What's the appeal of playing a Dwarf? Why people love drunken bearded manlets so much?

Ditto this.

>but what draws me to dwarves is their crafty nature

Isn't that more of a half ling thing though?

>dat Olympia
I love Little Big

I really wanna bang a midget, closest thing I can get to banging an actual fantasy creature.

I like how dwarven traditionalism breaks the 4th wall.

shame they generally have deformed faces or limbs
also a shame that they don't come in green

No one said neckbeards were intelligent, my nigga

They don't love
>drunken bearded manlets
They love
>focused and strong honorbound underground vikings

Not gonna lie, that's pretty hot.

You get to punch folks in the nuts.

There are so many fucking reasons as to why your shouldn't like small races. Like any man-sized average race should be able to beat the fuck out of any average dwarf let alone something smaller. There should be more depictions of dwarves using ranged weapons and shield walls with long pointy sticks anchored into the ground instead of weapons they'd never even be able to use effectively in the first place. Beyond their honor which is really the biggest selling point for dwarves all those short races realistically have is fetish bait. Strength is good but speed and stature is better. I like dwarves but they're shit. They're the only excusable manlet race but even sometimes then...

You're a limped dicked faggot who takes it up the ass from Chad before you turn around and clean the shit off his dick with your lips. And you think that makes you better than circus midgets.

You seem upset.

It's therapy for our tourette's
youtube.com/watch?v=KjHclWPVij0

> Like any man-sized average race should be able to beat the fuck out of any average dwarf let alone something smaller. There should be more depictions of dwarves using ranged weapons and shield walls with long pointy sticks anchored into the ground instead of weapons they'd never even be able to use effectively in the first place.

Why do retards always want to ruin fantasy by making it realistic?

I'm already a bearded manlet, so why not?

Dwelf threads are not something I can meaningfully review, as they don't belong to a singular baiter. Rather, behavior of these threads has become an interesting mirror of Dwarf and Elf Relations, with Dwarf and Elf fans arguing like the races they enjoy so much have feuds.

Veeky Forums like dwarves and hate elves because elves are tall, beautiful and aristocratic; while dwarves are short, scruffy and crude; so Veeky Forums can relate to the latter.

I'm not ruining shit because realistic dwarves could still be fantastic but only that short race. They're the only ones which have enough established characteristics to be done so. It's just how you present it. I swear YOU faggots are the worst.

Make them more technological due to having longer lifespans than humans and because they're craftsman. Make them cunning merchants and firm diplomats. Make them honorable if pissy at sometimes but ultimately learned. Make them wield crossbows or repeaters instead of hammers or axes. Make it so their holds are set up in such a way that bigger races literally cannot besiege them due to how they're constructed in relation to their size.

They have mountains one of the most strategic factors in defense in addition to passages literally no one else knows about. In open combat they should lose almost literally every time but in their own turf they should be nigh unconquerable. There is so much that could be done with them they're just squandered. Like if the setting has golems just one of those should be able to repel a small army or a large one depending. You just gotta do things smart.

More Balin.

>beautiful
Look, if I wanted to fuck a twig, I'd want something thicker & I'm sure the trees will do.

>I like dwarves but they're shit.

Something tells me you're not being honest about your feelings.

Reminder that Dwarves are where the whores go to.

Crafty as in building/making things.

You can like something and it still be shit. Most things are shit or simply not good. In relation to fantasy races there is typically one that just does everything or most things better and that's usually humans. So in regards to that they are lesser but that doesn't mean I have to wholeheartedly hate them only recognize the ups and downs.

By your logic nobody should ever be able to defeat a dragon because playable races are much much smaller

What said.

I'll play any race. The appeal of a dwarf or of dwarves for me lies largely in my descent. I am kind of a northern-European mutt, but I am most strongly Scotch-Irish, and secondly Danish-Scandinavian.

I dig the culture, and I dig the aesthetic. I can play a stereotypical dwarf-paladin or cleric or ranger or whatever, and be right in my comfy happy place for roleplaying.

I'm also a metalworker by trade, and playing an ascended blacksmith to adventurer appeals to me.

Unless you corner one in a cave dragons should be basically unkillable, yes. Dragons are often not given enough credit. If you're dumb enough to try and fight one outside you should just get hit and run to death in almost every case. There are ways to get around that like magical resistance but that only means it won't try to flame you not claw your ass as it goes by. Dragons are highly intelligent in a lot of cases so they're going to fight smart. In cases that they're not they're going to fight like an animal which is arguably worse because it makes them less predictable.

A single mortal or only a handful for that matter killing a dragon should be the equivalent of a mortal or mortals striking down a god. Even an army killing one should be an event that goes into the history books.

> Make their culture techy, give the crossbows, make them dug-in bastards that are difficult to siege.

You mean how >80% of fantasy settings have them by default?

Yeah, axes and hammers are not the most effective weapons for people of their size. Not in mass combat, anyway. Most material I've seen is not built for mass combat, and when it is, any self respecting writer would give an army spears. Hammers and axes are, however, appropriate thematically. Miners, craftsdwarfs and lumbering? War-picks and hammers (often combined), and axes seem the natural choice.

They're also usually given lore which makes them as strong, if not stronger than, an average human. Yes, speed and reach are better to have than raw strength in a melee, especially if unarmored, but speed is not armor, and most pulp-fantasy gives no fucks about speed or reach as being relevant factors.

Honestly, there are _way_ worse things to sperg about. Double-bit axes, everywhere, for instance. Whatever-maille as a trope. The ridiculous prevalence of big, fuckoff swords or similarly large two-handed weapons which prevent the use of a shield. Gold Pieces being the standard for many, many settings.

I would argue that most people are attracted to the trope of "shortstack that can fuck up orcs" instead of "well, you're short so you'll have to fight like a little bitch and stay in your mountain palace" Most people don't like limitations being put into their fantasy, especially when those limitations are only going to appeal to people who get hung up on minutiae like this.

Most of the situations you're describing would never happen, because RPGs are usually about exploring, not staying in defensive positions and waiting for the enemy to come to you. Your Dwarves make sense, but playing them wouldn't be much fun.

>especially if unarmored, but speed is not armor
Armor is a detriment if one is wearing it and the other isn't in a lot of cases at least one on one. Even in the case that both are wearing armor a human would still have more reach, leverage, and speed which would ultimately make the fight.
>and most pulp-fantasy gives no fucks about speed or reach as being relevant factors.
And that's unfortunate as it can make a fight before it even begins.
>Honestly, there are _way_ worse things to sperg about. Double-bit axes, everywhere, for instance.
I threw that in there with the hammers and axe bits though not specifically. Some things should go without saying but I'll accept that criticism.
>Your Dwarves make sense, but playing them wouldn't be much fun.
And that's unfortunate but it's how it is as it goes for all dwarves. I like them. They're just shit. They'd make a much better or I would even argue one of the the best if not the best NPC race in fiction.

Because they are boisterous, loud, loyal, jovial, unintentionally funny, etc, like a whole race of cool uncles or somethingt. People focus on the positive aspects, ignoring that it's a race of tiny, angry, hirsute men with women looking like a midget versions of qajar princesses.

>t. bad dragon owner

We kill big animals all the time, it's not that extraordinary.

>Armor is a detriment if one is wearing it.
lolwut. You ever wear it, or fight in it? It takes stamina to do, sure, and fighting in it for too long will definitely fatigue someone, but it is almost always to the benefit of the person wearing it. Well made armor has a greater range of motion than its wearer, and doesn't impede them from making quick or complicated movements, excepting, perhaps, jousting armor.

Yes, a human would have more reach and leverage than a dwarf. A lethal armored melee would ultimately come down to the weapon choice, though. The murderstrike and half-handing are certainly reasonable and documented things, but wouldn't it be nicer to have a Bec De Corbin or Lucerne Hammer which can crush through, or pierce?

Strength is often, but not always, a strong factor in speed. Assuming that the dwarfs have comparable or superior strength, but not leverage. Here, speed of the combatant should be ignored, and speed and reach of the weapon should be the focus. I've already conceded that speed and reach are paramount in unarmored combat.

Assuming that in any generic fantasy setting, the short of stature and stout of limb, and of comparable outright strength, I think it would make a good deal of sense for an average dwarf to have sturdier armor, and rarely be without it. Because there's less surface area, a dwarf might use the same amount of raw material that a human might for their armor, but for thicker pieces. Assuming also that the armor is made by craftsdwarfs, it would also stand to reason that it is stronger on average than human armors of comparable thickness.

Strength is often, but not always, a strong factor in speed. Assuming that the dwarfs have comparable or superior strength, but not leverage. Here, speed of the combatant should be ignored, and speed and reach of the weapon should be the focus. I've already conceded that speed/reach are paramount in unarmored combat.

Ultimately, I think dwarfs should be comparable, not inferior.

Fucked up my editing, have the same paragraph twice. Please excuse the dumb.

You know I'd like to think I've been a good sport with trying to be reason and all but your post is just fucking so stupid. We don't have animals as big as whales with mystical skin who also can breathe fire and fly but also is smarter than a man. Also said man doesn't have a gun.
At its most basic it's size. We can argue speed and strength but even assuming both those things are the same neither making a difference it still goes back to size. It is incredibly easy for someone significantly taller to beat someone significantly shorter. Overpower them, throw them, move them... In at the lowest case we're talking a foot difference but on average it's gonna be more like a foot an a half. In an extreme case of a human who is just above six feet to six and a half feet we're talking like two whole feet in difference. It took me a minute to find a picture of what the average two would look like together but it'd be something like pic related.

There is always the armor and that it would be crafted better. There is also that most people get killed in those cases by blunt force and if you exclude that being stabbed in the open bits. I just think the difference in reach and size would be so extreme that it wouldn't matter. You could literally hold them at an arm's length and just kick the shit out of them. It's reminds me of the old meme "how many children could you beat in a fight". I don't think dwarves would be completely incapable of fighting in melee I just don't think in the grand scheme of things they'd be good at it or win in any real capacity. At the end of the day humans have bigger sticks.

I'd like to see you fight an orangutan, which is both short and fat, and see how well you fare.

Go ahead, stick your hand out and just kick at it. I really want to see how that works out.

A dwarf wishes it had the strength and speed of an orangutan.

>speed
>of an orangutan.

Orangutans don't move fast on the ground. They are built to travel from tree branch to tree branch. They are not super speedy creatures, just strong and agile enough to balance on branches.

youtube.com/watch?v=E8J7jxc8_Pw

A dwarf may not be as strong as an orangutan but they are still much stronger than a human. Denser muscle fibers.

>Dwarves are just small hairy mountain elves
Oh come on, by that logic everything is an elf.
Kobolds are just feral scaly elves
Minotaurs are just big bull-elves
Humans are just completely unspecialized elves
Demons are just horny elves.
In fact, I bet you're a fucking elf yourself.

I suddenly remember I once threw around the idea of a beastfolk-heavy setting where the backstory was that all of the beasts descended from the degenerate elves of old, who started turning into/shagging animals for fun and wound up permanently turning themselves/their offspring into gnolls, minotaurs, lupins, lizardfolk, and so forth...

Let them be even twice as strong as a human. I still don't see it happening. It's just too unrealistic. Size matters a considerable amount when fighting someone.

In my decades of experience, tall dudes and dudettes play dwarves with greater frequency than shorts.

But the shorts who play dwarves play them with gusto.

>You know I'd like to think I've been a good sport with trying to be reason and all but your post is just fucking so stupid. We don't have animals as big as whales with mystical skin who also can breathe fire and fly but also is smarter than a man. Also said man doesn't have a gun.
>all settings are D&D

Tell that shit to Saint George loser.

As I said, I'd like to see you fight an orangutan and show me just how superior your height and reach are to a short, fat ape.

You're probably much taller than a chimpanzee. Can you take one in a fight?

Even if a dwarf was twice as strong as a human they'd not be nearly that strong or as durable. This analogy is fucking shit and you know it. How about your dwarf go and fight a giraffe, eh? Seems about as fair.

They're strong enough to pose a credible threat to humans. That's exactly how strong they are.

How about you go and fight the giraffe?

Her body says Short Stack but her face says 12 year old and my dick is confused.

Nearly as strong or durable as an ape? Who knows, this is fucking fantasy. A dwarf in one setting might have the strength of an ape. Which really highlights how moronic your argument has been the whole time, what with trying to impose your "realistic" take on the anatomy of fictional creatures.

The funniest part is that even compared to real life, your argument still falls flat on its face. You could pit a 7 foot tall, 450 pound giant of a human man against a 4'6" orangutan that weighs 200 pounds (which is about exactly the size of most dwarves in fantasy settings, just proportioned and distributed differently) and the human would still get his shit pushed in faster than you could blink.

You ever think about going fisticuffs against a Baboon? It's smaller than you so it should be no problem, right?

Humans are strong enough to pose a credible threat to humans. Moderately sized dogs are strong enough to pose a credible threat to humans. Small monkeys are strong enough to pose a credible threat to humans. Dwarves are just much smaller, slightly stronger, slightly tougher, and slower humans. They pose a threat but it is much less than that of a human.
I was never arguing the fucking monkeys. Christ.
>Well what if this dwarf is a super giga nigga who can chew metal and take bullets and is also Superman
Could probably kill a human, yeah. MOST depictions of dwarves do not give them nearly enough to actually be a real threat to humans comparable to humans. MOST deceptions make them considerably shorter to a detriment which would make them nearly incapable of combat with some other races and slightly stronger and tougher but also slower. They're not fucking monkeys. They're not these inhumanly strong inhumanly tough things. I get you like dwarves but fuck off they're not silverbacks. I get I'm on Veeky Forums so criticizing whatever is just going to get shit flinging but fuck off with this shit.

>Dwarves are just much smaller, slightly stronger, slightly tougher, and slower humans.

No, they are strong enough to pose a credible threat to humans. This can be seen in the countless pieces of fiction and games where they do just that you moronic sperg.

>MOST depictions of dwarves do not give them nearly enough to actually be a real threat to humans comparable to humans.

Except they do, as evidenced by the fact dwarves pose a threat to humans in those pieces of fiction. Case closed.

>I get I'm on Veeky Forums so criticizing whatever is just going to get shit flinging but fuck off with this shit.

You're not a victim here, you're just an idiot.

t. Hairy Mountain Elf

>Dwarves are just much smaller, slightly stronger, slightly tougher, and slower humans.
>I was never arguing the fucking monkeys. Christ.
>They're not fucking monkeys. They're not these inhumanly strong inhumanly tough things.

Here's what you fail to grasp and why your argument keeps falling apart, dumbshit.

Dwarves AREN'T human. They are a different species entirely and are INCAPABLE of producing offspring with humans in 99% of popular settings.

You can keep crying that you were never comparing apes to humans, but the fact of the matter is that you're using a human's anatomy as a basis for your argument against a nonhuman creature in the first place.

They pose a threat to humans but it's not humans btfo gg like you're arguing with silverbacks

Which somehow humans have been hunting for thousands of years

I'm sure if silverbacks were smart enough to create and use weapons they would be the ones hunting humans.

Read, fag, read. I said not as credible to humans as humans not that they are not.
>as evidenced by the fact dwarves pose a threat to humans in those pieces of fiction
Because they get fucking wanked. Put dwarves and humans in a fight against each other under those same conditions without the bullshit and the dwarves get steamrolled.
It literally doesn't matter. They're not THAT different. They're not some divine race of super beings they're a super manlets who has been to the mines throughout their life. They have callused skin not some sheet of fucking iron that's gonna stop a dagger.

>Put dwarves and humans in a fight against each other under those same conditions without the bullshit and the dwarves get steamrolled.

Only because you think so. People have provided plenty of evidence in here to prove you wrong. It's a shame you're too stupid to realize when you've been beaten at your own game.

>It literally doesn't matter. They're not THAT different.

It does, you fucking idiot. They're a completely separate species, much like humans and organgutans. And, yes they are VASTLY different. Dwarves boast INNATE resistances to shit like poison, cold, and fire (depending on the setting) whereas that stuff kills humans easily.

>They're not some divine race of super beings they're a super manlets who has been to the mines throughout their life.

In some settings, they are created directly by a god. So...?

>They have callused skin not some sheet of fucking iron that's gonna stop a dagger.

Yeah, that's why they have armor. You've been arguing about reach against a dwarf and your go-to example is a dagger? Anyone dumb enough to get close enough to use a dagger against a dwarf is going to die.

>Put dwarves and humans in a fight against each other under those same conditions without the bullshit and the dwarves get steamrolled.

Except they wouldn't, because we know from their capabilities in fiction that they're on roughly equal footing with humans as combatants.

I've only ever seen dwarves played as literally the same character. They're boring, at least people sometimes play brown slave elves.

>at least people sometimes play brown slave elves.

Maybe in /pfg/, which is where you should go back to.

Why do people on the internet always get so assmad about short people?

Because they themselves are insecure about something and so need to pick on an imaginary strawman to make themselves feel better.

Get off the internet Grod

Veeky Forums in particular attracts people who are social pariahs or NEETs. When you have nothing going for you, short people are an easy target.

Yeah because it's "sexist" for me, a man, to want to play a manly character.

>any man-sized average race should be able to beat the fuck out of any average dwarf let alone something smaller.

You're absolutely right. You should go out right now and try to beat up a chimpanzee. Or a badger. Or hey, a bobcat. Those things are all pretty small compared to you, so you'll kick their asses, don't worry.

Well, now you're talking about Elder Scrolls.

>Size matters a considerable amount when fighting someone.
Yeah, ask any boxer and he'll tell you, a guy with fifty pounds on you is more dangerous than a guy with better reach.

Don't forget that the guy with fifty pounds on you is also one who punches right at nutsack level

>Put dwarves and humans in a fight against each other under those same conditions without the bullshit and the dwarves get steamrolled.

You realize that the Romans were a head shorter than most of the people they fought, and still destroyed the armies of half the world with minimal effort. The differences in body size you are talking about are almost totally inconsequential compared to things like weapon technology, troop discipline, and tactics. I can only guess you're trolling. Or really know nothing about anything.

But user, if armour is bad, why is it that every single godamned armed conflict involves armour or some way or other, and the most melee centric pitched battles had things like full metal suits?

You're spouting conjecture.

Most D&D players are bearded manlets who think drinking is cool (but don't actually do it because they'd get a hangover from one beer).

I don't really like the drunken bearded manlet part, but the clannish, militaristic and regimented society they have is pretty cool and offers a ton of interesting opportunities for RP which don't exist in freer societies.

Also this

I have the microphilia fetish. Finding a dwarf woman whose proportions aren't all fucked up would be a dream.

Because sometimes, you just want a game about vat-grown gun-toting xenophobes who just want the dinosaur-worshipping jungle tribes to leave them alone so they and their human slave can get back to fixing the world machine that the gods so stupidly broke.

Glorantha's kind of weird place.

Attitude. Its all in the attitude.

>Arguing the fucking monkeys.
>Cannot into basic taxonomy, and as a result, tortured by Dr. Zaius in the name of science.

Orangutans, Baboons, Chimps, Bonobos, etc, all of which are defensive and determined as fuck, are APES, as are humans.

As others have pointed out, generic fantasy setting X almost certainly has dwarves that are by definition inhumanly strong and tough. I still don't know where you're getting "slow" from. Maybe not a very long stride, but natural sprinters, you see.

All this philosophical hypothetical jerking off hasn't made much progress. You've just refused to budge on that they're inferior because they're short, and as other have pointed out, stature is not the end of the fight. Better believe that stocky 200+ pound walking beard will toss your high-center-of-gravity ass on the ground, and won't budge.

Here, watch some other nerds talk this to death:
youtu.be/cDt_tIcca-k
youtu.be/seih9n2MuYc
youtu.be/FaUm5Fer0Pc

I still think they miss the potential of the war-pick/hammer weapons, like Bec De Corbin, etc.

One on one, it all depends on the situation; armed, armored, with what, etc. Ultimately in a generic pseudo-medieval fantasy setting, dwarves should absolutely be competitive or comparable with humans.

...

I thought there would be more hot dwarf chicks posted in this thread.

Does that even exist in reality?

They're called children

Depends on your definition of manly.

If "manly" means excessive facial hair, xenophobia, and a lack of a sense of humour, then by all means play a dwarf.

But if "manly" means a complete lack of facial hair, xenophobia, and a lack of a sense of humor, then an elf might more be your speed.

Not sure if we're on the same page, or not. I think we are, but I can't quite tell.

I still dispute that stupid-large double-bit axes are reasonable, but at a certain point, there's a conceit to be made for fantasy.

Next time, can you just put the words "dwarf" and "manlet" and leave everything else off? My time is limited.

What about stupid large axes... with a SINGLE BIT.

We are. I was just posting that because it's a good argument in the comments of one of those videos you linked.

THAT'S THE ANSWER!