Hmm, the only build I ever got tired of was a "Shatter Warlock" in 3.5... the character literally ruined almost every low-level encounter I threw at the party, and made combats with humanoids unfun for me to run. I had to give my big bad evil guy a cursed weapon just to keep the player from shattering it without also making the bad guy too powerful.
In pathfinder, I'm a little tired of Dex-to-Everything builds; both the lengths players will go to create them, and the fact that strength doesn't seem to get the kind of feat love that dexterity does from the developers. As a GM, I find it frustrating when players build (or try to build) characters under the assumption that any given ability score should be able to be used for everything that character does and every single check that character has to make.
Worse is when these players become annoyed that the rules don't let them do it; which drags out character generation while they search for a way to do it, or beg me to house-rule one. Second only to when said players can, and do (but usually at great expense); and get annoyed when I "use" one or more of their many dump-stats against them by posing a challenge which requires a check they didn't optimize for...
Example: When the players of a Dexterity Build have to track their encumbrance, or make the occasional climb or swim check as part of adventuring in the wilderness.
I'm kind of tired less of any particular build and more of the stat paradigm I usually see: decent dex, high con, decent wisdom, dump strength if you aren't an archer or non-dex to damage melee, dump int if you don't care about skills, dump cha if you don't have anything running off of it. I've been able to pretty regularly predict a character's stats just knowing their class, even with players that I don't regularly game with.
I don't really blame players though, it's just Paizo has decided that certain stats should have little or no incentive to invest in and other stats are nearly mandatory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd invest more into strength if everything that wasn't damage wasn't solved with level 1 spells.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards with high intelligence.
Yeah, primary casters that actually use their casting stat are boring AF. I once played with a guy who had a sorcerer with a 14 cha, and a 17 str. With a few spells, he would literally rip doors off of their hinges.
and nobody liked him, because he only had a 14 cha.
WE WEREN'T EVEN HIGH ENOUGH LEVEL FOR HIM TO CAST 5TH LEVEL SPELLS!
I don't really blame players though, it's just Paizo has decided that certain stats should have little or no incentive to invest in and other stats are nearly mandatory.
To be fair, in the long run the difference between starting 16 and 18 will matter for around 1 in 20 rolls, and stat-dumping to do things like build a moron with next to no skills can have terrible consequences if a GM actually cares. I don't think Paizo is really responsible for a culture that says 'I don't care if I'm an imbecile with a face/personality like cheese gone bad, I need 5% more combats!". Whether people game like that or not really depends on the people.
Their legs are shorter?
Yet somehow, a halfling with Enlarge Person on him still has 20 feet movement rate...
Yet somehow, a halfling with Enlarge Person on him still has 20 feet movement rate...
Don't forget that goblins have movement 30... because that's totally fair...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards with high intelligence.Yeah, primary casters that actually use their casting stat are boring AF. I once played with a guy who had a sorcerer with a 14 cha, and a 17 str. With a few spells, he would literally rip doors off of their hinges.
and nobody liked him, because he only had a 14 cha.
WE WEREN'T EVEN HIGH ENOUGH LEVEL FOR HIM TO CAST 5TH LEVEL SPELLS!
On a similar note... I once took a survey (one of those stupid facebook ones) which said I was a 3rd level wizard with a 13 Int, yet I had a 16 Dex and an 18 Con. It made me wonder if A) my GM didn't have me roll my stats after I picked my class and human ability score bonus, and B) could I retrain as a ranger... please!?.
I don't really blame players though, it's just Paizo has decided that certain stats should have little or no incentive to invest in and other stats are nearly mandatory.To be fair, in the long run the difference between starting 16 and 18 will matter for around 1 in 20 rolls, and stat-dumping to do things like build a moron with next to no skills can have terrible consequences if a GM actually cares. I don't think Paizo is really responsible for a culture that says 'I don't care if I'm an imbecile with a face/personality like cheese gone bad, I need 5% more combats!". Whether people game like that or not really depends on the people.
Maybe not entirely, people can always min-max less or try out weird builds, but Paizo's still providing the tools to make it so easy to do. I can replicate everything Charisma or Strength does with traits, feats, spells and/or items, while no amount of any of the above will make ignoring wisdom, dex or con a particularly good idea.
I can replicate everything Charisma or Strength does with traits, feats, spells and/or items, while no amount of any of the above will make ignoring wisdom, dex or con a particularly good idea.
There are limits to how completely one can replace strength or charisma mechanically; there's a reason Paizo resists full-on dex-to-damage through feats, and a reason some people keep clamoring for it. But even so, Fencing Grace won't cover your 8 STR on a straight strength-test, or help your weakened CMD when it's targeted repeatedly; and resources spent on contriving ways to get around a low stat are resources spent.
The more profound qustion would be: what's the feat or trait that lets that 8STR Fighter trying to be a melee badass not have the bearing of a 17 year old who could really use a sandwitch?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh...I thought this thread was going to be about builds that cause fatigue.
On that note, how about making your build fresh by breaking the 'shocking' mold with a magus that focuses on cold spell debuffs.
There are limits to how completely one can replace strength or charisma mechanically; there's a reason Paizo resists full-on dex-to-damage through feats, and a reason some people keep clamoring for it. But even so, Fencing Grace won't cover your 8 STR on a straight strength-test, or help your weakened CMD when it's targeted repeatedly; and resources spent on contriving ways to get around a low stat are resources spent.
There are and it is resources spent, but they aren't really resources that are that expensive and the limits are much broader than they are for other stats.
My bruising intellect fighter gains just as much from having 7 cha as she does from having 14 cha. The stat is meaningless to her outside some random mob that does charisma drain for one trait, zero traits if I want to skip out on intimidate, but even with three feats and a trait invested into padding out effects she still wants a high wisdom score, because there's no way to replace that bonus at all.
That's why I say it's tired, because it's so much easier to build characters that ignore scores like those, to the point where if you aren't running a specific build certain stats do little or nothing for you, so I end up seeing it a lot. Low strength wizards and low charisma anyone who isn't a cha caster or a face. Even the faces sometimes just go with student of philosophy or orator and dump cha for int instead.
I really detest people concept building "The best" at a starting low level campaign. That their character is the best fighter/wizard/assassin and they are entering a campaign that starts under level 7.
My bruising intellect fighter gains just as much from having 7 cha as she does from having 14 cha. The stat is meaningless to her... if you aren't running a specific build certain stats do little or nothing for you...
I know a GM who will routinely have potentially dangerous, hostile or fickle NPCs look at a 7 CHA character and say something like "what the f*** is his problem?" And upon failing a Diplomacy check with a circumstance penalty, consequences ensue. Not to mention that responding with anything even remotely approaching social grace will be called out. If people choose to play a roleplaying game in such a way that stats have zero consequences outside of derived statistics that are used only when convenient, then so be it.
Besides, if charisma was the only way to intimidate in combat, you wouldn't see more solid charisma melee characters among combat optimizers; you'd see way less intimidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bruising intellect fighter gains just as much from having 7 cha as she does from having 14 cha. The stat is meaningless to her... if you aren't running a specific build certain stats do little or nothing for you...I know a GM who will routinely have potentially dangerous, hostile or fickle NPCs look at a 7 CHA character and say something like "what the f*** is his problem?" And upon failing a Diplomacy check with a circumstance penalty, consequences ensue. Not to mention that responding with anything even remotely approaching social grace will be called out. If people choose to play a roleplaying game in such a way that stats have zero consequences outside of derived statistics that are used only when convenient, then so be it.
Besides, if charisma was the only way to intimidate in combat, you wouldn't see more solid charisma melee characters among combat optimizers; you'd see way less intimidate.
Honestly that sounds like a dick GM... The classic wizard/mage/academic in most stories is going to have a junk charisma score. Hell, anyone walking up to a different culture will automatically come across as "off" just do to the nature of what people view as normal. Making a seemingly direct and active attempt to punish a player because you don't like it as apposed to just saying no go is pretty petty...
Honestly that sounds like a dick GM... The classic wizard/mage/academic in most stories is going to have a junk charisma score. Hell, anyone walking up to a different culture will automatically come across as "off" just do to the nature of what people view as normal. Making a seemingly direct and active attempt to punish a player because you don't like it as apposed to just saying no go is pretty petty...
He's not at all a dick. He just sometimes 'punishes' (or potentially rewards) players based on their stats in the way that the combat system 'punishes' low dexterity with low initiative, or low constitution with low fortitude. He fleshes the game out enough that you don't get to say "oh, I'm only going to ever use CHA for intimidate, and I've got Bruising Intellect, so my abysmal CHA will never matter!"; you have to live up to your stats. Which in my opinion makes for a very awesome experience.
Also... when you're walking into a different culture and have trouble building bridges is when having natural charisma - as opposed to being the personality equivalent of a walking tire-fire - is going to make the most difference. Old Screw-Face Thog may just end up a disastrous liability...
My bruising intellect fighter gains just as much from having 7 cha as she does from having 14 cha. The stat is meaningless to her... if you aren't running a specific build certain stats do little or nothing for you...I know a GM who will routinely have potentially dangerous, hostile or fickle NPCs look at a 7 CHA character and say something like "what the f*** is his problem?" And upon failing a Diplomacy check with a circumstance penalty, consequences ensue. Not to mention that responding with anything even remotely approaching social grace will be called out. If people choose to play a roleplaying game in such a way that stats have zero consequences outside of derived statistics that are used only when convenient, then so be it.
Besides, if charisma was the only way to intimidate in combat, you wouldn't see more solid charisma melee characters among combat optimizers; you'd see way less intimidate.
Well I mean, yeah, if you houserule punishments onto someone because of their stat distribution, the conversation changes, but that's neither here nor there. I play in a game where characters can sub their Charisma for their will save instead of their Wisdom and there are a lot more people with decent charisma scores in that game too, but this thread seems to be talking more about the game as is.
Well I mean, yeah, if you houserule punishments onto someone because of their stat distribution, the conversation changes, but that's neither here nor there. I play in a game where characters can sub their Charisma for their will save instead of their Wisdom and there are a lot more people with decent charisma scores in that game too, but this thread seems to be talking more about the game as is.
It's a "houserule" for a GM to factor charisma into someone's general social ability or impression?
Anyhow, as I said before, people who want to min/max ability scores aren't likely to change things up because they can't use something like Bruising Intellect; what will change is that they don't ever use intimidate. I'm just trying to point out that Paizo didn't create a game where you have to dump charisma in order to extract the most possible mechanical combat benefits. You're free to create a fighter/face that starts with 16 STR; the sky is unlikely to fall, even if doing it requires a save vs. nausea.
Whether or not a given player or group cares about what ability scores represent or do beyond their derived mechanical benefits in combat - or for pick-n-choose outside applications - and whether or not those players have to optimize in such a way as to end up with 'tired builds', is ultimately on them and their GM collectively. There's no judgement in that statement by they way; whatever is fun is the point. Just don't blame Paizo for making you do it.
Well I mean, yeah, if you houserule punishments onto someone because of their stat distribution, the conversation changes, but that's neither here nor there. I play in a game where characters can sub their Charisma for their will save instead of their Wisdom and there are a lot more people with decent charisma scores in that game too, but this thread seems to be talking more about the game as is.It's a "houserule" for a GM to factor charisma into someone's general social ability or impression?
Anyhow, as I said before, people who want to min/max ability scores aren't likely to change things up because they can't use something like Bruising Intellect; what will change is that they don't ever use intimidate. I'm just trying to point out that Paizo didn't create a game where you have to dump charisma in order to extract the most possible mechanical combat benefits. You're free to create a fighter/face that starts with 16 STR; the sky is unlikely to fall, even if doing it requires a save vs. nausea.
Whether or not a given player or group cares about what ability scores represent or do beyond their derived mechanical benefits in combat - or for pick-n-choose outside applications - and whether or not those players have to optimize in such a way as to end up with 'tired builds', is ultimately on them and their GM collectively. There's no judgement in that statement by they way; whatever is fun is the point. Just don't blame Paizo for making you do it.
I think what we are trying to point out is that unless "Old Screw-Face Thog" is your face character they shouldn't be being forced to do the make or break diplomacy. Unless your GM is also demanding that the wizard break down the doors it comes across as targeting and houseruling against something they don't like but won't ban.
I think what we are point out is that unless "Old Screw-Face Thog" is your face character they shouldn't be being forced to do the make or break diplomacy. Unless your GM is also demanding that the wizard break down the doors it comes across as targeting and houseruling against something they don't like but won't ban.
Who said anything about 'doing the make or break diplomacy'? It's a question of presence. Is everyone who isn't the face invisible in a social situation? The same GM may throw involuntary strength-check situations at low-strength characters; in his games, you don't get to decide that some of your stats will never be relevant. It's not punishment; if anything it's realism and a character/roleplaying hook that makes more of the game than a glorified combat-sim with a lame social side-bar that gets solo'd by the designated box-checker.
But leaving that particular style of game aside since it's apparently such a shock... as I said before, Paizo didn't create a game that forces stale min/max builds or stats, and they don't tend to publish stuff that requires it. That kind of thing is generally on the player or on the overall 'gaming culture' of that group/GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fey Foundling Tiefling Paladins.... ridiculous numbers of these.
I think one of the primary reasons for this sort of thing is favored class bonuses being tied to race. Remove the race restriction from all favored class bonuses and charscter diversity would increase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what we are point out is that unless "Old Screw-Face Thog" is your face character they shouldn't be being forced to do the make or break diplomacy. Unless your GM is also demanding that the wizard break down the doors it comes across as targeting and houseruling against something they don't like but won't ban.Who said anything about 'doing the make or break diplomacy'? It's a question of presence. Is everyone who isn't the face invisible in a social situation? The same GM may throw involuntary strength-check situations at low-strength characters; in his games, you don't get to decide that some of your stats will never be relevant. It's not punishment; if anything it's realism and a character/roleplaying hook that makes more of the game than a glorified combat-sim with a lame social side-bar that gets solo'd by the designated box-checker.
But leaving that particular style of game aside since it's apparently such a shock... as I said before, Paizo didn't create a game that forces stale min/max builds or stats, and they don't tend to publish stuff that requires it. That kind of thing is generally on the player or on the overall 'gaming culture' of that group/GM.
Yeah, it's technically a house rule in the sense that anything that doesn't have explicit rules is a house rule, but it's EXTREMELY common for the baseline CHA of the party to influence people's starting attitude towards you, at the very least.
There's no rules on determining that nobility is going to scoff at people of little status, but it's common sense. Similarly, there's no explicit rules here, but it's pretty obvious- those with low CHA are going to be reacted to as if they had low CHA.
And yeah, arguably this would fall under "Ability Checks" so even RAW there's reasons to avoid having a low CHA would be a serious liability in a social setting. Just like having low STR is going to be a serious liability in any game that forces you to track encumbrance, at least at the low levels.
But don't get me wrong. There's a huge difference between "making social situations harder" and "not dying". THAT is why CON and WIS in particular are undumpable compared to all other stats, and DEX is up there, because dumping it also makes you easier to kill. Survival trumps all, and some stats are tied to survival.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a "houserule" for a GM to factor charisma into someone's general social ability or impression?
I think the complaint was the "And upon failing a Diplomacy check with a circumstance penalty, consequences ensue." comment. Especially if the 7 Cha character doesn't have a reason to talk to the NPC.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the same token, the moron barbarian annoys me to no end. Due to his 7 int and 8 wis, he is too dumb to know not to taste the dead demon, understand that he should't deck the king in the middle of court, or remember to remove his armor before swimming. But the player is just "playing his character."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm tired of: players who treat their low charisma as if it were 5 times worse than it is and try to pick a fight with everyone they meet.
Related and back on topic: When Lawful Good is played (or forced to play) Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Neutral is played as "roll the dice and see what they do".
Fey Foundling Tiefling Paladins.... ridiculous numbers of these.
I think one of the primary reasons for this sort of thing is favored class bonuses being tied to race. Remove the race restriction from all favored class bonuses and charscter diversity would increase.
I'm not sure. You'd basically get the same 1 or 2 builds taking the best race trait on the best race. Now you sometimes have to question if you want the best trait on not the best race or the best race but not the best trait.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
A 7 cha isn't really that meaningfully lower than average. The basic and heroic melee and ranged NPCs have a cha of 8. So unless these characters going after 7cha PCs go after basically everyone in an army, or the GM can justify why a 7 is so shockingly bad compared to the common 8 of many NPCs.
And those stats are before racial modifier. So the common and heroic dwarfs are sitting at a 6 charisma. Heck and now the skilled NPCs have a cha of 7 too. So unless the dwarf is a spellcaster other NPCs should basically be attacking on sight. No wonder dwarfs are xenophobic...
So a 7 cha is easily an average looking guy, that is just kinda there and goes with the flow and can't lead. Hmm... sounds like a large number of people I know. Probably a lot of people on this forum.
This is why people are against your GM and his rule, because they world shouldn't be reacting like that to make sense.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the boards, "Scimitar Dervish Dance Magus" and "Greatsword Power Attack Human Superstitious Barbarian" both pop up an awful lot.
To be fair to the Dervish Dance magus: the players tried using other weapons when the ACG was released, only to have both Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace errated away from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just looks for builds you see a lot (to often) that your kinda bored with and tired of seeing.
Mine:
1. Small race mounted combat characters, the rules on this are so broken it's practically cheating.Halfling dual welding rogues. So tired of seeing this character.
Honestly, I could name more concepts I'm tired of than "builds".
• The grumpy, Klingon-minded, beer-swilling dwarf who is either a fighter or cleric, generally dislikes elves, and has a last name which references some mix of hammers, shields, and/or stone.
• The greasy-palmed thief who sits in the darkest corner of the tavern with his cloak and hood pulled up at lunchtime expecting nobody to think that's suspicious and call the guards. Typically has a name like "Vic" or "Lefty" and probably a surname/nickname involving fingers or hands.
• Brooding loners or anyone else with a mysterious past.
The list goes on. Interestingly, I've never encountered any Drizz't clones.
A GM once rewrote my backstory to make me into a Drizzt clone. Apparently wanting to beat the Marilith that killed his father at her own game(multiple weapons) wasn't as important as seeing an elf slice an apple into six pieces while it was midair. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
any sorcerer seems to take the same spells over and over and wind up a litle samey.
Who said anything about 'doing the make or break diplomacy'? It's a question of presence. Is everyone who isn't the face invisible in a social situation? The same GM may throw involuntary strength-check situations at low-strength characters; in his games, you don't get to decide that some of your stats will never be relevant. It's not punishment; if anything it's realism and a character/roleplaying hook that makes more of the game than a glorified combat-sim with a lame social side-bar that gets solo'd by the designated box-checker.
But leaving that particular style of game aside since it's apparently such a shock...
Of course it's a shock and it is punishment when the GM treats CHA 7 like it was CHA 3 or worse. Since 7 charisma gives only -2 to checks (compared to charisma 10), said charisma score should only make a difference 10% of the time. And even that's when the PC is actively trying to get someone to do something unusual. Lynch mobs should not be forming because people are freaked out by the PC's mild lack of social skills.
What I'm tired of: players who treat their low charisma as if it were 5 times worse than it is and try to pick a fight with everyone they meet.
I didn't see BadBird say that people form lynch mobs for low CHA... just that there will be consequences. Like failing to convince someone of something.
Here's how I see it: There's two elements that are more or less up to the GM when determining checks- the NPCs starting attitude, and the circumstantial modifier surrounding a social check. A NPCs starting attitude is most likely going to be based to some degree on what the party looks and acts like on first impression- if the party is a bunch of antisocial, ugly warrior-people that character might not want much to do with them (obviously depending on the character). Secondly, if it's overwhelmingly bad (say, low charisma combined with an unfortunate race, like a Goblin in a town that hates Goblins), or just CHA dropped as low as it can go (5 or less), then having a circumstance modifier penalizing the Face's diplomacy checks would be absolutely normal.
Beyond that, I wouldn't penalize the party too badly, unless the low CHA characters specifically tried to interact with NPCs, in which case they would need to make CHA-based checks, or just CHA checks if nothing else applies.
So these are all mechanical ways that low CHA parties can be punished by having low CHA. The rules don't explicitly spell out that's how this works, but they provide the structure to modify social encounters based on the situation, and CHA should generally contribute to the situation, at least to a degree.
And yes, 5 to 8 CHA is below average CHA and that should have an effect on negotiations. Even 9-10 CHA, which could be considered "average", is probably a liability when you really want something from another person and they are not predisposed to liking you. I'm not saying it should be an extreme effect, but it's going to sway the odds a bit and the party will have to deal with that.
There's some "house ruling", but only because PF rules are rightfully vague on what determines starting attitude and circumstance.
like say a 5-15% additional chance of failure?
Yes, that'd be it, really. It's most likely be equal to their average CHA penalty, which isn't going to be more than -3 in the most extreme cases.
Unless of course things are made worse by player actions, reputation, or other circumstances (like the Goblin example).
I'm not an advocate of extreme penalty, just natural small changes based on the mechanics already in the game.
EDIT: The biggest change would be basing the Starting Attitude in part on CHA, which reflects how important First Impressions are. I personally think that makes sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if are the low CHA person and you really want something from another person and they are not predisposed to liking you you you have a penalty to your check to request the item from them approximately equal to the penalty you're supposed to have on the check from having a negative modifier. It's crazy that the rules are like that.
But if you're saying that just having someone with a little low charisma is going to dissuade the entire negotiations of the face then no.
1) low CHA just sit outside.
2) low CHA doesn't mean bad diplomacy.
3) appearance is only partly associated with this stat. A low CHA is a guy with greasy hair or some pimples. It's not some Quasimodo type of deformity.
4) This isn't really true in our world. How many companies/school projects have the presenters of meetings and the rest of the team just are there and you'd actively penalize the presenter because you can just tell that one guy over there has a weak personality and another isn't a good leader, or even that one of them is overweight and and has some scaring on his face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find stat damaging effects to be the natural counter to stat dumps. Hilarility ensues when the 5 Cha fighter is running from the Cha damaging monster.
Can you blame him, that's gonna take him out of the fight because the restoration family of spells sucks at its job.
So if are the low CHA person and you really want something from another person and they are not predisposed to liking you you you have a penalty to your check to request the item from them approximately equal to the penalty you're supposed to have on the check from having a negative modifier. It's crazy that the rules are like that.
But if you're saying that just having someone with a little low charisma is going to dissuade the entire negotiations of the face then no.
1) low CHA just sit outside.
2) low CHA doesn't mean bad diplomacy.
3) appearance is only partly associated with this stat. A low CHA is a guy with greasy hair or some pimples. It's not some Quasimodo type of deformity.
4) This isn't really true in our world. How many companies/school projects have the presenters of meetings and the rest of the team just are there and you'd actively penalize the presenter because you can just tell that one guy over there has a weak personality and another isn't a good leader, or even that one of them is overweight and and has some scaring on his face.
1. This changes the circumstances, and is probably the most common way to avoid this problem entirely. Perfectly valid though not always possible.
2. No, but it means problematic circumstances around the diplomacy. If the low-CHA party members are trained in Diplomacy, they can always try to actively aid the diplomat to make up for their low CHA.3. IIRC, Pathfinder is painfully vague on what exactly CHA is. But I'm not talking appearance alone. Negative Charisma is also negative presence- negative body posture, negative habits, negative body odor, etc. And once you get into the 5-7 CHA range I'd argue you are , uh, "peasant level", meaning more than just greasy hair and pimples.
4. This one is a bit of a trap because it's just going to be theory and personal stories unless we have degrees in psychology/sociology. All I'll say is that when those students just sit in the back with their bad posture, hands in their pockets, looking down, they detract from the presentation, just not so badly to ruin the score... usually. But a lot of teachers do call out the guy in the back doing nothing, if only to remind everyone it's a group effort. Also, some people are more judgemental than others, and some NPCs are going to care more about the party's CHA than others (a Peasant probably isn't going to care, for example)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And once you get into the 5-7 CHA range I'd argue you are , uh, "peasant level", meaning more than just greasy hair and pimples.
Remember that you're referencing a full one-third of the entire population of dwarves in all of Golarion with that description.
I suspect you might need to recalibrate your understanding of what those numbers mean.
No, that sounds pretty accurate for the lower common denominator of Dwarves. >_>
I mean I'm still not suggesting physical deformity like Chess Pwn said. But more than greasy hair (try bug-infested greasy hair) and pimples. (or, alternatively, really bad body posture or manners or attitude making up for a relative ok appearance).
But again, PF is kinda vague when it comes to exactly what bad CHA is. My argument is just that it's BAD, it should mean more than just a few relatively minor features of appearance. And that's not even really my central point- just that mechanically low CHA should have a significant effect on the circumstances in social dealings (with, I should add, characters that care about such things).
EDIT: Not trying to be a dwarf racist here, so I'll elaborate. It's a trope that Dwarves do things that are offputting to normal Humans (and other races with normal CHA). They're also much less interested in nice things like taking showers. It's a different cultural standard. But to your standard Human, it's going to be more than a tad offputting to meet a Dwarf that has done the full CHA dump. That's why we get the trope of awkward culture clashes between Dwarves and other races.
Fey Foundling Tiefling Paladins.... ridiculous numbers of these.
I think one of the primary reasons for this sort of thing is favored class bonuses being tied to race. Remove the race restriction from all favored class bonuses and charscter diversity would increase.
Honestly fey foundling in general. Ever since one of my players found this feat, he's made sure every single cleric and paladin in our group takes it when they make a new character. Plus its always just for the mechanical advantage. People don't even bother trying to reflavor it or justify it.
Fate's favored Tattooed Half-orcs are also rampant. If they have any adeptness at physical combat they invariably also have Toothy.
Also characters that are mysteriously "armor experts" well before they wear any armor of a heavier variety. At some point they suddenly switch from the light armor they were wearing to a mithril breastplate! How strange!
Also wizards that (despite their terrible charisma) manage to use philosophy and logic on its own to convince other parties. In Golarion apparently being an insufferable know-it-all makes people like you. Who knew.
There are just some options that are so far above the typical power curve that savvy players take to them like glue.