Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[OldTrees1]

The OP was very clear that he's talking about Dwarf PCs. CR 2 and CR 5 monsters, from a book that literally has Monsters in the title, are not PCs at 90% of tables, and when they are they're at a huge disadvantage compared to other playable races. So no, I don't count them, and stand by what I said.

Psyren, Metastachydium is very clearly talking about Dwarf PCs using Dwarf PC subraces. Since you are not counting them, then you don't get to count 5E Hill Dwarf or Mountain Dwarf either (assuming you are being consistent).

I had hoped that being repeatedly informed of PC subspecies you were unaware of, would result in you being aware of the PC subspecies you were being repeatedly informed about.

If you someday learn about 3E Dream Dwarves, maybe you will reconsider. However, evidently, forum posts (including citations) about Dream Dwarves is an insufficient measure for you to hear about them.

[Errorname]

Psyren, Metastachydium is very clearly talking about Dwarf PCs using Dwarf PC subraces. Since you are not counting them, then you don't get to count 5E Hill Dwarf or Mountain Dwarf either.

I had hoped that being repeatedly informed of PC subspecies you were unaware of, would result in you being aware of the PC subspecies you were being repeatedly informed about.

If you someday learn about 3E Dream Dwarves, maybe you will reconsider. However evidently forum posts about Dream Dwarves is an insufficient measure for you to hear about them.

I mean I think the "Dwarf shaped monster" thing is a bit of a distraction. I do agree with Psyren's assessment that some of these subraces do look like they're meant more for NPC and Enemy usage than PCs, but that's never stopped players from running with a monstrous race they thought was cool.

The actual important point is that these subraces aren't good or particularly memorable. "What if a Dwarf was Cold?" isn't worth much, and it isn't actually addressing the one-note dwarf problem.

[Psyren]

Psyren, Metastachydium is very clearly talking about Dwarf PCs using Dwarf PC subraces. Since you are not counting them, then you don't get to count 5E Hill Dwarf or Mountain Dwarf either (assuming you are being consistent).

I had hoped that being repeatedly informed of PC subspecies you were unaware of, would result in you being aware of the PC subspecies you were being repeatedly informed about.

If you someday learn about 3E Dream Dwarves, maybe you will reconsider. However, evidently, forum posts (including citations) about Dream Dwarves is an insufficient measure for you to hear about them.

I didn't say every single thing he listed wasn't a PC race, calm down. My overall point was that 3.5 isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the other editions in terms of dwarven variety. Especially since you can make a Jungle Dwarf or Cocoa Dwarf or whatever with backgrounds too.

I mean I think the "Dwarf shaped monster" thing is a bit of a distraction. I do agree with Psyren's assessment that some of these subraces do look like they're meant more for NPC and Enemy usage than PCs, but that's never stopped players from running with a monstrous race they thought was cool.

The actual important point is that these subraces aren't good or particularly memorable. "What if a Dwarf was Cold?" isn't worth much, and it isn't actually addressing the one-note dwarf problem.

Precisely, thank you.

[OldTrees1]

I mean I think the "Dwarf shaped monster" thing is a bit of a distraction. I do agree with Psyren's assessment that some of these subraces do look like they're meant more for NPC and Enemy usage than PCs, but that's never stopped players from running with a monstrous race they thought was cool.

All the Dwarves listed were included as PC options with PC rules when they were introduced. Many of those Dwarves were in Player facing supplements. Others were in DM facing supplements. (DMs used both of course) Every subrace, including Hill Dwarf, was meant more for NPC usage than for PC usage. I am not here to quibble about degrees, I was here to try to inform someone that was spreading misinformation. These are all Dwarves. These are specifically a subset of the Dwarf that have PC options.

The actual important point is that these subraces aren't good or particularly memorable. "What if a Dwarf was Cold?" isn't worth much, and it isn't actually addressing the one-note dwarf problem.

There was a reason I did not argue against you or your point. You have a solid point about most dwarves. Hill and Mountain dwarves have little differentiating them besides location and culture. The Arctic Dwarves differentiate a bit less than that. While the list provided might be relevant to people that think Hill and Mountain are sufficiently different, I would compose a different list for you.

Here are 3 dwarves I would list for you. Notably 1 is in 5E, 3 are in 3E, but it is a short list regardless.
Duergar (Monster Manual 3.5)
Dream Dwarf (Races of Stone pg 89-90)
Urdunnirs (Races of Faerun pg 20-23)
Of these 3, only Duergar was introduced alongside an enemy stat block. Dream Dwarf and Urdunnirs were introduced in an equivalent manner as subspecies today.
Of these 3, only Dream Dwarf can be a 1st level character in a 1st level party. However 3E did not consider that a blocker like 5E does. That is a distraction.

Edit:
Obviously I am not going to list Mountain Dwarf or Hill Dwarf. They are just "what if dwarf but it a mountain/hill".




@Psyren

Spoiler: @Psyren Quote Tree

Show

Well again, by that logic anything vaguely dwarf-shaped is a dwarf too, which means Azers and Earthen and Primordial Dwarves and Dwarf-Aasimars all count too. In which case 5e has nearly as much variation as 3.5e and the artificial edition barriers you're pointing to don't mean anything.

No, these are literally and explicitly just Dwarves with the same base traits. Heck, if I start including equally playable Dwarf-adjacent and Dwarf-descended stuff such as Azerbloods, Maeluths, Earth Dwarves and the like…

If you consider things like dwarf-shaped monsters and Arctic Dwarves to be separate races - yes, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

Metastachydium was literally list off Dwarves. Not "dwarf-shaped monsters". Those were literally dwarven subspecies from 3.5E that players can pick for their Dwarf PCs. The Dream Dwarf subspecies can be found on pg 88-89 of Races of Stone if you continue to find 3E Dwarven diversity incredulous and you decide you want to check the source.

The OP was very clear that he's talking about Dwarf PCs. CR 2 and CR 5 monsters, from a book that literally has Monsters in the title, are not PCs at 90% of tables, and when they are they're at a huge disadvantage compared to other playable races. So no, I don't count them, and stand by what I said.

Psyren, Metastachydium is very clearly talking about Dwarf PCs using Dwarf PC subraces.

I didn't say every single thing he listed wasn't a PC race, calm down. My overall point was that 3.5 isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the other editions in terms of dwarven variety. Especially since you can make a Jungle Dwarf or Cocoa Dwarf or whatever with backgrounds too.

Oh, so you are retracting the presumptive dismissal of literal Dwarfs as "dwarf shaped monsters" in order to pretend they were not dwarves? If you are dropping the misinformation I was critiquing, then my critiquing of the misinformation ceases.

Edit: Condensing the quote tree

[Cluedrew]

I would argue that the 'problem' with Dwarves is that they have insufficiently bumpy foreheads, they're so close to human that they're extremely reliant on the stock Dwarf traits to make them feel like themselves.

I don't think that is it. Because it seems to me that elves are as popular as ever and I think they are about the mathematically simplest bumpy forehead you can have. It could be part of the larger explanation but it is definitely not "the" problem. I think the explanation is just shifting tastes and a bit of a self-feeding cycle of them not getting enough spotlight time.

[Psyren]

All the Dwarves listed were included as PC options with PC rules when they were introduced.

Technically playing a vampire is a PC option in 3.5 too, because it has a Level Adjustment. That's a "PC rule." That doesn't make it a practical option at most tables, nor a good solution to the OP's perceived issue.

In some other hypothetical thread called "what edition has the most options for playing something dwarf-themed" or similar then sure, Midgard Dwarves and Urdunnir are valid checkmarks under 3.5's column. But if the issue is "not enough PCs are dwarves," pointing to a "dwarf" that most people wouldn't get to play anyway as evidence that 3.5 did it better is silly.

[Witty Username]

You're joking, right? Aerenei ancestor-worshipping mummies/liches? Valenar dervish desert barbarians? Which other setting has elves like those? And don't even get me started on the changes to their Drow.

That isnt all that different from Ravnica elves in all honesty.

That and cultural elements were already discounted for Dwarves, most elves are palate swaps, to the point where a couple were cut for 5e for not being different enough.

[Psyren]

That isnt all that different from Ravnica elves in all honesty.

That and cultural elements were already discounted for Dwarves, most elves are palate swaps, to the point where a couple were cut for 5e for not being different enough.

Ravnica elves are either extremist cultists (Selesnya/Gruul) or mad biologists (Simic/Golgari) depending on the guild you find them in, all having been warped by their hyper-urban environment. I don't see much in common between them and Eberron elves at all, and even less with FR/Krynn.

[Witty Username]

A more specific topic on this, since we can take from tv tropes:
Our Elves are different
Our dwarves are all the same
That there is truth value on the subject of variation.

Before we go off on the variation being a problem, why has the Dwarven image endured for as long as it has? And why do elves seem to have no diagnostic traits? It is worth asking before we get to far ahead on our oppinions.

[Lemmy]

TBF, while racial mono-cultures are kinda dumb... completely ignoring their biology to give them any possible culture is equally stupid.

Even IRL, Human cultures have A LOT more in common than they have differences even when we consider the most diametrically opposed ones.

IME, RPG games and settings tend to err too much on one side or another... Either a whole race is basically a single culture, despite having societies living on opposite sides of the world... Or they have basically no own culture at all, just a slight variation of human society, no matter how biologically different they're from humans.

I also will echo the sentiment that 5e kinda made everything a lot much blander. In part to be more balanced, in part to avoid offending people and in part to make a "everything is allowed" mindset, which sounds good in theory, but restrictions and limitations are also a big part of what makes things interesting and unique.

[Errorname]

TBF, while racial mono-cultures are kinda dumb... completely ignoring their biology to give them any possible culture is equally stupid.

IME, RPG games and settings tend to err too much on one side or another... Either a whole race is basically a single culture, despite having societies living on opposite sides of the world... Or they have basically no own culture at all, just a slight variation of human society, no matter how biologically different they're from humans.

I think the thing is that most of the classic fantasy races aren't that biologically different from humans. They're people with bumpy foreheads, and the classic archetypal depictions are obviously modelled on real world human cultures.

I love the idea of having fantasy cultures of truly non-human sapient species, but a humanoid with green skin and tusks or a human who is kind of short isn't really truly non-human. That ends up feeling like exaggerating the range of human variation, so you end up with cool inhuman features like tusks or pointy ears or horns on a character who is basically still human.

[Metastachydium]

You're joking, right? Aerenei ancestor-worshipping mummies/liches? Valenar dervish desert barbarians? Which other setting has elves like those? And don't even get me started on the changes to their Drow.

Yeah, right. A little tacked on ancestor worship for the standard "wise old race" Elves, "what if our Sylvan ones had black skin and liked scorpions this time" and swift, arrogant pointy-eared pretty humans whirling elegant curved blades… By the same token, Khorvaire Dwarves that are wealthy amoral bankers rather than working class beard dudes and the NW Sarlona frigid survivalist Dwarves should mean Dwarves aren't all the same.

Dragonlance elves are just elves. They have some sea elves with webbed fingers playing a minor role but it's just "Fancy snooty high elves" and "Crunchy granola wood elves". And "wild elves" who are your typical feral granola elves.

Ah, right, snottier than thou Silvanesti, running around in the woods Kagonesti, I remember now, thanks.

Exactly, I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this concept. Jungle and Fire and Strawberry and Caffeine-Free Dwarves or whatever else 3.5 came up with so they could try selling 40 books a year was purely variation for variation's sake.

Beats only having five books that are trying to aggressively make each other obsolete so that you have to buy the next one to stay hip.

If you consider things like dwarf-shaped monsters and Arctic Dwarves to be separate races - yes, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

Metastachydium was literally list off Dwarves. Not "dwarf-shaped monsters". Those were literally dwarven subspecies from 3.5E that players can pick for their Dwarf PCs. The Dream Dwarf subspecies can be found on pg 88-89 of Races of Stone if you continue to find 3E Dwarven diversity incredulous and you decide you want to check the source.

If you don't count them (by pretending they are "dwarf-shaped monsters", whatever you meant by that), then 5E has 0 Dwarves by the same logic.

Sidenote: The phrase "dwarf-shaped monsters", if it means dwarf-shaped monsters, can also be applied to all Dwarves. Dwarves are dwarf shaped and exist in D&D monster manuals. Almost like being included in the monster manual does not imply what you want it to imply.

Psyren, Metastachydium is very clearly talking about Dwarf PCs using Dwarf PC subraces. Since you are not counting them, then you don't get to count 5E Hill Dwarf or Mountain Dwarf either (assuming you are being consistent).

I had hoped that being repeatedly informed of PC subspecies you were unaware of, would result in you being aware of the PC subspecies you were being repeatedly informed about.

If you someday learn about 3E Dream Dwarves, maybe you will reconsider. However, evidently, forum posts (including citations) about Dream Dwarves is an insufficient measure for you to hear about them.

Precisely, thank you.

I mean I think the "Dwarf shaped monster" thing is a bit of a distraction. I do agree with Psyren's assessment that some of these subraces do look like they're meant more for NPC and Enemy usage than PCs, but that's never stopped players from running with a monstrous race they thought was cool.

Yup. Pretty much. The thing with 3.5, the variety there is not wanton tacked-on silliness. It is the whole appeal of the system. It is the edition where a dip in Commoner opened up avenues for doing something wild and fun.

The actual important point is that these subraces aren't good or particularly memorable. "What if a Dwarf was Cold?" isn't worth much, and it isn't actually addressing the one-note dwarf problem.

I deliberately set the UA environmental variants (kinda bland) aside and focused on the fun ones. Do read up on them, they are more than you give credit for.

I didn't say every single thing he listed wasn't a PC race, calm down. My overall point was that 3.5 isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the other editions in terms of dwarven variety. Especially since you can make a Jungle Dwarf or Cocoa Dwarf or whatever with backgrounds too.

Technically playing a vampire is a PC option in 3.5 too, because it has a Level Adjustment. That's a "PC rule." That doesn't make it a practical option at most tables, nor a good solution to the OP's perceived issue.

In some other hypothetical thread called "what edition has the most options for playing something dwarf-themed" or similar then sure, Midgard Dwarves and Urdunnir are valid checkmarks under 3.5's column. But if the issue is "not enough PCs are dwarves," pointing to a "dwarf" that most people wouldn't get to play anyway as evidence that 3.5 did it better is silly.

There's, again, two things here:

1. that you have to jump up and down on two (2!) outliers from a long list (let me quickly add psionic Duergar to it while I'm here, which put the Gray Dwarves in a specialist niche in a believable and even kinda clever way lorewise in XPH) in a game where people actually do play wilder things than Urdunnir because official rules for LA buyoff and Gestalt are in the freaking OGL SRD makes it quite adequately evident how silly the attempt to pretend stuff that don't fit your theory doesn't exist or doesn't matter gets; and

2. I'm more than happy that you like 5e and what comes next to it, more power to you, and have the best of games in your chosen system! But… Seriously, dude. What you're rambling on about here with feats (similar name, different kind of resource), CR(=/=ECL), monster/race distinction and the like basically just tells me you don't know jack about 3.5. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not supported anymore and it's not your jam based on the vibes or whatever you base your opinion of it on. However, it makes me unsure of what, exactly, are you trying to do here.

EDIT:

TBF, while racial mono-cultures are kinda dumb... completely ignoring their biology to give them any possible culture is equally stupid.

Very true! For instance, in the setting I'm working on, there is an Orc-majority state that developed a very Lawful and religious soldier culture to capitalize on the strength of the race which is… Well, unimaginative but reliable Strength, and another one that uses the same Strength to turn a rather small but very fertile region into one of the topmost agricultural producers of the known world.

[Errorname]

I deliberately set the UA environmental variants (kinda bland) aside and focused on the fun ones. Do read up on them, they are more than you give credit for.

I've skimmed the pages of most of them and nothing's really caught my eye. If these were the fun ones I'd hate to see what the bland ones looked like.

Admittedly I am not an easy sell on this sort of thing, I do not like this method of modelling internal variation within a fantasy race.

[icefractal]

I didn't say every single thing he listed wasn't a PC race, calm down. My overall point was that 3.5 isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the other editions in terms of dwarven variety. Especially since you can make a Jungle Dwarf or Cocoa Dwarf or whatever with backgrounds too.

"My problem with 5E is that levels mean literally nothing. A 1st level character is just as strong as a 20th level character."
"What?! That's not true! Here, look at all the differences!"
"Oh, well, what I meant was that 5E has a flatter power curve than 3E or 4E. And we agree it does, so I was basically right."

Which is to say that I find your argument that "well since some of these 3E Dwarves have LA, and some of them are just environmental variants (doesn't that apply to the 5E ones too?), then a list of 10+ is pretty much the same as two options" to be unconvincing and somewhat disingenuous.


Although this is all a bit tangential, since IME it's not like people played a ton of Dwarves in 3E either, or in fact - ever. If there was a golden age of Dwarves being cool that we've now fallen from, I seem to have missed it entirely.


Edit: Also, did someone call "fire resistance 5" a boring feature that has no cultural impact? Where the heck are you coming from with that? Do you realize what a difference that would make? Small fires (torches, for example) are completely harmless! Fire Dwarves (lets call them) could do the Blackbeard thing (putting lit fuses in his beard) as normal decoration. Even larger fires are much less dangerous, plausibly leading to a much more casual attitude about fire safety, and things like blacksmithing become a lot easier and less tiring. It has more potential cultural impact than the majority of racial features in any edition.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Monsters

Show

I'm well aware that ECL is not CR, that was shorthand. MonF is a 3.0 book (ironic that you're lecturing me about 3.5 knowledge seemingly without knowing that?) so LA/ECL was presented differently than in 3.5.

And I focused on the monsters in your "list" because Errorname had already addressed all the myriad Dwarf-with-a-slight-biome-tint examples, so I didn't feel the need to spend a lot of time on them.

(Lastly, lol @ 3.5's effluent release schedule being remotely sustainable much less "beating" anything, but that's another thread.)

I've skimmed the pages of most of them and nothing's really caught my eye. If these were the fun ones I'd hate to see what the bland ones looked like.

Admittedly I am not an easy sell on this sort of thing, I do not like this method of modelling internal variation within a fantasy race.

Bold got a chuckle

With floating ASIs, a bonus feat in background and the new hybrid rules, I can see a lot more potential for dwarven variation.

[icefractal]

With floating ASIs, a bonus feat in background and the new hybrid rules, I can see a lot more potential for dwarven variation.

With Hero, GURPS, Fate Core, or any other generic system, I could easily represent thousands of varieties of Dwarf. But those systems don't provide any Dwarves, they simply let you represent Dwarves that you already have the concept and flavor for. Which is fine, but a different thing.

[Errorname]

Also, did someone call "fire resistance 5" a boring feature that has no cultural impact? Where the heck are you coming from with that? Do you realize what a difference that would make? Small fires (torches, for example) are completely harmless! Fire Dwarves (lets call them) could do the Blackbeard thing (putting lit fuses in his beard) as normal decoration. Even larger fires are much less dangerous, plausibly leading to a much more casual attitude about fire safety, and things like blacksmithing become a lot easier and less tiring. It has more potential cultural impact than the majority of racial features in any edition.

I called it lazy and slapdash. If you told me Dwarves were generally heat resistant which helps them with the forge, that's a neat and useful passive that makes sense enough. If you told me there was a subrace of Volcanic Dwarves, who are coloured red and have heat resistance, I'd think it was something slapped together to fill pages in a sourcebook that was running out of actual ideas.

[stormofmind]

To be fair, they're already doing that - for example, Ravnica doesn't have dwarves minus the odd multiversal interloper, and Theros is missing dwarves AND elves.



So... Azers?



A lot of Duergar are pretty much what evil, well, ruthless/opportunistic dwarves would be like.



Yeah, the new core is going to have lots of options for broad-chested characters besides Dwarves - Orcs, Goliaths, Dragonborn, Humans, Tieflings, and half-versions of all of these.

azers are far to high level I remember hearing of 4e type of fire dwarf more to PC size.

my point is dwarves look too human and lack a cool factor making them have metallic coloured skin start pushing them towards clearly defined and with a bit more work iconic.

duergar would need a face lift both looks and culturally as the Underdark has false variety it seems to be nothing but evil slavers with way to dark skin for the location everything should be trogliforming at that depth.
they need to look different and feel like a different form of evil.

[Errorname]

my point is dwarves look too human and lack a cool factor making them have metallic coloured skin start pushing them towards clearly defined and with a bit more work iconic.

Here's the thing though, all the iconic fantasy dwarves have human skin. If someone says "I want to play a Dwarf", do they want to play an elemental creature of metal and stone or do they want to play Gimli?

[stormofmind]

Here's the thing though, all the iconic fantasy dwarves have human skin. If someone says "I want to play a Dwarf", do they want to play an elemental creature of metal and stone or do they want to play Gimli?

Changing Gimli's skin to chrome changes nothing in the character nor does having metal-looking skin change anything past you get to use the reflective as a title.

the elves have all sorts of different looks and skin tones I have seen blue, green a purple elves, why not let the dwarf try something new

you've even seen the staff at Konpeki Plaza in Cyberpunk 2077 sort of that look.

look if you have better ideas on making dwarves look both iconic and cool as they lack both beyond short dude which tends to lower the cool factor.

they also seem to lack properly distinct cultural differences beyond the evil option.

do you have a better idea to try?

[Errorname]

Changing Gimli's skin to chrome changes nothing in the character nor does having metal-looking skin change anything past you get to use the reflective as a title.

It changes the aesthetic, and as we've established the Dwarves do have a pretty rigidly defined aesthetic.

If you have better ideas on making dwarves look both iconic and cool as they lack both beyond short dude which tends to lower the cool factor.

I mean I don't think Dwarves need to be fixed. I do think they're less versatile than other fantasy races, their archetypes more defined and their popularity has sort of waned in comparison to other playable options. This does not mean they are not iconic or cool. As we've established part of the problem is that they're so iconic it's hard to deviate from the norm, and look at anything from Deep Rock Galactic or the surprisingly long lifespan of "Diggy Diggy Hole" if you want evidence that people still find their archetype fun.

I may not be making this as clear as I could be, I think the stock fantasy Dwarves has severe limitations and it's interesting to try and analyze why, but I don't think it's broken either.

[Psyren]

I mean I don't think Dwarves need to be fixed. I do think they're less versatile than other fantasy races, their archetypes more defined and their popularity has sort of waned in comparison to other playable options. This does not mean they are not iconic or cool. As we've established part of the problem is that they're so iconic it's hard to deviate from the norm, and look at anything from Deep Rock Galactic or the surprisingly long lifespan of "Diggy Diggy Hole" if you want evidence that people still find their archetype fun.

I may not be making this as clear as I could be, I think the stock fantasy Dwarves has severe limitations and it's interesting to try and analyze why, but I don't think it's broken either.

^ This - I think their decline is a natural consequence of the game/hobby and its audience becoming more numerous and more diverse. It's not a bad thing, just interesting to think about. Who knows, a generation from now it may be elves that people start shifting away from despite their greater variation. When you get right down to it, D&D and TTRPGs in general aren't that old.

The 'solution,' if one is even desirable let alone needed, is definitely not Volcanic Dwarves.

[Lemmy]

I think the thing is that most of the classic fantasy races aren't that biologically different from humans. They're people with bumpy foreheads, and the classic archetypal depictions are obviously modelled on real world human cultures.

I love the idea of having fantasy cultures of truly non-human sapient species, but a humanoid with green skin and tusks or a human who is kind of short isn't really truly non-human. That ends up feeling like exaggerating the range of human variation, so you end up with cool inhuman features like tusks or pointy ears or horns on a character who is basically still human.

While that's true, it shouldn't be that bad. Sure, maybe tusks or pointy ears won't make much of a difference... But even "minor" features could have a huge impact on how a race organizes itself Things such as having darkvision, a little elemental resistance (especially cold) or a significantly different average body size would have ENORMOUS impacts on societal norms and structures.

No one expects GMs or writers, to be full-fledged evolutionary biologists, of course... But it'd be nice to get more than just "these guys live in caves, those guys live in the desert, and the other ones... Well, they get a size bonus to Stealth checks".

For dwarves, this means we can keep the iconic features and still add enough variety to make them more unique (or at least give players and GMs options to make them stand out more, if so desired).

Personally... I think dwarves are pretty good. They being more grounded is a feature, not a bug... And IMO, it often makes them feel a lot more interesting than the more colorful races out there, which frequently feel kinda like bad fanfic from a writer is trying to be cool and see if it sticks.

Perhaps what makes dwarves interesting is precisely the fact that they are much more grounded and consistent, and don't feel like someone trying to create a super cool and edgy OC ("plz don't steal!") to sell splat books.

[Witty Username]

duergar would need a face lift both looks and culturally as the Underdark has false variety it seems to be nothing but evil slavers with way to dark skin for the location everything should be trogliforming at that depth.
they need to look different and feel like a different form of evil.

Duergar to me are more defined by weird mind powers so I am not against that. As I understood it though their prime aspect was pragmatic and cutthroat, seeing what evils they do as nessasary to avoid oppession and destruction. Sorta like Githyanki if the gith didn't also want to conquer the multiverse out of spite.

[SerTabris]

On a side note, what do people think of the new "Any race can be any height" thing? I know that in the new edition you can play 7' halfings and 3' humans, but is anybody actually planning on doing that? Especially for the races where their small size is one of their defining features.

Is this like the Monsters of the Multiverse thing where it said that every race in the book could be assumed to be of basically human height and weight, and then the book had both fairies and centaurs in that list? Because I figure, there's being an unusual outlier, and then there's just absurd nonsense; there have to be limits.

[stormofmind]

^ This - I think their decline is a natural consequence of the game/hobby and its audience becoming more numerous and more diverse. It's not a bad thing, just interesting to think about. Who knows, a generation from now it may be elves that people start shifting away from despite their greater variation. When you get right down to it, D&D and TTRPGs in general aren't that old.

The 'solution,' if one is even desirable let alone needed, is definitely not Volcanic Dwarves.

It changes the aesthetic, and as we've established the Dwarves do have a pretty rigidly defined aesthetic.



I mean I don't think Dwarves need to be fixed. I do think they're less versatile than other fantasy races, their archetypes more defined and their popularity has sort of waned in comparison to other playable options. This does not mean they are not iconic or cool. As we've established part of the problem is that they're so iconic it's hard to deviate from the norm, and look at anything from Deep Rock Galactic or the surprisingly long lifespan of "Diggy Diggy Hole" if you want evidence that people still find their archetype fun.

I may not be making this as clear as I could be, I think the stock fantasy Dwarves has severe limitations and it's interesting to try and analyze why, but I don't think it's broken either.

it is more it is losing a niche and the replacement tends to be faulty in otherways most lack of lore or setting integration meaning they feel empty
I also dislike seeing something that should be able to hold its own fail because people never bothered to explore it properly it is not like halflings and gnomes who honestly make sense as small bit part peoples.

I would have less of a problem if something was also eating into the elfs magic people shtick but that never seems to happen.


assuming the image works an example from the most dwarven game possible

[Metastachydium]

I've skimmed the pages of most of them and nothing's really caught my eye. If these were the fun ones I'd hate to see what the bland ones looked like.

Admittedly I am not an easy sell on this sort of thing, I do not like this method of modelling internal variation within a fantasy race.

Well, if being barely taller than a Halfling but strong as an Orc; seeing into the spirit world (with mechanical repercussions); weird mind powers and everythig about the Urdunnir are your definition of boring, I can hardly even begin to think how bland you find the 5e PHB crap (I've just checked those out, and man, they are a big stinking pile of nothing).

I'm well aware that ECL is not CR, that was shorthand.

Say what? They are pretty much entirely unrelated concepts. It's like using subclass as a shorthand for background in 5e.

MonF is a 3.0 book (ironic that you're lecturing me about 3.5 knowledge seemingly without knowing that?) so LA/ECL was presented differently than in 3.5.

Well, the Dwarven races/subraces I brought up are from MM/XPH, Sandstorm, Races of Stone, Races of Faerûn, Dragon Magic, the Planar Handbook and Frostburn, respectively and MComp (which I never so much as mentioned or alluded to) has a full update to 3.5, which includes LA where appropriate, which makes your high horse contention there as utterly incorrect as it is irrelevant.

And I focused on the monsters in your "list" because Errorname had already addressed all the myriad Dwarf-with-a-slight-biome-tint examples, so I didn't feel the need to spend a lot of time on them.

Urdunnirs are a race. They appeared in a race book. Having LA doesn't change that.

Midgard Dwarves are a monstrous race. They have RHD and LA, but that happens in 3.5.

The whole list I gave contains exactly two among the remaining 7 items representing non-standard Dwarves that are environmental variants, and both have more going for them than "can survive the weather". I don't demand that Errorname or you or anyone like them, but at least actually checking what they even are (as Errorname otherwise did later on) before starting to throw around random disparaging labels is a basic courtesy I feel like I could expect.

(Lastly, lol @ 3.5's effluent release schedule being remotely sustainable much less "beating" anything, but that's another thread.)

Nobody said it could or should have gone on forever. But the modularity it provides is something I find infinitely preferable to "here, have 2 splats; make sure you take a good look, they will be obsolete and superseded in two years". I stand by what I said.

With floating ASIs, a bonus feat in background and the new hybrid rules, I can see a lot more potential for dwarven variation.

Unless those got a big overhaul recently, I'm not seeing that. A couple "skill" or tool proficiencies and languages are hardly good substitutes for unique distinguishing abilities that actually do something.

[Errorname]

it is more it is losing a niche and the replacement tends to be faulty in otherways most lack of lore or setting integration meaning they feel empty
I also dislike seeing something that should be able to hold its own fail because people never bothered to explore it properly it is not like halflings and gnomes who honestly make sense as small bit part peoples.

I do not think "make their skin shiny" is an adequate solution to this, and I don't even really agree that it's a problem. Even less popular than they are and with more competition than before, Dwarves do still have a niche.

Well, if being barely taller than a Halfling but strong as an Orc; seeing into the spirit world (with mechanical repercussions); weird mind powers and everything about the Urdunnir are your definition of boring, I can hardly even begin to think how bland you find the 5e PHB crap (I've just checked those out, and man, they are a big stinking pile of nothing).

"It's like a Dwarf but it has different colours and can do [X] now" does not interest me, correct.

(as Errorname otherwise did later on)

I see how you got the impression that I only looked into these subraces later, but I did look into them before I responded to you the first time.

[Mordar]

I mean I don't think Dwarves need to be fixed. I do think they're less versatile than other fantasy races, their archetypes more defined and their popularity has sort of waned in comparison to other playable options. This does not mean they are not iconic or cool. As we've established part of the problem is that they're so iconic it's hard to deviate from the norm, and look at anything from Deep Rock Galactic or the surprisingly long lifespan of "Diggy Diggy Hole" if you want evidence that people still find their archetype fun.

I may not be making this as clear as I could be, I think the stock fantasy Dwarves has severe limitations and it's interesting to try and analyze why, but I don't think it's broken either.

As I read this I was nodding my head...and then I stopped and thought about it a little more deeply.

From a non-gamist (like, non-optimization, 17-class builds, deep in 154 sourcebooks) perspective, I think "dwarf" has better versatility than most in terms of archetypes (versatile archetype? Does that make sense?).

Human: Everything
Half-elf: Multi-class with a sword and a spell (See also, Ranger), Thief
Dwarf: Warrior or Cleric
Elf: Wizard. Or Sorcerer. Or Wizard - Sorcerer. Or sometimes Multi-class with a sword and a spell.
Halfling: Thief
Gnome: Illusionist
1/2 Orc: Barbarian

So of the 7 originals, Human is the only race that I think exceeds dwarven "expected range" by default. It got to the point in the AD&D era where the "versatile" elves and half-elves practically reverted to the Basic/Expert version of Elf.

Now, as has been mentioned so often, there are just a million class/race combinations that archetypes no longer matter. In fact, it may now be iconoclastic to play *to* type.

- M

[Metastachydium]

"It's like a Dwarf but it has different colours and can do [X] now" does not interest me, correct.

Well. De gustibus non est disputandum. Still, now I'm really curious… How bumpy do you want those foreheads, exactly, if "even smaller but just as broad", "even hairier", "odd colours" and "odd textures" doesn't cut it?

I see how you got the impression that I only looked into these subraces later, but I did look into them before I responded to you the first time.

Ah, apologies, then!