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: 895595" data-attributes="member: 8158">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.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.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.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.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.Ah yes, the beloved ninja. Won't soon forget those. 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. 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). Well, don't get me started on elves lol...oh wait I already did, heh.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)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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification