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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 895399" data-attributes="member: 8158">Re: Dwarven BonusesAll 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".</blockquote>

Verification