WotC article on Races for Martial Classes...

[pawsplay]

That doesn't make any sense. A game designer forgets a minor rule, and all of a sudden the game is too complex?

D&D is designed so you don't have to remember every single minor rule. Instead you just remember the big stuff, and look up the details in the rulebook as it becomes relevant. That's why books have indexes.

What kind of writer turns in an article like that without re-reading the two paragraph stat blocks of the races?

 

[Deset Gled]

The article now seems to have been edited...

It's edited to get the rules correct, but now makes much less sense. How is speed a drawback for the Dwarf, when ANY race that wears heavy armor will have that limitation?

Dwarves have nothing but benefits when it comes to being a front line warrior. It's probably the change I hate most about 3.5 vs. 3.0.

 

[Darklone]

It's edited to get the rules correct, but now makes much less sense. How is speed a drawback for the Dwarf, when ANY race that wears heavy armor will have that limitation?

Easy and obvious (so obvious they shouldn't have written it): Dwarves are always slow, no matter which armor they wear. They are halfways mobile if they go barbarian... but they are never dashing around the battlefield.

 

[Klaus]

It's edited to get the rules correct, but now makes much less sense. How is speed a drawback for the Dwarf, when ANY race that wears heavy armor will have that limitation?

Dwarves have nothing but benefits when it comes to being a front line warrior. It's probably the change I hate most about 3.5 vs. 3.0.

You hate that dwarves are now perfectly suited to their favored class?

 

[Darklone]

You hate that dwarves are now perfectly suited to their favored class?

Well, I hate dwarf barbarians. There should be an extra rule that removes their fast movement but gives them DR1/- more.

 

[Klaus]

Well, I hate dwarf barbarians. There should be an extra rule that removes their fast movement but gives them DR1/- more.

Sounds like a Racial Substitution Level.

You can just have dwarf barbarians be from a different totem than the PHB barbarian (as per UA), and choose one of the UA variants that remove fast movement.

 

[Deset Gled]

You hate that dwarves are now perfectly suited to their favored class?

Exactly. Dwarves are too perfect. Pefection is the opposite of balance. Perfection discourages diversity. Perfection, in an RPG, is a bad thing.

 

[Klaus]

Exactly. Dwarves are too perfect. Pefection is the opposite of balance. Perfection discourages diversity. Perfection, in an RPG, is a bad thing.

Uh... They're *perfect* for the heavy armored tank build that can soak up damage. Which is the traditional image of dwarves.

Just like halflings are perfect for the stealthy rogue build, which is the traditional image of halflings.

I see no problem with a race being perfectly suited for their traditional role. In fact, that's a problem with elves. Their D&D-image is of great wizards, but they have no racial benefits for wizardry. Their general image is of consumate archers, yet their favored class isn't ranger.

 

[Ranger REG]

What kind of writer turns in an article like that without re-reading the two paragraph stat blocks of the races?

*shrugs*

An ENWorld poster?