Chris Perkins 88's page

It has been said before, and yet I say it again: giving them a penalty to DEX would hurt them mechanically so much (i.e. -1 to AC, Ref, Initiative and so on), that unless they're given a boost to STR as well, I don't most players would choose a dwarf to play a rogue, fighter, barbarian or ranger.

A DEX penalty does NOT, in and of itself, ensure that dwarves will take a penalty to AC, REF, initiative, etc. It DOES, due to the default Point Buy system, limit DEX scores by making a well above average DEX more expensive to purchase... which makes perfect sense.

In a game where ghouls and half-orcs get no CHA penalty neither should dwarves.

Windjammer wrote:

but my rant's main gist is that Paizo should please as large a customer base as possible, my speculation being that they lose more people over +2/+2/-2 than they are gaining, particularly if they (continue to) fail to sell it convincingly.

That is debatable in the extreme. I certainly wouldn't use the number of forum rants here as a measure for in the most part people only post when they want to see a change, not generally when they're happy with what they have. I don't see any real evidence that people are passing Pathfinder up because of that specific aspect.

As far as I'm seeing with the guys I know, Pathfinder has fallen off of our collective radar because it is "re-making" D&D in a way that we feel is not necessary.

Pathfinder, to our minds, should have stayed as setting neutral as possible... using supplemental books to alter races based on campaign-specific fluff.

My hope was that Pathfinder would clean up 3.5, addressing some of its well-known problems (multiclass caster issues, stacking effects, DR rules, grappling) and eliminating some of the overly-complicated rules, particularly for high-level play.

Instead they have ramped up the power level of races and classes significantly, and incorporated Golarion-specific fluff into the PHB.

I also don't see that short, stumpy and stocky leads to low Dex, to be honest...

This, to me, shows why the whole "+2, +2, -2" ability score modifier thingy in Pathfinder doesn't work.

Different players have different assumptions as to how races are work (mechanically) and, for the most part, 3rd edition kept things simple when it came to ability score adjustments... and kept things as they had been in past.

I really wish that Pathfinder would adopt more of a "keep it simple" approach to the 3rd edition overhaul... fix the overcomplicated or unwieldy bits (caster superiority over non-casters at high-levels, accounting-heavy high-level play, cumbersome stacking effects, DR-rules, combat maneuvers, caster multiclassing, etc) and leave the stuff that worked alone.

Any campaign-related crunch changes to races could be made into sidebar notes or added to supplement books.

You know what i find to be kinda funny ? People allways using the dwarves = short so a Dex penalty makes sense..

First off, dwarves are my favorite D&D race... I've played plenty of them over the years.

It's not that "Short = DEX penalty" at all. It's that "Short + Stumpy and Stocky = DEX penalty".

Forgot they were rolled into one, called 'Disable Device' now (ie, Open Locks got merged into Disable Device, which of course makes sense); just checked and it's Dex-based, which would again suggest to me that a Dex penalty for Dwarves wouldn't really fit (although you could always mitigate it, of course, with a racial bonus to Disable Device).

Easily fixed... shift it to an INT-based skill or, as you wrote, give Dwarves a racial bonus to Disable Device.

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

The issue is that Half-Orcs, who have ALWAYS gotten a greater CHA penalty than Dwarves suddenly have no CHA penalty... leaving Dwarves as the only race that is penalized.

That, to me, flies in the face of maintaining continuity and makes me a little less likely to consider Pathfinder as a 3.5 replacement game.

The fact that the half orc lost a racial ability penalty is not a convincing argument for why dwarves which have had a CHA penalty for the last 25+ years of gaming history should change.

I realize that 1/2 Orcs have gotten the shaft (ability score-wise) for years and am happy that Pathfinder is correcting that.

In changing what ability scores are modified (for better or worse) I'm concerned that racial flavor is changing too much. Admittedly, I'm not fond of any core race getting a CHA bonus. Likewise, at this point, I don't dig that Dwarves are getting a CHA penalty while 1/2 Orcs lose their CHA penalty (which has always equaled or exceeded that of Dwarves). As other's have mentioned, a DEX penalty for Dwarves would (from a munchkin perspective) hurt more than a CHA penalty BUT, in light of the changes to ability score modifiers that we're seeing in PF, I think it's more fitting.

Dwarves are broken. A fix would be welcome.

I could argue that staying true to the roots would mean that they get a huge penalty to diplomacy with non-dwarves, so they are lousy diplomats but can manage to intimidate someone properly.

But I support your wish to keep the Cha penalty. I say give dwarves -2 to dex AND cha. They won't be underpowered. They'll just be less overpowered.

I'd say ditch the CHA penalty in favor of a DEX penalty and, then, rein in the racial abilities in order to make them less uber-powerful.

I agree that they are overpowered and would like to see them brought in line with the other standard races in terms of their "power level".

It's interesting, it used to say expressly that charisma penalty only applied to non-dwarves. So they were fine leaders among dwarves but not great diplomats. This language got dropped sometime between then and now.

I'm not even sure why this debate has dragged on for so long, dwarves have had a CHA penalty since AD&D and it's not changing anytime soon.

Let me rephrase in a slightly more polite way. Everything I've heard from Paizo gives me the impression they are trying stay true to the game's roots and wouldn't make a change like this unless there was something seriously broken they wanted to fix.

The issue is that Half-Orcs, who have ALWAYS gotten a greater CHA penalty than Dwarves suddenly have no CHA penalty... leaving Dwarves as the only race that is penalized.

That, to me, flies in the face of maintaining continuity and makes me a little less likely to consider Pathfinder as a 3.5 replacement game.

However. I'm fine with the Cha penalty and no Dex penalty. Dwarves being unpersuasive and crappy leaders, etc, is fine with me, as is dwarves being good with missile weapons, etc (crossbows, for typical flavour, of course). So I'm a vote for keeping it as it is.

Crappy leaders... I can see them being great generals and leaders.

A DEX penalty and CON bonus, along with their ability to move about well when encumbered (and stability) points to them being able to form excellent shield walls and fight in formation. That makes them a foil to elven skirmishers/archers with light armor and good maneuverability (which works with their high DEX and low CON).

Please change this up Paizo!!!!

Well, honestly, I can see it both ways, but I'm going to argue for Dexterity as a penalty. Dwarves may be gruff, but other words for that are blunt or unflinching and this may or may not give advantages in social situations. Many people appreciate a no-nonsense manner in an argument or conversation and intimidate checks and haggling over the price of a gem would not likely be hindered by such methods. However, specifically, the dwarves are considered "Slow and Steady". It's a class feature that by it's very nature seems to hinder their movement in certain ways. I honestly think that's a good argument for the Dex penalty rather than a charisma penalty. If you really want to show them as gruff, I'd say give them a penalty to diplomacy and a bonus to intimidate. That seems, at leasst to me, to more appropriately push the idea of gruff dwarves in general. Charisma is more than just how graceful you are at social interaction but also how forceful your personality. Many a dwarf has convinced others of a different path through their conviction to their beliefs. I think that should count for something, personally.

You made some good points that I missed. Hopefully the finished product doesn't muck with the racial flavor too much.

Thanks for getting back on topic!

Chris, my choices on which races favor which classes were conservative in that I respected the decisions taken by the Paizo team on this issue. In my copy of the rulesbook I only needed to insert a couple of 'or's and of corner brackets to mark variant builds to have the Beta say what I want.

Still. Maybe there aren't any particular(ly good) reasons why gnomes, of all races, should favour sorcerers in the first place. And you are spot on that one of the Paizo iconics is a gnome druid. BUT. On your proposal no single race favours the sorcerer class. That's not in itself bad - the paladin and monk aren't favoured either - but it's something sorcerer players are going to miss.

Now I'm not a sorcerer player myself, but my rant's main gist is that Paizo should please as large a customer base as possible, my speculation being that they lose more people over +2/+2/-2 than they are gaining, particularly if they (continue to) fail to sell it convincingly. Dropping the sorcerer as a favoured class would perhaps have a similar result.

Unless, of course, people wishing to play sorcerers wouldn't feel they're missing out since they can always pick humans or half-elves. But they still MIGHT feel that way since they're not picking a race boosting their core ability.

You raise a lot of good points. The way I reconciled druid and gnome over sorcerer and gnomes is that forest gnomes would probably favor druid over sorcerer as a class. I guess the fact that I don't care for sorcerers factored in as well BUT not too much. ;)

Overall, I'd prefer to err on the side of classic D&D-flavor continuity and that's the basis for the slight changes I made (because I like 95% of your idea).

I agree with your speculation over the ability mods turning off potential new players. The guys I game with see it as Paizo's way of bringing in new players by amping up the power levels of races and classes rather than streamlining 3.5 (which is more in line with what we'd like to see... particularly in high-level play).

Like I said just use the old system I mean its not like the old way suddenly ceased to exist the moment Pathfinder comes out(hope that dosent come across as snarky its not my intent). I'd rather have an option that can be ignored than have no option there at all.

I get what you're saying. The problem is that, once you do that, you're playing with slightly houseruled Pathfinder rules and your characters will be underpowered for Pathfinder adventures designed around characters made by the book.

People seem to be forgetting that under the pathfinder methood of point buy stats work out pretty much the exact same as in 3.5. Now if you use the 3.5 point buy or dice rolling then it will be slightly unbalanced (Then again dice rolling itself is inherintly unbalanced since you can end up with three players with average stats and one player with all 16's and 18's before racial adjustments.)

I'd rather the point buy system be tweaked then. I don't like the changes made to the racial norms and, for me, a lot of the problem comes through in the mechanics of those races.

I'm not sure if I understand. If the power creep bothered people why wouldn't they start with a lower point buy?

The problem isn't just having the +2/+2/-2 as the default, by the book, rule. It also has something to do with the reasons for those bonuses (encouraging non-humans to play one caster and one non-caster class), even if the resulting ability score adjustments don't gel with classic representations of the various races.

For me, Pathfinder (out of the box) needs to "feel" like classic D&D to me. Instead it is moving more in the direction of Arcana Unearthed with its new and different takes on classic D&D races.

The races would work just fine with the standard +2/-2 or +/-0 ability modifiers. I don't see any reason to alter that, other than to cater to those who will only play race-class combinations that are optimized.

I'd alter this slightly to keep the racial flavor more in line with what it was in D&D and AD&D. The exception is that I'd change the gnome's variant build to a druid-build, to make it more in line with the Pathfinder iconic druid. Besides, Pathfinder gnomes seem to be more like forest gnomes than rock gnomes:

RACIAL BUILDS
Every race comes in one of two ‘builds’: the core build, which is 3.5/OGL compliant, and the variant build, which is not.
A racial build consists of two interlocking elements:
o Ability adjustments
o Your character’s favored class
All other racial traits are constant across core and variant builds of the same race.

Your choice of race determines your negative ability adjustment and limits your options when taking a favored class.
o Dwarves (-2 Charisma): Fighter (core build) or Cleric (variant build).
o Elves (-2 Constitution): Wizard (core build) or Ranger (variant build).
o Gnomes (-2 Strength): Bard (core build) or Druid(variant build).
o Half-Elves (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.
o Half-Orc (-2 Charisma): Barbarian (core build) or Druid (variant build).
o Halfling (-2 Strength): Rogue (core build) or Bard (variant build).
o Human (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.

Your choice of favored class determines your positive ability adjustment.
o Barbarian -> Strength +2
o Bard -> Charisma +2
o Cleric -> Wisdom +2
o Druid -> Wisdom +2
o Fighter -> Constitution +2
o Ranger -> Dexterity +2
o Rogue -> Dexterity +2
o Sorcerer -> Charisma +2
o Wizard -> Intelligence +2

hogarth wrote:

Windjammer wrote:

Hogarth, it's very well for you to be unimpressed by the heat this issue has generated. If you think you succeed in communicating this effectively to all extant 3.5 customers, go ahead.

I'm just curious what flaw you see with my reasoning (i.e., if you don't want higher ability scores, use a more restrictive method of generating ability scores).

We are back to page 1. If you are right and the stat boosts don't matter, why fix something that ain't broken? Why not tell those who love to have two +2 boosts to have it via Point Buy as opposed to force it onto those not willing to depart from the OGL?

It's not that your reasoning is flawed, I just find it unpersuasive that people wishing to stick with 3.5 as is should be the ones doing the extra homework via point buy. Especially if a design goal is to maintain 3.5 compatibility.

I agree 100%. I REALLY don't care for the +2/+2/-2 approach and would much prefer a method similar to the one you laid out.

Overall my problem is that I worry about powercreep issues in Pathfinder and don't agree with the rationale/implentation behind giving the various races bonuses to 2 ability scores.

I'd rather the races stay as close to their D&D-forebears as possible and leave it to Pathfinder supplements to incorporate subraces with more Pathfinder-esque flavor.

Well, penalty on charisma is historical, but a little strange now that favorite class is Cleric ( Based on wisdom and charisma) ...

Yet another reason to move the penalty to DEX (for those looking at this from a min-max standpoint).

;)

That equation looks balanced to me. ;)

I don't know that you can really do the whole "Race X has this ability adjustment, therefore so should Race Y."

Based on your examples, I'd say that NO player race should have a CHA penalty. I'm also basing my opinion on the stat modifiers for 1/2 orcs and dwarves in AD&D and in 3rd edition.

Deviating too far from core D&D is, to me, a dealbreaker and I hope that Pathfinder emulates (but improves mechanically upon) 3rd edition as much as possible.

As someone who loves D&D but has ZERO interest in 4th edition, I am hoping that Pathfinder fits the bill for the next, great iteration of D&D. If it doesn't base A LOT of its fluff (and corresponding crunch) on classic D&D tropes, then it really won't appeal to me.

Yeah, we houseruled it to a dex penalty. Works good - especially now that charisma also represents personal power and potential. And if a half-orc is more charismatic than a dwarf, at default, well, there's something wrong there. The f*c!ers don't even have attractive beards....

Peace,

tfad

Exactly!

Besides, with a DEX penalty, dwarven fighters would tend to be heavily armored tanks who make great defenders and front-line fighters. This works well with the stability ability of dwarves (they can "hold the line" better than any other race) and with their ability to move at their full Speed when carrying a heavy load.

It also makes them the opposite of elves, who make for great lightly-armored skirmishers and archers.

Charisma is the ability to influence others.

Dwarves have been many things in many stories- Diplomats is usually not among them.

They are relatively dour folk who don't put alot of effort into convincing you of anything. They know when they are right and don't really care if you agree. They are more than happy to hole up in their mountains and give the rest of the world the proverbial finger.

To me, that more than justifies their charisma penalty.

Note that being short doesn't equate to a dex penalty. Take the halflings, for example.

-S

Halflings are short... but do not have stubby little legs. Besides, going back to AD&D, dwarves had a DEX max of 17 and, in 3rd edition Forgotten Realms, gold dwarves took a DEX penalty in place of CHA. At the same time, halflings have always had a DEX bonus because they are surprisingly nimble and fleet of foot.

I get that dwarves are surly and not great diplomats BUT since when are half-orcs smooth talking diplomatic folk? If CHA measures a character's force of presence, then things like the ability to command troops, intimidate others, haggle/debate, etc come into play. Also, half-orcs have gotten a penalty to CHA in every edition of D&D and, suddenly, that doesn't count for anything. What I'm trying to get across is that no CHA penalty for half-orcs should equate to no CHA penalty for half-orcs.

I'm not looking at this from a "building an uber character perspective", I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who wants races to closely resemble their forebears.

Yes, I could (and will) houserule this. It just bothers me to see races balanced with an eye towards powergaming builds rather than towards representing races as they been depicted in generic fantasy (particularly D&D and AD&D).

If half-orcs don't get a CHA penalty then neither should dwarves.

CHA should mean A LOT more than likability and attractiveness, which is the rationale behind dropping the half-orc CHA penalty (I supposed). It should represent one's force of personality and ability to influence others.

Dwarves, as depicted in D&D and its sources, have never been short on personality and, as such, shouldn't take a hit to CHA.

They are stocky, with short and stubby legs... DEX should be the stat that takes the -2 penalty.

Naturally, like I've posted, I *do* question some choices, and I feel that the 'one spellcasting/one "martial" Favoured Class'-system is a bit silly just in the sake of "balance"...

I'm with you in that regard.

As for your comments on the DEX penalty making for poor fighters, I can see where you're coming from.

With point buy, however, it's easy to "buy up" to a 10 DEX, even with the DEX penalty. I guess I see stumpy legged, stocky dwarves as little walls o' flesh. I don't have a problem with their being ill-suited to finesse/ranged fighting... and think it makes sense that elves and halflings fill that role better.

The Pathfinder races are very much in accord with what D&D races are like. There is some racial power creep (as there is power creep in other aspects of the game), but this is done in a way that actually enhances congruence between racial mechanics and racial flavor.

I disagree with your assessment.

I've never seen halflings or gnomes regarded as the most charismatic races. Dwarves and half-orcs shared the distinction on lest charismatic player races BUT now only dwarves get that honor.

The power creep issue doesn't bother as much as the new direction that is being taken with the races, so that they are better suited to excel in their two favored classes at the cost of their moving away from their standard, D&D forebears.

Multiclassing in 3.X works well for non-caster and for multiclassed casters who take a 1 or 2-level dip into another class (usually in order to qualify for a PrC like the Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge).

Here is an alternate system that would grant you limited class features from a second class as you progress in your chosen character class. To make up for the Gestaltian features of the combined classes, you'd progress in levels more slowly (as if you were 1 level higher than your actual level):

SPLIT-CLASSING
Any character, at the beginning of their adventuring career, may choose to dabble in a second character class as they advance in their chosen, primary, class. Such character are called split-classed characters.

A player who split-classes must decide which class is his primary class and which is his secondary class at the start of play. Throughout the character's split-class career, the class features for his primary class are modified by that character's secondary class, though the character NEVER loses any features of his primary class.

Split-classed characters advance in level as if they were one character level higher than their actual character level (+1 LA) and may never change their secondary class (their secondary class modifications are ALWAYS applied to the character's primary class, even if their primary class changes). The character's primary class levels determine his character level in all instances... the secondary class only serves to modify the primary class's features.

So far I'm only including rules for taking one of the 4 "core" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard) as a secondary class.

Cleric:
The character gains simple weapon proficiency, as well as proficiency with light armor, medium armor proficiency and shields if they lack these.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains clerical spellcasting ability as a cleric of 2/3 (rounding fractions down) of...

bump...

no takers for offering constructive criticism?

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

A flat +2 to STR would work for me too. My biggest beef was with 1/2 Orcs not getting a CHA penalty while dwarves do. If doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the game and with the racial descriptions.

yeah but the half orcs are already suffering of a -2 Int... and i think its right to keep 2 +2 and just one -2 to all races

in 3.x the half-orc received -2 int and -2cha, and only +2 to str... it was the only race that gave this bonus in strenght modifier... but it say to me "this game is about hack and slash, only, so ifyou want to get a benefit on strenght you need to be penalized the double than the rest"

i reallyhated this feeling (never did a half-orc, possibly never will) i felt the game was mas about combat thatn roleplaying... and while combat is a (constant) part of the game... its also NOT what me and most of my players look for in RPGs

I meant that 1/2 Orcs should get a +2 to STR with NO other ability adjustment. That way, they'd be like Humans and 1/2 Elves in that they'd get a single +2 modifier to 1 ability score.

The other races would keep the +2/+2/-2.

Multiclassing in 3.X works well for non-caster and for multiclassed casters who take a 1 or 2-level dip into another class (usually in order to qualify for a PrC like the Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge).

Here is an alternate system that would grant you limited class features from a second class as you progress in your chosen character class. To make up for the Gestaltian features of the combined classes, you'd progress in levels more slowly (as if you were 1 level higher than your actual level):

SPLIT-CLASSING
Any character, at the beginning of their adventuring career, may choose to dabble in a second character class as they advance in their chosen, primary, class. Such character are called split-classed characters.

A player who split-classes must decide which class is his primary class and which is his secondary class at the start of play. Throughout the character's split-class career, the class features for his primary class are modified by that character's secondary class, though the character NEVER loses any features of his primary class.

Split-classed characters advance in level as if they were one character level higher than their actual character level (+1 LA) and may never change their secondary class (their secondary class modifications are ALWAYS applied to the character's primary class, even if their primary class changes). The character's primary class levels determine his character level in all instances... the secondary class only serves to modify the primary class's features.

So far I'm only including rules for taking one of the 4 "core" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard) as a secondary class.

Cleric:
The character gains simple weapon proficiency, as well as proficiency with light armor, medium armor proficiency and shields if they lack these.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains clerical spellcasting ability as a cleric of 2/3 (rounding fractions down) of their character level. They may turn as a cleric of 2/3 of their character level. Concentration and knowledge (religion) are added to their primary class's class list.

Fighter:
The character gains all weapon and armor proficiencies. All arcane spell failure percentages are reduced by 10%.
Characters with fighter as a secondary class gain 1 bonus feat at level 3 and every 3 levels thereafter. Their hit die type increases by one category (to a maximum of a d10). Their BAB improves by one category (to a maximum of +1 BAB/level).

Rogue:
The character gains proficiency with light armor and all rogue weapons. They also gain the trapfinding ability and the sneak attack ability. Sneak Attack starts at +1d6 at level 2 and increases by +1d6 every 3 levels thereafter.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains 4 additional skill points per level (to a maximum of 8/level) and may add up to 6 rogue skills to their class skill list.

Wizard:
The character gains wizard spellcasting ability as a wizard of 2/3 of their character level. The character gain Scribe Scroll at level 2 and gain a bonus wizard feat at levels 2, 8, 14 and 20.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d8 or greater die type. All Knowledge skills, as well as concentration and spellcraft are added to their primary class's class list.

EXAMPLES

Fighter (Wizard)
A split-classed Fighter (Wizard) 6 would have all of the Fighter class features of a 6th level Fighter but, due to dabbling in Wizard would adjust his character in the following ways:
He'd cast as a 4th level Wizard.
His HD type would drop to a d8.
He'd gain all Knowledge skills as class skills and would gain concentration and spellcraft as class skills.

He would have 6 character levels BUT would be considered 7th level for the purposes of advancing in level.

Wizard (Fighter)
A split-classed Wizard (Fighter) 6 would have all of the Wizard class features of a 6th level Wizard but, due to dabbling in Fighter would adjust his character in the following ways:
His BAB would be +4 (it would increase by +3 every 4 levels).
His HD type would increase to a d8.
He'd have all weapon and armor proficiencies.
His arcane spell failure percentages would be reduced by 10%.
He'd have 2 bonus Fighter feats.

He would have 6 character levels BUT would be considered 7th level for the purposes of advancing in level.

Um, I always hated that -1 to DEX back in AD&D, and I think it truly undermines the Dwarves as fighters. First of all, Half-orcs get +2 to STR, and humans and half-elves can also choose to put +2 to STR -- and none of these races get any penalties to DEX. I just don't see getting +2 to CON (effectively +1 HP per level and +1 to your Fort Save) being nearly as useful. Besides, dwarves are supposed to be "gruff'n'tuff", so that -2 to CHA is certainly justified.

Dwarves aren't graceful fighters, they're more like tenacious little tanks... hardy as hell and able to hold the line and stand their ground.

I can understand your logic here, but I fear that bonuses to WIS and CON make Gnomes feel mechanically too much like Dwarves. I do agree with you on Druid being a good second class for Gnomes. However, the key question here is:
Will Pathfinder RPG represent Gnomes as nature-loving Fey, or as "urban pranksters"?

Exactly what I was going for. Gnomes were presented in AD&D as more fey/woodland-based cousin to dwarves and their ability scores should reflect that.

Yeah, that second Favoured Class is a tough one for halflings, but I would go for the Ranger, personally, since Halflings are tied to nature and have a lust for adventure and exploration. In the sense that halflings are best suited to be rogues, +2 to DEX and +2 to CHA is justified. I don't hate the idea of the bard as a second Favoured Class, but it would make halflings the best choice for the bard class, too, so I'm not sure if I like it?

Since Pathfinder is going for one caster class and one non-caster class for each race, and I didn't want to upset the apple cart, I went for Bard. Bards were historically (and in AD&D) trained by druids and, as such, should have ties to nature. Perhaps a slight tweak to the class could play up on this druidic link... hmmm.

Half-Orcs getting just +2 to STR would be how I'd do them... and I would probably add some "extra" ability to make them stand out from humans and half-elves (both thematically and mechanically). That +2 to WIS doesn't just make sense to me...

A flat +2 to STR would work for me too. My biggest beef was with 1/2 Orcs not getting a CHA penalty while dwarves do. If doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the game and with the racial descriptions.

Freesword wrote:

As a real world example, Knowledge (local) for someone from London would not be applicable if they are in New York. Some DMs house rule it to work this way with allowing it to be taken multiple time each for a different locality. Unfortunately this is not how the rule was intended as it makes no mention of applying locality except by implication of the word "local" in the name. The topics covered can be grouped under the subject of "Cultures" without the implied geographic limitation. Therefore in the Alpha 3 forums I suggested, and will do so again when the skills chapter is focused on, the following change:

Knowledge (Local) ==> Knowledge (Cultures)

I don't see what's wrong with having Knowledge (New York) or Knowledge (London). You could even expand it by saying Knowledge (USA) or Knowledge (UK).

Freesword wrote:

Unfortunately this is not how the rule was intended as it makes no mention of applying locality except by implication of the word "local" in the name.

Could you please explain how the rule was intended?

I'd prefer Knowledge (Local) replaced with a Streetwise skill.

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

Split-classed characters take a -40% XP penalty

And you lost me.

Please try again. :)

Any other solution you'd have. To be honest, with a -40% XP penalty you'd only be 1 level below the rest of the party (until level 14 or so) but gain some good class features.

How about this?

SPLIT-CLASSING
Any character, at the beginning of their adventuring career, may choose to dabble in a second character class as they advance in their chosen, primary, class. Such character are called split-classed characters.

A player who split-classes must decide which class is his primary class and which is his secondary class at the start of play. Throughout the character's split-class career, the class features for his primary class are modified by that character's secondary class, though the character NEVER loses any features of his primary class.

Split-classed characters advance in level as if they were one character level higher than their actual character level (+1 LA) and may never change their secondary class (their secondary class modifications are ALWAYS applied to the character's primary class, even if their primary class changes). The character's primary class levels determine his character level in all instances... the secondary class only serves to modify the primary class's features.

So far I'm only including rules for taking one of the 4 "core" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard) as a secondary class.

Cleric:
The character gains simple weapon proficiency, as well as proficiency with light armor, medium armor proficiency and shields if they lack these.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains clerical spellcasting ability as a cleric of 2/3 (rounding fractions down) of their character level. They may turn as a cleric of 2/3 of their character level. Concentration and knowledge (religion) are added to their primary class's class list.

Fighter:
The character gains all weapon and armor proficiencies. All arcane spell failure percentages are reduced by 10%.
Characters with fighter as a secondary class gain 1 bonus feat at level 3 and every 3 levels thereafter. Their hit die type increases by one category (to a maximum of a d10). Their BAB improves by one category (to a maximum of +1 BAB/level).

Rogue:
The character gains proficiency with light armor and all rogue weapons. They also gain the trapfinding ability and the sneak attack ability. Sneak Attack starts at +1d6 at level 2 and increases by +1d6 every 3 levels thereafter.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains 4 additional skill points per level (to a maximum of 8/level) and may add up to 6 rogue skills to their class skill list.

Wizard:
The character gains wizard spellcasting ability as a wizard of 2/3 of their character level. The character gain Scribe Scroll at level 2 and gain a bonus wizard feat at levels 2, 8, 14 and 20.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d8 or greater die type. All Knowledge skills, as well as concentration and spellcraft are added to their primary class's class list.

EXAMPLES

Fighter (Wizard)
A split-classed Fighter (Wizard) 6 would have all of the Fighter class features of a 6th level Fighter but, due to dabbling in Wizard would adjust his character in the following ways:
He'd cast as a 4th level Wizard.
His HD type would drop to a d8.
He'd gain all Knowledge skills as class skills and would gain concentration and spellcraft as class skills.

He would have 6 character levels BUT would be considered 7th level for the purposes of advancing in level.

Wizard (Fighter)
A split-classed Wizard (Fighter) 6 would have all of the Wizard class features of a 6th level Wizard but, due to dabbling in Fighter would adjust his character in the following ways:
His BAB would be +4 (it would increase by +3 every 4 levels).
His HD type would increase to a d8.
He'd have all weapon and armor proficiencies.
His arcane spell failure percentages would be reduced by 10%.
He'd have 2 bonus Fighter feats.

He would have 6 character levels BUT would be considered 7th level for the purposes of advancing in level.

As much as I loathe 4th edition, my multiclass "fix" idea takes a bit from 4th edition's take on multiclassing.

Please take into consideration that this is not a finished plan... it's just an idea I'm working on (off of the top of my head).

I'd leave the core multiclassing rules in place because they work well for non-caster classes BUT would add in another way of "split-classing" for those who want a more "AD&D meets 4th edition" style of multiclassing.

SPLIT-CLASSING
Any character, at the beginning of their adventuring career, may choose to dabble in a second character class as they advance in their chosen, primary, class. Such character are called split-classed characters.

A player who split-classes must decide which class is his primary class and which is his secondary class at the start of play. Throughout the character's split-class career, the class features for his primary class are modified by that character's secondary class, though the character NEVER loses any features of his primary class.

Split-classed characters take a -40% XP penalty (multiclass penalties do NOT apply to split-classed characters) and may never change their secondary class (their secondary class modifications are ALWAYS applied to the character's primary class, even if their primary class changes). The character's primary class levels determine his character level in all instances... the secondary class only serves to modify the primary class's features.

So far I'm only including rules for taking one of the 4 "core" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard) as a secondary class.

Cleric:
The character gains simple weapon proficiency, as well as proficiency with light armor, medium armor proficiency and shields if they lack these.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains clerical spellcasting ability as a cleric of 2/3 (rounding fractions down) of their character level. They may turn as a cleric of 2/3 of their character level. Concentration and knowledge (religion) are added to their primary class's class list.

Fighter:
The character gains all weapon and armor proficiencies. All arcane spell failure percentages are reduced by 10%.
Characters with fighter as a secondary class gain 1 bonus feat at level 3 and every 3 levels thereafter. Their hit die type increases by one category (to a maximum of a d10). Their BAB improves by one category (to a maximum of +1 BAB/level).

Rogue:
The character gains proficiency with light armor and all rogue weapons. They also gain the trapfinding ability and the sneak attack ability. Sneak Attack starts at +1d6 at level 2 and increases by +1d6 every 3 levels thereafter.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d10 or greater die type. The character gains 4 additional skill points per level (to a maximum of 8/level) and may add up to 6 rogue skills to their class skill list.

Wizard:
The character gains wizard spellcasting ability as a wizard of 2/3 of their character level. The character gain Scribe Scroll at level 2 and gain a bonus wizard feat at levels 2, 8, 14 and 20.
Decrease the primary class's hit die type by 1 category if the primary class has a d8 or greater die type. Their BAB decreases by one category (to a minimum of +1 BAB/2 levels). All Knowledge skills, as well as concentration and spellcraft are added to their primary class's class list.

If I had to guess (and I don't), it might be the wise half-orc clerics, smart--no wait--charismatic halfling bards, charismatic gnome sorcerers, etc.

It could be something totally different, though.

That's part of it. I'll try to be brief about this:

Dwarves: Good fighters and clerics. +2 CON and +2 WIS make sense because dwarves are tough in mind and body. In light of ditching the Half-Orc CHA penalty, I don't see why dwarves would keep such a penalty. I'd suggest (based on the maximum DEX of 17 in AD&D and upon the FR Shield Dwarf in 3.X) dropping the CHA penalty and shifting it to DEX.

Elves: All good, no complaints here. I'd prefer them short but that's easy to ignore.

Gnomes: I like the fey (forest gnomey) thing going on here. I understand that (due to backward compatibility) bards must be a favored class. Based on their ties to nature I'd make Druid the other favored class for gnomes... which ties in perfectly with the gnome iconic in Pathfinder. To keep them loosely linked to dwarves (they've always been linked to dwarves in varying degrees) I'd make their ability positive adjustments +2 CON and +2 WIS. Because of their small size they'd keep their -2 to STR.

Halflings: I prefer my halflings a little pudgy and lovers of creature comforts... but know that most don't agree with me on this score. In keeping with 3.X's more Kender-esque vision of halflings and Pathfinder's nomadic halflings, I'd keep rogues as a favored class (which still works for old-school halflings too). Their second favored class is a bit of a problem.
AD&D halflings made decent druids, which made sense because they lived in agrarian societies. With gnomes having druid as a 2nd favored class, I can understand why druids shouldn't also be the 2nd favored class of halflings... though it is a decent fit. If halflings have to have a second class, I guess that it should be bards. I'd keep the +2 to DEX and -2 to STR. I'd TOTALLY ditch the +2 to CHA because I just don't see halflings (or gnomes) as the most charismatic race in the game. Likeable?.?.? sure! But certainly not "natural leaders" and inspiring presences. In its place I'd give them a +2 to WIS because halflings have ALWAYS been described as surprisingly strong-willed and perceptive.

Half-Elves: +2 to any ability score. Favored Class: Any. No problems here.

Half-Orcs: +2 to any ability score... if it works for 1/2 elves it could work for 1/2 Orcs (especially in light of their losing their long-standing CHA penalty). Favored Class: Any... once aqain, based on the 1/2 elf.

Humans: All good.

Chris, this is totally off-topic, but I wanted to say thanks for your "Realm of Geeking" page - it's been an invaluable resource for me as a DM.

Thanks much! Glad to be of service.

Chris, I'm curious about what you see in the racials that's so different. Flavor is irrelevant. Is there something about the stats that you don't like?

It's tough to describe so bear with me...

I get that Pathfinder's designers want to give each race 1 caster and 1 noncaster option for favored classes. I don't see why the stats NEED to directly correlate to the casting attribute of those classes.

This hasn't been necessary in any iteration of D&D and needn't factor so obviously into Pathfinder.

=====================================
D&D Examples:
Dwarves have always made great fighters BUT you don't see them getting a +2 to STR because CON has its benefits too.

Gnomes had been D&D's best illusionists for years but, as illusionists weren't base character class in 3.5, got changed to the "bardic" race of D&D. Rather than give them a CHA bonus, they got a bonus to CON.
====================================

These bonuses to non-key ability scores weren't seen as a nerf to the race but as decisions made on the basis of each race's "flavor".

Now it seems that character maximization drives ability score bonuses even if these bonuses (and penalties) don't necessarily gel with the long-standing fluff for each race.

Reading over the responses I understand why the gods of Golarion need to be plugged into the core rules... just as the Greyhawk gods were used in the PHB. I guess, overall, my key beef is with the racial changes and my puzzling over the reasons behind them.

As I wrote, I like Golarion and dig its flavor... I just don't want that flavor to overshadow the backward compatibility with 3.5. I'd much prefer more vanilla races to be presented within the Pathfinder PHB with variant races presented in the Pathfinder Campaign setting books or in sidebars.

Yes, on the face of it, this is a stupid question. Paizo wants to sell its version of 3.X and wants it tied to their campaign setting. I get that and that is obviously their right...

At the same time I KNOW that I'd rather the Pathfinder RPG be a fairly generic set of rules that fine-tune 3.5 and leave the flavor (differing racial ability mods and flavor text, for example) to various setting supplements.

I'm finding that Pathfinder's racial norms fall outside of what I'd want for my D&Desque game and feel that a lot of these changes come from the need to make the races Golarion-ready when it should be the other way around. The Pathfinder rules should rock so hard that people will want to go out and buy the campaign supplements in order to fine-tune their game.

First and foremost I'd hope that the Pathfinder rules are 3.5 compatible, able to be used with any D&D setting (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Scarred Lands, etc) without too much tweaking.

Getting off of my soapbox...

I doubt that would be possible. It would probably require Cosmo or whomever to make a note to themselves to do it at that time. You would probably be better off re-posting this request after they ship #18 out to you.

Okay... will do after I get #18.

Thanks for the heads-up

I plan to pick up my subscription after the full release of the Pathfinder RPG but, at this point, have more than enough materials to use (should I manage to get a Pathfinder game up and running).

Thanks again,
Chris Perkins

Personally, I had my questions about a couple of them at first... particularly the half orc's wisdom (but I've grown to actually appreciate the insight into that now), but I honestly really like the second +2 bonuses... it adds just enough difference to the flavor of Pathfinder without making it non-backwards compat. (okay, so alot of these elves are a bit more this than those elves... no big deal)

I am very fond of the +2 wherever bonus for Humans and half elves.

So, I have no personal complaints here... but as always, appreciative of other's insights into the game.

I'm not too keen on the ability score breakdown as given in Beta (in particular, the CHA bonuses and penalties).

My simple, proposed changes are:

Dwarves: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (strong-willed and tough), -2 to DEX (short-legged and stoutly built).
Favored class: Fighter or Cleric.

Elves: +2 to DEX, +2 to INT (Graceful and learned), -2 to CON (slight of build).
Favored class: Ranger or Wizard.

Gnomes: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (surprisingly tough and attuned to the surroundings... intuitive/perceptive), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Bard (for backward compatibility) or Druid... like the Pathfinder iconic druid.
These changes are more in line with the fey background of gnomes in Pathfinder.

Half-Elves: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any

Half Orc: +2 to any one ability score (just like half-elves and humans).
Favored class: Barbarian or Druid.

Halflings: +2 to DEX, +2 to CHA (Nimble and persuasive, halflings are well-received in most societies), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Rogue or Bard (tricksters, charlatans, gypsy performers,etc).

Humans: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any

To be honest, giving a CHA bonus to halflings still bothers me a bit, I just can't imagine another "mental" ability score that would replace it. WIS was my original choice BUT it doesn't fit with the new-fangled halflings (who are more like kender than Tolkien halflings).

I like all of these suggestions except those for halflings. I'd keep halflings +2 DEX, +2 CHA, -2 STR.

(1) The iconic D&D halfling has been anything but wise. You can argue that Wisdom in Pathfinder isn't really "wisdom" as the English language uses it, but most people I know tend to roleplay a low-Wisdom PC as a low-wisdom PC.

(2) Doesn't the halfling racial identity sorta depend on being likable?

(3) Keep halflings more differentiated from gnomes.

(4) Giving a third race +2 to Wisdom is IMO too much.

I'd also keep favored class as rogue or bard. Again, the iconic D&D halfling has become "roguish." I don't get the cleric idea at all.

Oh, and as an afterthought, using your suggestion for gnomes: why not favored class druid or ranger? Aren't gnomes supposed to be linked with nature? (I have to admit I never really cared for the "gnome bard" archetype introduced in 3.5 as a substitute for the gnome illusionist. I suppose I'm okay with sorcerer, but I'd still rather see "sorcerer or druid" over "bard or druid" or "bard or sorcerer.")

Good points... I'm sold! The reason I went with WIS is that halflings (not including kender and their 3rd edition halfling clones) have always been described as prudent, perceptive and intuitive creatures in Tolkien and, to a lesser extent, in D&D.

Funny you mention the ranger or druid as favored classes for gnomes because I originally typed that BUT changed it so that my changes weren't too "radical". I'll change it back and change halflings (making their favored classes rogue and bard once more).

I understand the reasoning behind the +2 to both a physical ability score and mental ability score, -2 to one other ability score... to prevent the pigeon-holing of nonhuman characters into 1 character class.

Dwarves: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (strong-willed and tough), -2 to DEX (short-legged and stoutly built).
Favored class: Fighter or Cleric.

Elves: +2 to DEX, +2 to INT (Graceful and learned), -2 to CON (slight of build).
Favored class: Ranger or Wizard.

Gnomes: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (surprisingly tough and attuned to the surroundings... intuitive/perceptive), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Ranger or Druid... like the Pathfinder iconic druid.
These changes are more in line with the fey background of gnomes in Pathfinder.

Half-Elves: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any

Half Orc: +2 to any one ability score (just like half-elves and humans).
Favored class: Barbarian or Druid.

Halflings: +2 to DEX, +2 to CHA (Nimble and persuasive, halflings are well-received in most societies), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Rogue or Bard.

Humans: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any

I understand the reasoning behind the +2 to both a physical ability score and mental ability score, -2 to one other ability score... to prevent the pigeon-holing of nonhuman characters into 1 character class.

Unfortunately, I don't dig the implementation of those bonuses and penalties. In particular, I don't get how dwarves get a CHA penalty while 1/2 Orcs don't and that gnomes and halflings get a CHA bonus. It doesn't gel with the representation of those races over the years or with the fact that CHA counts for MUCH more than how likeable a race is. CHA should encompass one's leadership abilities and force of presence.

My proposed changes (which are not too drastic and are in keeping with the +2/+2/-2 scheme):

Dwarves: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (strong-willed and tough), -2 to DEX (short-legged and stoutly built).
Favored class: Fighter or Cleric.

Elves: +2 to DEX, +2 to INT (Graceful and learned), -2 to CON (slight of build).
Favored class: Ranger or Wizard.

Gnomes: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (surprisingly tough and attuned to the surroundings... intuitive/perceptive), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Bard or Druid... like the Pathfinder iconic druid.
These changes are more in line with the fey background of gnomes in Pathfinder.

Half-Elves: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any

Half Orc: +2 to any one ability score (just like half-elves and humans).
Favored class: Barbarian or Druid.

Halflings: +2 to DEX, +2 to WIS (Nimble, perceptive and surprisingly strong-willed), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Rogue or Cleric. Rogues are well-suited to adventuring, nomadic halflings while clerics are a good fit for halflings who are strongly tied to their community... though clerics of trickster or merchant/travel-themed gods would be like itinerant priests (or charletans, gyspy fortune-tellers, etc).

Humans: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any

Le_dirk wrote:

I realy like nearly everthing I have seen yet.

But why change the DR Rules? Now if you have a +2 weapon you can also get around DR/silver und DR/cold iron? Why? Yust make it easier for the Heroes to have the right weapon?
Thats realy lame. There should be some things where the heroes realy get trouble.If you have this rule nobody how has enough money will ever make use of a silver or cold iron weapon. I for myself would let DR like it is. But would change DR/magic zu DR/+1 DR/+2...(like in 3.0) So that the dragons get more evil again :) That you pass through a great wyrms with a +1 magic weapon I had always hates about D&D 3.5 (Yes I houseruled it back to 3.0 :))

THX

I agree, it needs to be changed back, this vastly weakens the 2k gold I spent with every enhancement on my cold iron jovar.

I disagree. Having to have 6 different weapons in order to fight creatures with differing vulnerabilities gets really old, really fast.

Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady, with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?). While I am not delusional enough to think that our sales will rival those of Wizards and D&D, I'll take this "niche" that we have and happily make products for a long time to come. It isn't as small as you make it out to be and I truly believe that it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. You don't stay in business in this industry for over 20 years without knowing what you are doing, and I have to say that Paizo is doing just fine. I understand that 4e is what drives your engine and that is awesome. But there are quite a few...

You go girl!

I'm happy to read that Paizo is going strong... especially because of the hubris of WotC.

Ismellmonkey wrote:

I’d like a wisdom bonus for halflings, and favored class to be rogue and ranger.

QFT.

I concur. DEX +2, WIS +2, STR -2. Rogue and Ranger as favored classes... please!

I just went down through the list of posts, and I couldn't find anything regarding this subject. I'd bet that this has come up previously, but I didn't see anything. If there is another thread about this, just let this post die and I'll repost it over there.

What's the deal with adding another +2 to the races?

Setting aside the half-elf and the half-orc, the races of 3.5 weren't a broken aspect of the game. Don't get me wrong, just adding more little bonuses here and there will make a lot of people happy and get them to jump on the band-wagon and defend the choice. Many people like bigger bonuses.

However, reading the intro to Pathfinder, there seems to be little need to grant all the races a net total of +2 to their scores from either a balance or compatibility standpoint. While there are certainly areas of the game that actually were broken (spells!), the racial layout wasn't one of them. So, is it merely to be different and/or to increase the bonus total? If so, that's cool. I don't mind that explanation; at least it's honest.

Honestly, it comes off as yet another change that ignores their design goals of backward compatibility and a re-balanced game. (That doesn't mean this change is unbalanced. Just that the change wasn't really needed to re-balance the game. The only races that actually needed to change were the half-elf and the half-orc, and there were plenty of suggestions floating around to balance those two better with the v3.5 races.)

Anyway, I'm mostly interested in one of the previous threads on this subject, but couldn't find one with a scan of the boards. Like I said, I highly doubt I'm the first one to question this issue.

Just to add my 2 cents...

I'm not fond of the added +2 to ability scores. It appears that the racial bonuses have less to do with racial flavor (conceptually) and more to do with crunch (i.e. what classes should a character of a given race choose to play?). The ability scores, as listed, paint a few of the races in a different light from previous incarnations seen in D&D and/or AD&D.

I was hoping that the focus of the Pathfinder RPG would be to clean up the messier aspects of 3rd edition (grappling, polymorph, stacking effects, slow high-level game play, etc) and provide for an adaptable, fairly generic rule set. The more I see, the more it looks like Pathfinder races will be campaign-specific in flavor and that the setting will be hardwired into the PHB.

What about this approach (to prevent to 1 level dip in order to gain caster levels)?

A multiclassed caster adds 1 level of spellcasting ability for every 2 class levels beyond 4th taken in another class (levels 6, 8, 10, 12, etc).

Some examples:

Wizard 1/Fighter 4: Spellcasting abilities of a 1st level wizard

Wizard 1/Fighter 10: Spellcasting abilities of a 4th level wizard

Wizard 1/Fighter 18: Spellcasting abilities of an 8th level wizard

Wizard 10/Fighter 4: Spellcasting abilities of a 10th level wizard

Wizard 10/Fighter 10: Spellcasting abilities of a 13th level wizard

Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Fighter 4: Spellcasting abilities of a 1st level wizard and cleric

Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Fighter 18: Spellcasting abilities of a 8th level wizard and cleric

Wizard 6/Cleric 6/Fighter 10: Spellcasting abilities of a 10th level wizard and 10th level cleric

The Practiced Spellcaster feat would still be useful, working exactly as it currently does.

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

It looks to me like you reply to some posts with needlessly argumentative replies. Try to curb that reflex because it's really not helpful to reasoned discussion.

You're not my mom.

Very observant... but it doesn't speak to the point. Either treat people on the boards with respect or don't post.

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

Halflings: -2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CON

You talk about bonuses that don't have anything to do with the races and then come up with +2 con for halflings??? That fits a lot less then Int, or Wis for half-orcs.

I gave my explanation above. I guess you didn't care to read or consider it. If you look at Halflings in AD&D, they got a bonus to saves versus poison and, in Tolkien (which is THE basis for Halflings) they are deceptively tough.

I ALSO wrote that another way around the problem was to grant a +2 to DEX and limit strength to a 14 but assign no penalty. That way the bonus to CON could be dropped altogether.

It looks to me like you reply to some posts with needlessly argumentative replies. Try to curb that reflex because it's really not helpful to reasoned discussion.

Samuel Peer wrote:

It should be +2 Str and +2 Con and -2 Int (not even going into Cha penalty).

No way in all the hells. That would make them the most overpowered race out there, something that is usually reserved by dwarves.

Plus, all the other races get one physical and one mental boost, why should half-orcs be different.

I really think that the mandatory bonus to 1 Physical and 1 Mental stat, offset by 1 penalized stat, is lame. It creates racial bonuses and penalties that have little to do with how the races have been portrayed over the years and just overly-complicates things.

Keep it simple I say!

Dwarves: +2 CON
Elves: +2 DEX
Gnomes: -2 STR, +2 INT, +2 CON
Half-Orcs: +2 STR
Half-Elves: +2 to any one stat
Halflings: -2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CON
Humans: +2 to any one stat

The funkiest races in this set-up are Gnomes, 1/2 Elves and Halflings.

For Gnomes, I based the ability score mods on AD&D and D&D 3.X Gnomes crossed with a Tinker Gnome background... which fits with their description in Alpha 2... "Many view such gnomes as eccentric,as their passions tend toward invention, alchemy, or other technical pursuits." The CHR bonus, while mechanically best considering their favored class, does not make sense from a flavor perspective. I don't see Gnomes as more charismatic than any other player race. Another option is to remove the STR penalty but limit STR to 14 and give Gnomes a +2 to CON.

For 1/2 Elves, I went with the same bonus that Humans get... because no single ability score bonus comes immediately to mind and they have historically shared the same lack of ability score mods as Humans.

For Halflings, I based their ability score mods on AD&D and D&D 3.x Halflings, taking their save bonuses versus poison into consideration when selecting CON. I don't see Halflings, as a race, any smarter than any other race but do see them as deceptively tough little buggers (a carry over from Tolkien I suppose... but in keeping with their D&D history too). Another option is to remove the STR penalty but limit STR to 14 and give Halflings a +2 to DEX.

Gruumsh doesn't strike me as the sort of deity that likes shmansy pansy druids with flowers in their hair running around.

Who says they have to be pansies?

I agree the bonus to Str/Con makes more sense than Str/Wis (though I assume the rationale behind the Wisdom bonus is due to them growing up having to look out for themselves and spot prejudice coming).

Slightly off topic, I definitely don't agree with Half-Orcs getting no penalties to Charisma while Dwarves do. Dwarves may be dour, but does this make them less likable and less trusted than a half-orc?? I have trouble swallowing that.

I kinda get that you are looking for balance in the character classes, but it really does make sense for half-orcs to have penalties to both intelligence & charisma. If this is not an option (or even if it is), I would agree with a suggestion above to change the dwarf penalty from Cha to Dex. Their love of armour and their high constiution makes them less focused on getting out of harms way, and more focused on absorbing damage and then dealing more back.

Exactly why dwarves should take a hit to DEX rather than CHR!

I also agree that Half-Orcs would be better off with a bonus to STR and CON.

I can accept gnomes getting a bonus to CHA (I think) but dwarves, 1/2orcs and halflings should be changed... please.

I do think that favored class should be taken into consideration. There should be natural reasons that the race has a specific favored class. That said I think I agree with what you said about Dwarves but I am not sure about Halflings - Intelligence makes some sense to me. I think rogues in general and to be good at their crafts should be intelligent (boosts those skills). I think I will remake my Halfling Rogue today to Pathfinder RPG as a test case.

Gnomes I am not sure I have an opinion on having never played one and only had one in any group I have played with. I never liked the whole Gnome Illusionist thing. I have no opinion on the Gnome Bard thing at this point.

I think it should be taken into consideration too... but shouldn't be the chief basis for ability score mods that don't really make sense.

I don't see gnomes as having a stronger presence/ability to influence other than any other race.

As for halflings... I guess I'm in the minority here. I like old-school halflings and would like to see Paizo return them to their roots (or move them closer to those roots).