D&D General what is a hill dwarf?

[LordEntrails]

Oh how the mighty have fallen. How such an seemingly innocuous thread as this has just sundered my world. Ugh, I'm going to have to go tell some kids they can play on my lawn now

All this has got me to thinking, the racial trait rules in Tasha's might not be so bad. Think about it, if you get rid of sub-races, and allow Tasha's, doesn't that really just get us to variants of all these stupid sub-races that seem to only be there to give a variety of racial stat modifiers? I think I'm going to have to go read Tasha's now in earnest. And maybe come to some modification like; no sub-races, but each race has a selection of stats they can add their modifiers to and a collection of racial traits or feats. Tat would allow tribal/social/geographical differences in races to be flavor, and allow players to play a specific race without having to find some silly sub-race variant to get to the class or archetype they are looking for. All without making race meaningless for class choice.

Ugh, I hate when the world shifts underneath me!

(Yes, their is supposed to be humor and/or sarcasm in my post, but also seriousness. You decide which is which.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Oh how the mighty have fallen. How such an seemingly innocuous thread as this has just sundered my world. Ugh, I'm going to have to go tell some kids they can play on my lawn now

All this has got me to thinking, the racial trait rules in Tasha's might not be so bad. Think about it, if you get rid of sub-races, and allow Tasha's, doesn't that really just get us to variants of all these stupid sub-races that seem to only be there to give a variety of racial stat modifiers? I think I'm going to have to go read Tasha's now in earnest. And maybe come to some modification like; no sub-races, but each race has a selection of stats they can add their modifiers to and a collection of racial traits or feats. Tat would allow tribal/social/geographical differences in races to be flavor, and allow players to play a specific race without having to find some silly sub-race variant to get to the class or archetype they are looking for. All without making race meaningless for class choice.

Ugh, I hate when the world shifts underneath me!

(Yes, their is supposed to be humor and/or sarcasm in my post, but also seriousness. You decide which is which.)

assuming it works that does seem a sufficiently solid idea and would shave down on book space by a ton.

 

[Fanaelialae]

nice biological difference but explain the bonus to wisdom as that is random?

I had it that dwarves in that campaign were fairly introspective, but that mountain dwarves tended to have very rigid and inflexible outlooks (set in stone). Hill dwarves had a similar tendency towards introspection, but typically with a more flexible mindset more inclined toward reaping the rewards thereof.

Although, given that racial ability score bonuses are going away, it doesn't really matter that much nowadays.

 

[Mannahnin]

All this has got me to thinking, the racial trait rules in Tasha's might not be so bad. Think about it, if you get rid of sub-races, and allow Tasha's, doesn't that really just get us to variants of all these stupid sub-races that seem to only be there to give a variety of racial stat modifiers? I think I'm going to have to go read Tasha's now in earnest. And maybe come to some modification like; no sub-races, but each race has a selection of stats they can add their modifiers to and a collection of racial traits or feats. Tat would allow tribal/social/geographical differences in races to be flavor, and allow players to play a specific race without having to find some silly sub-race variant to get to the class or archetype they are looking for. All without making race meaningless for class choice.

Or do it something like Chromatic Dungeons.

I can answer that

Instead of having each "race" having a bucket of traits where every elf is like every other elf, they only have a few traits, and you choose 2 heritages from a list (most of them below) and gain those traits from each heritage. Also, there are several issues of the Gnoll Sage (zine) for Chromatic Dungeons that are compatible with most OSR games. Each zine has a topic (the ecology of the mushropod, the commander (warlord) class, etc).

View attachment 248709

Obviously CD is a more old school design, but 5.5e could use the same kind of approach.

OSR - Interested in dipping my toe into OSR but don’t know where to start. Any recommendations?

Yeah, I’m at an interesting crossroads, because the principles are what I’m interested in more than the specific mechanics and design quirks… But also I really like the aesthetic of D&D, and I feel like that often gets lost when focusing on principles over specific mechanics. The OSR provides a...

www.enworld.org

 

[wicked cool]

i like what dragon age did with dwarves. you have undergound dwarves and then you have surface dwarves. I treat hill dwarves like dragon age surface dwarves.

if WOTC ever made changes i would do something like that for background

hill dwarf-some type of advantage for being on surface. better at short bows or riding a pony , more language choices. not treated like a mountain dwarf when in a dwarf setting

mountain dwarf-better chance for detecting undergound surface areas. language choices different .not able to take certain skills right way etc

going to tread lightly here but often if your parent are from a certain country and you return to that country you are treated as an outsider. Even when your parents return theres still a difference from those that never left . And they have a disadvantage when they travel

 

[Stormonu]

I dropped the two kinds and just went with “dwarf”, using Hill Dwarf stats.

My take was that the Mountain version was supposed to be one who lived underground and never had dealing with the surface races, while Hill mixed their time between trading on the surface and working in the mines. But if Mountain were undergrounders, what’s the purpose of having duergar?

 

[Oofta]

I've always let people choose hill or mountain dwarf attributes depending on preference no matter where they originate from (same for all races) . So even if for story reasons two dwarves are siblings one can be mountain, one can be hill and one could be mountain.

As far as cultural differences, in many ways they are more alike than some of the subraces for other races. As a long lived race, they rely on tradition and rules to maintain balance and harmony. When you live for hundreds of years, often in crowded domains, letting personal differences disrupt the community can slowly eat away at the solidarity of the group. Because of this dwarves have a reputation for bluntness and honesty, to the point where other races often view them as rude.

Mountain dwarves tend to live in harsher conditions with more dangerous enemies. More militant by the necessity of having to constantly defend themselves they also tend to be more isolationist. They don't interact with the outside world as much as hill dwarves. Because of this there's a tendency to view them as xenophobic, but while they are slow to trust they generally judge others on their actions and deeds, not on their heritage.

Hill dwarves on the other hand tend to interact more with surrounding communities and live with fewer constant threats to their existence. Like all dwarves, their penchant for brutal honesty means they don't gain a charisma bonus, but they are wise enough to know when to keep quiet. In addition, they tend to be more introspective and have more time for philosophical studies and perfecting things such as stone carving. While to some their stonework may be overly simplistic, they have a keen eye for proportion and balance.

 

[Andvari]

I am aware of that it is just why do we need a separate stat block for that?

In 5E specifically? So players can see how their choice of which type of dwarf their character is will impact their personality, background and gameplay.

If you are asking why the designers want options instead of just generic “dwarf”, it is probably better to ask them. I’d rather not put words in their mouths.

 

[Celebrim]

It's a racial/cultural distinction that the dwarves themselves make among their people. Mountain dwarfs as a rule tend to look down on their Hill dwarf cousins (literally and figuratively). HIll dwarfs represent the majority of dwarves that the typical adventurer comes into contact with. They are less xenophobic, less gruff, more comfortable on the surface, possessing more wanderlust, have better vision especially in bright sun, and have darker skin to better endure the sun. If you can imagine tan or brown skinned versions of the seven dwarves in Snow White, then you aren't far off. Some mountain dwarves feel that the hill dwarves are bit degenerate, having evolved from the pure dwarven lifestyle and culture intended by the gods. Most dwarf communities living in human cities are hill dwarves, so when humans think 'dwarf' they tend to think 'hill dwarf'.

There is a similar distinction between 'high' and 'wood' elves, although that one owes to Tolkien and while it follows his terminology it doesn't follow his cosmological reasons for the distinction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's a hill dwarf?

Spoiler: This is a dwarf, on a hill.

More seriously: I'm with you here. I get that there's supposed to be a distinction, but frankly I've never understood why being a mountain dwarf makes you stronger and teaches you to wear armor, while being a hill dwarf makes you wiser and increases your total HP. The PHB doesn't give anything to help understand the difference; frankly, the two seem like they're only different so dwarves can have two variants in the PHB.


There are multiple archetypes within the dwarf, but the distinction isn't communicated in the 5e PHB. Ironically, on this front, the World of Warcraft dwarves are much better; the difference between Bronzebeard (classic dwarves), Wildhammer (shamanic/spiritual dwarves), and Dark Iron (sorcerous/"duergar"-type dwarves) is actually well-done, and feels like three fully dwarf-appropriate options while still being genuinely distinct.

So, for my part, I'd run with that. Try to work in class/subclass associations into the different dwarf subtypes so you have a weight and meaning to it, not just seemingly-minor variations on the most basic dwarf idea. I also quite liked the idea from Divinity: Original Sin 2 that dwarves have taken quite well to sailing, so that gives four flavors: "classic" dwarves, "shamanic" dwarves, "sorcerous/psionic" dwarves, and "sailor" dwarves. Those all feel like they can be big enough to support distinct (sub)cultural aspects while still being similar enough that they still feel like they fit together.

Yeah, weird that WoW's dwarves are better than 5e's but there you are.