Dwarves and other races

[Xavim]

I really just don't see what these abilities are doing that draws the Dwarf into question. Is a lvl1 Dwarf fighter really that much stronger than a lvl1 Human fighter? If we are to assume that it requires a LA we need to assume that a lvl1 dwarf is an even match for a lvl2 human, and I just don't see that to be the case.

Sure the Dwarf has a greater con bonus, and runs as fast in heavy armour while weilding a Dwarf Waraxe, but the human still has more hp, a better BAB, AC(through more funds for his level), Saves, and has 2 more feats than the dwarf. Say we use 1 of these feats on exotic weapon proficiency to bring the human even with the dwarf in 1handed melee damage, that human still has a tremendous advantage on the dwarf.

Nearly 2x as much hp assuming similar stats (ex 16CON human, 18 CON Dwarf)
+1 greater BAB
better gear (AC, Masterwork weapons, potions of healing, ect.)
+1 better saves (except Fort.)
1 extra Feat.

IMO it doesn't look like the dwarf is on par with this guy in a stand down, but just to propose another scenario, is a 19th level Dwarf as powerful as a 20th level human?

 

[Thels]

Heh, I'd use the +2/+2 feats over the +3 feats for this calculation. Diplomacy/Gather Information would be one such feat and a +1/+1/+1 would kinda count up to it as well.

However, these are feats practically no one would pick and therefor are counted way too high IMHO as real feats.

Small does a little more than reduce speed. It reduces weight allowance, damage and grapple as well and then I'm not talking about the -2 str.

 

[Thanee]

So I kid you not. These are arbitrary values I am assigning, and of course by min/maxing your PC construction, you can ignore many weaknesses in a PC race. Overall though, yep, I'm serious.

And the thought hasn't crossed your mind, that there is something wrong with those numbers?

Half-Elves are by far the worst PC race!

Bye
Thanee

 

[The Souljourner]

Gotta go with Thanee on that one. People may think the half orc is bad, but he's almost always a fighter type, and +2 strength and darkvision for a fighter is awesome.

Half elves get jack all, and don't even get the bonus feat or extra skill point that humans do.

-The Souljourner

 

[Thels]

Darkvision? Dwarves got that too.
+2 Str? +1 to hit/damage? Dwarves get to do 1 point more damage with most combat styles.

So all the 1/2 orcs have over dwarves is that +1 to hit, which is not very much in comparison to a +2 on con and int (in comparison) all those other dwarven abilities.

Humans are the mostskilled PHB race. Halforcs are the leastskilled with their Int hit. Anyone care to explain?

Halforcs are only good for Fighters and Barbarians, and Dwarves are better on both, considering their rage ability lasts a round longer.

 

[Thels]

I really just don't see what these abilities are doing that draws the Dwarf into question. Is a lvl1 Dwarf fighter really that much stronger than a lvl1 Human fighter? If we are to assume that it requires a LA we need to assume that a lvl1 dwarf is an even match for a lvl2 human, and I just don't see that to be the case.

Sure the Dwarf has a greater con bonus, and runs as fast in heavy armour while weilding a Dwarf Waraxe, but the human still has more hp, a better BAB, AC(through more funds for his level), Saves, and has 2 more feats than the dwarf. Say we use 1 of these feats on exotic weapon proficiency to bring the human even with the dwarf in 1handed melee damage, that human still has a tremendous advantage on the dwarf.

Nearly 2x as much hp assuming similar stats (ex 16CON human, 18 CON Dwarf)
+1 greater BAB
better gear (AC, Masterwork weapons, potions of healing, ect.)
+1 better saves (except Fort.)
1 extra Feat.

IMO it doesn't look like the dwarf is on par with this guy in a stand down, but just to propose another scenario, is a 19th level Dwarf as powerful as a 20th level human?

Uhm, for your info, starting gold is based on ECL, not CL.

A lvl2 human is stronger than a lvl1 dwarf, yes. The dwarf as it is now would be too weak for LA +1, which is why I suggested +2 Str, +2 Con instead of +2 Con, -2 Cha. Assuming +2 Str, +2 Con:

The Dwarf has the same attack as the human, one point less from BaB, but one point more from Str. It's damage however is 2 more, 1 from the Str, 1 from the familarity.

A human fighter on average has one and a half feat more than a dwarf fighter. One feat could be used to balance out the damage. Then the other half feat, +1 skillpoint/level and the extra hp (which disappear at the higher levels) don't really add up to all the extra dwarven abilities, if you include the con bonus to fortiture and str bonus to weight allowance, among other stuff.

So yeah, I would see a Dwarf with +2 Str, +2 Con quite fair at LA+1

 

[The Souljourner]

Dwarves only do one extra damage compared to someone using a longsword or battle axe. Many barbarians and fighters use two handed weapons, which means the dwarf's weapon familiarity isn't really helping out.

Also, +2 strength is a lot different than "I can wield a weapon that does 1 extra damage". You get +1 to hit and damage with all melee weapons, you get +1 damage with mighty bows (yes, orcs *can* use ranged weapons), also, the dwarf getting an extra round of rage is nice, but not game breaking. It's rare that I see a barbarian of any race coming out of his rage before most of the enemies are dead.

Dwarves are slow, orcs are not. The extra 10' of movement means the orc can get the jump on a lot of enemies by charging from further away than they can reach. And since when do fighters give a damn about skillpoints? Yay, my orc fighter can't craft armor. Big deal. Fighters hit stuff.

Granted, it kinda sucks for barbarians, since they actually have a half decent skill list, but still, one less skill is not the end of the world. And we all know charisma is meaningless to barbarians and fighters.

And yeah, half orcs are only good for fighters and barbarians, stat-wise. Who cares? That's generally what people want to play them as anyway... and people can play the out-of-type rogue or cleric just fine.

Orcs got the shaft, I agree, but only because they're missing crunchy bits. Give an orc +2 to intimidate, +1 to some stuff, +4 to something else, and he'd be about as good as the dwarf.

-The Souljourner

 

[reapersaurus]

Beholder Bob - thanks for the analysis.
Those were pretty good numbers : sure, some people could dispute a 1/4 point or 1/2 point here and there, but the overall comparison is hard to ignore.

Half-orcs got jack-all, that's for sure.
(BTW: I agree that the half-elves didn't get much either)

I'll tell you what the cause of the problem with half-orcs is:
Open up your MM to the elf entry. See the section on Elven Traits (Ex)?
Now look at the orc entry. See that there's no beneficial traits section?

Small wonder why the half-orc is shafted - it's because the Orc is shafted.
To even have D&D be remotely fair to half-orcs, you'd have to come up with at least comparable benefits that the elves get.
But then you'd have to fix the half-elf, too.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Orcs got shafted in D&D? Heck no. +4 strength is an incredible benefit. By itself that makes orcs the obvious choice for any fighter type class except paladin. I'll admit that they don't have much range: they make good fighters, good barbarians, good strength-based rogues, and decent barbarian/clerics but that's it. Still the orc bonusses are good enough that they'd be a steal as a PC race.

And as an NPC race. . . well according to 3.5, your typical orc warrior is stronger than the typical bugbear.

I'll tell you what the cause of the problem with half-orcs is:
Open up your MM to the elf entry. See the section on Elven Traits (Ex)?
Now look at the orc entry. See that there's no beneficial traits section?

Small wonder why the half-orc is shafted - it's because the Orc is shafted.
To even have D&D be remotely fair to half-orcs, you'd have to come up with at least comparable benefits that the elves get.
But then you'd have to fix the half-elf, too.

 

[reapersaurus]

Why do people constantly hand-wave the penalties a orc and half-orc get, and only concentrate on the STR bonus?

AFAIK, according to WotC a +2 to STR is adequately balanced by a -2 to INT and a -2 to CHA.
Further, a +4 to STR is apparently balanced by a -2 to INT, WIS, and CHA as well as a -1 to attacks (or, basically penalizing the orc by 1 feat).

Actually, to reduce D&D to a simplistic comparison which only takes STR into account is actually quite the indictment of your style of play there, Basilisk.
It suggests that everything that INT, WIS, CHA, and the penalizing of 1 feat for Daylight Adaptation (or -1 to attacks, your choice) is no concern in your style of play.
Not to mention the roleplaying drawbacks of orcs.
Now, when you compare an orc or half-orc to a Wood Elf, it is certainly a slap in the face to orckind.
+2 STR, +2 DEX, -2 CON, -2 INT

This nets the Wood Elf a +2 DEX, -2 CON, and +2 CHA compared to the half-orc.
It nets him a -2 STR, +2 DEX, -2 CON, +2 WIS, +2 CHA and a +1 to attacks (or 1 feat) compared to the orc.

Throw in:
—Immunity to sleep spells and effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.
—Low-light vision.
—Weapon Proficiency: Elves are automatically proficient with the longsword, rapier, longbow, composite longbow, shortbow, and composite shortbow.
— +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.

and I think that most people can see how shafted the orc-kind ARE.