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.
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
So Dwarves take a penalty on INT? or DEX? Where would you put the dwarves penalty? I think DEX would make a lot of sense but that's never going to fly.
Dwarves have a penalty on the DUMP STAT for almost every class. That's a major plus for the dwarves.
So Dwarves take a penalty on INT? or DEX? Where would you put the dwarves penalty? I think DEX would make a lot of sense but that's never going to fly.
Dwarves have a penalty on the DUMP STAT for almost every class. That's a major plus for the dwarves.
Agreed, they are some what short and stubby which does not exactly make them intimidating to others, and they are rude and stubborn, so they are not diplomats.
Cha is a dump stat on top of that, so it is a great stat mechanically to get a minus too.
So Dwarves take a penalty on INT? or DEX? Where would you put the dwarves penalty? I think DEX would make a lot of sense but that's never going to fly.
Dwarves have a penalty on the DUMP STAT for almost every class. That's a major plus for the dwarves.
Agreed, they are some what short and stubby which does not exactly make them intimidating to others, and they are rude and stubborn, so they are not diplomats.
Cha is a dump stat on top of that, so it is a great stat mechanically to get a minus too.
Which is, quite possibly, the best reason to change it to something else. Aside from Bards or Sorcerers, dwarves do well with everything. I'd never really thought much about the Charisma penalty and changing it to something else, but it really is more of a boon than a penalty - perhaps it should be moved to Dexterity...
Which is, quite possibly, the best reason to change it to something else. Aside from Bards or Sorcerers, dwarves do well with everything. I'd never really thought much about the Charisma penalty and changing it to something else, but it really is more of a boon than a penalty - perhaps it should be moved to Dexterity...
It's kind of a dirty little secret that dwarves seriously kick butt.
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).
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
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.
|
What I'm trying to get across is that no CHA penalty for half-orcs should equate to no CHA penalty for half-orcs.
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."
From RotR 3:
The Smoke Haunt has a +8 to CHA. "Smoke haunts hate all things, even others of their own kind."
The Totenmaske has a +10 to CHA, perhaps due to all that memory eating and flesh drinking.
The Argorth also has a +10 to CHA. "Unnatural beings twice over, argorths have no role in any sane ecology, existing only to indulge in ever-greater orgies of destruction."
Even the Skull Ripper has a +2 to CHA. "There is nothing that gives it more satisfaction than wrenching a man's head from his neck, then holding it aloft to show the victim's bulging, still-seeing eyes its own decapitated corpse thrashing and twitching in a gory puddle of its own juices."
The argument could be made that elves, humans, etc. are more charismatic than say an argorth, but I don't think they're going to get a +12 to CHA.
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.
The Argorth also has a +10 to CHA. "Unnatural beings twice over, argorths have no role in any sane ecology, existing only to indulge in ever-greater orgies of destruction."
The argument could be made that elves, humans, etc. are more charismatic than say an argorth, but I don't think they're going to get a +12 to CHA.
I don't know, some people go for the whole orgies of destruction thing. Sort of an animal magnetism thing.
Actually, I'd go for both Dex and Cha. Dwarves are powerful enough as it is, so they can weather the double penalty, especially since charisma is one of the penalised stats.
But failing that, dex would indeed fit well - it hurts them more than cha (which they just leave at 8, but dex is usually raised to 12 at least, so you can max out your full plate. Okay, there's stoneplate now, but with the penalty, dwarves would have to raise their dex to max that out), and elves aren't getting anything out of their supposed elven grace, either.
So, I say: Hit the dwarves where it hurts.
Elves are fine. It's the small folk who get the shaft. Both little races get a bonus to CHA? That's not much help unless you are a sorcerer or a bard.
Here's how I see the races as far as attribute bonuses goes:
First tier - These races are really good at several classes due to stat bonus synergy and penalties in dump stats:
- Dwarves: +CON,+WIS,-CHA --> Amazing for clerics, druids and monks... WIS+CON also helps rangers. Not what you'd expect from a dwarf. Monks speed bonus or wild shape makes up for dwarves speed penalty. Clerics don't need mobility.
- Half Orcs: +STR, +WIS,-INT --> Again clerics, druids and monks... strange mix here.
Second tier - Good at some classes due to stat bonus synergy but penalties hurt a bit
- Elves: +DEX, -CON, +INT -> Rogue, Wizard, Bard, Ranger too but the CON penalty hurts a lot.
- Halfling: -STR, +DEX, +CHA --> Bards, and Sorcerers, the small size and Dex helps casters AC. The CHA bonus doesn't help rogues near as much as the STR penalty hurts them :( Slow speed and lack of low light vision also shafts halfling rogues. Elves make better rogues.
- Gnome: -STR, +CON, +CHA --> Same story, Bards and sorcerers are about it, they aren't good at any martial classes.
I don't think the stat bonuses effectively reinforce what the favored classes of the races are supposed to be.
Halfling: -STR, +DEX, +CHA --> Bards, and Sorcerers, the small size and Dex helps casters AC. The CHA bonus doesn't help rogues near as much as the STR penalty hurts them :( Slow speed and lack of low light vision also shafts halfling rogues. Elves make better rogues.
Halfling's Strength penalty is barely a penalty at all for them as Rogues, just a -1 to damage is about it. Most Halfling Rogues will have Weapon Finesse, so no penalty from that, + small size = +1 to hit. With most damage of a Rogue coming from *hitting*, that +1 is worth far more than an Elf's lack of strength penalty and 0.5-1.0 more points of damage from weapon size.
And Luck - +1 to all saves. What's a Rogue who can't escape a saving throw? (dead).
Halfling's Strength penalty is barely a penalty at all for them as Rogues, just a -1 to damage is about it. Most Halfling Rogues will have Weapon Finesse, so no penalty from that, + small size = +1 to hit. With most damage of a Rogue coming from *hitting*, that +1 is worth far more than an Elf's lack of strength penalty and 0.5-1.0 more points of damage from weapon size.Halfling: -STR, +DEX, +CHA --> Bards, and Sorcerers, the small size and Dex helps casters AC. The CHA bonus doesn't help rogues near as much as the STR penalty hurts them :( Slow speed and lack of low light vision also shafts halfling rogues. Elves make better rogues.
The +1 from the size is great... except it's coupled with a 20' movement which seriously sucks. All in all I think the size thing is a wash which puts us back to the attributes.
STR isn't that huge of a deal, it's just that for a rogue the STR penalty isn't worth the CHA bonus. Sometimes the rogue doesn't get sneak attack damage. In the elf's case I would say the INT bonus IS worth the CON penalty but it depends somewhat on whether you build skill focused rogues.
Let's talk about Goblins, 30' move, small size, darkvision, +4 racial bonus on move silently (Maybe change to +2 bonus to stealth). Even with crappy ability bonuses the goblin makes a rockin rogue... probably better than either the halfling or the elf.
And Luck - +1 to all saves. What's a Rogue who can't escape a saving throw? (dead).
No doubt.
Wel, penality on charisma is historical, but a little strange now that favorite class is Cleric ( Baseded on wisdom and charisma) ...
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).
;)
Wel, penality on charisma is historical, but a little strange now that favorite class is Cleric ( Baseded on wisdom and charisma) ...
Well except they already make awesome clerics, I'll take the +2 WIS anyday. Dwarven clerics are obviously more martial clerics and don't focus on healing or turning undead so much :) There are very few other races that get a great synergy with their racial bonuses either.
Elves are fine.
I'm not sure about this. Are their racial traits more powerful than the other races'? Their con penalty surely is more punishing than the other races' penalties, especially the dwarves' and half-orcs'
It's the small folk who get the shaft. Both little races get a bonus to CHA? That's not much help unless you are a sorcerer or a bard.
And rogues (for many of their skills, including the one that lets them feint) and paladins.
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
I agree with Selgard. I think Charisma is the correct penalty stats for dwarves.
I seen dwarves played grumpy, stubborn, moody, not the brightest, funny, holy, battle loving, greedy, but diplomatic is not one of them.
Now that I think about it... I have only seen a dwarf use only 2 charisma skills.
Bluff in a amusing way and Use Magic Device on dwarven thieves/rogues.
Elves are fine.I'm not sure about this. Are their racial traits more powerful than the other races'? Their con penalty surely is more punishing than the other races' penalties, especially the dwarves' and half-orcs'
I have to agree CON is a nasty bump but not horrible for a wizard. The fact that dex and int are both wizard friendly stats helps. They also have a wizard some wizard friendly racial abilities.
What's kind of really weak is how lame the stats work out for elf rangers.
It's the small folk who get the shaft. Both little races get a bonus to CHA? That's not much help unless you are a sorcerer or a bard.And rogues (for many of their skills, including the one that lets them feint) and paladins.
Meh... it's a tertiary attribute at best for a rogue, +1 to UMD and Bluff versus -1 to climb, and less damage... Don't get me wrong, I think halflings make good rogues, I just don't think their ability modifiers have the sort of synergy they do with the Half-Orc Druid or Dwarf Cleric which have 2 class friendly bonuses and a dump stat for a penalty. The halfling rogue didn't get nearly as badly shafted as the elf rangers :)
Halfling paladin? Very cool role play. Unfortunately, it sucks. Low strength, poor weapon damage, the DEX boost doesn't help much of anything for the paladin, slow move in melee. The +1 on saves and +1 attack bonus are all it's got going on and they are poor compensation.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Halfling paladin? Very cool role play. Unfortunately, it sucks. Low strength, poor weapon damage, the DEX boost doesn't help much of anything for the paladin, slow move in melee. The +1 on saves and +1 attack bonus are all it's got going on and they are poor compensation.
Not if you think about them using a lance and spirited charge or using mounted archery as a secondary attack option. A riding dog bonded mount works well in almost all environments. Tossing around flasks of Holy Water against undead and Evil Outsiders is good for halflings too! Drop some Bless Weapon on your lance and you auto crit evil doers! Just added goodness!
Okay.. First off all of these are based of how dwarves seem to be in PF and D&D so if your, and to be fair my, campaign and personal views of how dwarves should be don't factor in.
Charisma as it stands in 3.x is a combination of force of personality, the ability to relate to others and the sense of ones individualism. It is not how likable you are. It is not how good looking you are. Think of it this way.. Wis is mental Con its how hard it is for others to make you think what they want.. Int is mental dexterity.. Its how fast and accurate your thinkity bits are. CHA is mental strength.. Its how well you force your thoughts on others.
Now lets look at the D&D/Pathfinder core dwarf real quick. Stubborn as all hell and resistant to being manipulated whether magically or socially. Dwarves are also usually suspicious of the unknown. Well this fits in good with the wis bonus they get now. It adds to will saves and sense motive and it ties them to their gods as wise and mighty clerics a common D&D stereo type for them.
Dwarves are partially resistant to magic in most campaigns. Dwarves tend to have a default in D&D of lawful good. From thisv Dwarves seem to have a strong and commonly help belief in what is real and true. This implies that dwarves have a culturally firmer belief on reality.. This means that there is less need in their native environments to convince others of their personal views since they are more shared. Dwarves also as a lawful good society would not only be more uniform in outlook but since they innately lean towards good they would feel bad about the negative effects that their disharmony has on others. They also seem to have a tendency to put society before themselves. Death for the clan and all that.
So we have at least as far as *default* goes A group of strong willed people who firmly belive they are right who see no reason to talk about how right they are or convince others of it. A people who are at least slightly intolerant of extreme individualistic behavior. A people who have a resistance to deception making it less likely that they would practice it amongst themselves. And who put the group before themselves. These are all things that add up to a Cha penalty hindering them at sorcery a form of magic that seems to be focused on willing reality to change <VS wizardry which seems to be more formulaic and scientific>. And now with the changes paladins have undergone to them a roaming crusader who inflicts his views of right and wrong on others and who is empowered by a mysterious universal force rather then thier god.
If dwarves in your campaign are different.. Change the stat mods to better suit you and your worlds view of them.. But there are reasons it was charisma its not like they just pulled it out of a hat.
In my campaigns I have kept the charisma pen but for ratherdifferent reasons.
I have to agree CON is a nasty bump but not horrible for a wizard.
Wizards already take a beating with their low HD (not as bad as before, but still not that good), the con only makes things worse.
What's kind of really weak is how lame the stats work out for elf rangers.
Or elf fighters. Or paladins. Or druids. Or clerics. Or rogues.
Or anything else really. A con penalty is quite serious.
What's kind of really weak is how lame the stats work out for elf rangers.Or elf fighters. Or paladins. Or druids. Or clerics. Or rogues.
Or anything else really. A con penalty is quite serious.
Well... I know plenty of folks who run a 10 or 12 CON with clerics or rogues, but yeah CON penalty is pretty harsh, in particular next to the dwarf's CHA 'penalty'.
As I said, the dwarf has been the dirty little secret power class for some time. Now it's even better, and half orcs are the second dirty little secret.
It's funny, from a min-maxing POV both dwarves and half-orcs would make better rangers even giving the elves favored class.
But which is worse, getting a penalty to a secondary attribute or getting a 'bonus' to most every classes dump stat (CHA) and a penalty to the primary or secondary stat for many classes (STR)?
The Cha penalty hurts dwarven paladins, sorcerers, and bards the most. It does hurt dwarven clerics a *little* (very very little considering feats available). A bonus to CON helps dwarves in every role, and the bonus to WIS helps equaly too. I mean who can't use a bump to their Will saves and Fort saves and have an extra 20 HP by 20th level?
Halflings rock the world as arcane tricksters now. Grab Improved Feint, and Arcane Armor Training, go sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster and don't worry about much of anything.
Half Orcs wow bonus to STR and WIS, penalty INT? Ok you are going to have one less skill point that most others but you can rock any melee or divine class so why cry over it? With darkvision and that frerocity you just might keep up when anyone else would die.
Gnomes get magic, CON and CHA bonuses and a penalty to STR. Their size bonuses kill most the hurt from the STR penalty (equipment weights 1/2 as much but they can carry 3/4 as much too) and with a decent try they actually make good paladins now.
Humans are as good a choice as always, better in some ways becuase of the floating bonus.
Elves... are getting skipped a lot everywhere I see. People don't want to frontline them becuase of their CON penalty, the DEX bonus isn't that hot, most races can get it if needed (becuase of the human and half elf roaming bonus, and the halfling's bonus), and the INT bonus does help more than a little becuase it does give 1 extra skill point, but nothing else if you aren't playing a wizard. Their weapon abilities are a joke if you play any melee class, low light vision is common, their skill bonuses only matter for spell chuckers, their keen vision ability is a nice complement for rogues, they magic immunity comes down to a + 2 vs Enchantment spells (sleep doesn't really matter after a while). What's more their prestige classes, well just aren't very prestigious.
Arcane Archer? More like: "I traded the cosmic powers of a wizard for +1 magic arrows! YAY I'M SMURT!" Blade Dancer? "I traded in some of the cosmic powers of a wizard so I hit a little better while wearing dinky armor that's worse than a mage armor spell! YAY I'M SMURT!"
Elves... are getting skipped a lot everywhere I see. People don't want to frontline them becuase of their CON penalty, the DEX bonus isn't that hot, most races can get it if needed (becuase of the human and half elf roaming bonus, and the halfling's bonus), and the INT bonus does help more than a little becuase it does give 1 extra skill point, but nothing else if you aren't playing a wizard. Their weapon abilities are a joke if you play any melee class, low light vision is common, their skill bonuses only matter for spell chuckers, their keen vision ability is a nice complement for rogues, they magic immunity comes down to a + 2 vs Enchantment spells (sleep doesn't really matter after a while). What's more their prestige classes, well just aren't very prestigious.
Well I find it somewhat ironic that the one exotic weapon martial elves get access to is not really useful to the ranger since it's a 2H weapon:
Overall not much better than a greatsword and not useful to the Elves favored classes at all.
Well I find it somewhat ironic that the one exotic weapon martial elves get access to is not really useful to the ranger since it's a 2H weapon:
Overall not much better than a greatsword and not useful to the Elves favored classes at all.
Depends.. Ive always found a 2 hander to be better backup for an archer since they tend to have a slightly lower strength and bows are 2handed anyways so its not like they use a shield other then a buckler. Usually i prefer one of the spear/polearm types for its versatility though.. The curve blade itself is lame and underpowered.. blow a feat for a +2 disarming greataxe ? Especially with the wacky new CMB systems difficulty to begin with ? No thanks.. Only elves will ever wield this thing unlike lots the other 'race' weapons
|
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.
Well I find it somewhat ironic that the one exotic weapon martial elves get access to is not really useful
I cut off the rest because the sentence makes sense without it. The curve blade doesn't deserve epic weapon status.
Not to mention that a giant kukri should have 18-20/x2 instead of x3.
|
Another fan of Dwarves having a -2 Dex and no Cha penalty.
Dwarves have *very* forceful personalities. Fainting flowers they are not. Whether they are loud, argumentative or intimidating, they are not shy or weak of personality, nor do they have a reputation for being gullible and easily convinced / swindled, which a penalty to Cha would tend to assume (since they would be prone to losing Cha contests and being bullied or pressured into doing whatever they're told).
I could see an argument for a half-race to have a Cha penalty, or a race that is portrayed as retiring (shire hobbits, for example, easily bullied and pressured into things), but neither Elves nor Dwarves fit that characterization.
As for the Dex penalty, it fits with their racial speed penalty and the description of them having stumpy legs. While expert Craftsmen, Craft skills are based on Intelligence, not Dexterity, so it's all good.
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!
Another fan of Dwarves having a -2 Dex and no Cha penalty.
Dwarves have *very* forceful personalities. Fainting flowers they are not. Whether they are loud, argumentative or intimidating, they are not shy or weak of personality
But they're ugly, have poor hygiene, and are very, very annoying. All that are heavy hits on charisma.
nor do they have a reputation for being gullible and easily convinced / swindled, which a penalty to Cha would tend to assume (since they would be prone to losing Cha contests and being bullied or pressured into doing whatever they're told).
You don't need charisma for that, but wisdom: In order to be not gullible, you need sense motive, which is based on wis. Strong will is based on wis, too, and that helps against intimidation.
Charisma is purely offensive, if you forgive my formulation.
Still, I'd go for Dex, of course, because that's more punishing, and they need to be cut down to size.
|
|
But they're ugly, have poor hygiene, and are very, very annoying. All that are heavy hits on charisma.
You know, I don't really consider them ugly. They certainly aren't gracefully beautiful like the elves or adorable like the gnomes, but they have a certain charm for sure. Beauty to a dwarf might be a little different but it's not necessarily out of the realm of good looks, especially if your into that kind of thing. A strong man with rough features can be exciting and interesting. They tend to be a bit short, but quite stout. They are very inciteful and romantic which fights internally a bit with their dwarvish stoicism.
And I think the hygiene thing is also one of perspective. I never really thought of them as smelling bad or anything. A little dirt never bothered a dwarf, but even they know that cut and polished gem shines infinitely brighter than when it was newly plucked from stone. They are quite proud of their beards and in many stories they braid and decorate them with great interest. And wether the women have beards or not they are greatly adorned with baubles and hair ties. They love earthen colors but they know that those colors include rubies and sapphires and emeralds and gold and silver and many others. I see them adopting a dress that is reminiscent of the earth, subdued earthey browns and blacks splashes of with citrine or azurite to make them pop. When a dwarf wants to look his best, he's comfortable yet smart, black with a garnet colored loose tie and golden cufflinks in loose sleeve. It would be something that he can roll up his sleeves and get to work if he's needed and would likely give him a full range of movement lest he be seen as a layabout. The women, would wear something open and easy to move it that would show off her assets, both literally and figuratively. She'd be able to take care of herself and have extra to spare and she'd advertise that to the best of her ability. Pants would be equally common as a loose but practical skirt. A bit of charcoal or a smudge of dirt(honestly obtained) would not be considered out of place of even unwelcome. As a matter of fact, it may be a mark of pride. Their colognes and perfume smell of earth and spice and fire.
At least that's always been my view of them.
No way to the Dex penalty. Dwarves have a knack for solid craftsmanship and are good with their hands. ("Man-made" is dwarven slang for "shaddy.") That does not add up to a Dex penalty. The Charisma penalty suits the gruff nature of the dwarf. This doesn't mean a dwarf doesn't have a strong personality (which is represented by a combination of the three mental stats), just that interactions with strangers are hindered by stoic behavior and that the dwarf isn't very glib or splashy. If this means he lacks some of the requisite splash to max out on sorcerer spells or turning undead, that to me makes more sense than making the dwarf all thumbs.
|
|
No way to the Dex penalty. Dwarves have a knack for solid craftsmanship and are good with their hands. ("Man-made" is dwarven slang for "shaddy.") That does not add up to a Dex penalty. The Charisma penalty suits the gruff nature of the dwarf. This doesn't mean a dwarf doesn't have a strong personality (which is represented by a combination of the three mental stats), just that interactions with strangers are hindered by stoic behavior and that the dwarf isn't very glib or splashy. If this means he lacks some of the requisite splash to max out on sorcerer spells or turning undead, that to me makes more sense than making the dwarf all thumbs.
Hardly makes them all thumbs any more than it makes them incompetent sorcerors. I'd say their hands might be steady, but they don't have a full range of movement and they are less flexible than humans tend to be. They make up for it by using it to their advantage. They are sturdy and have a hard time being knocked over. They tend to be slow, but are hard to stop once going. They are a race of the earth and are not known for speed or flexibility.
|
|
No way to the Dex penalty. Dwarves have a knack for solid craftsmanship and are good with their hands. ("Man-made" is dwarven slang for "shaddy.") That does not add up to a Dex penalty.
Dex has nothing to do with Craft skills in D&D. Crafting is all Intelligence-based, and I'd have a definite problem with Dwarves being presented as having an Intelligence penalty, since the craftsman thing is such a key part of Dwarven tradition. But Dex is meaningless, but mechanically in the game and traditionally, since Dwarven diplomats might not be the most traditional thing, but Dwarven acrobats surely aren't!
Not every use of Charisma has to depict the race as being diplomats anyway.
A Dwarven merchant, hailed by some wealthy and successful and cursed by others as a miserly skinflint, reknowned for his ability to part others from their money for his fine craftsmanship, might have a decent Bluff skill, for hawking his wares.
A Dwarven sheriff, good at keeping his ear to the ground and finding out what he needs to know to keep his community safe, might be good at Gather Information, particularly when it involves hanging around the tavern and just letting the lads talk and talk.
A Dwarven battlerager might drink some foul fermented goat's milk 'gutshaker' and fly into a berserk rage in combat, but against non-goblinoids, he's as likely to Intimidate weaker foes to run away, rather than face his fury.
And the Dwarven geomancer (Earth heritage Sorcerer), who taps into the power fo the earth to protect his community and is marked with the strange tattoo-runes that his people use to contain his dangerous untrained powers, might be skilled at unlocking the arcane potential of items in his hands (just as he appears to have unlocked his own arcane potential!), with his Use Magic Device skill.
A Dex penalty fits the races physical build and their temperament. They may not strike the first blow, but they will strike the last blow. They may not flip gracefully out of the area of that fireball, but they will grunt as it washes over them and continue moving foreward after it's fury has passed. They may not be famous for their ability to skulk around, and indeed, their foes will usually hear their heavily-armored mail a-clinking as their stomp relentlessly towards their foes, but they don't have a need to flit around from tree to tree, as they are tough enough to announce their presence and challenge all comers to face them beard to beard in honest combat. They don't run fast, certainly not as fast as an elven ranger, but at the end of the day, the dwarf will have run *longer,* and he'll say with a wink that this also carries over to other aspects of their lives, which is why there are so many darn half-elves, because the elves with their fleeting stamina are unable to hold on to their women, unlike the long-lasting dwarves!
Dwarves should have to spend all their ability points on Cha just to get above zero.
I'd say that's pretty harsh, were it not for the fact that about 95% of the dwarves I've seen played were like that - and 4% of the rest were played by Yours Truly in an attempt to show people that dwarves don't have to be all the same.
|
|
Dwarves should have to spend all their ability points on Cha just to get above zero.
Really?
Geez. OK. I'm gonna hate myself for this in after I post it, but... Lets go to the definition, shall we? I hate wankers that do this in general but when we're talking about defining dwarven weakness I think we need to start on the same definition here and does seem necessary in this case.
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
And just for completeness, lets get Dexterity down here too.
Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance.
This is something I've felt time and again. Dwarves are handbuilt to wear plate armor and smack people with axes. I've always seem them as "gruff" mostly to non-clan members. I've never thought of them as poor leader, unpersuasive, or to lack any force of personality. Only that they are protective, a little xenophobic, and kind of insular. To me, that's a societal and roleplaying thing and not a statistics thing. They are however slow and steady. They have a represented bonus to their balance with the trip and bull rush bonus. This should go hand in hand with the Dex minus, in my eyes. Plus they seem hand built to be tanks rather acrobats. It just makes sense to me for them to get that negative dex rather than the negative charisma.
I don't know. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
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!!!!
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.
There is, it's called a dwarf.
(joke)
Turn the sunshine back on, Grrrl, a lot of this is in jest.
Only that they are protective, a little xenophobic, and kind of insular. To me, that's a societal and roleplaying thing and not a statistics thing.
As you quoted: Charisma is both how you think of yourself and how you present yourself to others.
Dwarves may not be shy, but the usual dwarf in fantasy is shown as someone who doesn't care about courtesies, someone who's rude and doesn't want to seem friendly to others. That will make others dislike you.
But since I'm one of those who say that a dex penalty would be better, I won't argue too much. Your idea of making it a pure roleplaying thing (like elves' beauty) is fine by me, too.
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.
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.
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.
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".