It has me stumped since 5e began what is the noted difference between a hill and a mountain dwarf?
as it has never been explained, in FR they seem to be different colours but that would not need a stat block for that.
so what is the difference it can't just be that one lives in slightly less mountainous terrain as that would be the most superfluous thing I have ever heard of?
I go with the idea mountain dwarves live in the old holds in the mountains, hill dwarves are the more adventurous types who have begun to forge links with the surface (or left the holds due to overcrowding) and I guess ‘plains dwarves’ would be the ones who had fully embraced surface life. Not official, but this is my version.
A hill dwarf is like a valley dwarf, except they're from the Hills.
I've generally run mountain dwarves as more isolationist, dwelling deep within the mountains and rarely seen outside those parts. Whereas hill dwarves live closer to the lands of other peoples, and are more likely to be encountered. As such, my hill dwarves tend to get along with non-dwarves significantly better than their mountain dwelling cousins.
I go with the idea mountain dwarves live in the old holds in the mountains, hill dwarves are the more adventurous types who have begun to forge links with the surface (or left the holds due to overcrowding) and I guess ‘plains dwarves’ would be the ones who had fully embraced surface life. Not official, but this is my version.
A hill dwarf is like a valley dwarf, except they're from the Hills.
I've generally run mountain dwarves as more isolationist, dwelling deep within the mountains and rarely seen outside those parts. Whereas hill dwarves live closer to the lands of other peoples, and are more likely to be encountered. As such, my hill dwarves tend to get along with non-dwarves significantly better than their mountain dwelling cousins.
More seriously: I'm with you here. I get that there's supposed to be a distinction, but frankly I've never understood why being a mountain dwarf makes you stronger and teaches you to wear armor, while being a hill dwarf makes you wiser and increases your total HP. The PHB doesn't give anything to help understand the difference; frankly, the two seem like they're only different so dwarves can have two variants in the PHB.
There are multiple archetypes within the dwarf, but the distinction isn't communicated in the 5e PHB. Ironically, on this front, the World of Warcraft dwarves are much better; the difference between Bronzebeard (classic dwarves), Wildhammer (shamanic/spiritual dwarves), and Dark Iron (sorcerous/"duergar"-type dwarves) is actually well-done, and feels like three fully dwarf-appropriate options while still being genuinely distinct.
So, for my part, I'd run with that. Try to work in class/subclass associations into the different dwarf subtypes so you have a weight and meaning to it, not just seemingly-minor variations on the most basic dwarf idea. I also quite liked the idea from Divinity: Original Sin 2 that dwarves have taken quite well to sailing, so that gives four flavors: "classic" dwarves, "shamanic" dwarves, "sorcerous/psionic" dwarves, and "sailor" dwarves. Those all feel like they can be big enough to support distinct (sub)cultural aspects while still being similar enough that they still feel like they fit together.
More seriously: I'm with you here. I get that there's supposed to be a distinction, but frankly I've never understood why being a mountain dwarf makes you stronger and teaches you to wear armor, while being a hill dwarf makes you wiser and increases your total HP. The PHB doesn't give anything to help understand the difference; frankly, the two seem like they're only different so dwarves can have two variants in the PHB.
There are multiple archetypes within the dwarf, but the distinction isn't communicated in the 5e PHB. Ironically, on this front, the World of Warcraft dwarves are much better; the difference between Bronzebeard (classic dwarves), Wildhammer (shamanic/spiritual dwarves), and Dark Iron (sorcerous/"duergar"-type dwarves) is actually well-done, and feels like three fully dwarf-appropriate options while still being genuinely distinct.
So, for my part, I'd run with that. Try to work in class/subclass associations into the different dwarf subtypes so you have a weight and meaning to it, not just seemingly-minor variations on the most basic dwarf idea. I also quite liked the idea from Divinity: Original Sin 2 that dwarves have taken quite well to sailing, so that gives four flavors: "classic" dwarves, "shamanic" dwarves, "sorcerous/psionic" dwarves, and "sailor" dwarves. Those all feel like they can be big enough to support distinct (sub)cultural aspects while still being similar enough that they still feel like they fit together.
That's one possibility, sure. You could also consider it from the perspective of Order of the Stick dwarves, where they see "killing trees" as their sacred duty, so making a ship out of wood is the ultimate "we killed all these trees and now use their corpses as MOVING FORTRESSES on the ocean."
That's one possibility, sure. You could also consider it from the perspective of Order of the Stick dwarves, where they see "killing trees" as their sacred duty, so making a ship out of wood is the ultimate "we killed all these trees and now use their corpses as MOVING FORTRESSES on the ocean."
