Are dwarves terrible in PF?

[ArmouredMonk13]

The "Loyal Paladin of Cayden Calien(Merciful Healer 1/Drunken Brute Barbarian1)" who is a Dwarf sincerely disagrees with the notion of dwarves being sub-optimal. If anyone posts that they want to see it on this thread, I will post it on this thread as soon as its finished.

EDIT:Noticed that Cayden Calien doesn't offer healing domain, so he is just vanilla cleric.

[GeneticDrift]

Most of my PFS characters are dwarves. they are awesome. They make great melee characters and with boosted saves vs magic they are really sturdy.

[Quandary]

Quote:

Dwarves lost EWP with dwarven weapons

No, nothing at all changed there. Dwarf Hate Fail.

While everybody else can convince themselves that Bastard Swords aren't worth the Feat, Dwarven Warriors get it for free.
Plus the 'Double' Waraxe (not Double Weapon, just gets +1 to-hit after 1st hit in Cleave/Grt Cleave, which Dwarves coincidentally have some great Feats for: removing the adjacency restriction), plus Longhammers for 2d6 Reach love, the Ugrosh if you want to 2WF, and the Boulder Helmet (for when you want an extra +2 on a last-ditch crucial Bullrush, plus a +2 AC vs. Crit Confirm, also stacking with the +2 from the mentioned Vital Guard armor modification whose movement penalty Dwarvers are immune to, for net +4 vs. Crit Confirms). While non-Martial Dwarves get Battleaxe, Warhammer, and (x4 Crit) Heavy Picks.

I just don't think you will convince anybody that Dwarves suck, what with +5 vs. Reflex-targetting Spells/Su/Poison and +6 vs. Fort/Will targetting Spells/Su/Poison (including CON/WIS). You said that offense in more important than defense in this game. But if you fail a Save, your offence may well be moot. Dwarves can have sky-high saves vs. nearly everything that matters with laughably little effort... Leaving them to dedicate everything else to offence. The point about offense vs. defense is that you should not neglect offense in favor of putting limited resources into defence, but if it's costing you nothing or a very limited amount, defense is hugely valuable, and most characters DO invest resources to boost things like saves. People love to praise the uber-ness of Superstitious Rage Power, but a Dwarf Barbarian w/ Steel Soul/Glory of Old out-do even a Human putting Favored Class Bonus into it until mid-levels, and pretty much everybody else past where APs end... While not being forced to Save vs. beneficial Spells, AND also getting their bonus vs. Poison.

People like to say "Aasimar get two +2's and no negative!" yet Dwarves' penalty to CHA penalizes the one stat that can be safely dumped for 90% of builds: what's the difference? CON and WIS are (besides Clerics/Inquisitors/Druids) 'defensive' stats, and you might prefer a stat bonus in an 'offensive' stat, but anybody really building for a 20 in an offensive stat is going to be a glass cannon, and CON and WIS are almost never the stats you want to dump, so the difference in offensive stats is not really that large, Dwarves can pull an 18 in an offensive stat if they want, and certainly a 16/17 while having solid all-arounds like plenty of characters also want.

[buddahcjcc]

Undone wrote:

The more I attempt to make a dwarf character the more I keep saying "It could be human" or "It could be aasimar". Dwarves lost EWP with dwarven weapons, the value of con went down substantially with the altered stat cost system and favored class bonus, and their other effects weren't often that important leaving them with a +2 to saves and little else.

Dwarves have one of my favorite alternate racial abilities; Spell Resistance

[Kittenological]

buddahcjcc wrote:

Dwarves have one of my favorite alternate racial abilities; Spell Resistance

Yeah, they're real tough when it comes down to spells. While I prefer the saving throw bonus myself, I do feel that even 5+HD SR is a lot better than nothing. In fact, getting a 15-25% chance to be unaffected by ANY spell at all (check my math if you would) is probably better than having a 10% better chance of saving against the ones that allow for it (and even then suffer partial effect).

[Ilja]

Spell resistance do not work against all spells, and against offensive casters will ofteb provide a minimal defense - esöecially if the caster is higher level than the party. Spell resistance is more likely to hinder party buffs and heals since a defensive caster is less likely to have spell penetration.

[Maccabee]

Dwarves have the best racial ability in the game: THEY'RE DWARVES.

[Undone]

Quandary wrote:

Quote:

Dwarves lost EWP with dwarven weapons

No, nothing at all changed there. Dwarf Hate Fail.

While everybody else can convince themselves that Bastard Swords aren't worth the Feat, Dwarven Warriors get it for free.
Plus the 'Double' Waraxe (not Double Weapon, just gets +1 to-hit after 1st hit in Cleave/Grt Cleave, which Dwarves coincidentally have some great Feats for: removing the adjacency restriction), plus Longhammers for 2d6 Reach love, the Ugrosh if you want to 2WF, and the Boulder Helmet (for when you want an extra +2 on a last-ditch crucial Bullrush, plus a +2 AC vs. Crit Confirm, also stacking with the +2 from the mentioned Vital Guard armor modification whose movement penalty Dwarvers are immune to, for net +4 vs. Crit Confirms). While non-Martial Dwarves get Battleaxe, Warhammer, and (x4 Crit) Heavy Picks.

I just don't think you will convince anybody that Dwarves suck, what with +5 vs. Reflex-targetting Spells/Su/Poison and +6 vs. Fort/Will targetting Spells/Su/Poison (including CON/WIS). You said that offense in more important than defense in this game. But if you fail a Save, your offence may well be moot. Dwarves can have sky-high saves vs. nearly everything that matters with laughably little effort... Leaving them to dedicate everything else to offence. The point about offense vs. defense is that you should not neglect offense in favor of putting limited resources into defence, but if it's costing you nothing or a very limited amount, defense is hugely valuable, and most characters DO invest resources to boost things like saves. People love to praise the uber-ness of Superstitious Rage Power, but a Dwarf Barbarian w/ Steel Soul/Glory of Old out-do even a Human putting Favored Class Bonus into it until mid-levels, and pretty much everybody else past where APs end... While not being forced to Save vs. beneficial Spells, AND also getting their bonus vs. Poison.

People like to say "Aasimar get two +2's and no negative!" yet Dwarves' penalty to CHA penalizes the one stat...

1) A bastard sword isn't worth the feat. The only weapon worth a feat based on math is the falcata.

2) Offense is heavily favored in this game. The most important defenses you can have are not being surprised and having high initiative to act first. (Diviner wizard/divine strategist) Going first every combat is better than only failing a save on a 1. II is a bit better than +2 to saves on spells because of this in my experience. Given the choice between +2 saves vs spells and +4 init i'd take +4 init every time. Winning initiative lets you disrupt the save or suck/die losing initiative requires you save or suck/die.

Quote:

This is about the stupidest argument I have seen on the boards for a while. Dwarves terrible? Come on, you have to be trolling to post something that moronic. The only drawback is speed....a speed that never fluctuates and is easily boosted via feats, spells, class features, items, etc. Everything else they get is really nice, especially darkvision. I suppose if you only take a races if you can have a boost in your primary class stat then you may have a minor point if you slap blinders on and ignore that a + to con and wisdom will save you from having to invest that much into them and you can boost your primary more easily.....

God, just getting tired of seeing these stupid threads where people call out a race or class because they suck at playing it or because "X splatbook has a slightly better option so this one is the

I'm being quite serious. Every single build I have with a dwarf I copy to human and it's just better with the sole exception of the zen archer (or the hypothetical guided enchantment being available). Barbarian +2 str is better and +1 feat is a substantial improvement over +1 hp per level and better saves. Bard - Bad dwarf. Cleric melee is better as a human it's better because you've got a hard time hitting, as a caster the bonus feat improves your casting more than having save bonuses, given your potential domain of anything + Tactician. Druids have the same issue as cleric but they really want that feat to reach all of the summoning feats before 9th level. Since 5th is always natural spell. This trend continues to all of the classes except for zen archer monks because they use wisdom as an attack stat.

[TriOmegaZero]

Undone wrote:

Dwarf is a good defensive race. The game favors offense by a wide margin. That's ultimately the problem.

Dude, were you at my Society game last night? Because you sound exactly like my one player.

[Fake Healer]

You choose to play under certain assumptions like that defense has no real meaning and that a human without any ability to see a dungeon without forecasting his presence by using lights, and a ton of other ridiculous conclusions you came to, I guess because that's how your group rolls, and that makes you think that one of the best core races in the game is weak.
I find it unbelievable that you can really be that blind to everything that people have said and refuted you with up until now without you just trying to be a troll. I think you wanted to cause drama over nothing and get reactions from the internet to compensate for some real world lack.
Please stop looking so ridiculously ignorant of the facts that have been presented to you by using your made-up, biased statements of how the game works to try to create a problem that only exists for you in your imagination. Dwarves have excellent racial features, not the best but certainly better than most.

[Pendagast]

was actually going to build a dwarf magus here shortly. been planning it for weeks.

The 20 ft thing isnt a big deal, every 'Tall Boy' in medium armor is moving at the same pace... clerics, fighters, oracles, even the druid in hide doesnt move full speed.

your rogues, monks, rangers and arcane spellcasters will move faster but that's not usually the majority of the party.

if you really want to have some 'fun' make a dwarven cavalier!
"well if you long legged freaks insist on out running me, then Im just going to ride old nessy EVERYWHERE to keep up... like the bar, the castle, the church.... Everywhere.... oh, ok, I thought youd see it my way.... thanks for taking a more LEISURELY pace!"

Dwarf Cavaler of the cockatrice.... muahahaha.

[Ilja]

Undone wrote:

1) A bastard sword isn't worth the feat. The only weapon worth a feat based on math is the falcata.

That of course depends on your class, build and level. And it's not just falcata that's worth it, it's just that EWP(falcata) beats out almost any other EWP. And what your goal is. But generally I agree +1 damage is more of trait territory. The dwarven longhammer is pretty unique though, being a bludgeoning reach weapon with 2d6 damage and x3 crit which is pretty awesome.

Quote:

2) Offense is heavily favored in this game.

Offense as a tactic is generally favored, that does not mean all offensive options are better than all defensive options. Shield is generally a better spell than magic missile.

+2 to all saves is incredibly awesome, and worth at least two feats. While lightning reflexes is a mediocre feat and great fortitude wouldn't be my first pick, I often, very often, see people take Iron Will - it's among the most popular feats in my games. But getting all three for two feats would be something most of my players would want sooner or later, except for extremely feat-starved builds with good saves (like paladins).

Quote:

I'm being quite serious. Every single build I have with a dwarf I copy to human and it's just better with the sole exception of the zen archer (or the hypothetical guided enchantment being available). Barbarian +2 str is better and +1 feat is a substantial improvement over +1 hp per level and better saves.

Human barbarian I agree is great, better than dwarf if you're going straight barbarian. And that is due to the save bonuses and heart of the field; one defensive ability and one "healing" ability.

If they didn't have those, I'd probably take dwarf. Because on a 20 pb, for example, a human would look like:
STR: 18 DEX: 14 CON: 14 INT: 9 WIS: 14 CHA: 7
and a dwarf would look like:
STR: 18 DEX: 14 CON: 14 INT: 8 WIS: 14 CHA: 5

and honestly, that -1 on social skills and one feat doesn't matter enough to weigh up for darkvision, +2 on all saves and +1 attack,+2 AC vs flying.

But yeah, the human favored class bonus to saves and the ability to cure fatigue once per day probably makes them better as pure barbarians, at least at higher levels. But it's not so far better that a dwarven barbarian will feel lacking - it will be better at some things and worse at some.

But for wisdom-based sorcerers, druids, clerics and monks dwarf is an excellent race. And not bad at all for fighter archetypes or barbarian multiclassers.

[Nicos]

Undone wrote:

Dwarf is a good defensive race. The game favors offense by a wide margin. That's ultimately the problem.

A failed saving trhow can take you out of the fight. All the ofensive spells in the world do not help the human wizard when he fails a save against a dazing fireball.

[ArmouredMonk13]

I say that defense is better than offense. Especially when it comes to Saving Throws. Yeah AC is important to have so you don't get insta-ganked but if you take a Hit, you have HP, If you fail a save, you die. Or even worse (or better depending on how much you like fellow gamers) you get dominated and told to kill all your allies. That is why my dwarves have steel soul and my barbarians have iron will.

[deuxhero]

Marthkus wrote:

Now all you have to do is justify why a dwarf is a druid.

"My people were born from the earth, work with fire, breath the air, and are mostly water" sounds pretty neat for an elemental based druid (unfortunately, PF doesn't have as much support for that as 3.5 did)

[SaddestPanda]

Marthkus wrote:

Now all you have to do is justify why a dwarf is a druid.

Make the dwarf a hermit brewer and you've got a dwarf that roams the woods for the next greatest ingredient and has the natural world aid him in his quest for the best drink that can be brewed.

[Ilja]

I think offense to some degree is overrated due to theorycrafting using averages on the internet. In my experience as a DM, the characters who focus on offense often die when things go a bit bad for the party. They may be able to end encounters quickly when it goes well for them, but just a few bad rolls (or good ones for the monsters) can kill them or mess up the party royally.

Last time they had a TPK it was due to a sorcerer who had the motto of "offense beats defense" and tanked his wisdom to get that 20 starting Cha. Ultimately he fell to a succubus' Dominate Person and was the cause of the whole party's death.

[MrSin]

Ilja wrote:

In my experience as a DM, the characters who focus on offense often die when things go a bit bad for the party. They may be able to end encounters quickly when it goes well for them, but just a few bad rolls (or good ones for the monsters) can kill them or mess up the party royally.

Best not to totally tank defenses, no matter what your doing. I think a lot of the defense is over rated is caused by CMD and AC not scaling so well. You still want to be able to escape and prevent bad things from happening, and tanking will is definitely not the best idea. Silver Spindle Ioun stone isn't too uncommon to find in theorycrafting though.

[buddahcjcc]

Kittenological wrote:

buddahcjcc wrote:

Dwarves have one of my favorite alternate racial abilities; Spell Resistance

Yeah, they're real tough when it comes down to spells. While I prefer the saving throw bonus myself, I do feel that even 5+HD SR is a lot better than nothing. In fact, getting a 15-25% chance to be unaffected by ANY spell at all (check my math if you would) is probably better than having a 10% better chance of saving against the ones that allow for it (and even then suffer partial effect).

Especially when if youre a caster yourself, the only other way to GET spell resistance is a 90 k gold (or something else really high) shoulder slot item

Quote:

Marthkus wrote:

Now all you have to do is justify why a dwarf is a druid.

You name him Pikel Bouldershoulder

lol

[buddahcjcc]

Undone wrote:

Human barbarian I agree is great, better than dwarf if you're going straight barbarian. And that is due to the save bonuses and heart of the field; one defensive ability and one "healing" ability.

Unless you have my GM who says anything that stops you from getting fatigued before 17 is breaking the game and not allowed

[Kayden Lutren]

RedDogMT wrote:

Undone wrote:

The more I attempt to make a dwarf character the more I keep saying "It could be human" or "It could be aasimar". Dwarves lost EWP with dwarven weapons, the value of con went down substantially with the altered stat cost system and favored class bonus, and their other effects weren't often that important leaving them with a +2 to saves and little else.

Sounds like you are roll-playing instead of role-playing. Hey, if that is what you like, go for it.

When I play a dwarf character, it's because I want to play a dwarf character.

I'll agree, it sounds like you aren't looking at playing a dwarf merely for the experience of playing a dwarf character.

I always tell my characters when they go to pick a race "If you want to play something that isn't human, I want you to read on it and understand what it means to be that race."
I don't want a party of people playing humans in a different races skin.
If you want something that you aren't going to have to know about how that race reacts to things, just go human.
Everyone knows how to be a human.

[ArmouredMonk13]

Marthkus wrote:

Now all you have to do is justify why a dwarf is a druid.

1.)Same reason your dwarf is a barbarian, he got dumped in the forest as a child, and liked playing with the wild.

2.)Because he hates metal (dwarves are stone) and despises the idea of the modernization of magic.
3.)Because a steampunk druid is cool.

[ShortRedandLoud]

Dwarven druids are easy to justify.

Caves and mountains are still nature. Druids like nature. Dwarves like caves and mountains. Dwarven druids of caves. Dwarven druids of mountains.

I mean come on, Golarion dwarves even invented Stoneplate for use primarily by dwarven druids.

Also, all you really need to love dwarves is the Dwarven Boulder Helmet, the weapon created for the express purpose of headbutting your enemies to death.

[DrDeth]

Ilja wrote:

I think offense to some degree is overrated due to theorycrafting using averages on the internet. In my experience as a DM, the characters who focus on offense often die when things go a bit bad for the party. They may be able to end encounters quickly when it goes well for them, but just a few bad rolls (or good ones for the monsters) can kill them or mess up the party royally.

Last time they had a TPK it was due to a sorcerer who had the motto of "offense beats defense" and tanked his wisdom to get that 20 starting Cha. Ultimately he fell to a succubus' Dominate Person and was the cause of the whole party's death.

Yeah just a bit ago a newbie was doing a Paladin on the Advice board, and followed the Min/maxers advice and dumped Wis. Spent one whole combat out as he failed a will save, and blew an important clue as his Sense Motive sucked.

Well, you see it's both theorycrafting and the "toon"mentality, where it doesn't matter if your PC dies since you just bring in a newer better PC from a large stack of them. Knuckles the 87th or something.

Now, that's not "badwrongfun" if the whole table enjoys it, but it's not how most games are played IRL.

[necromental]

Dwarves are best to play because you can shout: T'dr'duzk b'hazg t't! ("today is a good day for someone else to die")

[Zaister]

No mechanical benefit can balance the actual drawback of the dwarf: being a dwarf, that is.

:)

[Joey Virtue]

Balgin wrote:

Traits & Feats.
Dwarfs have access to some truly impressive traits and feats. For starters a dwarf can take the Glory of Old racial trait to increase his +2 to most saves to +3. Then he can take the Stone Soul feat for an extra +2 against spells and spell like abilities. That's +5 against magic..

What book is the stone soul feat in I love dwarves so I want to know

[MrSin]

Joey Virtue wrote:

Balgin wrote:

Traits & Feats.
Dwarfs have access to some truly impressive traits and feats. For starters a dwarf can take the Glory of Old racial trait to increase his +2 to most saves to +3. Then he can take the Stone Soul feat for an extra +2 against spells and spell like abilities. That's +5 against magic..

What book is the stone soul feat in I love dwarves so I want to know

Its called Steel Soul, and its in the APG. The glory of old trait is in Dwarves of Golarion.

[Joey Virtue]

Thanks

[Sloanzilla]

The "defense is worthless" argument needs to go the way of "no healing in combat" and "direct damage spells are never good"- in the pile of arguments that don't translate well to actual play.

[MrSin]

Sloanzilla wrote:

The "defense is worthless" argument needs to go the way of "no healing in combat" and "direct damage spells are never good"- in the pile of arguments that don't translate well to actual play.

Well, ingame they do translate. Its just that its a gross over generalization. Healing in combat doesn't scale as well as just knocking the guys out and healing later, and direct damage spells aren't as good as the ones that have riders that stop them or shape the field. That's not to say there isn't a time when you shouldn't use them, but that they aren't always your best option.

[CWheezy]

The dwarven paladin archetype is super great, because instead of playing a dwarf fighter, you get to play a Dwarf: Dwarf.

Dwarves are cool

[Lemmy]

MrSin wrote:

Joey Virtue wrote:

Balgin wrote:

Traits & Feats.
Dwarfs have access to some truly impressive traits and feats. For starters a dwarf can take the Glory of Old racial trait to increase his +2 to most saves to +3. Then he can take the Stone Soul feat for an extra +2 against spells and spell like abilities. That's +5 against magic..

What book is the stone soul feat in I love dwarves so I want to know

Its called Steel Soul, and its in the APG. The glory of old trait is in Dwarves of Golarion.

Fun fact about the Glory of Old trait: Technically it's a regional trait, not a racial one. That means any inhabitant of the Five Kings Mountain can pick it, no matter its race...

So you can be an elf and say that "In your veins flows the blood of dwarven heroes from Tar Taargadth".

Heh... Apparently, humans, elves and orcs are not the only ones who like interracial breeding... ;)

[Quandary]

It's not +2 vs. Spells, it's +3/+4 vs. Reflex/Fort+Will for Spells/Su and Poison with one Trait, and +5/+6 with one Feat (akin to Superstitious). The extra +1 for Fort+Will can be made up by other races putting more build points into CON+WIS, which results in similar stat arrays to Ilja's Barbarian example.

Or if you already have good Saves from your build (e.g. Monk/Paladin/Inquisitor or Cleric/Barb for non-Reflex), SR on top may make it even stronger than Human FC Superstitious as well as applying vs. no-Save spells. I personally don't like the trade-offs there for in-combat friendly spells, but it's pretty much a similar dynamic as Superstitious for anybody who likes that.

Coincidentally, Steel Soul/Glory of Old Dwarven Barbs' Saves easily surpass even Human FC Superstitious Barbs thru low-mid levels, as Superstitious doesn't stack with the normal Rage Morale bonus to Will Saves, while Dwarven bonuses do... to the point that the only reason to pick up Superstitious at low levels is if you're mostly worried about Fort+Reflex Sp/Su Saves, and it still doesn't match Steel Soul+Glory until mid-levels anyways. Meanwhile the Dwarf gets extra Rage Rounds or HP/Skills from FC. At mid-high levels, there is enough sources of stacking Save Bonuses that the Steel Soul Dwarf Barb can EASILY have rock solid Saves (that don't force Saves vs. beneficial effects, like Dimension Door battlefield taxis), vs. the DCs actually encountered in appropriately CR encounters... Human FC Superstitious may end up wasting it's extra bonus as 1's always Fail (really what it does is let you not invest in other Save bonuses, but that's dangerous for things that Superstitious doesn't apply to, and when you're not Raging).

Re: Heart of Fields, while nice for emergencies like being hit by Ray of Exhaustion outside of Rage or needing to Rage shortly after ending one battle, it's still very limited... It isn't something to enable routine Rage Cycling (which Scarred Rage does from Level 2), and anybody can pick up Roused Anger (with the same Rage Power that Humans might use for Superstitious). Having solid Saves outside of Rage (/+Superstitious) also reduces the importance of needing to Rage in the first place.

[MrSin]

Lemmy wrote:

Heh... Apparently, humans, elves and orcs are not the only ones who like interracial breeding... ;)

Huh... Now I've got to wonder what half-dwarves look like and where they went in the world. Obviously they have glorious beards...

[Marthkus]

Canadians.

[eakratz]

Pendagast wrote:

was actually going to build a dwarf magus here shortly. been planning it for weeks.

The 20 ft thing isnt a big deal, every 'Tall Boy' in medium armor is moving at the same pace... clerics, fighters, oracles, even the druid in hide doesnt move full speed.

your rogues, monks, rangers and arcane spellcasters will move faster but that's not usually the majority of the party.

if you really want to have some 'fun' make a dwarven cavalier!
"well if you long legged freaks insist on out running me, then Im just going to ride old nessy EVERYWHERE to keep up... like the bar, the castle, the church.... Everywhere.... oh, ok, I thought youd see it my way.... thanks for taking a more LEISURELY pace!"

Dwarf Cavaler of the cockatrice.... muahahaha.

I made a 10th level order of the sword dwarf cavalier as a replacement character for one that died and retired for Kingmaker. I've only played him one session so far, and it was mostly role play with only one combat. His offense seemed just fine when he charged on his rhinoceros at the manticore and splattered it. His saves are decent too with the Steel Sould/Glory of Old/Iron Will/By My Honor combo. He's looking like it will be a lot o' fun.

[FLite]

Lemmy wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Joey Virtue wrote:

Balgin wrote:

Traits & Feats.
Dwarfs have access to some truly impressive traits and feats. For starters a dwarf can take the Glory of Old racial trait to increase his +2 to most saves to +3. Then he can take the Stone Soul feat for an extra +2 against spells and spell like abilities. That's +5 against magic..

What book is the stone soul feat in I love dwarves so I want to know

Its called Steel Soul, and its in the APG. The glory of old trait is in Dwarves of Golarion.

Fun fact about the Glory of Old trait: Technically it's a regional trait, not a racial one. That means any inhabitant of the Five Kings Mountain can pick it, no matter its race...

So you can be an elf and say that "In your veins flows the blood of dwarven heroes from Tar Taargadth".

Heh... Apparently, humans, elves and orcs are not the only ones who like interracial breeding... ;)

Is anyone else tempted to make a human fighter named Carrot Ironfounderson now?

(with the second trait "adopted: clearheaded"

[buddahcjcc]

MrSin wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Heh... Apparently, humans, elves and orcs are not the only ones who like interracial breeding... ;)

Huh... Now I've got to wonder what half-dwarves look like and where they went in the world. Obviously they have glorious beards...

Arent they called mules or something lol

glorious beard

[ArmouredMonk13]

You want to know what a half-Dwarf looks like? This is a half-dwarf. He just has giant as the other half.

[Jack Rift]

Honestly, I prefer playing humans, but never will I say dwarfs are a weak choice. PF made humans better, but dwarf is still one of the best. So I can only nearly always move at 20ft, what human (low lvl) fighter can't, to much gear? Sad day!

[Insufferable Smartypants]

Last post before bed. I'm not reading the entire forum - I just wanted to answer the OP.

Dwarves are alive and well in Pathfinder. I just got back from my bi-weekly game in which I play a dwarf, and am easily the most powerful PC in the group (although to be fair, a lot of that is because I'm the cleric).

Shrugged off a devil's poison today specifically because of race (made the save by 1).

Took heavy plate proficiency at level 8. Why not? I'm already carrying most of the party treasure and heavier armor on top of that will never slow me down.

Nobody tried to push, trip, or bullrush me this week. Maybe that was the DM using out-of-character knowledge about my +4 CMD bonus against those maneuvers. Maybe our enemies are just getting smarter.

Killed several goblinoids today with my axe. A few of them I hit due to my +1 racial bonus to hit them.

Oh, and I survived an incoming flame strike largely due to my bonus hit points derived from my rather impressive constitution score.

Good times.

[Michael Sayre]

Ilja wrote:

Spell resistance do not work against all spells, and against offensive casters will ofteb provide a minimal defense - esöecially if the caster is higher level than the party. Spell resistance is more likely to hinder party buffs and heals since a defensive caster is less likely to have spell penetration.

Just a quick note here, this is no longer true. Spell Resistance was errata'd to work exactly like saving throws vs. spells with the Spell Resistance Y (harmless) descriptor, meaning that Spell resistance no longer interferes with most beneficial buffs.

[Brotato]

Ssalarn wrote:

Just a quick note here, this is no longer true. Spell Resistance was errata'd to work exactly like saving throws vs. spells with the Spell Resistance Y (harmless) descriptor, meaning that Spell resistance no longer interferes with most beneficial buffs.

Do you have a link to said errata? The PRD says nothing about this change.

[Michael Sayre]

Dwarves also make surprisingly good rogues (I realize most people find the rogue to be a sub-par class). Their saves help when you fail vs. many common traps, and sneak attack with a battle-axe isn't really a bad way to go, especially at lower levels.

They can be great choices for some monk archetypes as well, like the Drunken Master, Hungry GhostMonk, and Monk of the Empty Hand, combining the dwarfs toughness and saves with a class that already has solid saves to give them a high defensive edge. Their innate bonuses to CON and WIS also help toughen up the monk, allowing them to focus on the higher STR necessary to be really effective in combat. The option at low levels to use a Battleaxe, heavy pick or warhammer can also help strengthen the effectiveness of their standard action attacks when flurrying isn't necessarily an option.

[Umbranus]

Brotato wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Just a quick note here, this is no longer true. Spell Resistance was errata'd to work exactly like saving throws vs. spells with the Spell Resistance Y (harmless) descriptor, meaning that Spell resistance no longer interferes with most beneficial buffs.

Do you have a link to said errata? The PRD says nothing about this change.

I would like to know that, too. Until now I always saw spellresistance as a drawback is a race had it.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post. Accusations of trolling do not help the discussion.

[Michael Sayre]

Brotato wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Just a quick note here, this is no longer true. Spell Resistance was errata'd to work exactly like saving throws vs. spells with the Spell Resistance Y (harmless) descriptor, meaning that Spell resistance no longer interferes with most beneficial buffs.

Do you have a link to said errata? The PRD says nothing about this change.

It looks like I have to retract that statement. It was being discussed over here where I was talking about how SR is as much a hindrance as a help if not more so, and I could have sworn that I was well and thoroughly convinced that they had updated it, but I can't find anything to indicate that that is true now.

[buddahcjcc]

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

You want to know what a half-Dwarf looks like? This is a half-dwarf. He just has giant as the other half.

man thats a harsh pairing if the mom's the dwarf

[Oceanshieldwolf]

To the OP - Yes. Dwarves are terrible. Regardless of the mechanical advantages, the fact remains you need to be a dwarf to get them. 'Nuff said.