debatable whether humans surpass them. Still a common enough choice.

Having used blackpowder weapons, crossbows, and bows I can tell you from my own experience....

Oh lordy, I was trying not to open the door into this line of discussion lol. Like I said, gunpowder weapons are a special case; they're exotic so that they can exist in a campaign while not beng a widespread weapon of choice for every town guard. They want to keep weapons nice and archaic.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Speaking as a dwarf player, I am actually in agreement with Felon. They didn't NEED anything else. Dwarves are already top-heavy compared to the bonuses everyone else gets. And changing them just because no one is playing them is just plain bad game design.

I really just stepped into the discussion to talk about EWP, and although Felon doesn't realize it (due to either a gap in my explanation or in his understanding of how the waraxe currently works), we agree on that point, too.

I'm not so much in favor of changing the races as I am in changing the way EWP should work if they are going to change it at all.


Wulf

 

[Felon]

Wulf, I think I just missed the "two-handed" notation you put in parentheses.