Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LordofIllusions 02-11-07, 09:37 PM	In my games noone seems to ever want to play a dwarf, a gnome, or a halfling character. Has anyone else had this phenomenon in their games? If so, how did you remedy it, and what was the reason that the players stay away from these races? ~~~
Fencerboy 02-11-07, 09:48 PM	Eliminate elves and people will start playing everything in the book. Seriously. Not that I'm biased against elves, its just that everyone thinks they are the best. And it could be that your players just don't wanna play dwarves, gnomes or halflings, and thats fine. I have a gnome-obsessed player...
Edymnion 02-11-07, 09:50 PM	Or better yet, just dissallow subraces. The elf fanboys won't know what to do when they can't have their +2 to any stat/-2 to any stat, favored class: any uber-race anymore.
LordofIllusions 02-11-07, 09:50 PM	Eliminate elves and people will start playing everything in the book. Seriously. Not that I'm biased against elves, its just that everyone thinks they are the best. And it could be that your players just don't wanna play dwarves, gnomes or halflings, and thats fine. I have a gnome-obsessed player... My players usually play humans and half-elves. I personally am sick to death of elves and a dwarven party would interest me greatly ~~~
Always-Late 02-11-07, 09:52 PM	I think there's actually more drawf subraces than elf subraces.
Otto the Bugbear 02-11-07, 10:00 PM	I get the impression that they are, both from these boards and from my experience DMing. I'm not absolutely sure what drives this phenomenon. I have a feeling it has to do with the height of the player. I know that's a rather shallow analysis, but it seems to be true in my experience. As a tall guy (6'3.5"), I've never had a problem with playing the "smaller" races. I've seen other tall players totally ignore the "disadvantages" of playing a short race more often than people who are average or shorter. As far as "measuring up" ;) in game, these races do just fine. They're generally better off than the half-elf or half-orc, if unless you try to play to their weaknesses. Dwarves make great melee guys, of course, but they also make excellent non-Cha spellcasters. Halflings do better as any class that doesn't rely on Str (though they're not that far behind, even in strength). Gnomes are in much the same boat as halflings with the Str penalty, though the Con boost makes up for it a little. I guess the other thing could be that players see the penalties and convince themselves that those penalties are worse than they are. Especially using the "opposite archetype" mentality; "Halfings have a Str penalty so they suck at being Fighters." Conveniently forgetting that they do excellent as wizards, sorcerers, bards, clerics, druids, dex fighters, and rogues (!). Which really boils down to the players convincing themselves that they don't want to play said "short" race. Oh, and the last thing is the overvalue our society places on height. One university study found that every inch of height a person attains is worth about $800 per year in salary. Just do a google search for 'Height Equals Salary'. I'm sure some of the studies could be bogus, but there have been enough done that it kinda points to something. It's strange really. For the most part, it should have no bearing on anything at all. Cheers Otto :)
nastynate 02-11-07, 10:02 PM	Nobody wants to be short, cuddly, or hairy? The little people tend to lack the coolness factor of bigger and stronger (humans and half-orcs) or the sexier and mystical (elves and half-elves) races. Now in some games people discover that dwarves are actually very, very good, and that gnomes make fantastic spellcasters, and they don't really care about the steroetypical personas these races have. If you want to encourage people to play them, you need to find out why they don't. Maybe they don't like the flavor (but you could encourage them to defy that stereotype and make a bullying barbarian halfling for example). If on the other hand they don't like the mechanics (like the slower movement rate, which is a real pain in the neck), then you either change the rules or live with the fact that people won't use them. Really, so long as you and the players are having fun, and you communicate openly with each other, it doesn't matter if nobody ever plays a gnome in your games again. The world won't come to an end, and it will never really effect the over-all success of the party. -Peace- P.S. have you tried using cool NPCs of the races in question? NPCs that don't play the chump role, like an evil gnomish wizard that wows them with his fantastic HP (con bonus) and good AC (small size), on top of his potent magical abilities. Things like that can be an eye-opener for players sometimes.
LordofIllusions 02-11-07, 10:16 PM	I get the impression that they are, both from these boards and from my experience DMing. I'm not absolutely sure what drives this phenomenon. I have a feeling it has to do with the height of the player. I know that's a rather shallow analysis, but it seems to be true in my experience. As a tall guy (6'3.5"), I've never had a problem with playing the "smaller" races. I've seen other tall players totally ignore the "disadvantages" of playing a short race more often than people who are average or shorter. As far as "measuring up" ;) in game, these races do just fine. They're generally better off than the half-elf or half-orc, if unless you try to play to their weaknesses. Dwarves make great melee guys, of course, but they also make excellent non-Cha spellcasters. Halflings do better as any class that doesn't rely on Str (though they're not that far behind, even in strength). Gnomes are in much the same boat as halflings with the Str penalty, though the Con boost makes up for it a little. I guess the other thing could be that players see the penalties and convince themselves that those penalties are worse than they are. Especially using the "opposite archetype" mentality; "Halfings have a Str penalty so they suck at being Fighters." Conveniently forgetting that they do excellent as wizards, sorcerers, bards, clerics, druids, dex fighters, and rogues (!). Which really boils down to the players convincing themselves that they don't want to play said "short" race. Oh, and the last thing is the overvalue our society places on height. One university study found that every inch of height a person attains is worth about $800 per year in salary. Just do a google search for 'Height Equals Salary'. I'm sure some of the studies could be bogus, but there have been enough done that it kinda points to something. It's strange really. For the most part, it should have no bearing on anything at all. Cheers Otto :) Richard Branson, a short extremely wealthy man, might have something to say about the whole 'height equals money', moreover I know plenty of people that are small and rich while knowing an overwhelming amount of tall and broke people, but that is neither here nor there. Heck I own two businesses and I am not a strapping person although I am also not extremely small either as I lift weights and do sprints. Our society tends to have alot of junk science that gets promoted as being official these days; like 'light skin tone equals higher pay'. Back on track, the funny thing is elves in D&D are in-fact short; so I think it has to do with how dwarves are portrayed in the media. They are shown as being very bland, having one-track minds(i.e. always thinking about fighting), and as being extremely ugly whereas elves and humans can be attractive. The biases about height do exist in the world though; people are immature like that sometimes. ~~~
Pandaemoni 02-11-07, 10:17 PM	Dwarves are actually quite powerful. The main problem I have in my games is that players tend to prefer the eminently customizable abilities that being human grants. Since I do not allow campaign specific subraces or new races presented in the "Races of" books (subject to some well crafted and persuasive reasoning by a player that convinces me to waive that prohibition) it cuts back on what I consider to be flavorless optimization of picking the mechanically optimal subrace from the list of 50+. I find that halflings and elves are the races that none of my players ever want to take. They may be mechanically better than gnomes, but I do occasionally see those. I'm often tempted to run a "no humans" game and see what happens, but I suspect I'd get a party of dwarves and a single gnome.
LordofIllusions 02-11-07, 10:22 PM	Dwarves are actually quite powerful. The main problem I have in my games is that players tend to prefer the eminently customizable abilities that being human grants. Since I do not allow campaign specific subraces or new races presented in the "Races of" books (subject to some well crafted and persuasive reasoning by a player that convinces me to waive that prohibition) it cuts back on what I consider to be flavorless optimization of picking the mechanically optimal subrace from the list of 50+. I find that halflings and elves are the races that none of my players ever want to take. They may be mechanically better than gnomes, but I do occasionally see those. I'm often tempted to run a "no humans" game and see what happens, but I suspect I'd get a party of dwarves and a single gnome. Give me your players. ~~~
Otto the Bugbear 02-11-07, 10:26 PM	Richard Branson, a short extremely wealthy man, might have something to say about the whole 'height equals money', moreover I know plenty of people that are small and rich while knowing an overwhelming amount of tall and broke people, but that is neither here nor there. Heck I own two businesses and I am not a strapping person although I am also not extremely small either as I lift weights and do sprints. Our society tends to have alot of junk science that gets promoted as being official these days. Back on track, the funny thing is elves in D&D are in-fact short; so I think it has to do with how dwarves are portrayed in the media. They are shown as being very bland, having one-track minds(i.e. always thinking about fighting), and as being extremely ugly whereas elves and humans can be attractive. The biases about height do exist in the world though; people are immature like that sometimes. ~~~ Individual examples do not disprove a general bias, as you pretty much admit in your last sentence. Calling something "junk science" also doesn't disprove those studies, as you pretty much admit in your last sentence. I personally don't care one way or the other if someone is short or not. It's similar to the "jock = dumb" mentality and the "nerd/geek = wimpy". "Immature" is right. :rolleyes:
Testor 02-12-07, 12:34 AM	I played a dwarf character and had a lot of fun with it. I did get penalized a lot though should read the dwarves handbook more. In the same campaign we had a guy that liked to play mages for characters and decided to try a halfling mage. It was rather interesting due to the shortness of his fingers he was also penalized alot and sometimes did more harm than good, but it was entertaining nonetheless. anyway I think it all depends on the people you play the game with we had a lot of fun as our dm would allow us to try anything as long as we understood that we would suffer the consequences
bonethug0108 02-12-07, 12:36 AM	Halfling Ninja. Nuff said.:P
Salla 02-12-07, 01:14 AM	In the case of halflings and dwarves, I blame Tolkien and Peter Jackson to various degrees. 3rd Edition halflings are nothing like hobbits, and yet, on those occassions I've attempted to play them, I'm invariably barraged by hobbit stereotypes, even to the point where I was informed I was 'playing my character wrong'. I'm not fat, I'm skinny. See my racial weight table? I'm not cowardly, I'm braver than you. See my racial bonus on saving throws vs fear effects? I'm not barefoot, I'm wearing boots, because wandering around barefoot when you could step in green slime is STUPID. I do not eat 'second breakfasts' or 'elevensies', I do not sit around smoking pipeweed and eating sweetcakes. I'm an adventurer, same as the rest of you, so take your Special Edition Lord of the Rings DVDs and shove them up your *****. Sideways. Ah, that felt good. And, well, Jackson made the lone dwarf in Fellowship a laughing stock, the sidekick, and the comedy relief character compared to Lego-Ass.
Orion Polaris 02-12-07, 01:18 AM	Really? I have a lot of trouble getting my players to play anything BUT Dwarves and Humans, except the one guy who plays an Elf, but he pretty much just plays it as a human with pointy ears! But yeah, I find Gnomes and Halflings to be underused. I don't mention Half-Elves and Half-Orcs because WoTC seemed to go out of their way to make them suck!
TheChilliGod 02-12-07, 01:20 AM	Halfling Ninja. Nuff said.:PMy, yes. Playing one right now. Halfling Ninja/Wizard, actually. The pure awesomeness of that race/class combination, getting something like a +60 on jump at 7th level (thankfully, it will all be a waste when he learns fly) and invisible sneak-attacking and everything, is perhaps enough to blow the awesomeness-reception area of the brain unless you wear protective headgear. That said, I love playing halflings, because they carry about them this natural guile that kind of reminds me of gnomes; but unlike gnomes, halflings have the adventuring skills and save bonuses to get away with what they say. However, my group doesn't enjoy playing halflings nearly as much as I do. I haven't yet decided whether that's because they know that they can't play halflings as well as I, or because they actually believe that halflings are too wimpy to be able to do anything. If you want the players to play halflings (or, for that matter, any race), I think that the first thing you should do is introduce their culture in general to the PC's. A nomadic caravan of halflings with one or two notable NPC's might spark creativity amongst the PC's. If they react negatively, however (such as punting the small folk around), then put in their vengeance as a memorable encounter, something that kept the party on their toes while still looking awesome instead of terrifying (though the two go together nicely sometimes). That's the first thing I'd do, anyways, if the situation bothered me at all. At one point, a party I DM'ed for was all-human, and another one at one point had only one PC being over 4' high! But I don't mind overly much in any scenario, so yeah.
Azar_of_Faerun 02-12-07, 01:42 AM	Or better yet, just dissallow subraces. The elf fanboys won't know what to do when they can't have their +2 to any stat/-2 to any stat, favored class: any uber-race anymore. That's funny coming from the guy who thinks the Favored Soul is overpowered.
Salla 02-12-07, 02:05 AM	That's funny coming from the guy who thinks the Favored Soul is overpowered. Kinda what was percolating through my brain, yeah.
Squirrelloid 02-12-07, 02:13 AM	Gnomes? Meh. Barring the one caster build that makes them good, i agree, i don't see them played. Halflings and Dwarves? Um, huh? If you were playing PHB races only, these would be my tier 1 with humans. Elvers, Half-orcs, and half-elves are junk, and see above for gnomes. Halflings make awesome rogues for non-dungeon crawling. Dwarves make awesome rogues too (Darkvision!). Now, if you play all Core races (including MM variant races), Deep Halfling and Dwarf become the only conceivable rogue races. Consider: "How'd he see me, I rolled a 32 on my hide check!" "Dufus, you're carrying a lantern." How do you avoid this? Darkvision. These are the only non-LA races I know of in Core with Darkvision. Darkvision is essential for any rogue who expects to scout underground. In addition to those two races, Gray Elves become the optimal wizard race (+2 int!). Wild Elves make a good fit for a number of classes. This makes the tier 1 races: (Gray/Wild) Elf, Dwarf, Deep Halfling. Human falls out as there aren't enough feats Core to make them competitive. As you add splatbooks, humans get better and return to tier 1 quickly. (With the right splats, half-elf deserves a note on the half-elven bard racial substitution monstrosity that is the diplomacy king. Otherwise known as "Make a DC 70 Will Save or chill.")
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 07:34 AM	Individual examples do not disprove a general bias, as you pretty much admit in your last sentence. Its not a bias, it is idiocy to compare height with wealth. Wealth building has alot more to do with the mental than one's physical height. Also, bias does not equal science. It does equal prejudice(i.e. bigotry) which is ignorance. Actual science distinguishes itself from such as opposed to junk science. See below... Definition of bias: Main Entry: 4bias Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): bi·ased or bi·assed; bi·as·ing or bi·as·sing Date: circa 1628 1 : to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to <his background biases him against foreigners> 2 : to apply a slight negative or positive voltage to (as a transistor) Definition of science: sci·ence Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed Date: 14th century 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art> 5capitalized : christian science Calling something "junk science" also doesn't disprove those studies, as you pretty much admit in your last sentence. Oh really? Disagreeing with something being labelled as 'junk science' due to personal bias does not make it real science. Statistics, which are often schewed during these modern politically motivated times of extreme immaturity also do not make something scientific. Let's see if I said what you claim I said shall we? I said: "The biases about height do exist in the world though; people are immature like that sometimes." FACT #1: Nowhere in my last sentence do I agree that height equals wealth or that light skin tone equals wealth. FACT #2: Height has nothing to do with wealth, financial I.Q. does. FACT #3: There is plenty of junk science circulating during modern times being promoted as "factual when in-fact it is not. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science FACT #4: I'm only partially disagreeing with you and appreciate your input. Some people do have silly biases that however does not make that which they are stating a reality. For the longest klansmen have found blacks to be inferior, a bias, yet reality is quite different. FACT #5: Statistics can, and often do today, be schewed to fit a biased view, which is in-fact 'junk science.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1091350 I personally don't care one way or the other if someone is short or not. It's similar to the "jock = dumb" mentality and the "nerd/geek = wimpy". "Immature" is right. :rolleyes: Which pretty much shows how valid the "height equals wealth' argument is. People make stupid statements that are not in-line with reality all the time and attempt to justify them through "scientific studies" that are later disproven or that noone really pays any attention to other than those who believe they have something to gain from it. At least we agree that a good deal of biases are immature. Anyway, it seems on these boards that someone always comes along to start an argument over something stupid that is not based on facts at all; not that this is what you were doing. I actually think you were posting your two cents like everyone else. Let's try "not" to do that here. I want my thread to stay open. Better to agree to disagree and change the subject back to fantasy completely. ~~~
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 07:36 AM	In the case of halflings and dwarves, I blame Tolkien and Peter Jackson to various degrees. 3rd Edition halflings are nothing like hobbits, and yet, on those occassions I've attempted to play them, I'm invariably barraged by hobbit stereotypes, even to the point where I was informed I was 'playing my character wrong'. I'm not fat, I'm skinny. See my racial weight table? I'm not cowardly, I'm braver than you. See my racial bonus on saving throws vs fear effects? I'm not barefoot, I'm wearing boots, because wandering around barefoot when you could step in green slime is STUPID. I do not eat 'second breakfasts' or 'elevensies', I do not sit around smoking pipeweed and eating sweetcakes. I'm an adventurer, same as the rest of you, so take your Special Edition Lord of the Rings DVDs and shove them up your *****. Sideways. Ah, that felt good. And, well, Jackson made the lone dwarf in Fellowship a laughing stock, the sidekick, and the comedy relief character compared to Lego-Ass. LoL! Tolkien stereotypes sometimes stand in the way of good roleplaying. ~~~
Neutronium_Dragon 02-12-07, 08:02 AM	Give 'em a dose of Eberron. The shock of dinosaur-riding halflings and gnomes who make the Illuminati look like amateurs will get them over those stereotypes right quick. ;)
Lethanic 02-12-07, 08:53 AM	On the "Height = Salary" thing. . . . DO they control for , for example, age? Older people tend to be richer than younger people. Older people also tend to be taller than younger people. Do they control for "Male vs Female'? Do they control for diet; A good diet can tend to make someone taller, a poor diet make them shorter. Just three aspects that could cause 'false readings' off the top of my head.
Arrowhen 02-12-07, 09:40 AM	I like dwarves a lot, play them frequently, and feature a lot of dwarven NPCs in my campaigns. Dwarven wizards are a particular favorite of mine. As far as halflings and gnomes are concerned, I blame Dragonlance. Back in the day, halflings were just hobbits with the serial numbers filed off. Gnomes had no personality at all, but they were fine for those who wanted to play illusionists--i.e., nobody. Then Dragonlance came along with its kender instead of halflings and its tinker gnomes. Suddenly, gnomes had a personality--and a damned obnoxious one at that. Unfortunately for them, the sorts of players who were interested in playing obnoxious characters would never settle for tinker gnomes in a setting where the infinitely more obnoxious kender were available. Now in 3rd Ed., halflings are like kender on medication and gnomes once again have no personality. The people who used to play halflings as "not hobbits, honest" aren't drawn to the weird new skinny halflings, and the obnoxious, hyperactive attention-*****s (ed: "-mongers") who used to play kender aren't interested in halflings either now that their primary draw ("I can steal from everyone in the party and it's considered cute!") is gone. As far as 3rd ed. gnomes go, taking a race with no personality and making their favored class Bard was the kiss of death. What Bard player is gonna pick gnome when they could take human for the extra feat and skills or take elf because they're (dreamy sigh...) :love:elves:love:? [/tongue-in-cheek]
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 09:44 AM	On the "Height = Salary" thing. . . . DO they control for , for example, age? Older people tend to be richer than younger people. Older people also tend to be taller than younger people. Do they control for "Male vs Female'? Do they control for diet; A good diet can tend to make someone taller, a poor diet make them shorter. Just three aspects that could cause 'false readings' off the top of my head. Good point. Especially since women statistically tend to be shorter than men and yet control 51% of the wealth in this country. Also, east indians are small people, more often than not, and yet are extremely wealthy controlling much of the wealth here in the U.S.. ~~~
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 09:54 AM	I like dwarves a lot, play them frequently, and feature a lot of dwarven NPCs in my campaigns. Dwarven wizards are a particular favorite of mine. As far as halflings and gnomes are concerned, I blame Dragonlance. Back in the day, halflings were just hobbits with the serial numbers filed off. Gnomes had no personality at all, but they were fine for those who wanted to play illusionists--i.e., nobody. Then Dragonlance came along with its kender instead of halflings and its tinker gnomes. Suddenly, gnomes had a personality--and a damned obnoxious one at that. Unfortunately for them, the sorts of players who were interested in playing obnoxious characters would never settle for tinker gnomes in a setting where the infinitely more obnoxious kender were available. I blame Dragonlance as well. Who wants to play a tinkering nerd? Combat is part of the D&D game and gnomes in Dragonlance seem ill-equipped. Now in 3rd Ed., halflings are like kender on medication and gnomes once again have no personality. The people who used to play halflings as "not hobbits, honest" aren't drawn to the weird new skinny halflings, and the obnoxious, hyperactive attention-*****s (ed: "-mongers") who used to play kender aren't interested in halflings either now that their primary draw ("I can steal from everyone in the party and it's considered cute!") is gone. As far as 3rd ed. gnomes go, taking a race with no personality and making their favored class Bard was the kiss of death. What Bard player is gonna pick gnome when they could take human for the extra feat and skills or take elf because they're (dreamy sigh...) :love:elves:love:? [/tongue-in-cheek] I personally hate the Tolkien-ish elf character type. They seem weak and self-centered. ~~~
Count Arioch the 28th 02-12-07, 10:06 AM	That's funny coming from the guy who thinks the Favored Soul is overpowered. Actually, if you look at his inner logic, it does in fact make sense to say that. According to WotC, having spontaneous casting is such a huge advantage, you need to lose your abilities, as shown by comparing Wizard to Sorcerer. Sorcerer has a worse skill list, has none of the wizard bonus feats, and has an extremely limited spells known. (A sorceror technically has more spells per day than a wizard, but does NOT have more spells per day than a specialist wizard.) A favored soul have a lot of class features that a cleric does not have. Therefore, if Wizard and Sorcerer are balanced, then Favored Sould should not have any class features at all, and should be a cleric with less skills and no turn undead to balance spontaneous casting. Now, the logic in that line of thinking does make sense if you agree with WotC that wizard = sorcerer. However, the general consensus is that even though a sorcerer is still more versatile than a fighter, that a wizard, a beguiler, a warmage, or a psion is generally preferable to a sorcerer. That being said, I don't really agree with that debating tactic, because most people are going to stop reading when he says sorcerers are balanced with wizards. And in fact, the favored soul is kind of weak, I've seen both favored souls and clerics in play, and I still say the cleric is better every time I've compared. Although I do agree with Edymnion's opinion of banning elf subraces. I technically HAVe elf subraces, they're just identical to the PHB elves. All the differences in elves in my world are purely cultural.
Bluebrush 02-12-07, 10:07 AM	Since my human barbarian died, I've been playing a Dwarf Cleric of a Dwarvern deity who got reincarnated into a half-elf and just recently transformed back into a Dwarf as a blessing from her goddess. Dwarves are fun, but I haven't had a shot at playing a smaller race yet. The lowered movement rate and size penalties bug me a lot. EDIT: And carrying capacity. I like to carry around a ton of gear for every contingency. And I do think the issue at stake is being comic relief. The world needs a completely unironic badass gnome. (If you've read the Eberron Novel Orb of Xoriat, Praxle may just fit the bill.)
Squirrelloid 02-12-07, 10:38 AM	EDIT: And carrying capacity. I like to carry around a ton of gear for every contingency. Buy a packmule. No, seriously. (And eventually you get a haversack and stop caring.)
FrostWolf 02-12-07, 10:52 AM	I hate elves. No, I hate that everyone else LOVES elves. Me, I stick with humans. You just can't beat that free feat. But for flavor, I'lll dip into gnome or dwarf.
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 10:56 AM	I hate elves. No, I hate that everyone else LOVES elves. Me, I stick with humans. You just can't beat that free feat. But for flavor, I'lll dip into gnome or dwarf. You are not alone. I hate elves as well. I get sick of everyone playing them, the sad thing is one of my players is getting ready to play an elf. ~~~
itwasntme 02-12-07, 11:04 AM	I Hate elfs and i hate the fact that allmost eveyone love them Dwarfs are useoly not a problem i allmost allways see them being played Half Elfs Halfings and Gnomes are never realy played tho Half Elfs are ... week in many areas Halflings have sight like a Human (Which is the worse sight in the game) And only gain a few bonus's i dount see this race inless its on a Rouge Gnomes are useoly Not favored on many Accounts besides Roleplaying The 3 races allways being played is a Human Dwarf and Half Orcs they are allways the races that are able to do things better then the other races in many accounts ... or at least in ways the players care about Like the players dount care about detecting Secret doors or having LowLight if they want something besides normol Vision they want Darkvision the best of the visions They allways pick Humans becouse of the Extra skill points to put into skills they want and the Extra feat that they want Dwarfs are taken for Darkvision and the extra HP/Fort and Saves vs magic Half Orcs are taken for the fact there more of a Beater uper type of a person
itwasntme 02-12-07, 11:10 AM	Richard Branson, a short extremely wealthy man, might have something to say about the whole 'height equals money', moreover I know plenty of people that are small and rich while knowing an overwhelming amount of tall and broke people, but that is neither here nor there. Heck I own two businesses and I am not a strapping person although I am also not extremely small either as I lift weights and do sprints. Our society tends to have alot of junk science that gets promoted as being official these days; like 'light skin tone equals higher pay'. Back on track, the funny thing is elves in D&D are in-fact short; so I think it has to do with how dwarves are portrayed in the media. They are shown as being very bland, having one-track minds(i.e. always thinking about fighting), and as being extremely ugly whereas elves and humans can be attractive. The biases about height do exist in the world though; people are immature like that sometimes. ~~~ i agree to this it dosnt matter what your size is or how you look Its more on play style and what you care about allright we know you like tall people I acouly like seeing the Cute little Halfling run around doing tons of things ... hm cute i used that word and im a guy damn ... i never say that .. anyways to me halfing and gnomes sense there small are generoly weeker not just becouse of there negitive to Str but becouse there ability to wield smaller weapons the short sword becomes a dagger to them i dount want to be doing less damage then have a hit to my Str ... thats not cool for melee and having a faster speed is good for casters for being able to run away from the nme another thing small characters useoly get boned on besides that small characters are cool
arjomanes 02-12-07, 11:27 AM	The movement penalty might be one of the biggest reasons few of your players want to play dwarves, halflings or gnomes. Each of these races has a way to get around this, one of them using a supplement. Dwarf barbarian has the same movement in medium armor as a human barbarian, since dwarves aren't penalized for their movement for wearing armor. So both get a 30 speed. Halfling druid, paladin, or other mounted character on a riding dog is faster than a human and can still take the mount down into dungeons since it's medium sized. In Eberron they can ride medium dinosaurs, which is really fun. Some of the halfling druid substitution levels in Races of the Wild are pretty good. Whisper gnome has 30' movement. This race is considered by some to be overpowered, but I think it's a good way to make the gnome more appealing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be broken to just give the gnome 30' movement. They also can ride medium-sized mounts, and since they can talk to burrowing creatures, maybe a medium burrowing mount. That might be fun for a gnome druid. Of course, there's also boots of striding and springing, boots of speed, or just being fine with being slower.
arjomanes 02-12-07, 11:35 AM	Gnomes and halflings are penalized for small weapons and strength, which is why they are rarely played as melee characters. That doesn't mean it can't be done of course. Rogue, swashbuckler, ninja, etc work very well with gnomes and halflings. For example, creating a halfling swashbuckler gives you weapon finesse (dex to hit), and insightful strength (int to dmg), so you don't even need strength. If you have complete scoundrel, you can multiclass rogue and swashbuckler very very nicely with some feats in that supplement. Plus the small races' carrying capacity is 3/4, even though most of their equipment weighs half as much. So really the small-sized character can carry more gear -- it's just all smaller. Gnome is great for charisma-based class. You gain bonus con, which is always nice, but don't take a charisma penalty like the dwarf. And their racial abilities synergize very well with spellcaster, particularly the illusionist or beguiler. The best way to play a melee class for either race is to use classes that provide bonus dice for damage, rather than relying on the strength bonus or weapon damage.
EscherEnigma 02-12-07, 11:58 AM	guess my group must be strange, generally what we don't see a whole lot of is elves. More dwarves and humans, really. Though in another game I'm in, we have two elves (the character concept for the two was siblings, and elf fit really well for one of them) a halfling, a gnome, an orc, and a half-orc. I think it just depends on the kind of bias seen in your group. My personal bias is towards humans/gnomes/halflings (the short people make GREAT casters, and you just can't beat the feat/skill points) while my BF just bounces between races like it were a dice roll. Another person in our group only makes 'pretty' characters, so she's stuck with elves and humans. Another girl I know plays gnomes/halflings exclusively. So it just depends on the group. The only (PHB) race that I haven't seen played is half-elf. Even half-orcs get SOMETHING.
Otto the Bugbear 02-12-07, 12:30 PM	At least we agree that a good deal of biases are immature. Yeah. "A good deal" meaning "very nearly all". Anyway, it seems on these boards that someone always comes along to start an argument over something stupid that is not based on facts at all; not that this is what you were doing. I actually think you were posting your two cents like everyone else. Let's try "not" to do that here. I want my thread to stay open. You'll notice that I didn't start an argument at all. It wasn't until you responded that the "argument" happened. Now, my response to that wasn't entirely warranted; I had been watching the news and your response reminded me of the typical politician (from either party) response, calling something invalid when they themselves have not actually participated in the subject at hand, and are simply repeating the party line. Looking back now, I probably overreacted and shouldn't have (and I'm guessing the same can be said of the post I'm quoting here -- anytime someone busts out dictonary.com it's an overreaction :P ). So... Better to agree to disagree and change the subject back to fantasy completely. :cool: The other thing I've noticed is other players/PCs tend to pick on the shorter characters. Never mind that the gnome is a druid and can whip their ass seven ways from sundown. He's short, so that fighter 5 / samurai 5 or that bard 4 / sorcerer 3 / fighter 3 is going to pick on him. :uh-huh:
Salla 02-12-07, 12:38 PM	The other thing I've noticed is other players/PCs tend to pick on the shorter characters. Never mind that the gnome is a druid and can whip their ass seven ways from sundown. He's short, so that fighter 5 / samurai 5 or that bard 4 / sorcerer 3 / fighter 3 is going to pick on him. :uh-huh: That too. This, of course, is why it's always fun to be a short Cleric. "Heal plz." "Well, since you didn't stop insulting me when I asked you to 'plz' stop ... no." Cleric=Leverage. ;)
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 12:49 PM	The other thing I've noticed is other players/PCs tend to pick on the shorter characters. Never mind that the gnome is a druid and can whip their ass seven ways from sundown. He's short, so that fighter 5 / samurai 5 or that bard 4 / sorcerer 3 / fighter 3 is going to pick on him. :uh-huh: Well if they do they have a thing coming when he picks up the dice and decides to "pick right back at them", LoL! I think Arrowhen kind of had it right to when he says it is due to the way they are portrayed as less than formidable. Look at LotR: Gimli, an excellent seasoned fighter, was portrayed in the film as some kind of comedian, thus few took him seriously. I wonder what would happen if the fantasy novel writers created a dwarven character with as much depth as Drizzt Do'urden? Thanks for using your discretion --the dictionary was a bit much heh--Otto, and as always I appreciate your input on things! ~~~
Arrowhen 02-12-07, 02:06 PM	See, I thought Gimli still came off as a badass, but that's probably because of my preconceived notion that dwarf=badass. People for whom the LotR movies were their first real introduction to fantasy might think otherwise. Trouble is, aside from the occasional blockbuster movie trilogy, people these days just aren't exposed to the kind of fantasy I grew up on.
Chimaera2000 02-12-07, 02:13 PM	People do seem to conveniently ignore that Gimli took as many Orc heads as Legolas in the course of their contents. Gimil was there as comic relief in the movies, but he also kicked ass and took names while doing it. Both myself and the groups that I've played with tend to mainly use human. Why not, after all, when they're one of the best races for almost any character? Both their stats and their generic flavor mean that they're great by default almost any character concept. Sometimes we have gnomes, elves, or the occasional dwarf, but human is the race that is played the vast majority of the time.
rolig 02-12-07, 02:22 PM	Nevar underestimate a dwarf. They are probobly the best melee dd core class made. As for haflings and gnomes: I can't think of better races to play as Bard, rouge, wizard and sorcerer:D Good idea... start an adventure in i shire looking place where everything is small sized... then the speed won't mind... Medium ppl are like gigants for gnomes and haflings...
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 03:35 PM	I want to create a major dwarven NPC to journey along with the group that I am DMing for. Ideas? ~~~
Arrowhen 02-12-07, 03:53 PM	Hmm, I guess it depends on the group and what you're planning on doing with him. Is he there to fill in a missing party role? Is he a hint machine? Is he there to show your players that dwarves can be cool, too? Need more input!
Return of the Flumph 02-12-07, 03:55 PM	I wonder what would happen if the fantasy novel writers created a dwarven character with as much depth as Drizzt Do'urden? Um... Drizzt Do'Urden has depth?
khyron1144 02-12-07, 04:46 PM	In 3.x I only play humans for the extra maxed out skill and feat. In earlier iterations I generally play a human because I am a human, so I know how to RP one. I also don't want to have to find out if I'm playing with a DM who follows level limits. As a DM I've seen enough dwarf PCs to think that not all players under-rate them. It depends on the player and the group and the setting. As for gnomes and halflings: I don't see them as much as elves or dwarves, so maybe they do get under-rated.
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 04:56 PM	Hmm, I guess it depends on the group and what you're planning on doing with him. Is he there to fill in a missing party role? Is he a hint machine? Is he there to show your players that dwarves can be cool, too? Need more input! To fill in a missing party role and to show that dwarves are cool too. ~~~
LordofIllusions 02-12-07, 04:57 PM	Um... Drizzt Do'Urden has depth? LoL! ~~~
Arrowhen 02-12-07, 05:07 PM	Um... Drizzt Do'Urden has depth? Nope, just length.
Arrowhen 02-12-07, 05:09 PM	To fill in a missing party role and to show that dwarves are cool too. So what's the missing role?
Nightshade 02-12-07, 05:18 PM	I'm dm'ing in Eberron so most of my players have opted for the new races. One, is playing a majorly badass Halfling Sorceror to great effect. The great range of skill and other bonuses that a Halfling gets makes it worthwhile to play a class that is as skill deficient as the sorceror. The same guy also previously played a Dwarf paladin that had his head bitten off by a bright naga. He was a pretty good fighter. Gnomes and half-elves, on the other hand, are the forgotten races in dnd. I've never seen them played.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 02-12-07, 05:26 PM	The main reason that people don't play dwarves, halflings, and gnomes is because they are mechanically inferior to the other races. as a couple of other posters have mentioned. The secondary reason is perception. People tend to not perceive those races as being cool. If you want people to play those races, you need to first make them good mechanical choices to choose as a race. Perception is a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.
Arrowhen 02-12-07, 05:33 PM	It's funny how play-styles differ, because I see people play half elves all the time. Usually it's players who tend to play humans and want to try something "different" without quite committing to something non-human.
Kradlo 02-12-07, 05:38 PM	I don't often see half-elves, though elves are common. Dwarves are common, but gnomes tend to be rare. Halflings are the default for small and sneaky types. So what am I playing these days when I'm a player? A gnome bard, and I'm having a ball! Who knew?
DaidojiTaidoru 02-12-07, 05:41 PM	The main reason that people don't play dwarves, halflings, and gnomes is because they are mechanically inferior to the other races. as a couple of other posters have mentioned. Uh, if you're planning on taking a class that involves wearing full plate the only reason not to be a dwarf is because you need an extra feat at 1st level. Dwarves are quite possibly the best race in the game mechanically. Constitution is a stat useful to every class bar none with the wildshape change and you get darkvision and save bonuses on top of that. I think the only class thats on the same level is Humans. Gnomes are good as any non caster, and Halflings aren't bad. Certainly no Half-elf or Half-orc. The only reason I can think that elves seem to dominate play is player bias. Humans of course being the most commonly played race in my group.
Davith Bothain 02-12-07, 06:45 PM	The main reason that people don't play dwarves, halflings, and gnomes is because they are mechanically inferior to the other races. as a couple of other posters have mentioned. I must similarly disagree with this statement. Not only do the general abilities of these races (small size, bonuses to dexterity and constitution, bonuses to saves useful in nearly any situation) put them on the top of the core pile, the remaining races also need serious consideration. Think about it: human, elf, half-elf, and half-orc. The first two are, granted, decent to the point of preference of play (though I would, mechanically speaking, rather play a halfling any day over an elf), but the latter two? No. Half-elves are really only useful in roleplay- and intrigue-heavy campaigns where actual combat skill takes a backseat or when a player is willing to keep a general-use, middling character. Half-orcs? Just... no. Half-orc barbarian: "YAR! I am of teh +2 to Strength! Wif rage I's gets a 'tleast 11 damage wif ma grateax! WINRARS!" Grey elf wizard: "Yeah... I get three 1st-level spells per day at level one. So... sleep. Halfling rogue?" Halfling rogue: "Whee-HAW! Stabbin'!" [Coup de grace] The secondary reason is perception. People tend to not perceive those races as being cool. If you want people to play those races, you need to first make them good mechanical choices to choose as a race. Perception is a problem you'll have to deal with on your own. This may just be my Anglo-Celtic-Swedish ancestry talking, but I quite enjoy the boisterous highland/viking raider image evoked by dwarven culture (and adventurers in particular). I once created a dwarven fighter/rogue (an effective precursor to the warblade) with a penchant for jumping into battle from hiding (frivolously making a Jump check for an average of about 10 feet per leap) whilst screaming "Immigrant Song" at the top of his lungs (I still don't know whether it was the character saying this or me...).
The Amazing Dancing Bear 02-12-07, 06:58 PM	Well, first off, I'd like to say that I really enjoy playing halflings. They seem ideal for any class (barring monk occasionally) and the flavor is enjoyable. However, I'm entirely sick of my group's DMs deciding that "you must be this tall to ride the plot" - that is, halflings or gnomes simply do not factor into serious events. You will see chipper gnome merchants or chipper halfling rogues, but important NPCs are large. Every time. Dammit. It would seem that the attractiveness of short races depends on how many short people the DM is putting into the setting. If halflings, gnomes, and dwarves are important and cultured parts of society, with plentiful NPCs of your own kind to interact with, the aforementioned races seem much more attractive than if you only encounter those races as jokes. Which is 1. Why I like Eberron. Now people have niches (and, in the case of gnomes, Nietzsches) 2. Why, in my next gameworld, halflings and gnomes will be cool people. I don't even know how yet. But they will be. Dwarves already have enough cool factor, it's just a matter of making female dwarves attractive in an unorthodox way (which sounds extremely sexist, but is in fact one of the main reasons my players shy away from dwarves. Still working on this.)
Splendide 02-12-07, 06:59 PM	I'm running an all dwarf & gnome campaign at the moment. The party is just a little bit slower and tougher than an all-human one. In 4th ed, they definitely need to rewrite gnomes in the Eberron mould.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 02-13-07, 12:18 AM	Uh, if you're planning on taking a class that involves wearing full plate the only reason not to be a dwarf is because you need an extra feat at 1st level. Dwarves are quite possibly the best race in the game mechanically. Constitution is a stat useful to every class bar none with the wildshape change and you get darkvision and save bonuses on top of that. I think the only class thats on the same level is Humans. Gnomes are good as any non caster, and Halflings aren't bad. Certainly no Half-elf or Half-orc. The only reason I can think that elves seem to dominate play is player bias. Humans of course being the most commonly played race in my group. If you're not considering humans, and the gigantic benefits of the extra feat, then dwarves are not too bad. Yes, the +2 Con is helpful nearly all the time (unless you plan on becoming undead in which it's useless). However, that 20 ft. speed hurts a lot. Yes, it wouldn't matter if you were in full plate all the time, but that also means that you need to be in Full Plate all the time to not be at a disadvantage. Wizard, monk, Swashbuckler, ect. dwarves get the short end of the stick. Elves can be a great mechanical choice. The +2 Dex means a higher ranged attack bonus, greater initiative, and greater AC. To top it off, Elves get their sword and bow proficiencies. So Wizard, Cleric, Druid, monk, ect. elves get to benefit from the superior ranged attacks from a bow whereas the other races have to blow feats off to get them. Resting for half as long is a nice perk too. Let's not forget the amount of material that's devoted to elves. Champion of Corellon Larethian, BladeSinger, Elf Domain,...... the list goes on. I must similarly disagree with this statement. Not only do the general abilities of these races (small size, bonuses to dexterity and constitution, bonuses to saves useful in nearly any situation) put them on the top of the core pile, the remaining races also need serious consideration. Think about it: human, elf, half-elf, and half-orc. The first two are, granted, decent to the point of preference of play (though I would, mechanically speaking, rather play a halfling any day over an elf), but the latter two? No. Half-elves are really only useful in roleplay- and intrigue-heavy campaigns where actual combat skill takes a backseat or when a player is willing to keep a general-use, middling character. Half-orcs? Just... no. Half-orc barbarian: "YAR! I am of teh +2 to Strength! Wif rage I's gets a 'tleast 11 damage wif ma grateax! WINRARS!" Grey elf wizard: "Yeah... I get three 1st-level spells per day at level one. So... sleep. Halfling rogue?" Halfling rogue: "Whee-HAW! Stabbin'!" [Coup de grace] The small size bonus is nothing. For +1 AC and attack, you move at 20 ft, have to use weaker weapons, and get eaten alive in grapples. The -2 Str from halfling and gnome counters the +1 Size bonus from attack for melee, and penalizes damage. This ensures that they will both make craptastic monks and fighters. This may just be my Anglo-Celtic-Swedish ancestry talking, but I quite enjoy the boisterous highland/viking raider image evoked by dwarven culture (and adventurers in particular). I once created a dwarven fighter/rogue (an effective precursor to the warblade) with a penchant for jumping into battle from hiding (frivolously making a Jump check for an average of about 10 feet per leap) whilst screaming "Immigrant Song" at the top of his lungs (I still don't know whether it was the character saying this or me...). I like that image as well. Of couse, the reality is still there and not that many people play Dwarves. Try seeing how many female players choose dwarf ;) These are all generalities of course, in some groups people there might be a significant portion of dwarves, halflings or gnomes, but overall there's very few. There was a thread awhile ago where people listed the race and classes of all the members in their group. Watch how often Human and Elf came up. Consider this as well, if Wotc made Dwarves move 30 ft., and get a bonus feat, whereas humans got +2 Con -2 Cha. I can guarantee you that you would see a larger porportion of Dwarves.
Caliborn 02-13-07, 09:57 AM	If you're not considering humans, and the gigantic benefits of the extra feat, then dwarves are not too bad. The single bonus feet is not good to the point of being "gigantic", seriously, what feat gives to +2 to practically all saves? Yes, the +2 Con is helpful nearly all the time (unless you plan on becoming undead in which it's useless). However, that 20 ft. speed hurts a lot. Yes, it wouldn't matter if you were in full plate all the time, but that also means that you need to be in Full Plate all the time to not be at a disadvantage. Wizard, monk, Swashbuckler, ect. dwarves get the short end of the stick. 1st of all Monks suck. 2nd of all the unarmored/very lightly armored fighter type is a rather specific niche. And 3rdly, Dwarves make some of the best wizards; that +2 Con and save bonuses help a great deal, not to mention Wizards stop caring about there Base land speed around level 5 or so, level 7 tops. Elves can be a great mechanical choice. The +2 Dex means a higher ranged attack bonus, greater initiative, and greater AC. To top it off, Elves get their sword and bow proficiencies. So Wizard, Cleric, Druid, monk, ect. elves get to benefit from the superior ranged attacks from a bow whereas the other races have to blow feats off to get them. Resting for half as long is a nice perk too. Once again Monk=fail. Elves are the second worst PHB race for Wizards thanks to that Con penalty tacked on to a D4 hitdie. Elves can certainly make good Clerics, especially cleric archers, but really, who can't? Post Errata Druids are hurt by the Con penalty. Now I'm not saying that Elves are not a good mechanical choice; they do make excellent archers and passable rogues, but everything else is done better by someone else; usually a Dwarf or a Human. Let's not forget the amount of material that's devoted to elves. Champion of Corellon Larethian, BladeSinger, Elf Domain,...... the list goes on. Champion of Corellon Letharian is not such hot stuff anymore since it now takes a simple feat, a feat with low pre-requisites might I add, to emulate it's main ability. Bladesinger was never that awesome. Unfortunately I don't know what the Elf Domain does. Not to mention Dwarves(and Gnomes and Halfings) have plenty of ridiculous stuff on there side as well such as the Deep Warden, Ironsoul Forgemaster, Whisper Knife, and the brokentastic Shadowcraft Mage. The small size bonus is nothing. For +1 AC and attack, you move at 20 ft, have to use weaker weapons, and get eaten alive in grapples. The -2 Str from halfling and gnome counters the +1 Size bonus from attack for melee, and penalizes damage. This ensures that they will both make craptastic monks and fighters. Size Bonus, and racial bonus to thrown weapons, means that Halflings will actually outperform elves in ranged combat. Plus everyone makes a craptastic monk. It's a class feature. Elves are not great mechanically, certainly not bad, but not awesometacular either. Dwarves are, however, considered to be the generally mechanically most powerful PHB race by those who know the mechanics best.
Fencerboy 02-13-07, 10:18 AM	The single bonus feet is not good to the point of being "gigantic", seriously, what feat gives to +2 to practically all saves? I realize its a simple typo, but I rolled around giggling immaturely when I read this... That would give humans an even more likable flavor... Plus added stability... My party consists of an Elf Fighter, Elf Rogue, Elf Druid, Half-Orc Ranger and Dwarf Cleric. The three elves are (fairly) new players, biased towards Tolkiens elves. The Fighter, this is her first campaign, basically first D&D playing ever, so I suggested fighter to start and she wanted a Tolkien-like elf... The Druid basically the same with a slight amount of exp at playing, didn't read about other races just jumped on a Tolkien thing... And the rogue same go, except he has been playing for a little while now... Then he read Gnomes and he is practically tearing up his character to get to play a Gnome... The above anecdote is basically to illustrate the fact that LOTR fans who take up D&D will have those biases... But lets not diss Tolkien any more because 1. LOTR books ROCK HARD and 2. Without his major influences D&D wouldn't exist...
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 02-13-07, 11:07 AM	The single bonus feet is not good to the point of being "gigantic", seriously, what feat gives to +2 to practically all saves? Halfings get a +1 to all saves, I'm not sure where you're getting this +2 from. The first level bonus feat from humans allows things like Fighter 1: combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Exotic weapon prof. Spiked chain, Wizard 2/Binder 1/Anima mage 10 with only the feats Precocious Apprentice, *metamagic feat, and Improved Binding at 3rd. Non-human races would have to take an extra level, and the list goes on. The first level bonus feat is big. Now, if you're not aware of all the options for having using it, then yes it might not seem like a big deal 1st of all Monks suck. 2nd of all the unarmored/very lightly armored fighter type is a rather specific niche. And 3rdly, Dwarves make some of the best wizards; that +2 Con and save bonuses help a great deal, not to mention Wizards stop caring about there Base land speed around level 5 or so, level 7 tops. 1. Yes, monks do suck, and so do straight fighters, and the small races suck a t those even more. Anytime you want to use a weapon, you are using a worse one than you could have used if you were regular size. This is regardless of whether you're a warrior or a caster, using crappier weapons hurts. 2. my point about having to use Full Plate all the time for it to not be a disadvantage is still valid. Lower speed hurts. 3. A better example might be a Druid. The fact that the disadvantage for most practical purposes might be mitigated later in the game is irrelevant. Lower speed still hurts. Once again Monk=fail. Elves are the second worst PHB race for Wizards thanks to that Con penalty tacked on to a D4 hitdie. Elves can certainly make good Clerics, especially cleric archers, but really, who can't? Post Errata Druids are hurt by the Con penalty. Now I'm not saying that Elves are not a good mechanical choice; they do make excellent archers and passable rogues, but everything else is done better by someone else; usually a Dwarf or a Human. Champion of Corellon Letharian is not such hot stuff anymore since it now takes a simple feat, a feat with low pre-requisites might I add, to emulate it's main ability. Bladesinger was never that awesome. Unfortunately I don't know what the Elf Domain does. Elves have a lot going for them as wizards. With the Grey Elf Substitution level they can get more spells in their spellbook just for not specializing. With their bonus proficiencies, they can get into Abjurant Champion with a Straight Wizard 10. Other races would have to multiclass or spend a feat on martial weapon proficiency. But the class still exists, and its ability is useful, Shadow Blade requires you to use its specific weapons while CoCL does not. In fact, get both for double Dex to damage! Bladesinger was great when both it and Duelist could be taken for 1 level to grant Int to AC. Elf Domain is great since it gives Point Blank Shot which makes Archer Clerics very viable. You are correct that Elves can make a good niche for archer types. I will tell you though that for games before casting gets too powerful that elven bow proficiency is good for elves whose classes don't get it. In one of my games I play an Elven Druid, and being able to shoot my enemies from a distance has been invaluable. Now perhaps as I get higher levels and ranged attack spells become available, it might not be as big of a benefit. Similarly, if your Dm doesn't often utilize flying enemies or enemies attacking you from a distance or high above you, then you might not notice the benefit that you're given. Not to mention Dwarves(and Gnomes and Halfings) have plenty of ridiculous stuff on there side as well such as the Deep Warden, Ironsoul Forgemaster, Whisper Knife, and the brokentastic Shadowcraft Mage. Size Bonus, and racial bonus to thrown weapons, means that Halflings will actually outperform elves in ranged combat. Plus everyone makes a craptastic monk. It's a class feature. Elves are not great mechanically, certainly not bad, but not awesometacular either. Dwarves are, however, considered to be the generally mechanically most powerful PHB race by those who know the mechanics best. 1. Dwarves have a few nice things going for them. Runesmith is a great example. Shadowcraft mage and the other good gnome Prc are an exception, they're about the only decent gnome Prcs. 2. Yippe, halfling get +1 to attack with slings which for their size do 1d3 damage. Whereas our elf friend has a composite longbow which does 1d8 base and can shoot from 110 feet away with no penalty. Halfings do not outperform Elves unless the halfling has a high str (hard for a halfling) and the elf similarly does not have a mighty bow, and they're both fighting within 50 ft. 3. Humans are the best mechanical race. Dwarf or Elf is situational. I would also throw out Orc as a good choice for pure melee types.
Sarrazon 02-13-07, 12:47 PM	And I do think the issue at stake is being comic relief. The world needs a completely unironic badass gnome. That is my current character concept I'm working on him now [EDIT]-I'm also working on a campaign setting that attempts to get away from the tolkienish stereotypes- Hint: elves are EVIL
LordofIllusions 02-13-07, 02:06 PM	So what's the missing role? Cleric. Everyone hates to play the cleric. ~~~
DaidojiTaidoru 02-13-07, 02:09 PM	Cleric. Everyone hates to play the cleric. ~~~ Until they realize it's the path to true ultimate power.
RadicalTaoist 02-13-07, 02:37 PM	On the power of halflings and gnomes: I may be tiny, but you are DEAD. You can op 'em like any other races. People should have more respect for the goblin though. Amazing rogues, rangers, and wizards; often better than elves in those respects.
Salla 02-13-07, 03:01 PM	The above anecdote is basically to illustrate the fact that LOTR fans who take up D&D will have those biases... But lets not diss Tolkien any more because 1. LOTR books ROCK HARD and 2. Without his major influences D&D wouldn't exist... 1. LOTR books SUCK HARD, actually. Boring with a capital BORE. 2. Actually, yes it would ... Gygax was more a fan of Jack Vance than Tolkien, and in the original setup, there were no nonhuman races. Arneson convinced him to add the nonhuman races. So, it would exist, there just wouldn't be this Tolkrap involved.
Downtym 02-13-07, 03:09 PM	In my games noone seems to ever want to play a dwarf, a gnome, or a halfling character. Has anyone else had this phenomenon in their games? If so, how did you remedy it, and what was the reason that the players stay away from these races? ~~~ The war cry of my gaming group: "We don't group with shorties". Blame Sullon Zek: Sullon Zek--EverQuest server in which the players were separated into teams based on religion: good, evil, neutral. The Server was developed and envisioned by "Gloinz" (Chadlek G. Schneider, Sony GM). The level limits of the other EQ PvP (Player vs Player) servers were removed, allowing someone of the highest level to kill someone of the lowest level, though there were limits on experience loss and looting. This server is perceived to have acted as the vacuum for the most antisocial, competitive players EQ had. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_special_servers
Elessara 02-13-07, 03:09 PM	I think the problem with the LotR stereotype is that in those books the elves are portrayed as wise, noble, powerful, beautiful beings. For those who know people who believe that all elves should be thus, have them read Tolkein's The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. The elves there were still powerful and still beautiful ... but they had more personality flaws than you could shake a stick at. And they caused a TON of trouble. Not to mention you can't truly make an LotR elf a viable player race mechanically. Many of them seem to have nebulous, undefined powers/abilities. And they're immortal. Or rather, I should say ageless. That said, dwarves are a great D&D race mechanically. I don't play them. I like playing female characters and it seems every DM I've ever played with wants to insist that female dwarves have beards which is something that doesn't appeal to me. I prefer playing humans mostly. They're mechanically sound and very flexible and easier for me to RP. At the moment though, I'm playing a chaos gnome. Yes its a gnome subrace, however when I first decided what character to play I had already decided on gnome. When my DM heard the description of my character's personality, he suggested to me the chaos gnome - it fit the personality of the character completely. Another person in my group is playing a halfling druid. In the various 3.0 games I've played I've seen mostly humans, an elf here or there, a couple of half orcs, a halfling or two and a couple of dwarves. Can't say I've seen (or remember) a gnome though until the one I started playing. Ele~
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 02-13-07, 04:05 PM	That said, dwarves are a great D&D race mechanically. I don't play them. I like playing female characters and it seems every DM I've ever played with wants to insist that female dwarves have beards which is something that doesn't appeal to me. There's a reason that it has been mentioned in 3rd edition that Dwarven females don't have to have beards, and that the pictures of the dwarven females nowadays have not beards! It tends to drive away female gamers from playing them, as you yourself have demonstrated.
Arrowhen 02-13-07, 05:23 PM	Cleric. Everyone hates to play the cleric. His deity is some kind of war god. His mannerisms are equal parts drill-sergeant, personal trainer, and trash talking professional wrestler. The verbal components of his spells are comprised mainly of ludicrous boasts and insults, i.e., bless: "To battle, boys! We'll pile their skulls so high we can climb to the heavens and **** in the gods' breakfasts!", cure light wounds: "[Deity], heal this pasty-faced, pointy-eared milksop's scratches so he can get back into battle and KICK! MORE! ASS!"
Davith Bothain 02-13-07, 05:27 PM	Halfings get a +1 to all saves, I'm not sure where you're getting this +2 from. I think he's referring to the dwarves' +2 bonus against magic.
LordofIllusions 02-13-07, 05:56 PM	Until they realize it's the path to true ultimate power. A cleric; the path to true ultimate power? How so? ~~~
LordofIllusions 02-13-07, 05:58 PM	His deity is some kind of war god. His mannerisms are equal parts drill-sergeant, personal trainer, and trash talking professional wrestler. The verbal components of his spells are comprised mainly of ludicrous boasts and insults, i.e., bless: "To battle, boys! We'll pile their skulls so high we can climb to the heavens and **** in the gods' breakfasts!", cure light wounds: "[Deity], heal this pasty-faced, pointy-eared milksop's scratches so he can get back into battle and KICK! MORE! ASS!" I like the verbal components thing. Very unique. ~~~
LordofIllusions 02-13-07, 06:00 PM	1. LOTR books SUCK HARD, actually. Boring with a capital BORE. 2. Actually, yes it would ... Gygax was more a fan of Jack Vance than Tolkien, and in the original setup, there were no nonhuman races. Arneson convinced him to add the nonhuman races. So, it would exist, there just wouldn't be this Tolkrap involved. The LotR movies were good, but I have yet to even dust off the LotR bookset I got 4 years ago. I can't get into it, it is too....boring. ~~~
Davith Bothain 02-13-07, 06:12 PM	A cleric; the path to true ultimate power? How so? *coughdivinemetamagiccough* The LotR movies were good, but I have yet to even dust off the LotR bookset I got 4 years ago. I can't get into it, it is too....boring. Meh. The movies were sub-par compared to the books. I'm not saying they're the pinnacle of modern English literature by any means, but I found them quite enthralling reads when first I took through them... what? At age 12? And trust that I wasn't into big novels, either (not thousands-of-pages-long tomes such as that).
Particle_Man 02-13-07, 06:54 PM	In my group, Dwarves, humans and half-orcs rules, except for the halfling rogue. You couldn't pay people to play elves, except for comic relief. They look at the penalty to Con and say "no thanks". Halflings and Gnomes make for paladins that can ride their mounts in dungeon settings that their Medium companions can walk in. And 3.5 Dwarves are the most powerful meelee race, bar none. Don't slow down in heavy armor? Can *tumble* in heavy armor? Get free proficiency in Dwarven War Axe? *And* extra Con? There is no real downside for meelee types unless CHR plays a major role in the build.
aotrscommander 02-13-07, 07:30 PM	In my own area of experience over the past 17 years with my group(s), it's mainly Humans and Elves. With a smattering of Half-Elves pre 3.x; since then Half-Elves have vanished (oh, on reflection, I tell a lie, I've got a Half-Elf Bard in my mate's game that started just as we were converting 3.0 to 3.5). Dwarves haven't been quite as common, but most parties have had at least one, putting them I'd say about third in the overall running. And we have got one very fun party (but one we've not played for a while) consisting of two (it might have been three, even) Dwarven Fighters, a Dwarven Fighter/Cleric and some, you know, unimportant other characters. That did theify/magicy type stuff in support of therest of us or something... (There is actually one current party that is entirely human except of a single cut-down Tiefling.) Halflings (which in our group, given the heavy Tolkien bias, the fact we play Rolemaster (MERP) and Warhammer FRP basically do equate to Hobbits) have been known, but very rarely; I can think of maybe half a dozen characters across three rules systems and 17 years. Half-Orcs and Gnomes are all but unknown. I have once (breifly) played one of each (not widely far apart in time) - a long time ago. The gnome too was only after I had first read Dragonlance and thought they were funny. Though in reality, said Gnome was nothing more than a short fighter with a silly name. Heck, I was young enough to have the joke explained to me when I starting ticking and the DM revealed I was a rare sub-breed of metrognome... I never forgot Stabgab though, since he was part of one of the only two TPKs I've seen in all that gaming time! We've actually had more Tieflings (2!) than Gnomes. And one (homebrew) Sylph.
Elemental_Elf 02-15-07, 02:29 PM	Humans and Elves are the most popular races in my group; humans for their feat and Elves for their prettiness and DEX bonus. Half-Orcs had some popularity a while ago but that has died down. Dwarves are pretty popular but we never have more than one in our group at any time. I am the only player who regularly plays Halflings and Gnomes. Heck my favorite character I ever made was a Gnome Sorcerer named Ramesses. I love Halflings and Gnomes because they are full of untapped potential flavor, especially in our group where anything that isn't medium is shunned. Also I love all the special abilities they get in comparison to an Orc or a Human. I mean who wants a crummy feat when you can talk to Burrowing Animals? :D
SmilinBandit 02-15-07, 05:09 PM	For anyone who wants to read a book with a dwarven main character that has a LOT of depth go read The Dwarves and the follow-up The War of the Dwarves by Markus Heitz. I do not know if these books are already available in english (but I think I remember them being in the english bestseller list, so go look for them). These books are really great and changed my view about dwarves allot (to the better that is). I highly recomend anyone playing in a dwarf-only group too! Its awesome! Let all players be from the same clan (let all players read the books I mentioned above!) and you will have one hell of a good time. If your players are into it you will have a group that sticks together no matter what and will have fun doing just that. Screw all common stereotypes and put together some cool and unique dwarven characters, it will be worth it! Same with gnomes, I like them much. Not as illusionist casters, hell no! Gnomish barbarians/fighters/rangers are the real deal!
Bullshido 02-15-07, 05:18 PM	In my games noone seems to ever want to play a dwarf, a gnome, or a halfling character. Has anyone else had this phenomenon in their games? If so, how did you remedy it, and what was the reason that the players stay away from these races? ~~~ I have had a number of people play dwarves in my campaign. I also had one player that really liked gnomes. I know alot of people don't like playing demi humans because they do not want to lose the free feat for being human. But most of the players I have see it strictly as a flavor thing. The people in your campaign might just prefer elves and humans. I do have a small problem with halflings in the past two editions of D&D. Halflings do not seem clearly defined anymore. I think if they wanted to move away from the more hobbit styled halflings they simply should have brought in the Kender from Dragonlance.
StormKnight 02-15-07, 07:24 PM	The people I usually play with, myself included, have never liked Dwarves. Short, hairy, drunk humanoids with nothing else to make them stand out from humans? Just not much appeal. Halflings I think fell into either seeming like Hobbits or Kender, neither of which had much appeal to play. And again, they just kind of seem like short humans; not much exciting. Gnomes? What the heck is a gnome? The group is fond of Catfolk though...that's pretty much become a basic race in our games. I think the problem we have with most of the player races is that they just have too little to set them apart from humans.
Roland the Crownbreaker 02-15-07, 09:00 PM	My gaming group does not play the small (gnomes and halflings) races for one reason. Our DM has this annoying tendency to have giants grapple characters and use them as missile weapons against the others. It has scared everyone away from anything with a size based grapple penalty.
goldjas 02-16-07, 12:24 AM	When it comes to games I've played, the most common race by far is human. Extra feat is simply the ultimate racial ability. 2nd most common is by far the dwarf. And why not, he gets 3 features that are excellent in every single class (+2 con, +2 to almost every save, and darkvision) after that, its kind of hard to say. Elves and Halflings I've seen about half and half for Roguey/Archery types (Elves have that blasted -2 to con), while I've seen Half-Orcs when people just *HAVE* to have that +2 strength for their melee builds even though a dwarf or a human would technically be better in the end. I can't say Ive ever seen a Gnome or Half-elf, then again, they are the 2 weakest races, so i guess its not a huge surprise.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:03 AM	We usually have very diverse races, as no one likes duplicating a race(but it does happen rarely) and we like to switch and try other races. Our most successful group was a game run by my friend in which one person was an elf, one was a gnome, one was a human, and I was a halfling. the human died and came back as a dwarf. A half-orc joined towards the end. In the campaign itself, the races each had their major cities. Most were also at odds with each other. The main underlining story was that of a human black guard and his army of orcs(acquired by killing his former master, the orc king). He was going through and destroying towns. The humans, dwarves, and elves tried uniting, but it was to late. There were no halfling or gnome communities, so us 2 were always viewed as outsiders. The whole campaign ended in a cliff hanger as the dm had to leave to go back to school. I think races are more fun if you look at them from this viewpoint as opposed to if they are over/underpowered. Play what you like, and forget the specifics. I think people stress too much over how to make their characters powerful and lose sight of why there are different races to begin with. You could just have all races just be different regions of humans, but where's the fun in that? When I play a halfling, I'm playing a scrappy, resourceful character who looks out for number one. When I play an elf, I play a graceful, patient, knowledgable character who sees the world as an inspiration to living life to the fullest. I don't see size small with a str penalty when I play a gnome. I see a trickster who likes having friends to watch his back in taverns. These aren't always what those characters mean to mean, but if you've ever read the races books, it helps you see more than just stats.
Azar_of_Faerun 02-16-07, 03:17 AM	I find it very sad that players of the same fantasy based game feud and ridicule each other over race choices such as dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings. As if facing persecution and misunderstandings from non-RPG players wasn't enough, they have to create more within the gaming community
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 03:21 AM	I find it very sad that players of the same fantasy based game feud and ridicule each other over race choices such as dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings. As it facing persecution and misunderstandings from non-RPG players wasn't enough, they have to create more within the gaming community Well, all I know is I'm a halfling for life, brother. /notices slight undertone of the hulkster in my statement /remembers my older brother weeping like a baby when the ultimate warrior beat him for the title, and me in complete bliss:P Oh, and don't make fun of me because I'm short.:mad: :D
Ondrutschka 02-16-07, 12:55 PM	The last party i played in we had a halfling sorceress, a halfling cleric of Brandobaris, a halfling bard (me), a dwarfen fighter and a human rogue. It was quite fun and we had a blast. Too bad we stopped the campain at lvl 12, but we already started a new one last week at lvl 1. So i can´t say these races are underrated. In fact i think we always had more halflings or dwarfes in the group than elfes or half elfes. We only have one player in the group who likes elfes but he´s playing a dwarf now :D