Agi Hammerthief's page

I'm wondering if there's any rules precedent?

If there's any sort of timing issue regarding which effect comes in first?

there is (just came across it):

Wall Scramble (Ex): A rogue with this talent rolls twice when making Climb checks and takes the better of the two rolls. If she already rolls twice while making a Climb check because of another ability or effect, she gains a +2 insight bonus on both of those rolls instead.

If the rogue is under the effect of a spell or ability that forces her to roll two dice and take the worse result, she only needs to roll 1d20 while making Climb checks.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/rogue.htm l

how about the effects cancel each other and you roll only one d20?

failing the will to do that, I'd say it's the bottom 3d20 solution:
roll 2, pick / roll one, pick

The manual feat area has only 4 entries and the last one of those entries is bugged to be skills... So my question is, how can I add more feats?

there is a sheet called "Feats" and somwhere around line 796 is the entry

thank you for this fabulous character sheet.

been busy learning to use Excel with it,
while getting the glitches out and adjusting the layout to my own preferrences.

Most probable explanation: Balance

well, a small character already gets out tops, because most gear is 1/2 weight(or even 1/4) and they can carry 3/4 of the Medium list

so if the fear was Balance (can carry too much stuff) they could have put the carry capacity to 1/2

this is probbably a long dead horse, but I just came across it recently:

according to the armor description, armor for small creatures weighs 1/2 of that for medium creatures (double for Large)

the clothing description in the equipment section has the factor for the clothing kits at 1/4

a*a=A
0,5a*0,5a=0,25A

with the same thickness of material this results in a quarter the weight

so if half the weight is supposed to be the rule it would mean double the thickness of medium armor for small creatures armor

by the same logic the armor would get thinner for larger than Medium creatures with the current set of rules

what is the story behind this?
is it just sloppy math by the designers and lazy reviewers along the editions?

looking for a pathfinder playing group in Hamburg Germany
starting around May

preferrably as Rogue

In any case, the iPhone isn't an ideal RPG cool because of it's screen size, but it's nice to have around when you suddenly have inspiration but your RPG library is at home. :)

the screen is big enough to display one paragraph or one spell description, I call that ideal if you can access everything by index

plus if you can bookmark with different folders it can be used as a Spell Book

and with the iPad out....

any chance for one from Paizo?

fully searchable and indexed, bookmark folder etc.

has anyone tried the read-/use- -ability of the PDF on the iPhone?

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

I don't see why half elves get the same 'any fav class' benefit when half orcs don't: they are as half-human as the half-elves.

Because half-elves tend to integrate into human and elven society, and thus have a wide variety of potential career paths. Half-orcs tend to be either totally outcast or part of orc tribes. They aren't very accepted in human society. It's a cultural thing, not genetics. Having human genes doesn't make you potentially good at everything; growing up in the default human culture does.

Yes, there are arguments about "should culture be part of racial traits" and "what if my world's culture doesn't follow the default cultures" inherent in that, but they're unfixable (aside from the ever-present house rule option) without completely changing the way races work in D&D, which isn't an option for Pathfinder.

short memory me

The fact is that there is no other real penalty for multiclassing that we can easily get a grip on and ameliorate with respect to cultural dispositions.

...

There should be benefits to not cherry-picking classes for easy character building gains in order to balance out the cherry-picking.

the way it is now there is no real penalty for dip from the favoured class either, just 1 SP/HP per level multiclassing to harvest a few feats/class-skills/save bonus.

.

So a PC might get a bonus for sticking with the race's cultural backdrop and not substantially deviating from it. It's not that big a deal.

...

In addition, without favored class benefits, what benefit should be extended to the humans and half-elves to compensate for their cultural flexibilities no longer supported by a mechanical benefit?

but they already get the benefit of synergizing racial feats as Zurai so nicely pointed out, see my post above yours for the answer to that.

.

But since a lot of games out there don't actually deal with XPs

and for those who don't stick to the rules anyways you change them for everyone?

.

Penalizing a multiclasser a skill point for every class he picks outside of his favored classes might be a better approach. But then you'd get all the complaints about applying penalties and how gamers hate that.

but at least that penalty would be for multi classing (which is appears to is consent among the designers to discourage) and not for Players that happen to have a fav race and fav class that don't match the stereotypes.

Seriously, why does no one b%#@% about Elven Spell Penetration that is useless for Fighters? It's exactly the same thing. If you don't make an spellcaster out of your elf, you're "penalized" (to borrow the ludicrous mis-statement being thrown around so often in this thread) by not getting something that elven spellcasters get.

so you are aruing:

as to the rest:
so first edition was bad in regards of choice, it got better till 3.5 (which only penalized multi-classing)
now you want to take a step backwards?
why? because you usually take the favoured class anyway and want those extra SP/HP?

Ah, I see. So we should eliminate a good idea <snip>

sorry, I have not yet encountered a rigorous explanation for why it is a good idea in the first place, just repeated assertion of it as 'fact'.

.

... on the basis that stupid people can't get their minds around ...

what level of politeness can I demand to be enforced towards participants on this forum?

TheDrone wrote:

Third, to counter your last point, a reward to X and no bonus to Y is the same as a penalty to Y and no bonus to X (x+1=y, y-1=x).

Incorrect. The absolute difference is the same, but the relative difference is another story. Compare a human wizard and a halfling wizard, both with 10 con. With a +1 per level from favored class bonus, the human ends up with 45 hit points at level 10 and the halfling ends up with 35. With -1 per level from taking a non-favored class, the human ends up with 35 at level 10 and the halfling ends up with 25.

In both cases, the human has 10 more health than the halfling, but in the first case the halfling has a decent chance to survive a fireball cast by the human (10d6 = 35 damage on average), while in the second case it will almost certainly be reduced to the negatives and has a very high chance to be killed outright.

THAT is the difference between a bonus and a penalty, and that is why bonuses to one combo are not the same as penalties to every other combo.

well done refuting the first sentence, too bad you forgot the second one:

Sure it doesn't seem like that at first, but it will be viewed like that over time.

this lengthy debate shows that it didn't even take time to be viewed as a penalty.

In the DMG II there is a "Cultist" NPC character made up as an example.

Thats pretty much the legacy of the cleric/rogue.
It was never really a successful class combination, except for "flavor"

I like the idea of a Cleric of Irori**/Rogue/Divine Trickster, as a seeker and 'acquirer' of knowledge, erspecially knowledge hidden in some secret books.

having more core book options for flavor would actually be nice, rather than 'just' the no-brainer 'extend the well working multiclass' PrCs

** Oghma for Ferun

I think that Arcane Spells should be able to heal, with a few caveats.

they are

• Bards cast arcane spells
• Cure x Wounds are on the bard spell list

therefore

• Cure x Wounds are arcane spells

they are just not on the Wizard or Sorcerer spell list

Now our house-rule fits in with these questions this way. SA damage is only good for the first attack in a round because if someone just gave you a rather painful appendectomy from the wrong side, you are bound to turn to them and go "WTF!?!" (Excuse the language.) Plus as was mentioned above, a rogue with the TWF tree could deal heinously large amounts for ANY class, much less just fighter types.

I thought that the attacks from TWF are made pretty much simultaneously, as opposed to increased iterative attacks with the same weapon from high BAB

so even with your "turn to them and go "wtFAQ" the Rouge would have got one kidney on a rapier and the other on the dagger.

20-point PFRPG is miles ahead of Joe not-quite-average.

that's why I highlighted the "still generous" bit: 20 is ok, 15 IMO is minimum to even leave town.

The main issue is being good enough to compete in published adventures, it seems to me. Your enjoyment in general doesn't require fantastic stats, so far as I can see.

My enjoyment stops when I go below 0 HP every two or three sessions

* At least PRPG put away with loosing a level.

Too focused on stats and not enough on role playing.

...

I go with a 20 point buy, and I still find it generous.

meh,

I wouldn't seriously start thinking about a character background for less than 20 points (or an equal result from 3d6), I'd roll-play half hearted till he gets killed and then hope for more.

my worst case template for 3d6 is worth about 15 points, anything less and I won't be able to qualify for the feats I'm looking for, might as well stay in town and open a pub.

* my emphasis

Does anyone else find it amazing that the second post in this thread is a request by the game designer for specific feedback, giving people an opportunity to influence game mechanics, yet most posters in this thread choose to ignore that request and instead discuss house rules and economics?

is actually your job as Devil's Advocate to point out its safe to assume that the request was answerd by post #6:

Checking d20srd.org for all conjuration spells with an instananeous duration, we get a bunch of healing spells, Acid Splash, Create Water, Wall of Iron, and Wall of Stone.

Prestidigitation already states that anything created with it is pretty much useless

The loophole is there, why should plugging it be left to each individual DM to handle, when fixing this spell can be as easy as changing duration from instantaneous to permanent or less?

The economics breaking loophole is actually that the players can sell stuff only at half price.

Even if the spell is fixed by adding 1/6th value in diamond dust as a material component, the PCs are still going to sell new stuff at half price and can wreck the local businesses, it just takes longer if they produce it the hard way.

** I actually assumed that the other half to full price is the profit for the merchant (and taxes if they pay them) the stuff has to be sold to.
Or another 1/3rd is added as cost for the PCs to set up a shop in town to sell at 100% value.
you know:
No selling crates of stuff at any street corner: You got to be registered with the authorities.
Otherwise not only the local merchants guild will get down on you, like a ton of rectangular building things, but also the tax collectors.
This puts the the profit of the manufacturer at 1/6, profit for the merchant at 1/6, and material & misc. cost + tax at 2/3 of the value.

Is it really too much to ask from a GM to handle this?
Do you really want to cut and cull all opportunity for PCs to earn some fast cash in a few rounds for the sake of GM laziness?
What is wrong with the side quest "avoid the angry tax collectors or pay a huge fine" for those who go out of their adventure path to abuse the system?

.

back on topic:
it gets really interesting when Fabricate is used on a Wall of Iron, though any weapons or armor made from iron (and not from the alloy steel) are bond to be really crappy.

A shame really that the Rust Monster is not on any summon list, otherwise a few Iron Walls converted with Fabricate would make a nice Iron Bridge onto which it could be summoned

Lehmuska wrote:

Actually, if we take a run of the mill 8th level wizard with intelligence score of at least 22 (this isn't hard to do, int 26 is achievable), he can reach DC 16 with a take 10, which is good enough to create most common items.

I will play Devil's advocate and point out that he would need to be a 9th level mage, as fabricate is a 5th level spell.

:)

oh pulleze, a 9th level Wizard or 10th level Sorcerer and you are worried about 1/6th in profits? of wooden spoons? (or whatever)

if anything, after the second crate of 'whatever' the prices in the area will have dropped so low that the party will have to travel so far that all the profits are used up.

At 9th level the party Rogue is the money making machine in any area that is wealthy enough to buy huge quantities of 'Fabricate'ed goods.
even if they are aligned Good, there should be a caster present with detect evil to pick out the rich bastards to steal from.

.

the Iron Wall and suchlike being of permanent duration would be a good option IMO:
Detect Magic is a cantrip and anyone who buys/sells iron will be up to the trick of dispelable iron
and cast a detect magic to make sure he's got the genuine stuff.

The option to replace a few boards of a bridge with an Iron Wall is a creative use of the spell that can happen to anyone,
especially PCs that have used the trick a few gaming sessions earlier.

All we need is the magical/alchemical equivalent of duct tape. =)

I vote for a cantrip Cyanoacrylate Splash ;-)

"Smokestick" 1/2 lb, 20gp (almost equal to the value of gold by weight)

"Sunrod" iron rod with gold cap, 2 gp (actually is gold, costs almost nothing)

you'd think that by now someone would have invented the "Replacable Sunrod Tip"

<snip>

That's what I want to fix. Of course, that doesn't even have anything to do with the fact that light can be cast 1,000,000 times per day. But maybe, if it were a 1st level spell, and could not be cast so many times, that situation MIGHT come up now and then. As it is now, mundane darkness will *NEVER* be an issue.

so what?? Dancing lights will do the trick also, can be moved 100' per round, 1/day for a gnome

Casting Continual Light on your helmet is one thing, but using the Dancing Lights cantrip every round to have 36 torches lighting up everything in a 110' radius is a little ridiculous (IMO).

it could be limited to 1 casting:

The first being that the 3.5 version of darkness (or rather "dimness") did not create actual darkness at all. In a darkened area, it actually made things lighter.

the point might have been to prevent the spell from becoming a cheap substitute for invisibility in darkened areas.

If it created a 'true' absolute light-less area, then it could for example be used to optically seal a tunnel without anybody noticing a spell was cast. or let the object it was cast on be carried by Unseen Servant, optically vanishing the party towards anyone on the other side.

By actually making things a bit lighter at least anyone in the darkened area would have a clue there is something suspicious going on.

your not going to get the cheap flying off a small caster:
Starting 5th level when they can communicate verbally with the familiar they can get a hawk familiar to do the job.

A hawks strength is 6 which = carrying capacity of 10lb
Reduce Person reduces the weight by factor 8 so a (now tiny) caster with full gear will be max 8lb

5th Level also opens the door to Improved Familiar:
small Air Elemental, Fly 100 ft. (perfect) Str. 10

so you might as well congratulate them for a smart combination of spells

Now, I can see him making scrolls to go around this...

Reduce Person can be made permannent for 2500gp

atm Darkness reads pretty much like the cantrip Light

so why not make it a cantrip of equal 'value':
shedding darkness in a 20-foot radius (and dims light for an additional 20 feet), can be countered with any artificial light source,
darkvision (and low light vision in the outer 20') still work

this would serve as a cool distraction spell in the open during daylight
plus this sentence in the description of Light would make more sense:

"Light can be used to counter or dispel any darkness spell of equal or lower spell level"

atm this is pretty silly as there is no 0 level darkness spell (at least in the PHB or beta PRPG)

.

the cantrip Darkness could then be expanded with:

1st level spell:
Deeper Darkness (darkvision still works, non magic light not)
+ a new 1st level spell 'Brighter Light' to counter (and maybe put these 1st level spells on the list in the description of Permanency rather than the cantrip Light)

3rd level spell:
Greater Darkness (blocks even darkvision) equal in power to / countered by Daylight

Give me an average that I can add or subtract from.

and then you'll also toss a coin to determine the + or - ?

... roll the 2d10 from your example and add it to the base height. Remember that number because you will multiply it by the result of the x(2d4) to get the additional weight to add to their base weight ...

IMO the additional weight should be based on the strength score.

not so much a problem with the 8STR PC as you can account for the extra weight as fat, but how does the 18STR account for all the extra muscle?
and does the fat count against the max load of the 8STR person?

Don't you have to be holding a weapon in each hand for two-weapon defense?

EDIT: Yes, natural weapons and unarmed strike are specifically excluded in PFRPG, at least.

well, the monk can hold two (special monk) weapons in the hands and still use the flurry and do unarmed damage.

So holding two non-magical sai would suffice for the use of two-weapon defense, even when the damage is done with ki enhanced unarmed strikes.

Edit: could even be holding any two weapons and do unarmed damage, just not interchangable with those weapons during a flurry

does the flurry count as TWF for the sake of qualifying for Two Weapon Defense?

One way of making the 'flurry of misses' useful would be to allow the monk to trade the last attack(s) of the flurry each for +1 dodge bonus to AC.
This would put monks past 15th level one point of AC (or one attack) ahead of the total defense action.

Or weapons weighing 2 lbs or less?

<snipped Spoiler<

I've never seen anything else that limits eligibility by weight, but the list makes more intuitive sense.

even more intuitive sense: 2lb max, balanced or lighter towards the 'bad to be at' end

i.e.:

light hammer: no
short sword: yes
Nunchaku: yes
sap: no

with axes, hammers, sap you are practically swinging the full 2lb at the end of a light stick, which gives it just as much momentum (turnround power required) as a 4lb scimitar

That not bad at all, except it might mean that Clerics don't put any ranks into Know: Religion.

if 'Know: Religion' is useless for anything else, rightly so

also if you can put a name to the type it lets you remember the weaknesses(once you find them out by bashing the thing around) at a later encounter
i.e.
we've had a boogeyman 2 months ago: use the fluffy blanket with the blue elephants

a Pally or Wizard probabbly would need to make a new check every encounter to recognize them and recall weaknesses
a Cleric would just need to find out the weaknesses once and could then just go "I know your name & I remember your kind"

Just a vote for in favor of the favored class cookie.

When I first read the rule I read it as +1 Hit point *OR* +1 skill point. Either way seems fair and not that big a deal.

Bonuses are the way to go to get people to play stereotyped classes. The +1 feat at first level did *wonders* for getting parties to be predominately human.

that Bonuses are the way to go to get people to play stereotyped classes is self evident,

.

how about that +1 to anyone who doesn't multiclass (including PrC)
unless they multiclass from the favoured class to Prestige Class
(tough luck for those PrCs you need to multiclass to qualify)

re: OP
give it -1 to AC for piercing weapons
after all, chain shirt (and chain mail) are just a series of connected holes for pointy things

.

re: damage reduction granted by Armor:

I'd go for:

Light DR2/bludgeoning
Medium DR4/-
Heavy DR8/-

with precision damage bypassing the DR
i.e.:
a sneak attack, confirmed and even unconfirmed critical (a threat lets you find the spot and do damage as normal, confirmed = it goes in deep)

and give the chain stuff a DRx/piercing (so the Chain Shirt is DR2/bludgeoning or piercing

makes damage type matter a bit more too

WOTC dead level filler*:
Part 1
Part 2

CLERIC

The cleric has nineteen dead levels, but this is mitigated by their one and only special ability: turn or rebuke undead. The turning damage for this ability steadily increases every level (2d6 + the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier). Still, a prestige class that grants +1 level of divine spellcasting, normal turn or rebuke undead advancement, and special abilities at every level opens the door for a minor dead level ability.

Undead Intuition (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a cleric can identify undead creatures during an encounter from any distance. The cleric gains a +2 bonus on Knowledge (religion) checks to identify undead creatures, but gains no insight about their special powers or vulnerabilities. See Knowledge checks on page 78 of the Player's Handbook. Moreover, the cleric can make these Knowledge (undead) checks untrained. This bonus increases by +1 for each cleric level the character takes after 2nd level.

.

Designer's Note: Undead identification is only one part of the Knowledge (religion) skill, and even then, undead intuition does not reveal the strengths or weaknesses of a creature. Knowledge (religion) and undead intuition combined, however, will permit clerics to recognize any undead creature on sight, which seems realistic for clerics.

* in PRPG beta only the spellcasters (exept for the Pally and Ranger) still have gaps on the Special Feat list

Perhaps I am missing something, but what you are proposing sounds an awful lot like Two Weapon Fighting. The only difference I can see is the Dex 13 prerequisite vs the Dex 15 prerequisite.

it also comes at a discount of 50% in weapons: just one magical weapon will do the damage of two,

.

with prerequisites of DEX 10+x & Weapon Finesse*, it would make a good extension to Weapon Finesse, for those of us who don't want to go down the TWF path,
plus, it wouldn't give the use of shield for free as the ACP applies to Weapon Finesse

* alternatively: Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus + it applies only to one finessable weapon type of choice (the one I focused on)

I'm thinking especially of the rapier here, as that is fast moving weapon
weighs 2lb. as opposed to the 'light' simple weapon 'Mace, Light' with 4lb, just to hit in the same gap as my last post

because that makes an already good weapon even better.

I really hate sentences like this: putting logic and common sense to the bin for dogma

apart from that I like the idea, but I would like to include all light and finessable weapons.

the spiked chain is already buggered by not being a double weapon, even though in the picture of the 3.5 rule book it looks like one

Hopefully, after you prompt the players a few times, they'll start getting better at putting themselves in other people's shoes, and start making these suggestions themselves, which should improve their real-life social skills far better ...

which would be a nice by product, sort of

Player
lim->PC

... than just grunting "I use Diplomacy. <roll> 38. What do I get?".

Diplomacy could be converted as 'general chitchat' used in order to find out which specific skill is helpful to extract more information.

PC can't relate = PC can't negotiate

.

What excuse are you going to use, to get your foot in the door?

usually I use masterwork thieves tools /me runs & hides.

I like the idea, as it gives more value to the ranks invested in Knowledge and Profession, or whatever Skill might be appropriate to use.
Could be very neat to turn skills like Profession & Craft into more than just money savers

.

stare blankly when you ask them what, exactly, they are going to say.

which is probably mainly caused by the equation Player =/= PC

"ho landlord, four pints of your finest ale if you may"
(which according to Pterry might actually get you killed in some pubs in England)

'nother idea to enhance the attacks without raising the BAB

if monks where allowed to move during the flurry (5ft between hits)
at higher levels they could do their own flanking:

.

grid referrence:

123
4X6
789

1) monk starts at 2: 1st hit on X

2) 5' step to 6: 2nd hit to X,

3) 5' step to 8: 3rd hit on X, with X being denied DEX bonus to AC due to being threatened from 2 sides in the same round

4) 5' step to 4: 4th hit on X, with X being denied DEX bonus to AC due to being threatened from 2 sides in the same round

5) 5' step to 2: 4th hit on X, with X being denied DEX bonus to AC due to being threatened from 2 sides in the same round

makes full use of the unarmored speed bonus and tumble to avoid AoOs
should be fun to play too

<snip>

I am going to be looking for solutions that do not raise the monk up to a full BAB.

why does the monk need to overcome the full AC?

let the monk ignore all non-magical armor bonus for the purpose of hitting
then give half the non-magical armor bomus as damage reduction

i.e.

Base ___________ 10
Dex ____________+ 1 (max)
+2 full plate _____+10
heavy shield _____+ 2

normal AC = 23
of this the nonmagical armor bomus is 10

if the Monk hits a 23, damage is applied as normal
if she hits a 13, the armor blocks 5 points of damage (which still gives a good enough %% of no damage to not raise the overall damage to ridiculous numbers)

Would it make them too strong as a race though? They're already pretty darn popular.

it's the Prestidigitation/1Day I guess:

/me grumbles about post freezing after a fixed time instead of after a reply,
the fav at elves in the post above ought to be Ranger, as it is in the book

It's like they sat around thinking, 'Well *someone* has to have Wizard as favored class, and elves used to be fighter/magic-users...' but this strange 'logic' didn't seem to carry over to Clerics, who don't have any favored class races.

personally I think that those classes depending on lerning lots (Wizards) or generally being versatile (Bard) should not be made the favoured class of any race but Humans.

.

ever since 3.5 I'm peeved at dumping the Bard on the Gnome as favoured class, giving then Sorcerer was a good improvement
IMO giving Rogue to both small races would be a good compensation for the smaller weapon size and -2 on STR.

especially with this in the book:

their passions tend toward invention, alchemy, or other technical pursuits

the term 'Locksmith' springs to mind

plus I'd limit the favoured Sorcerer to Fey bloodline as a sort of match to the the 3.0 limit to Illusionist (sort of way backwards compatibility)

gnomes are linked to the fey that inhabit the quiet corners of the world

Rob McCreary wrote:

Change the elf bonus from Int to Cha. They still have a fey connection, like the gnomes, and are always described as physically attractive. Personal magnetism fits, and one would imagine they would certainly have strong personalities with such long lifespans. (I like the idea of innately magical elves, you could also change favored class from wizard to sorcerer, though this isn’t strictly necessary.)

It's been months, and I'm still rabidly in support of this.

I don't have the slightest clue what WotC was thinking when they made Wizard the favored class of Elves, when they have always been described as innately magical, making them the perfect class to have either Sorcerer or Bard as their favored class (and even looking down their noses at Human and Dwarven wizards, reading from their silly spell books, *forgetting* their spells after they cast them, those poor talentless schmucks...).

It's like they sat around thinking, 'Well *someone* has to have Wizard as favored class, and elves used to be fighter/magic-users...' but this strange 'logic' didn't seem to carry over to Clerics, who don't have any favored class races.

I'd be very much in favor of something like;

<snip>

I'd like to suggest a change in Favoured classes too:

Gnomes - +2 Con, +2 Int (clever tricksters), -2 Str ; Rogue, Sorcerer
Elves - +2 Dex, +2 Cha (mysterious and beautiful), -2 Con ; Fighter, Sorcerer
Halflings - +2 Dex, +2 Cha (likable and gregarious), -2 Str ; Rogue, Bard
Dwarves - +2 Con, +2 Wis (strong-minded and determined), -2 Dex ; Fighter, Cleric
Half-Orcs - +2 Str, +2 Wis (keen-senses, primal), -2 Int ; Brabarian, Druid
Humans - +2 Any

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

in other words: Players who really want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer or Cleric have to pay for the designers lazyness (or wait till the next supplement brings back something like the Freun Campaign setting Gold Dwarf)

Hey, back off the designers. I'm talking about MY lazyness. And that of other D&D players.

<snip lotsofstuff>

I actually wasn't talking about (the laziness of) only having 6 ability scores but about the lazyness (and stubborness) of keeping the penalty on CHA instead of numbercrunching (and taking one of) the alternatives

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

I don't understand how the dwarvish scruffyness/stubborness is a hinderance to spontanious spell casting.

It's quite easy, if you think about it: ALl that stuff is thrown together into one stat: Charisma. It's easier to have relatively few ability scores, but not always accurate.

I think that PF shouldn't go into too much detail there - there are games for that stuff.

in other words: Players who really want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer or Cleric have to pay for the designers lazyness (or wait till the next supplement brings back something like the Freun Campaign setting Gold Dwarf)

I don't understand how the dwarvish scruffyness/stubborness is a hinderance to spontanious spell casting.
plus: a Sorcerer, aberrant bloodline, would make a good theme for this underground race.

On the other hand, the famous beards DO get in the way of most CHA related skills (Use Magic Device being the exeption)

so how about this:

swap the CHA penalty with a -1 on any skill that requires a minimum of fachial expression:

Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform

in lieu of this they can take a -10 on Diplomacy with other Dwarves by shaving

.

if this is too much of a mouth-full for ruling, keep the -2 CHA and give a +1 bonus to UMD and when determining bonus spells, max caster level, Spell DC etc.

snobi wrote:

Elf height

Elf ears

And there was a thread or at least a post or two about elves being so buff, but I can't find it.

well if elves are going to be tall,than the race description should say it in writing like it does in other PHBs.

Personally, I know my players will perfer taller elves and half elves.

and where does that leave the human as the definition of average?

or was this average of (all) core classes, rather than of all 'M sized' (core) classes?