Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8697180" data-attributes="member: 6790260">What's a hill dwarf?[SPOILER=&quot;This is a dwarf, on a hill.&quot;]<img src="https://www.worldanvil.com/uploads/images/c61616a6329126178b11a33b029ae657.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />[/SPOILER]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/&quot;duergar&quot;-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: &quot;classic&quot; dwarves, &quot;shamanic&quot; dwarves, &quot;sorcerous/psionic&quot; dwarves, and &quot;sailor&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8697180, member: 6790260"] What's a hill dwarf? [SPOILER="This is a dwarf, on a hill."][IMG]https://www.worldanvil.com/uploads/images/c61616a6329126178b11a33b029ae657.jpg[/IMG][/SPOILER] More seriously: I'm with you here. I get that there's [I]supposed[/I] 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 [I]are[/I] 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 [I]Divinity: Original Sin 2[/I] that dwarves have taken quite well to [I]sailing[/I], 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 [I]enough[/I] that they still feel like they fit together. [/QUOTE]

Verification