D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Dwarves Best Race?

[Clefton Twain]

If you play a race for it's bonuses, you aren't really role-playing, IMO. I believe that you should think up a character concept, and then apply the racial penalties/bonuses to your char. You know why there's never been a Dwarven Sorcerer? Because they have a charisma penalty. Now if half-elves had a charisma bonus, all the sorcerers you'd see would be half-elves.

Actually, my dwarven character is multiclassed into eight levels of sorcerer and he kicks. My concept was a dwarven ftr/sor outcast from his home. He works really well (also with classes of stonelord).

--CT

 

[Kraedin]

In my experience, dwarves are the strongest Player's Handbook race already for any role that doesn't require exceptional mobility. After all, that bonus to saves would be too good for a feat; stonecunning would make a good feat; +2 Constitution -2 Charisma gives a +2 to the most universally useful stat for a -2 to the least universally useful stat. Compared to the human's extra feat and extra skill, dwarves rock.

 

[Hackenslash]

I think Dwarves Rock and Rock Well !!!

I have always loved playing the Brash, Taciturn but dependable Dwarven Fighter Arch-StereoType but realise it's fun to branch out and play the typical Dwarf in an Untypical role. I think the Dwraven Race has much better modifiers and abilites than any of the other races in the 3.0 edition and sounds like they will be getting even more in the 3.5 edition, but I think that maybe WoTC are tring to make the race more playable and appealing to PC's. At the end of the Day you should be able to play the race you want the way you want to and have fun doing so. I must admit that the other races especially elves have lost a bit somewhere along the line, I mean what use really is Low-Light compared with Dark Vision. Elves used to get Infravision(Drakvision) in 2nd edition but had it taken away from them. I think that if WoTC are making changes to the Dwarf then they should make changes to the rest of the races to balance them out more. In any case DM's can always "House Rule" benefits and detriments to races as they see fit to make them more suitable to the current campaign. Maybe we will see some interesting variants in the House Rules Forum, in fact I may start a thread on House Rule Variants of standard core Races. hehehehe !!!! Cheers all

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And given the weapon familiarity details we see so far, humans no longer really have an extra feat.

Level one human fighter:
Power Attack, Cleave, weapon focus

Level one dwarf fighter:
Power Attack Cleave, Weapon Familiarity Waraxe (and Urgrosh)

The only difference is that humans have more flexibility with the bonus feat.

In my experience, dwarves are the strongest Player's Handbook race already for any role that doesn't require exceptional mobility. After all, that bonus to saves would be too good for a feat; stonecunning would make a good feat; +2 Constitution -2 Charisma gives a +2 to the most universally useful stat for a -2 to the least universally useful stat. Compared to the human's extra feat and extra skill, dwarves rock.

 

[Apok]

Nah, I still think humans are the most powerful. The bonus feat, extra skill points and lack of a favored class are, IMO, still Number One in terms of sheer mechanical usefulness. While Dwarves are a very strong race, no doubt, they are also extremely fun to play, which might account for the large number of Dwarf PC's.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Nah, I still think humans are the most powerful. The bonus feat, extra skill points and lack of a favored class are, IMO, still Number One in terms of sheer mechanical usefulness. While Dwarves are a very strong race, no doubt, they are also extremely fun to play, which might account for the large number of Dwarf PC's.

Not at all, humans have more flexibility, bu whenever you'd make a character that fits the races str, that race owns a human.

Small example if you ever plan on taking iron will the dwarf +2vs spells, the elf +2 vs enchantments basically does it already so your bonus feat is cancelled, and its a few skillpoints vs all there other abilities. now if Iron will was never on your to do list, then this specifc ability is meaningless.

I see it like this the non-humans are more powerful when they play to type, weaker when they play accross type. humans have no type to play too there just as good at everything.

 

[Grishnak]

I personally hate the dwarven race, the stumpy, bearded grumpy sods. They will be a slave race in my campaign with heavy stat loss. Even a Kobold will be held in higher regard. Mwahahaha manic laughter towards the dwarf lovers, you know who you are As for Gimpli oopps Gimli, Lagolas would whoop ur fodder butt around middle earth

 

[Hackenslash]

Yeah Right.....!!!

To Grishnak - Is that because you are stumpy, bearded and of Sod like quality....couldn't resist it dude....hahahaha !!!! I was waiting all day for you to post on this thread.....I knew it.. lol, lol and lol again......FFfwwweerrtttt !!!!! see ya soon brutha... ZAL.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

whatever mechanical benefits there are for any race, the differences at the moment aren't that extreme and all are relatively balanced. The dwarf is top of the pack, the 1/2 orc and 1/2 elf the bottom. Still the range is somewhat small in 3e.


The biggest imbalance always seems to be in the fluff. Everything cool, good looking, good tasting, refined, powerful etc was invented by elves. Its elf this and elf that.

The 3e designers seemed to think that you can make things cooler by making them more powerful, witness the dwarf and the cleric. The thing is cool has much more to do with fluff than it does to do with crunch. If they'd actually spend the time to give dwarves/clerics/ and whatever else is unpopular an equal amount of fluff they'd gain popularity.

 

[Hackenslash]

Good Point Shard O'Glase !!

You said "The biggest imbalance always seems to be in the fluff. Everything cool, good looking, good tasting, refined, powerful etc was invented by elves. Its elf this and elf that.

The 3e designers seemed to think that you can make things cooler by making them more powerful, witness the dwarf and the cleric. The thing is cool has much more to do with fluff than it does to do with crunch. If they'd actually spend the time to give dwarves/clerics/ and whatever else is unpopular an equal amount of fluff they'd gain popularity."

I would agree with your post in that WoTC do tend to make things more powerfull than they need too at the cost of depth and development of the race in general. There seems to be a lot more stuff about elves than dwarves, and if you look at the Warhammer world by Games Workshop then you will see a wealth of information on the Dwarven society and culture and the reasons behind their attitudes and lifestyles. Plus, it does go thru great depth on dwarven items and creations and all about Rune Lore, Stone Craft, Weapon and Armor Smithing and such etc...