From: gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith)
Subject: Re: Dwarven Axe?
Keywords: dwarf axe overkill favoritism
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:08:49 GMT
Distribution: na

I messed up the distribution on this one too!  ARGH.

In article <1992Jul8.132050.26846@meaddata.com>, gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith) writes:
|> In article <1992Jun17.210418.8561@ncsu.edu>, anderson@pysgjb.physics.ncsu.edu (Edwin Anderson) writes:
|> |> Axly seems to be so pro-dwarf as to believe that there is nothing dwarves
|> |> cannot do.  He tries to argue that since a dwarf is used to swinging
|> |> heavy pick axes, that it is only fair that they should be able to use heavy
|> |> weapons, possibly even heavier than a human.  This is just not right.
|> |> 
|> |> In any D&D campaign based on the traditional model, the humans spend their
|> |> days in the fields or mines themselves, pulling up rocks and stumps, or
|> |> swinging pickaxes themselves.  There is no reason to believe that dwarves
|> |> are much stronger then humans.  If one looks at the maximum strength
|> |> tables from the first edition PHB this is easily verified as the original
|> |> idea for dwarven strength.
|> |> 
|> |> Dwarves should be able to use two-handed axes, but they should be
|> |> reasonable.  Look at bastard sword for an example.  It is a huge two-
|> |> handed weapon for someone of below average size.  The two-handed sword
|> |> is the only weapon that does a d10 for a reason.  This monumantal club
|> |> of a sword is in a class by itself.  Any particularly hefty axe, with
|> |> the short shaft length a dwarf could accomadate, would be much more on
|> |> the order of a bastard sword.
|> |> 
|> |> As for the dwarf and the two-handed sword, there are some basic physics
|> |> to take into account.  A short dwarf is going to have a LOT of trouble
|> |> balancing a weapon on his shoulder that is at least one and a half times
|> |> taller than he is.  It is not as much an issue of strength as it is of
|> |> balance.  (There is probably a reasonable compromise on this point, since
|> |> a shorter weapon, say five feet long, with a heavier blade would be
|> |> equivalent and easily usable)
|> |> 
|> |> An elf of enough weight should be able to use a two-handed sword.  Larger
|> |> elves should not be considered weak just because they have a lower resistance
|> |> to disease and wounds (-1 con) they are almost as strong, just wirey.
|> |> 
|> |> I am not an elf or dwarf fanatic, like some of the posters here seem to be.
|> |> I am a DM very concerned with game balance.  It might make somebody's
|> |> character "awfully cool" to use awesome axes, or add theri multi-class hit
|> |> points, but it isn't what a DM should be looking at if this campaign is
|> |> going to last over a month, or involve characters with any demands of
|> |> 'realism'.
|> |> 
|> |> I think it is time to start ignoring these non-human fanatics out there.
|> |> Unless one abandons the original idea (discussed in the first edition DMG
|> |> under Monsters as Palyer Characters) then it must be accepted that 
|> |> dwarves are not giants with gland probelms and elves are not able to
|> |> accumulate hit points faster than a fighter (compare an elven fighter/cleric
|> 


|> Huh?  Can anyone tell me where this idea comes from?  Let's see that would be
|> (5.5 + 4.5 + Con) per level vs. (5.5 + Con) per level.
|> 



|> |> with the add HP rule and pick any arbitrary number of experience points.
|> |> It's scary...).  Humans are the dominant race for simplicity reasons, and game
|> |> reasons are set up to at least put the races at a par.  Being non-human 
|> |> in the original system gives you goodies at low levels in exchange for limits
|> |> on the upper end of your abilities.  Live with the original balance and
|> |> you'll soon find that you will be running a world with the non-human races
|> |> having much hardier average citizens, but weaker high-level types, thus
|> |> maintaining some sort of believable political/social balance.
|> |> 
|> |> If you want to alter the rules to allow those multiclass characters to
|> |> add hit points or specialize, or if you want to give dwarves a strength 
|> |> greater than or equal to human, then don't even think about the issue.
|> |> You have changed the balance of things.  If you are playing a game
|> |> with any sort of a larger view, you can look back and sigh when one race
|> |> takes over.  Or, if your characters don't demand any realism,
|> |> you'll have a party of all one race in less time than you can say
|> |> "help".
|> |>  
|> |> (I always thought dwarves and halflings should be wizards... NOT!)
|> |> 
|> |> 					Edwin Brooks Anderson, Jr.
|> |> 					Dungeon Master
|> |> 
|> |> "Either you're in, or you're not in.  There are no quitters, only dead people."
|> |> 						-Dolvius the seagoing wizard
|> |> 						   from the Telvar Campaign
|> |> .
|> 
|> -- 
|> Greg Smith
|> 
|> DISCLAIMER:  My ideas are entirely my own unless MDC decides to patent them.
|> I am not empowered to speak for Mead Data Central or Mead Corporation.

-- 
Greg Smith

DISCLAIMER:  My ideas are entirely my own unless MDC decides to patent them.
I am not empowered to speak for Mead Data Central or Mead Corporation.