Dwarven weapons are better

[mhd]

Therefore, the key question in dealing with the quality of dwarven weapons is: "Are dwarves cool?" And the answer is: No. No, they are not. Drow are cool.

 

It seems your careful analysis dates back to the 90s. Dwarven coolness has risen by 4.8 LotR movie points on the "ethnic bad***" scale. And it's kukris now, not katanas. Science!

[L. Marcus]

... Time for the tranq gun again.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Like the gas gun that Golden Age Sandman used? Cool!

 

Also, my analytic method smooths out intertemporal noise to eliminate the LOTR effect by balancing it against the Hobbit rebound. 

[Michael Hopcroft]

There are certain sorts of players who love dwarves.They're a perfect blend of combat prowess and comedy potential.

[Old Man]

IME players who like to play dwarves often do so because they want to play a rowdy, grumpy drunk. With a beard. And a bad Scottish accent.

 

Markdoc's analysis above more or less matches my own. Dwarven irregulars might be more inclined to use hammers and picks, since IRL tools were often pressed into service as (or modified to become) weapons.

[mhd]

Dwarven irregulars might be more inclined to use hammers and picks, since IRL tools were often pressed into service as (or modified to become) weapons.

The tool versions of axes, hammers and picks are quite different, and mostly unusable in a battle. Most modified tools were in the polearm category, originally farming implements. As some kind of miner's uprising, sure, but even irregulars should have something better in Dwarvendom.

[Christopher]

I'd determine what they're actually better at in-game and work backwards from that. But only if it is significant, a lot of the differences just aren't caught by even a +1 modifier. Even within "human" weaponry there's a lot of difference that often isn't reflected in game stats.

 

If it's just better forging techniques and not something near supernatural, I'd personally just go with increased durability (if that comes up), and of course they're worth more. In certain situations using Dwarven weaponry might qualify for a PRE bonus, too. I'd probably need a bit more to mess with OCV or Min STR...

You might consider using the advanced focus rules from APG2 to make a little better without making them more powerful.

Indeed the bulk of differences between weapons has very little game effect. In part the problem is that HERO lacks granularity. +1 OCV is a big +10% Chance to hit foes with every attack using that weapon.

Ranged weapons can have the (somewhat more granular) Range PSL instead of pure OCV, but Melee weapons have no such thing.

 

Expanded Focus rules (APG II 115) allow you to finetune stuff like Weight, Durability (PD/ED and Body), Size and Concealment Factor. Those rules also roll the Real Weapon Limitation into Focus.

And for your Modern games they even allow you to build self-acting Foci (basically leightweight automaton Rules rolled into Focus).

 

But the real question is, which is better--dwarven weapons, or elven weapons?  And how? 

There are certain sorts of players who love dwarves.They're a perfect blend of combat prowess and comedy potential.

As someone who played dwarves in about any setting that had them* I have to say that I utterly despise J.R.R. Tolkien for his depiction of Dwarves. Part of the whole problem was that "Elves are Superior to everyone at anything".

But maybe I have just not read enough of his books/watched enough of the movie adaption of his books. The Hobbit series seems to shine them in a much better light.

 

I find that a much better source of ideas for powerfull but not broken dwarves is the books series starting with "The Dwarves". The Dwarven Characters have all the good qualities of being associated with dwarves (Craftmanship, fighting, durability, honor) without being artificially perfect and unbeatable. They are after all "only mortal".

 

*Except Shadowrun my first character in any Setting or Computer game that has them was a Male Dwarf Warrior. Don't know why, it always is.

 

For "classic" fantasy dwarves, I've always thought the heaviest armour available, a big shield, a short, heavy stabbing spear or halberd, backed up with a heavy broad stabbing blade. All pretty well suited to close quarter fighting.In the second rank, a few dwarves with arbalests to shake up enemies out of sword range, by shooting out gaps in the shield wall.

 

When fighting dwarves on their home ground, I'd basically expect to see a wall of shields and armour with spiky things pointing out through the gaps and occasional glimpses of beard .

 

cheer, Mark

Actually do not understimate thier use of twohanded axes. Playing dwarves that often I realised that the twohanded axes seems much more fitting then axe and shield.

I think "Wars are not won with the broadside of a shield, but with the business end of a big axe" could be a dwarven Proverb warning against "overarmoring" yourself. Even without a shield a dwarf is still pretty tough.

 

 

About dwarves being often depicted as germanic or Norse, keep in mind that they come from Germanic and Norse Folklore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Germanic_mythology)

[mhd]

As someone who played dwarves in about any setting that had them* I have to say that I utterly despise J.R.R. Tolkien for his depiction of Dwarves.

[...]

I find that a much better source of ideas for powerfull but not broken dwarves is the books series starting with "The Dwarves". The Dwarven Characters have all the good qualities of being associated with dwarves (Craftmanship, fighting, durability, honor) without being artificially perfect and unbeatable.

Erm, that is Tolkien's depiction of dwarves (heck, that's still his name for them). Before that, dwarfs were mostly greedy, sneaky fairy buggers. Or later helpful cutesy fairy buggers.

(And certainly the inspiration for all those thick LotR copycat tomes that came out in Germany in the early oughts, right after the movies were released.)

 

I'd argue that even Tolkien's elves were more mortal and approachable than previous mythological incarnations. Haughty bastiches, sure, but compared to the alfr or especially the Irish & medieval myths...

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'd argue that even Tolkien's elves were more mortal and approachable than previous mythological incarnations. Haughty bastiches, sure, but compared to the alfr or especially the Irish & medieval myths...

And with flaws, usually in their characters, in the movies in particular. Elrond was very old, experienced, and -- at least in his own mind -- very wise. He was also haughty, dismissive of "lessers", had a strong selfish streak, and was openly racist towards humans. The fact that the one person he really cared about (Arwen) could actually love and sacrifice for a mortal (as opposed to using them as a plaything the way elves in myth were wont to do) really ate at his craw, and he did everything in his power to come between them.

 

Racism, in fact, was a common flaw of Tolkien elves. That they were so long-lived compared to everyone else made them contemptuous of all other races. (Of course, racism was also a common flaw of Tolkien himself.)

[tkdguy]

Actually, Elrond wasn't as snotty as Jackson depicted him in the movies. He had a fair amount of Mannish blood, after all. As for Arwen, remember that Elrond's children had the same choice he had: to be Elf or mortal. Remember the saying "you're not losing a daughter; you're gaining a son"? That wasn't the case for Elrond. He really was losing a daughter when she chose mortality.

[Old Man]

I always had the impression that Tolkien just wasn't as interested in dwarves as he was in elves. Elves basically dominate the early history of Middle Earth and elven/Numenorean heritage is claimed by any 'superior' example of Men.

 

Conversely, the dwarves don't even get an origin story. They just... appear out of the ground one day, and promptly spend most of the time avoiding everyone, good or bad.

[tkdguy]

They do have an origin story in the Silmarilion. They were fashioned by the Vala Aule in his impatience for the coming of Elves and Men. Eru allowed them to live, but not before the coming of the Elves. That's the official version now. In the early drafts, Dwarves were an evil race like the Orcs.

 

I remember reading an article claiming Tolkien invented the Elven languages first, then created a world to set them in. I can't verify that claim.

[bigbywolfe]

He and some friends invented codes and languages from a very young age and some of their more detailed linguistic creations went into the elven (and to a lesser degree dwarven and dark) languages. Saying that he invented a world just to accomodate his elf language is a bit disingenuous, bit it is true that at least aspects of the language predate his writings.

 

As to his treatment of dwarves, I always felt that in the LotR books Gimli and Legalas were shown as more or less equals, first as antagonistic allies and eventually as friends. It was the movies thay made Gimli the butt of every joke, not Tolkien.

[Greywind]

Legolas was actually able to get permission for Gimli to sail West.

[Greywind]

Playing dwarves that often I realised that the twohanded axes seems much more fitting then axe and shield.

 

I always equipped my dwarfs with two-handed axe or maul and shield, using the shield the way the vikings did: strapped to their back.

[Ninja-Bear]

Well I'm off to build the urgosh from dnd 3e

[Nolgroth]

Interesting discussion. Sort of sad that I missed out on the early parts before the battle of Agincourt and all those other thread drifts.

 

I've always thought durability and functionality when I think of dwarf weapons. I always thought of them in terms of extra DC or the aforementioned extra Body/Def to resist breakage. Since I see dwarf weapons as more damaging, I might even throw on an extra +1 Stun Multiple. I might even allow something like Piercing to be bought, to represent the razor sharp blades on axes (instead of the +1 Stun Multiple). For missile weapons, crossbows. I would probably allow for a level of Armor Piercing and a DC or two above other races. Throwing axes might get a +1 Range Mod due to balance.

 

Elf weapons, on the other hand, I've always thought of as light, fast, and supremely balanced. A slightly lower (1 or 2) point Str Minimum is probably in order. I might give a level or two of Lightning Reflexes and an OCV bonus. I might also allow for a minor (+1) bonus to Fast Draw with elvish weapons. For missile weapons, I have this thought that the bow is so well crafted that it offsets the cost of Rapid Shot. In many sources, elvish weapons are almost always enchanted, giving them even more bonuses.

 

Of course, these are generalities that play to the D&D stereotype.

[Outsider]

The way I used to do it was as follows:

 

A standard, by the book weapon is what the maker gets if he makes his Weaponsmith skill roll on the nose.

 

If his skill roll is not on the nose, then he gets Workmanship Quality Levels (WQLs), which can be positive or negative, depending on if he made or missed  the skill roll.

 

These levels are then 'spent' to modify the performance of the weapon.  The price of a given modification doubles the second time it is bought, triples the third time, and so on.

 

Performance modifier costs:

DC : 5  

OCV : 3

DEF : 3

BOD : 2

+5 Situational PRE : 3  (situation PRE means that the additional PRE is only usable for certain things, such as a particularly fearsome looking weapon improving intimidation based presence attacks when brandished, or a very noble looking one improving attempts to rally or inspire troops, etc)

 

 

As a second level, I also had Material Quality Levels (MQLs) that worked pretty much just like WQLs, with the exception that they could not be used to increase (or decrease) OCV or PRE.   How many MQLs one has to spend is fixed by what material is used. 

 

Examples :

-10 : Pure Silver

-8 :Pure Copper

-5 :Bronze

-3 : Iron

0 : Steel ("Good Iron")

+5 : Superior Steel  (Southern Steel, in my campaign)

+8 : Dwarven Steel

+10 : Elven Unobtanium Steel (Mithril, or whatever)

 

Note that it becomes possible to have both positive and negative QLs on the same weapon.  In such cases, both need to be spent, and can even cancel each other out.   "Yeah, its a dwarvwen steel blade, but the smith botched the job."

 

Finally, I also had a rule that if a smith is using an unfamiliar material, he took a penalty to his skill roll.  How big of a penalty varied a bit, but generally it was -3 or more.  When buying weaponsmith skill, the smith got one metal used by his culture for free as his "familiar" one, and could pay a character point for each additional metal.  Generally only Dwarves could buy a familiarity with Dwaven Steel, and only Southmen could buy familiarity with Southern Steel, and so on.

 

Edit : Super Finally : In my old campaign, superior materials were hard to come by for the PCs, so their effects were pretty big.   If you want a lesser effect from that for whatever reason, just change the numbers.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Did anyone in Tolkein actually use Mithril in currency? It seems to have been popular in armor, but less useful for weapons -- however, it was very valuable and rare and many such metals are coined in fantasy worlds.

 

I know there are some D&D worlds that use mithril in currency. But using a metal that hard (and presumably hard to forge into anything, possibly having a really high melting point that only the best smiths dare reach) defeats one of the purposes of coins, which is the ability to gauge the relative purity (and value) of the metal. Touchstones, a vital business rtool used for that purpose, would be useless on mithril which would not leave a mark regardless of composition.

[tkdguy]

MERP used mithril coins, but the game isn't necessarily tied to canon. The only coins mentioned in LOTR that I remember are silver pennies. Smaug had the treasure he took from the Dwarves, but I don't recall mithril being mentioned (or if Tolkien had invented it by then).

[L. Marcus]

I think the Professor retconned the silver mail shirt Bilbo got from the Dwarves into mithril. Haven't read There And Back Again in a while.

[tkdguy]

I think the Professor retconned the silver mail shirt Bilbo got from the Dwarves into mithril. Haven't read There And Back Again in a while.

 

I think you're correct.