D&D 5E Dwarves: too good as fighters?

[Dausuul]

I've personally experienced it a number of times, especially when I was younger, where I've had an awesome PC concept, seemingly supported by class or setup in the game, only to find, actually, that just doesn't work very well, or worse, that class literally can't do the thing it's described as doing*. [snip]

* = Bard in 5E is an example of this - they can't support the party in the way the cool flavour-text describes - simply don't have the abilities for it (they easily could have, with a couple of songs-as-spells, but WotC didn't bother). Rogues were often victims of this in pre-4E editions, where they're often written up as fearsome killers, but actually, even when the stars align, they're only keeping pace with people making far less effort (4E fixed this, 5E looks to be close to 4E rather than previous editions on it).

To me, the poster child for this particular issue was the 3E monk.

Anyway, back to the topic of dwarf fighters: Let's try a quick experiment, stacking up a mountain dwarf fighter next to a human using point buy. Assume both fighters are interested in pumping Str and Con, with a preference for Str.

LEVEL 1-3
Human: Str 16, Con 16, bonus feat, bonus skill, +5 feet movement
Mountain Dwarf: Str 17, Con 17, dwarf goodies (poison resist, darkvision, stonecunning, tool proficiency*)
Advantage: Definitely human. The dwarf goody package by itself doesn't stack up to feat+skill+move.

LEVEL 4+
Human: Str 18, Con 16, bonus feat, bonus skill, +5 feet movement
Mountain Dwarf: Str 18, Con 18, dwarf goodies
Advantage: Slight edge to the mountain dwarf. +2 Con and dwarf goodies is a wee bit better IMO than feat+skill+move. On the other hand, the human is free to use the feat for offensive purposes; the dwarf is locked into +2 Con, which is purely defensive.

So, if you're trying to build an invincible tank fighter, mountain dwarf is the way to go. However, the human is more versatile. Ideally you'd have both; the mountain dwarf with a sword-and-board build and the Protection style, the human with an offensive great weapon build. Put them side by side and you've got a melee team that can roll over pretty much anything.

[SIZE=-2]*Yes, dwarves also get a bunch of weapon and armor proficiencies, but the fighter is proficient with all that stuff anyway, so it's irrelevant to the comparison.[/SIZE]

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To me, the poster child for this particular issue was the 3E monk.

Ouch, yes, good call.

So, if you're trying to build an invincible tank fighter, mountain dwarf is the way to go. However, the human is more versatile. Ideally you'd have both; the mountain dwarf with a sword-and-board build and the Protection style, the human with an offensive great weapon build. Put them side by side and you've got a melee team that can roll over pretty much anything.

I don't buy that the human is meaningfully better suited to offense for more than 2-4 levels, though. You can only take 1 relevant offense-boosting Feat, like, ever, for your fighting style (2h/S&B/TWF/archery etc.). So by L8 Dwarf is back in the lead (both now w/20 STR + appropriate offensive style feat).

As an aside I would never pick Protection ever, as it requires you to go stand next to the casters (or whoever), blow your Reaction (meaning no OAs), AND blow a Fighting Style. Also I'd say two GWF Fighters would roll over way more than S&B + GWF team would.

 

[Zaran]

I really don't see it. Hill Dwarves are really tough. Mountain Dwarves are really strong but other than that their other racial qualities are a bit redundant with the proficiencies that the Fighter class gives.

I also think that picking a race solely on the mechanical benefit is sort of missing the point but if want to optimize your character then you found the best choice under the specifications you were looking for. I'm still going to pick a Human and I won't feel like I'm losing out.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't buy that the human is meaningfully better suited to offense for more than 2-4 levels, though. You can only take 1 relevant offense-boosting Feat, like, ever, for your fighting style (2h/S&B/TWF/archery etc.). So by L8 Dwarf is back in the lead (both now w/20 STR + appropriate offensive style feat).

However, the human can take +2 Con and even things up. In the end, you're stacking "bonus skill and +5 feet movement" against "dwarf goodies." That definitely favors the dwarf, but not crushingly so.

As regards the Protection style, I was thinking the two fighters would be in the front line together; the dwarf imposes disadvantage on attacks against the human, so monsters end up having to chew through the dwarf's piles of hit points before they can shut down the human's greatsword attacks. You're right that it might be better to just have two great weapon fighters, though.

 

[Dracones]

Half-orc and halflings are probably the better option for fighters. Half-orc savage attacks is pretty solid and stout halflings are fantastic Dex based sword and board fighters. The Lucky trait is a 5% boost to pretty much everything they do.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I didn't say mechanics were meaningless. In fact, I said exactly the opposite at the start of my second paragraph.

But--to me--they come second. Are they important? Absolutely. But they're important in support of the flavor, not in their own right.

Again, YMMV, but for me, it's a fundamental truth of RPing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Half-orc and halflings are probably the better option for fighters. Half-orc savage attacks is pretty solid and stout halflings are fantastic Dex based sword and board fighters. The Lucky trait is a 5% boost to pretty much everything they do.

Halfling dual wielder seems to deal more damage than Dwarf with two handed weapon and has 1 less AC but gains better ranged weapons, dex saves, dex skills and initiative.