When you first read up on a race...

[Li Shenron]

Crunch first, fluff second. And I don't often go in for nuanced cultural descriptions and mating habits; because I can change the fluff how I want, and when it comes to pleasure reading I'd rather curl up with a good novel.

Just in case... I don't read up races description as "pleasure reading" but as very much (potentially) useful material for adventures and campaign.

To say what I mean in a colourful way, I may say that when it comes to races, for me "crunch is fluff and fluff is crunch", because the really meaty & useful stuff for me is in the fluff, and the crunch is a way to mirror that in the mechanics. (note that this is different compared to monsters, the main purpose of which is for encounters, and in our case are rarely used for PCs)

And when it comes to races, which being designed with PCs in mind they are not usually designed as a bunch of numbers (and abilities) but rather as a bunch of modifiers, i.e. they are "templates", this actually means that I can very easily change the crunch how I want. Changing the fluff is something that a lot of people think is easier, but I disagree (having seen thousands of re-fluffed things, very few of which were original at all).

 

[Glade Riven]

I suppose for me it really comes down to the importance of the first paragraph. If a splat or handbook doesn't point out something significantly different about this setting's or this game's dwarves, elves, halfllings, etc. I may eventually get around to reading through the entire description - but when 4e & Pathfinder came out it was more about "Okay, what did they change, and is it worth it?" For the most part, the core races are defined by Tolkien and traditional D&D - either by playing up the tropes or fighting against the tropes.

My first look is usually in a store determining whether or not to buy a product. I'm not going to read through the whole book before buy it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Having a bonus in IQ and having wizard as a favoured class = suck?

Having proficiency in some useful weapons = suck?

While one could make an argument that humans are better wizards I really don't see how you can argue that dwarves or 1/2 elves are better.

Unless you really, really, really, really hate that con minus I guess. But that would just be silly

I was talking about core elf. Some of the subraces that boost int are worthy as wizards, of course. But the game talks up about the core elf being a good wizard, and that's total bs, they SUUUUUUUUUCK at it! And the weapon proficiencies don't mean squat, at best you're going to have 10 strength so the swords are useless and you'd rather use the crossbow than a bow anyway.

How is dwarf better than core elf for wizard? It boosts a more important (2nd most) stat, and it hits a dump stat. Elf boosts the 3rd most important stat and hurts the 2nd most important one. Elf has some skill bonuses and low-light and a bunch of completely worthless other features. Dwarf has darkvision (better than low-light), +2 on 90% of the saves you'll ever make, and a whole slew of other situationally useful, but actually useful in those situations, abilities. The speed doesn't matter b/c eventually you'll be flying anyway, though the never reducing speed for armor or encumbrance WILL help maintain that Fly speed.

It mostly just boils down to +dex, -con being a net loss, though. That alone makes every core race except half-orc a better wizard.

 

[Elf Witch]

I was talking about core elf. Some of the subraces that boost int are worthy as wizards, of course. But the game talks up about the core elf being a good wizard, and that's total bs, they SUUUUUUUUUCK at it! And the weapon proficiencies don't mean squat, at best you're going to have 10 strength so the swords are useless and you'd rather use the crossbow than a bow anyway.

How is dwarf better than core elf for wizard? It boosts a more important (2nd most) stat, and it hits a dump stat. Elf boosts the 3rd most important stat and hurts the 2nd most important one. Elf has some skill bonuses and low-light and a bunch of completely worthless other features. Dwarf has darkvision (better than low-light), +2 on 90% of the saves you'll ever make, and a whole slew of other situationally useful, but actually useful in those situations, abilities. The speed doesn't matter b/c eventually you'll be flying anyway, though the never reducing speed for armor or encumbrance WILL help maintain that Fly speed.

It mostly just boils down to +dex, -con being a net loss, though. That alone makes every core race except half-orc a better wizard.

I have to say I get so tired of the scream something sucks just because it is not the super optimal way to go. Elves do not suck at being wizards. That +2 in dex helps make their AC higher it also allows them to use bows better. It also ups their reflex saves.

Don't forget that elves are immune to sleep spells and get a + to enchantment saves.

I have seen many an effective elven wizard whose con was no lower than anyone other wizard.

 

[karlindel]

I usually look at the crunch first, because the crunch is usually faster to read, and I can then see how the mechanics interplay with the fluff. I prefer for game fluff to be backed up by mechanics, or at least to not contradict the mechanics.

On the subject of fluff and crunch being contradictory, I agree that the 3rd edition core elf is a good example of fluff and crunch that don't match up. Elves don't "suck" as wizards, but the fluff specifically mentions that they make excellent wizards, and they are at best average wizards:
Elf - +2 dex helps AC, which is not going to be good enough to matter for a high level wizard, helps ranged attack rolls which only really matter for ray focused wizards, and helps reflex save. The Con penalty reduces fort save and cuts out 1 hp/level, which is a major penalty. The assorted other bonuses are generally of little to no use. Favored class of Wizard only matters if you multiclass, which wizards should generally avoid.
Halfling - same dex bonus as elf, penalty to a less important stat, additional +1 to AC and reflex, +1 more to attack for ray focused wizards, bonus to all saves, assorted other bonuses of less import.
Dwarf - +2 Con adds to fort and hp, -2 Cha has little or no impact, +2 to the majority of saves you will be making, darkvision, assorted other bonuses of less import.
Human - bonus feat, extra skill points to cover knowledge skills
Half-orc - worst race for wizards
Gnome - +2 con means extra fort and hp, str penalty seldom matters, small size means +1 AC and attack, +1 to save dc for illusion spells, assorted other bonuses of less import

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, when I see out of 7 core races (karl, you forgot half-elves; it's understandable, there's not much the remember about them...), Elves rank #6 at being wizards, I would call that "sucking at being a wizard." Perhaps other people have lower standards than me, but "I'm only better at it than the guy with a casting stat penalty!" is pretty bad.