Dwarves

[Thanee]

What do you think about the following change to the dwarf in 3.5?

-2 Dexterity.
Endurance as a racial bonus feat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darklone]

You mean, additionally to the -2 to Charisma (Int, Wis for subraces)?

I guess it's a good idea... but then noone will play dwarves anymore.

I'd use the stat adjustments as +2 Con, -2 Dex simply.

 

[Thanee]

Yes, of course in addition.

I think it's pretty much universally accepted, that dwarves are a bit too good in 3.5.

Bye
Thanee

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes, of course in addition.

I think it's pretty much universally accepted, that dwarves are a bit too good in 3.5.

Not by me. Of course, for game design reasons, I don't give then WF(dwarven waraxe).

 

[Sniktch]

I think thats fine, but I wouldn't want to trade 2 Dex for Endourance (even the 3.5 Endurance). My group still favors humans for the extra feat, skill points, and option of favored class, but maybe thats just us.

I dropped WF across the board, and added a feat that lets a race gain proficiency with all racially named exotic wepons (pertinent to their race, so a dwarf would gain the waraxe, urgrosh, etc)

 

[Nellisir]

Yes, of course in addition.
I think it's pretty much universally accepted, that dwarves are a bit too good in 3.5.
Bye
Thanee

Further proof of my extra-universal origin. ;-)

I don't think dwarves are too good, but I hadn't given it alot of thought, either.

That said, a -2 penalty to Dex is pretty harsh. Dex potentially affects more classes than any other ability score. You're talking a -1 to AC, a -1 to Reflex saves, a -1 to every Dex-related skill (tough on rogues), less use out of Weapon Finesse....

If it's just to tone down dwarves, I'd suggest taking something they have away, rather than adding a bonus and a penalty at the same time. If it's to reflect a campaign philosophy (Thanee dwarves are tougher, but less agile and less charming) it might work, but I'd expect a skew away from unarmored or light armored characters (no more dwarven locksmiths or swashbucklers). If that's OK, then that's OK.

Hope that's helpful,
Nell.

 

[shoes]

I guess it's a good idea... but then noone will play dwarves anymore.

HA! I beat you there! I love playing dwarves all the time. They can be a loyal-hard-working-protector than any nature-loving-sissy ELF can be!

LOL

No, in all seriousness, personally I think dwarves are overpowered as is. Maybe not enough for a level adjustment, but are one of the most powerful races in the Player's Handbook. By adding a feat (which they pretty much excel at already with toughness and stamina bonuses) and only a -2 Dex, eh... but as Nellisir said, for campaign purposes it might work, but I think you might want to really think about it before you do such a change like that.

And for the record, personally I think no one plays gnomes anymore. Haven't seen a single person play one yet. But thats only in my groups...

 

[nikolai]

I think Dwarves are too good. In many cases there are very powerful. I like the idea of switching the -2 Cha for a -2 Dex instead. I think this: (a) prevents a dump stat being used to boost a very important stat; (b) is in keeping with the popular image of Dwarves - sturdy and tough, but not very quick; and (c) A minus to Cha doesn't make sense, in 3e Charisma is more force of personality than how pretty you are, I can't see why Dwarves wouldn't have strong personalities.

 

[Nellisir]

I think Dwarves are too good. In many cases there are very powerful. I like the idea of switching the -2 Cha for a -2 Dex instead.

I also thinking switching the -2 Cha for the -2 Dex would be acceptable, and bring the class closer in to balance. Adding the Dex penalty to the Cha penalty, however, is still a little harsh.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

If dwarves were too good, everyone would be playing them. But everyone is not. Proof is in the pudding, so to speak.