|
There was a Dragon (I forget which issue) blurb about charismatic dwarves that gave them a -2 to Dex and a +2 to Open Locks and Disable Device. I never liked the Cha penalty and used that variant from the day I first saw it. For 3P just change the skill bonus to +2 Disable Device and make Disable Device a class skill.
I always thought it odd that a race of lawful good folk of faith would have penalties that made clerics and paladins sub-optimal builds.
SM
|
Their suboptimal makeup might explain why there's so few of them in fiction. :)
In pre-Tolkein fiction (norse myth in particular) Dwarves are almost always wizards and crafters of magic items (Thor's hammer, Odin's spear, etc).
Tolkein's dwarves were *all* Fighters. They had to go to another race to find a Rogue!
In neither case would a Dex penalty be any more or less likely than a Cha penalty, and Tolkein, with his Rogue-less Dwarves, probably fits the Dex penalty notion even better. He'd also make a good case for Dwarves having a really crappy wisdom, given the behavior of the 12 dwarves in The Hobbit and the complete lack of priests of any race in the entire world of Middle-Earth.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what fiction has, because most fiction doesn't really reflect the 3.X race/class breakdowns anyway, in which dwarves could be wizards, clerics, druids, monks, etc.
Sorry to threadjack but there have been complaints about elves CON penalty ... Elves have often been described as insular, haughty, arrogant, condescending towards other races ... what if we gave the ELVES the CHA penalty and ditched the CON penalty and then moved the dwarf penalty to DEX, would that help the balance? Some better elven racial weapons would help as well, but honestly, I've played several elves over the years and never a dwarf (personal taste).
Also, in FR the GOLD dwarves had the DEX penalty, but there were also hill dwarves which had the CHA penalty.
Sorry to threadjack but there have been complaints about elves CON penalty ... Elves have often been described as insular, haughty, arrogant, condescending towards other races ...
Often, that wasn't the whole story. Plus, PF RPG elves, who will probably be like Golarion elves, are not arrogant or condescending as a rule.
Some better elven racial weapons would help as well
All the races need racial weapons. There is one racial weapon for elves, but it's a joke. I'm sure it will not survive the betatest unscathed (I'm talking about the elven curve blade, which is an exotic weapon in name, but a martial weapon in abilities).
For elves, I see some swords (with high critical ranges) and maybe a bow.
but honestly, I've played several elves over the years and never a dwarf (personal taste).
I did play one dwarf once, just to prove that there are other dwarven subrace beyond cliché dwarf. Other than that, I tend to play humans or elves, and gnomes.
Also, in FR the GOLD dwarves had the DEX penalty, but there were also hill dwarves which had the CHA penalty.
Well, the FR have/had more sub-races than our solar system has moons. A dozen elves, almost as many dwarves, several gnomes and halflings, even more than one orc....
|
|
Also, in FR the GOLD dwarves had the DEX penalty, but there were also hill dwarves which had the CHA penalty.
Well, the FR have/had more sub-races than our solar system has moons. A dozen elves, almost as many dwarves, several gnomes and halflings, even more than one orc....
Yeah, they were almost as bad as humans! Pesky breeders, with their fluffy distinctions.
Even the Pathfinder Campaign Setting has like 22 pages set aside to different subgroups of humans, and only 2 pages each for Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, Halflings and Half-Orcs.
Because of that sort of thing, which I like, I don't mind there being five different flavors of elf, instead of them all being the same.
Even the Pathfinder Campaign Setting has like 22 pages set aside to different subgroups of humans
Yet they share the same racial traits.
I always thought it odd that a race of lawful good folk of faith would have penalties that made clerics and paladins sub-optimal builds.
SM
That is a good point I came to think about while reading the first two pages. Dwarves actually have cleric as a favored class but for some reason have a penalty one of the class's key abilities? Paladins too should be a common choice for dwarves, it stands for their lawful good tendency and their honorable-warrior attitude
Dwarves prevail in melee combat and their favored fighting style there is to stand your ground (hence the bonus against bull-rushes etc) and possibly phalanxing. Either way their tactics say "We're here and we're here to stay, and we fight like Dwarves!", They don't give much about sneaking around, skirmishing or shooting arrows at their enemies.
All over a dex penalty would still resemble the dwarven attitude and make them better at classes they should be good at (Clerics and Paladins) and would balance them out with other races. Constitution being an ability for pretty much every class because of the HP bonus + the extra bonus to fortitude, while charisma is of use for only few classes and beyond that only governs a few skills, while a Dex penalty would make them a less popular choice for much more classes (primary arcane Casters, rogues, rangers, bards, barbarians)
If you want your dwarves to still be the gruff, unsociable thugs you like so much, why not just giving them a penalty to diplomacy and bluff checks?
My 2 cp: the Dex penalty could fit their body's proportions.
Which again explains why I'm sooo pret...er, handsome!
But so does the Charisma penalty, because everyone knows that short people suck. As do tall people.
My extensive research shows that charisma peaks at a height of about five feet eleven and a half inches.
then how do gnomes and halflings get a bonus?
I have spent some time thinking about this problem as well and, while I am not really happy with the CHA penalty for Dwarfs, I think it is the only ability left if you want to still play the archetypal Dwarf.
Going by that, strength and constitution are right out. Dexterity might be a possibility, but to be a good craftsman you actually need to have good hand-eye coordination, even if the rules for craft do not reflect this.
The mental abilities are just as complicated. If you want to reduce INT, you weaken the ability to play the good craftsman stereotype. If you weaken WIS, then you would have to change the favoured class. So charisma is really the only ability left, if you use only Dwarf and no sub-species (which I would love to see in PF)
Dexterity might be a possibility, but to be a good craftsman you actually need to have good hand-eye coordination, even if the rules for craft do not reflect this.
[...]
The mental abilities are just as complicated. If you want to reduce INT, you weaken the ability to play the good craftsman stereotype.
Make up your mind: Do you want to stick to the official ruling or how you want to interpret it: Either you stick to what you think should be the right stat, or what the rules thing. Either way, the other's fair game.
I say let the game stick to its choices. That means you don't make them stupid, but since craft works with int, dex hunting season is on. It also fits the rest of the dwarves. Short, stubby fingers on short, stubby bodies. That has dex penalt written all over it.
I 100% agree: Ditch the CHA penalty and give them a penalty to DEX.
I feel that there are more stereotypical Charismatic Dwarves (kings, generals, etc) than there is Dexterous Dwarves. While I love the concept of dwarven rogues, when I think dwarf I have a hard time applying a Cha penalty.
|
Leaders of that stature are inevitably rare. Why would the fact that a few exist be a problem for any race having a Charisma penalty?
And for miserable bastard dwarvish leaders, I give you Thorin Oakenshield (and before anyone makes the bizarre claim that D&D isn't laced through-and-through with Tolkien stuff, parroting Gygax, I give you this interesting post by a former TSR staffer and Tolkien nerd).
I still favour dex over cha, and have several reasons:
and before anyone makes the bizarre claim that D&D isn't laced through-and-through with Tolkien stuff
Any such claims are either intentionally false or delusional.
Even decades later, after the game had so much time to get its own identity, borrow from more sources, and have campaign worlds influence the core game, Tolkien's works are a major influence.
Most of the standard races are taken straight from Tolkien, and while most of them have become more varied over the years, and have managed to assume their own identities in the game, the classical Tolkien archetypes can still be found.
In fact, Golarion returns to some of those old Tolkienisms: The main example that comes to mind is elves' lifespan: While 3e put an elf at 350+4d100 years maximum (meaning between 350 and 750, with 550 being average), Golarion elves are said to survive a millenium in cases, and the exact maximum age isn't really known to anyone outside the race, since elves tend to go somewhere else when they grow "old enough", a place that might stop aging altogether (and why not? Gnomes were immortal when they were still back home in the First World). That's very, very Valinor and Tolkien elves.
Not that I say that this is bad. It's not.
And I'm not saying that it's the only inspiration - that article lists a lot more sources, and there's always real world mythology, which is heavily mined for stuff (of course, Tolkien did that, too, but D&D contains a lot of stuff Tolkien's works didn't). There's even some kind of feedback loop going on, with D&D directly or indirectly inspiring other games - RPGs or computer games like WoW or HoMMV - and sometimes being inspired right back.
But the Middle Earth roots are still there, in plain sight. (Tr)Ents, Orcs, elves and dwarves (and their rivalry) are only the tip of the iceberg.
Blasphemer!
Wipes powder from face.
|
|
I 100% agree: Ditch the CHA penalty and give them a penalty to DEX.
I feel that there are more stereotypical Charismatic Dwarves (kings, generals, etc) than there is Dexterous Dwarves. While I love the concept of dwarven rogues, when I think dwarf I have a hard time applying a Cha penalty.
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. Even at the moment Half-Orc and Human are (based on my own playtest experiences and what I've read on these boards) more likely choices for a fighter, cleric, barbarian and ranger. And that list included *BOTH* dwarven favorite classes. I can't remember if anyone *ever* played a dwarven rogue, for example, in all the years we played AD&D -- I doubt it, because that -1 to DEX in AD&D was nasty.
I don't know about you, but my own impression of dwarves is that they're a reclusive clan-based race of "rough'n'tough" beings that dwells in mountain/underground fortresses. That's how they're portrayed in LoTR and most of the D&D settings, and to me it justifies the CHA penalty very well. They're natural warriors, and not "clumsier" than humans -- at least as far as I can recall.
Therefore, I must ask: where have you read about dwarven kings who were so charismatic that CHA 16 and Leadership-feat (if a dwarf would want to put 18 in CHA in the first place) *or* Rod of Rulership couldn't mechanically cover it?
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.
*cough* Casanunda. Certainly a high-Cha dwarf, if there ever was one.
If there ever was a high-Cha dwarf, it was Carrot Ironfoundersson.
Carrot can convince the D'reg not to fight. He can convince water to run uphill. But he can't raise his race's average charisma with his score alone ;-P
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!
I think it's rather that no one wants dwarven women. Not even dwarven men. Which is why their birth rate is declining.
Who says they're ugly? Or have poor hygiene (I'd be prepared to accept that one of half-orcs, though)? Or even annoying (though I suppose if you find stubbornness annoying...)?
But they're ugly, have poor hygiene, and are very, very annoying. All that are heavy hits on charisma.
I do. And I'm always right! ;-P
I do know that most dwarven characters I had to play alongside annoyed the heck out of me.
I do know that most dwarven characters I had to play alongside annoyed the heck out of me.
that's a bit of a chicken/egg problem, no?
are the players not actually using the CHA penalty as an excuse to play that way?conjure up another race with -2 CHA and they'll probably grab that one
[sarcasm] give 'em one with -4 and they'll be even happier [/sarcasm]
I don't understand how the dwarvish scruffyness/stubborness is a hinderance to spontanious spell casting.
plus: a Sorcerer, aberrant bloodline, would make a good theme for this underground race.
On the other hand, the famous beards DO get in the way of most CHA related skills (Use Magic Device being the exeption)
so how about this:
swap the CHA penalty with a -1 on any skill that requires a minimum of fachial expression:
Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform
in lieu of this they can take a -10 on Diplomacy with other Dwarves by shaving
.
if this is too much of a mouth-full for ruling, keep the -2 CHA and give a +1 bonus to UMD and when determining bonus spells, max caster level, Spell DC etc.
|
It really hurts Clerics also, of which is a Favored Class of Dwarves. Because their Domains and Energy channeling are Cha based. I really like the penulties to the charisma skills, but I hate the Cha penulty. Not only does it do some major damage to a lot of class abilities, but there are other uses for Cha besides being diplomatic.
I would be happy with the penulty to Int, which actually makes sense both mechanically and fluffally. If they do not get that many skill points, they are not likely to burn them on skills like diplomacy, (but can if that is the direction the player wants to go without being mechanically impossible). Maybe the dwarves are not very diplomatic, but they have to have some diplomats or they would have either conquered the world long ago or been enslaved/extinct.
Additionally, with a Int penulty, that would show how they 1.) do not make good Wizards (but still can), and 2.) help to explain why they generally distrust arcane magic, (because they can't grasp its principles and whatnot).
I do know that most dwarven characters I had to play alongside annoyed the heck out of me.that's a bit of a chicken/egg problem, no?
are the players not actually using the CHA penalty as an excuse to play that way?
conjure up another race with -2 CHA and they'll probably grab that one[sarcasm] give 'em one with -4 and they'll be even happier [/sarcasm]
Even though everything points to powergamer behaviour, it clearly cannot be, because we're talking about dwarves.
I don't understand how the dwarvish scruffyness/stubborness is a hinderance to spontanious spell casting.
It's quite easy, if you think about it: ALl that stuff is thrown together into one stat: Charisma. It's easier to have relatively few ability scores, but not always accurate.
I think that PF shouldn't go into too much detail there - there are games for that stuff.
|
|
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.
But it does, doesn't it? At least my impression is that first you buy (or roll) your ability scores, and *then* apply the racial modifiers. Therefore, the end result is that your DEX is two points lower, i.e. resulting in -1 to all DEX-based rolls (e.g. DEX 12 -> 10 = +1 to +0).
|
|
All the races get +2/+2/-2 if they get two bonus stats; the only ones that aren't like that are Human and Half-elf, which have +2. So that solution isn't going to fly, I don't think.
You could always pick a few skills for which the dwarves would get a bonus, of course (like elves do for appraising magic items, although that's in a skill that already depends on a stat in which they receive a bonus), if there are some skills that you think should be higher for dwarves*.
*There isn't a "be a useless, friendless stunty joke" skill in PFRPG, though. I think it might be closed content.
I don't understand how the dwarvish scruffyness/stubborness is a hinderance to spontanious spell casting.It's quite easy, if you think about it: ALl that stuff is thrown together into one stat: Charisma. It's easier to have relatively few ability scores, but not always accurate.
I think that PF shouldn't go into too much detail there - there are games for that stuff.
in other words: Players who really want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer or Cleric have to pay for the designers lazyness (or wait till the next supplement brings back something like the Freun Campaign setting Gold Dwarf)
So what about a penulty to all Cha and Int based skills except for Cha. based Intimidate and Int. based crafting skills (and the like I don't want to look at every skill and possible useage so I am going to keep it simple).
+2 Con and +2 Wis, -2 to skills listed above. Maybe even -3 or -4?
Make that +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Dex, -2 diplomacy, and I'm totally with you. They don't get to have two (powerful) ability bonuses without any penalty. They're overpowered as it stands, let's not make it worse.
in other words: Players who really want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer or Cleric have to pay for the designers lazyness (or wait till the next supplement brings back something like the Freun Campaign setting Gold Dwarf)
Hey, back off the designers. I'm talking about MY lazyness. And that of other D&D players.
D&D only has those 6 ability scores because it works, and has worked for decades now. There are other games that have more attributes (L5R has 8, WoD has 9, and both put more emphasis on social interaction), but D&D won't get that. Charisma will remain charisma, and will not be changed into comeliness/presence and manipulation, and wisdom will remain wisdom and not be turned into willpower and wits/perception.
I could go with the idea above (-2 dex instead of cha, and a penalty to diplomacy), but beyond that, it's too much hassle.
If you want dwarves to be bad at charisma stuff, make them bad at all of it. If you want them to be bad at some charisma-related stuff, give them a penalty to one, maybe two skills instead of the charisma penalty.
But don't give them penalties to most charisma-based skills (and make it a huge hassle with half a dozen penalties) to make them decent with the other few applications, and don't give them a general penalty but then go and turn it around with a bonus that offsets the penalty.
Just go and make it easy and go one way only. Not as accurate, but much less work - for game designers, for module writers, for GMs, for players.
Consider this: If we do it to dwarves - just to pamper the race that is already overpowered - we'd have to do it to all:
Elves are usually depicted as frail (so they are vulnerable to physical punishment as well as diseases and other things that require tougness), but never as not being fit. So we give them a con penalty, but endurance as a bonus feat? Or leave off the con penalty but say they get 1 less HP per level and -1 on fort? (But make them immune to disease, since that's also a classical depiction)
We could probably find dozens of these examples where the rules are being unfair to one race or another, usually in a minor way, and for the sake of not making things needlessly complicated.
in other words: Players who really want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer or Cleric have to pay for the designers lazyness (or wait till the next supplement brings back something like the Freun Campaign setting Gold Dwarf)
Hey, back off the designers. I'm talking about MY lazyness. And that of other D&D players.
<snip lotsofstuff>
I actually wasn't talking about (the laziness of) only having 6 ability scores but about the lazyness (and stubborness) of keeping the penalty on CHA instead of numbercrunching (and taking one of) the alternatives
especially with the CHA penalty taken from the Half-Orc which after all is a Half Archenemy-Race.
If they were an archenemy race, a hefty cha bonus would fit. Archenemies must be imposing. But orcs aren't archenemies. They're targets.