D&D 5E Dwarves Could Use A Rethink

[Neonchameleon]

I don't know if the following is what you had in mind.

The main reason Dwarves have lost in popularity is that D&D5 has unthinkingly made range and movement too cheap.
...
This can most simply be summarized as undoing pretty much every relaxed or removed limitation in these areas when you compare 5E to 3E. There's more of them than you probably realize unless you're a true grognard. Like a dozen(!) or more.

Individually they're small things that make little difference.

Together however... As I said, I predicted this already soon after 5E's publication!

So the problem dwarves have in 5e is that they're underpowered and the archetype doesn't appeal to enough people to overcome that?

 

[Dausuul]

I don't know if the following is what you had in mind.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say... no. No, I don't think it's what the OP had in mind.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say... no. No, I don't think it's what the OP had in mind.

That's okay.

 

[Ancalagon]

Well, one thing I will note is that in older editions, dwarves had actual magic resistance but were unable to wield arcane magic. This made them more distinct... but it also meant that the guy who really wanted to play a dwarven wizard couldn't.

I now wonder if those limits were not wise. And now that we have more "mages", perhaps they could be circumvented - so no dwarven sorcerers or wizards... but artificers might be a dwarven invention. Or perhaps some would be tempted with a warlock pact...

 

[Ancalagon]

That's okay.

okay? OKAY?!? It's a tragedy! 2021 is ruined!!!!

 

[CapnZapp]

So the problem dwarves have in 5e is that they're underpowered and the archetype doesn't appeal to enough people to overcome that?

I do not agree to the school of thought that says mechanical power doesn't matter, people are going to play what they fancy regardless.

(Of course people are going to play what they fancy regardless; but that is a piss-poor excuse for not properly supporting that archetype)

In other words, you should not have "overcome" anything to play a core D&D race.

It's the general devaluation of Strength and upvaluation of Dexterity and Charisma in hero ideals that's to blame. Today's kids want to play angsty thin special snowflakes that still hit like freight trains despite having no visible muscles and a pityful body mass, and magic is for everyone!

Now get off my lawn.

 

[Thunder Brother]

So the problem dwarves have in 5e is that they're underpowered and the archetype doesn't appeal to enough people to overcome that?

Plus, if the massive volume of tiefling fan art is any indication, dwarves simply aren't sexy. Nor do they have the cool factor of the newer races that WotC is coming out with.

I think dwarves coming off as stale has more to do with fantasy increasingly moving away from the shadow of Tolkien than anything to do with dwarves themselves. Who knows? Maybe the new Amazon series will be really good and Tolkien will be in vogue again?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s clearer.

I think magic through permanent means is something that is intrinsically dwarvish. Perhaps bringing rune craft to the fore. I remember it seeing Dvalinn and Alviss in American Gods and the runes being their form of magic.

Perhaps skills with glyphs symbols and runes to implement effects. Some simple utility like strengthening or resistance others with more esoteric effects. It would make for a good dwarves subclass of wizard.

Perhaps all Dwarves could have the ability to see runes (or spells designated as runes) and perhaps even use minor versions. I’m also very interested in the idea of non-spell based craftsmanship of magical items.

Runes are an interesting way to go, for sure. Perhaps Dwarves could know certain runes that they can use to temporarily enchant an item 1/day?

You have only mentioned Norse mythology. Are those even really dwarves though? Should we be looking at other mythologies?

They’re the origin of the dwarf mythical figure, yea. And I asked for takes from other mythology in the OP.

I am quite certain the origin of D&D dwarves is "The Lord of the Rings," full stop. Ditto elves, ditto halflings--who were even called "hobbits" in their original form, before the Tolkien estate sent them a C&D--ditto orcs. Gygax and Arneson shoved them all in because people wanted Tolkien stuff in their fantasy game. Nothing more complicated than that.

As for Tolkien's inspirations, he drew on a wide range of sources, including fairy tales and Norse myth. He also modeled much of their culture on the Jewish diaspora in medieval Europe. (This led him into anti-Semitic stereotypes at times--I have no doubt it wasn't intended, but there's at least one passage in "The Hobbit" that is hard to read without cringing once you have that connection in mind.)

I quite like the idea of disentangling all that source material and exploring the roots of it. There's no reason to remain locked into Tolkien's particular vision for dwarves. At the same time, I would give the "new dwarves" a new name, maybe borrowing a term directly from the source material--my experience has been that trying to change the lore of the core races leads to a constant battle against the players' deeply-ingrained expectations of What A Dwarf Is.

I agree that a new name may be a good idea. Duergar works for me, though D&D players will prolly have a similar reaction there. Maybe a variant word like Dverengar or something like that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I do not agree to the school of thought that says mechanical power doesn't matter, people are going to play what they fancy regardless.

(Of course people are going to play what they fancy regardless; but that is a piss-poor excuse for not properly supporting that archetype)

In other words, you should not have "overcome" anything to play a core D&D race.

It's the general devaluation of Strength and upvaluation of Dexterity and Charisma in hero ideals that's to blame. Today's kids want to play angsty thin special snowflakes that still hit like freight trains despite having no visible muscles and a pityful body mass, and magic is for everyone!

Now get off my lawn.

The popularity of dragonborn (who I believe in 2020 hit third place) says otherwise. They're a strength primary race, and probably have the worst racial features in the game.

As for overcome I'll drink to that. Taking the penalties off the 3.X strength primary race (half orcs) was a smart choice - and in 2020 half-orcs were more popular than dwarves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know if the following is what you had in mind.

The main reason Dwarves have lost in popularity is that D&D5 has unthinkingly made range and movement too cheap.

Before 5E you had to pay a hefty price to gain high speed (such as poor armor) or good range (such as middling damage).

I've predicted a thread like that for years, because 5E lost sight of exactly how disadvantageous a slow Speed really is.

There's just no saving the Dwarf from a minmax angle.

5E basically reinforces Peter Jackson's notion that a dwarf is comedic relief rather than the heavy battle tank Tolkien intended them as.

The fix is to disallow ranged fire from adding an ability score, to make it far harder to leave melee range, and far more expensive (build-wise) to gain a faster Speed than 35 at most.

Also to not grant forest races like Elves true Darkvision.

This can most simply be summarized as undoing pretty much every relaxed or removed limitation in these areas when you compare 5E to 3E. There's more of them than you probably realize unless you're a true grognard. Like a dozen(!) or more.

Individually they're small things that make little difference.

Together however... As I said, I predicted this already soon after 5E's publication!

Yeah I disagree with pretty much all of this.