|
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.
Well, in PFRPG they are trying to fix 'obvious broke' and presumably felt that the old half-orc ability mods were in that sort of category. The Dwarf Charisma mod wasn't felt to be in that category, I suppose.
I am fine with the Charisma penalty, though; I guess it could be removed for dwarf-dwarf interaction (I'd call it a +2 bonus to charisma for interacting with other dwarfs, however) but the issue that some have here seems to be flavour and if there were going to be a change then I'd agree that they should have a Charisma and Dexterity penalty, but in my case I think that if there were only going to be one (as there is) then it should be Charisma.
Charisma is and remains a sort of awkward stat, particularly in 3e where it's a caster stat (and a similar weirdness obtains in Rolemaster, where 'Presence' is a caster stat for mentalists). Personally, I sort of wish D&D had kept Int as the caster stat for all arcanes and Wisdom for all divines, given that we have to have caster stats at all (if it wouldn't cross the "it's not D&D anymore" line, I'd prefer a Shadowrun- or Runequest-style magic attribute, myself).
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.
Just wanted to pop in and say that, though I'm certainly not the one with final say on any of this, there are a lot of compelling arguments being made here. I'll try to make sure that we're all keeping them in mind as the process goes forward.
And now... carry on!
Just wanted to pop in and say that, though I'm certainly not the one with final say on any of this, there are a lot of compelling arguments being made here. I'll try to make sure that we're all keeping them in mind as the process goes forward.
And now... carry on!
In that case I'll shut up about debating it not making a difference as I gag on my foot. :P
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.
|
One issue I have with *any* PC race having a Charisma penalty is what it represents, a race that is socially 'backward' or insecure compared to the default humans, less likely to have leaders (or respect said leaders), or any strong personality or presence, being shy and retiring and not likely to speak up or express a strong opinion. Charisma is primarily a social attribute, and a race with a lower (or higher) Charisma than the 'baseline' should have a radically different social structure.
I could see members of a 'half' race, such as Half-Orcs or Half-Elves being unsure of their status, particularly in a setting where they can't interbreed and form their own second-generation 'half-breeds' as a viable race of it's own, and remain perpetual second-class citizens or outcasts wherever they go. I could *also* see such individuals being *more* outgoing and forceful of personality, being more confrontational as a survival necessity, given their status.
I could see lower-caste members of a caste-based society being lower Charisma, accepting their low station and used to considering members of higher castes as 'superior' to themselves. A race in which the PC members are all lower-caste representatives, while the higher-caste representatives are stay-at-homes who run the government or whatever and never go for this aimless wandering 'adventuring' life, would make sense to be a low-Charisma PC race.
I could see the stereotype of the 'Miner 49er' who digs gold out in the hills all year, and then wanders into town with his donkey laden with ore to splash it all out in drink and gambling and whores, being socially inept, working his solitary mine and living his solitary life, but such an invidual wouldn't be an active part of any established race with cities and communities, merely an individual of particularly eccentric and / or dour demeanor, more likely to talk to himself, or his mule, than have any success at communicating with people. Substitute 'miner' for 'curmudgeonly hermit' or 'wandering ascetic' or 'witch of the woods' and any race could have an individual of this sort, but an entire race of people who don't get along with each other (or anyone else) and live alone on the fringes of civilization would probably not be viable if they weren't, like elves or hags, very long-lived.
I could see a hive mind, particularly the lower ranks of such, having a serious Charisma penalty, having no contact with other races or cultures and of a species that has a designated 'mediator' or 'ambassador' to handle such matters.
Almost any of these low-Charisma examples *could* be used to replace the traditionally proud and loud and boisterous ale-swilling, war-chanting, meticulously-groomed mercantile dwarves of more traditional fantasy, and it might make for a fascinating setting where dwarves live in great 'hives' underground, separated by birth-caste into crafters and warriors and leaders, but it's hardly 'traditional.'
|
|
Set, if they just said that the Dwarves get a +2 Charisma bonus for dealing with other dwarves, that'd fix some of it, right?
Of course, a charisma penalty doesn't, in any case, mean no high-charisma individuals. It just moves the distribution; in the case of PCs, who often assemble their characters for optimisation, it'll also reshape the distribution, but amongst the general dwarven population there'll still be a high-charisma tail from which to generate epic leaders, even if one didn't have a special +2 bonus for dealing with other dwarves. Great leaders might be rarer, but then, the community-minded fightin' dwarves might need less great leaders, as they'd require less motivation from their leaders because they will do what's being asked of them more easily from their own nature.
|
You know, +2 or -2 isn't really going to break anyone. You can play a paladin with a -2 charisma or a ranger with a -2 dex just fine. It can always be made up later. But I've always seen dwarves as diplomats rather than acrobats. As standup and take it fighters in plate mail, rather than run around the field ducking in and out of combat nimble swashbuckly types in light armor. Their movement is obviously hindered somewhat, based on their -10 feet land speed. That said, they have a very low center of gravity so it's difficult to knock them over. If you look at them, they look like a barrel with legs and arms and that just seems less nimble to me. I have a hard time seeing dwarves as ninjas but could see a dwarven bard(though honestly a more solemn and dignified performance would be necessary). Maybe it's just my view of dwarves that is off.
|
|
You know, +2 or -2 isn't really going to break anyone. You can play a paladin with a -2 charisma or a ranger with a -2 dex just fine. It can always be made up later. But I've always seen dwarves as diplomats rather than acrobats. As standup and take it fighters in plate mail, rather than run around the field ducking in and out of combat nimble swashbuckly types in light armor. Their movement is obviously hindered somewhat, based on their -10 feet land speed. That said, they have a very low center of gravity so it's difficult to knock them over. If you look at them, they look like a barrel with legs and arms and that just seems less nimble to me. I have a hard time seeing dwarves as ninjas but could see a dwarven bard(though honestly a more solemn and dignified performance would be necessary). Maybe it's just my view of dwarves that is off.
I think that because Dexterity is a multi-faceted item (unlike in Rolemaster, where there's a split into Quickness and Agility) that it's really a matter of how one weights each of the components. Also, as skills only have one stat associated with them (again unlike Rolemaster skills, at least using the multibonus averaging option) things can be a little weird; I'd expect dwarves to be good at picking locks because it's mechanical stuff, but Open Lock is a dex-based skill (presumably because it's a rogue skill and rogues are dex-based).
Of course, they only miss a dexterity penalty, so I doubt we'd see many of them as ninjas.
|
A Dex penalty hurts more than a Cha penalty, which is fine by me, since dwarves gain some very sweet advantages (Darkvison, Stonecunning, Hearty, Hatred, Defensive Training, Stability, and more...).
A Dex penalty hits across all classes, while Cha only really affects a few classes abilities. A low Cha is also too easily ignored or circumvented; either your character is awesome at social skills, or they never use them at all, hanging back, while the 'face' of the party does all the smooth-talking.
Low Dex makes more sense than a low Cha, from their established physiology, and also explains why they tend toward heavy armour. Who worries about the Max Dex limit on your Full-plate, when you haven't got a Dex bonus to lose?
|
|
Low Dex makes more sense than a low Cha, from their established physiology, and also explains why they tend toward heavy armour. Who worries about the Max Dex limit on your Full-plate, when you haven't got a Dex bonus to lose?
I'd remove or raise the Dex limit on heavy armour, too, myself, if only to help stop fighters getting the shaft.
The other thing, about a Dex penalty cutting across all classes, is another reason to be careful about it, I think (and I think that even a Con penalty cuts somewhat less across all classes). The whole 'favoured class' thing is sort-of about racial talents for certain classes/pursuits, so a penalty that hits all of them is pretty tough (and the race that does have a similar penalty, elves with Con, at least get a boost in Int, which is a pretty useful stat to get boosted; more seriously, I sort-of suspect that elves got a Con penalty because it was the only penalty that could be levied on them and sort-of make sense, although I guess that Strength might have worked, too).
I'd remove or raise the Dex limit on heavy armour, too, myself, if only to help stop fighters getting the shaft.
Fighters don't get the shaft on this any more, since their weapon training raises the max dex bonus - but just for them. You haven't lived until you've seen Valeros tumble past some bad guys in his mithral full plate.
|
|
I'd expect dwarves to be good at picking locks because it's mechanical stuff, but Open Lock is a dex-based skill (presumably because it's a rogue skill and rogues are dex-based).
I forget, not having the Beta here at work. Is Disable Device / Open Lock one of the consolidated skill sets in Pathfinder? If so, is the combined skill Dex or Int based?
|
|
I'd expect dwarves to be good at picking locks because it's mechanical stuff, but Open Lock is a dex-based skill (presumably because it's a rogue skill and rogues are dex-based).I forget, not having the Beta here at work. Is Disable Device / Open Lock one of the consolidated skill sets in Pathfinder? If so, is the combined skill Dex or Int based?
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).
|
|
Fighters don't get the shaft on this any more, since their weapon training raises the max dex bonus - but just for them. You haven't lived until you've seen Valeros tumble past some bad guys in his mithral full plate.
Yeah, was reminded of this in this thread of mine. Seems to me that the Paladin (and a melee-loving Cleric) ought to get some love in this regard, too, though.
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.
You know what i find to be kinda funny ? People allways using the dwarves = short so a Dex penalty makes sense.. They couldn't possibly be acrobats.. Do you people even look at acrobats and gymnasts ? Its less prevalent with the males since most of what they do is much more based on upper-body strength and hand eye but if you look at the female acrobats and gymnasts.. Floor and horse specialists as well as the acrobats that do all the tricks on the long dangling scarves from the ceiling the better ones are shorter then average and male and female have compared to a average human build legs that are closer to the same length as their torso's. This creates a lower center of gravity.. Good for any kind of acrobatic pursuit. A lot of syncro swimmers are the same way too.
Animal worlds got some paralel's too. You aint seen nothin till you see a badger wiggle its way through your crawl space chasing a rat.. Those things are ninjas.
I bet those shorter acrobats don't weigh more than a 7-foot-viking, though ;-)
|
|
Yeah, isn't the Stability ability based on the fact they're built like Weebles?
As for being good with locks and such; they may have the knowledge, but they've still got fingers like a bag of sausages.
I don't want to come across as a Dwarf-hater; I've played a lot of them over the years. But you cannot deny that their benefits far outweigh their 'penalties', so much so, that for many players, it's a no-brainer choice. It's not a question of "What races are we having in this party?", but "How many Dwarves are we having this time?".
Seriously; a 'penalty' to movement, that's not a penalty if you want to play their favoured classes?
"Oh, no! When I wear heavy armour, I'm reduced to the speed of a person in heavy armour! What shall I do?....Oh, err, hang on..."
"Oh no! I have a penalty to a stat I'll never use! Because, by its very nature, a party only needs one person to be good at social skills, and the DM has even said he'll ignore it if I deal with my own race! Even then, all the Cha score does is act as a skill mod, so even if I dump my Cha to 3, I can buy off the downside, using one skill point! How shall I cope?...Oh, err, hang on..."
Dwarves need a downside. Hit them where it hurts, in the Dex.
Everyone needs AC, and a Reflex save, and most people like having ranged attack bonus.
Not everyone cares about Cha, not to mention, it's such a subjective score, that a charismatic player can persuade the DM and fellow players to treat the character as having a higher Cha than he actually possesses.
As for being good with locks and such; they may have the knowledge, but they've still got fingers like a bag of sausages.
Had to reply to quote this line :)
Not everyone cares about Cha, not to mention, it's such a subjective score, that a charismatic player can persuade the DM and fellow players to treat the character as having a higher Cha than he actually possesses.
Well I have to bring up the very real mechanical advantages that CHA offers clerics that someone pointed out above. I also think that well written modules do mix in charisma based skills but as you say having one player (sorcerer/ bard/ cleric/ rogue) in the party can take the charisma role and everyone else can dump it.
Giving the dwarf the ability bonus to wisdom doesn't help things considering wisdom is almost a universally useful ability. The least a player gets out of mechanically is +1 to Will saves and there are a lot of classes that use wisdom as a secondary ability.
Face it... point for dwarves, halflings and gnomes got short changed.
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".
|
|
It's not that "Short = DEX penalty" at all. It's that "Short + Stumpy and Stocky = DEX penalty".
I also don't see that short, stumpy and stocky leads to low Dex, to be honest. I mean, sure, it fits with low Dex, but inasmuch as Dex (as per SRD) is "hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance" I am not sure that the agility issue is so dominant that the others necessarily lose out; it would be a matter of weighing that against however much you think that the dwarves have above-average hand-eye coordination, good reflexes and balance (and the balance issue would be one where they're presumably <em>up</em>, as they are down on 'agility'). It's a problem that Dex is one stat to cover all that stuff, because body flexibility and hand-eye coordination don't really have anything to do with each other (more important than where your hands are is that you know where they are...), but that's a problem inherited from decades of D&D so it's not going away now. Also, it's not clear how much each of those four characteristics covered by the Dex stats should be weighted...
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.
This, to me, shows why the whole "+2, +2, -2" ability score modifier thingy in Pathfinder doesn't work.
I agree. I think for some of the races just having a net +2 should be good enough. Maybe:
Dwarves: +2 Con
Half-Orcs: +2 Str
Halfling: +2 Dex, -2 Str, +2 Cha
Elf: +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int
Gnome: +2 Con, -2 Str, +2 Int
Half-Elf: +2 to choice of Dex or Int
Human: +2 to any 1 stat
For some races, just having a singular +2 to a stat works. There's no reason to try and be consistent with the +2/+2/-2 when there's already an exception for humans.
(However, if the +2/+2/-2 convention must apply to dwarves I think it should be +2 Con, -2 Dex, +2 Wis)
|
|
This, to me, shows why the whole "+2, +2, -2" ability score modifier thingy in Pathfinder doesn't work.
I agree. I think for some of the races just having a net +2 should be good enough. Maybe:
Dwarves: +2 Con
Half-Orcs: +2 Str
Halfling: +2 Dex, -2 Str, +2 Cha
Elf: +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int
Gnome: +2 Con, -2 Str, +2 Int
Half-Elf: +2 to choice of Dex or Int
Human: +2 to any 1 statFor some races, just having a singular +2 to a stat works. There's no reason to try and be consistent with the +2/+2/-2 when there's already an exception for humans.
If you gave dwarves, say, just a +2 then you'd have to feel that all the other dwarf stuff was roughly balanced with the human bonus feat, extra skillpoint and moveable favoured class. On the other hand, the worth of a +2/+2/-2 does depend on where the pluses and minuses are, and charisma is the most popular dump stat.
On the other hand, can a +2 to Con and Wis ever really compensate for being a laughingstock? You decide.
Anyhow, I don't think that Half-orcs should just get a +2 to Strength. I'm also OK with the current Dwarven set-up, as I've said, although I can see the issue people might have with it.
I'm pretty uneasy about things being nerfed at this stage unless they really are obvious broke, though. People's players will often be well into their campaign by now and planning to carry them on through and, whilst there's always the risk that the rules will change whilst you're playing in a playtest, the reasoning has to be pretty compelling (ie, the problem is big or the solution brings with it a lot of simplification without too much cost), I think, or else the change has to be agreeable to the players; I don't think that switching the -2 from Cha to Dex, or losing the +2 Wis, is going to make players very happy and I don't think that the problem is big enough to need fixing regardless. That shouldn't stop changes being made, though, so what we really disagree on is how big a problem it is.
I'm pretty uneasy about things being nerfed at this stage unless they really are obvious broke, though. People's players will often be well into their campaign by now and planning to carry them on through and, whilst there's always the risk that the rules will change whilst you're playing in a playtest, the reasoning has to be pretty compelling (ie, the problem is big or the solution brings with it a lot of simplification without too much cost), I think, or else the change has to be agreeable to the players; I don't think that switching the -2 from Cha to Dex, or losing the +2 Wis, is going to make players very happy and I don't think that the problem is big enough to need fixing regardless. That shouldn't stop changes being made, though, so what we really...
I look at it from a different point of view Bagpuss. I'm playing 3.5 (not Pathfinder RPG) so I'm comparing 3.5 rules (dwarves get +2 Con, -2 Cha) to what I'd like Pathfinder RPG to become, not comparing the Beta to the final version. Changing around the +2/+2/-2 (new) convention means nothing to me because I have no investment in it.
My opinion is that the ability adjustments in 3.5 already weren't broke, so why did they change? Well, I got over that hang up since it's pretty obvious that it IS going to change so I'd like to at least put in my 2 cents to change it to something that I can live with in my game.
Strength is the stat to have if you are a full or three-quarter BAB class... Constitution is nice, but strength is still king.
Hrmm... I'm not sure I agree with this. CON is valuable for every class. STR is only really valuable for martial... strength based martial characters. CON helps everyone at every level in the game.
The be honest I think all of the physical stats are about equal, they all have their benefits. The mental stats are far less balanced and giving one race WIS and another CHA, that's not an even upgrade or even close.
|
|
I look at it from a different point of view Bagpuss. I'm playing 3.5 (not Pathfinder RPG) so I'm comparing 3.5 rules (dwarves get +2 Con, -2 Cha) to what I'd like Pathfinder RPG to become, not comparing the Beta to the final version. Changing around the +2/+2/-2 (new) convention means nothing to me because I have no investment in it.
Fair enough. My players are chargenning as we speak...
My opinion is that the ability adjustments in 3.5 already weren't broke, so why did they change? Well, I got over that hang up since it's pretty obvious that it IS going to change so I'd like to at least put in my 2 cents to change it to something that I can live with in my game.
Jason would be best-placed to answer that, but I imagine that it was something to do with making races more-or-less equally attractive for but for different classes (including with whatever changes had been made to the classes, of course). I like the changes more than the old versions, but I'm not all that religious about it (on the other hand, I don't like any of the other suggestions enough to change, but then as I say, I'm just getting stuck into the playtest).
Also, everyone loves to start the game with an 18 without everything else sucking...
I think the issue involved was that everyone was grabbing subraces all the time. The subraces were generally + 0 LA but had different /slightly better stat adjustments for what the players where trying to do. With the pathfinder changes just to the core races the cores are once again with were everything else has gone (like whisper gnomes).
|
|
I think the issue involved was that everyone was grabbing subraces all the time. The subraces were generally + 0 LA but had different /slightly better stat adjustments for what the players where trying to do. With the pathfinder changes just to the core races the cores are once again with were everything else has gone (like whisper gnomes).
Ah, yeah, you are 100% right. Completely forgot.
|
|
As to the side topic of the bump for all PC races from +2/-2 to +2/+2/-2, I'm all for it, mainly because I was always a fan of races that ended up being LA +1 for no good reason, like Hobgoblins or Tieflings. By raising the bar slightly for everyone, it places the 'weak LA' races within the starting area.
It doesn't really address any fundemental problems I have with LA in general, but it helps to put them off a bit longer and broaden the scope of what my players can choose to play (even if the vast majority of them will pick Human, for the bonus feat, anyway...). :)
As to the side topic of the bump for all PC races from +2/-2 to +2/+2/-2, I'm all for it...
I'm ok with it also, but I'd rather see some of the races have a straight +2 (dwarf +2 con, half-orc +2 str, and half-elf choice of +2 dex or int). Is there something sacred about +2/+2/-2? Especially considering the human is already has a straight +2 modifier.
I see far more people gunning for 18 or 20 strength than 18 or 20 con.
Strength based is the most common option because that is what the standard rules are geared toward (no need to take a feat for melee, and no need for someone else prevent people charging you).
Even someone with dexterity as a focus is still going to find strength useful. You get a damage bonus from it (weapon finess feat, and composite bows), and it keeps you out of medium load which usually tanks any dexterity based abilities.
(The light armoured crowd will also strongly favour the half-orc over the dwarf because that 20 foot movement rears its ugly head.)
I see far more half-orc sorcerers and rogues than dwarven wizards or rogues incidently.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I don't see a lot of wizards/ rogues/ sorcerers gunning for 20 STR... I know a lot more of folks who want the extra HP and are willing to dump STR. That said... I agree with you on half orc and dwarf class preferences but that has more to do with the 20' movement than the STR versus CON thing though.
Movement is really kind of an underrated downside the dwarves have. It kind of limits them to slower less mobile roles.
That's a good question actually, and part of it I think comes down from advanced D&D.
You see in advanced you actually had to have stat scores of a certain level to play a race. All dwarves had at least x Str and y Con or you simply couldn't play a dwarf. In addition to that you had a racial max that you simply couldn't go beyond without magic. Only humans could have what was then called 18/00 strength for example. In addition some races had adjustments to stats. Elves were + 1 Dex, - 1 Con.
Now alot of the old stat concepts have gone out the window with 3.x which is both good and bad in my opinion.
Yup half-orc could only get up to 18/75. Only humans had fully unlocked potential in all areas. Everyone else had limits on class levels, stat levels and what classes they could take.
Only humans could be Paladins, monks, and Druids while bards were only for humans and half-elves.
|
|
I'm ok with it also, but I'd rather see some of the races have a straight +2 (dwarf +2 con, half-orc +2 str, and half-elf choice of +2 dex or int). Is there something sacred about +2/+2/-2? Especially considering the human is already has a straight +2 modifier.
A valid point. Getting rid of the -2 entirely would get rid of the 'all Dwarves suck at leadership' or 'all Elves get sick and die 20% more than Humans, exacerbated by their suicidal choice to live in the woods and pretend that they are rugged outdoorsy types' stuff.
I'm not really in love with stat modifiers of any sort, really. If Bob's Halfling wants to be built like a three foot Arnold Schwarzenegar (sp?) and Sally's Elf is going to be a klutz with an inhuman constitution able to drink any human under the table, go for it.
Getting rid of the -2 entirely would get rid of the 'all Dwarves suck at leadership' ...
Ditch, ditch, ditch!
That unsightly charismagives me such an itch!
- Unknown Aspiring Dwarven Bard
Hmm, I didn't mean to kill off the discussion with my lame poem.
Hmm, I didn't mean to kill off the discussion with my lame poem.
You just put the fork in it... it was done already.
Ditch, ditch, ditch!
That unsightly charisma
gives me such an itch!- Unknown Aspiring Dwarven Bard
And you just proved why dwarves have that - 2 to Cha with that little bit. ;D
I'm thinking they should up it to -8
And you just proved why dwarves have that - 2 to Cha with that little bit. ;D
Ok, Ok, I give up!!!
I'm thinking they should up it to -8
And you just proved why dwarves have that - 2 to Cha with that little bit. ;D
I'd say that it would be extreme, coupled with the -4 Dex I want to push.
But I don't, because they deserve it!
They are stocky, with short and stubby legs... DEX should be the stat that takes the -2 penalty
there was mention of this in a Dragon Magazine article during Paizo's stewardship of the publication, i forget the issue number unfortunately. the piece mentioned a -2 dex penalty balanced by a +4 con bonus, reasoning that dex importance in ac and ranged combat was the equal of the bonus hp and fort save that con offered. the proposal ended with the acknowledgment that a racial bonus of +1 was needed for certain dex based skills such as craft or disarm traps to keep dwarves from being unduly penalized. the -2 dex and +4 con reinforce the dwarven tank archtype, dex penalty leads to reliance on armour/shield and con bonus extra hp (the iconic dwarven defender) personally, i go with -2 Dex, +4 Con and +2 Wis for dwarves imho dwarves are only dour and unsociable to non dwarves, +4 Con, +2 Wis and -2 Cha for duergar, dark dwarves are leaner, a little more graceful but truley dislike everyone. similarily, i rule orcs to be +4 str, -2 cha (sorry i don't use half races)