Fixing Underused Races


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
I can't be the only guy who thinks races should just be thematic am I?
I'm almost there with you: I still think certain traits that are too obvious to rationalize into abstraction should still have some mechanics attached to them. Flight, for instance. But if you take extremes like that out I'm basically there.

eh just make a generic feat for various racial abilities, and then anyone can get them and they all have some stamp saying flavor how you want it.


Dustyboy wrote:


{. . .}
Halfling: Sorry but Halflings are actually one of the coolest races in the game on paper, but then you're playing as a short human. And we all think of leprechauns or hobbits when we play halflings don't we? And what the hell is a ling?(I kid)

(Bolding mine)

If you go to the right parts of the Dark Tapestry, you will find THIS ANSWER. Be very, very afraid . . . .


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Dustyboy wrote:


{. . .}
Halfling: Sorry but Halflings are actually one of the coolest races in the game on paper, but then you're playing as a short human. And we all think of leprechauns or hobbits when we play halflings don't we? And what the hell is a ling?(I kid)

(Bolding mine)

If you go to the right parts of the Dark Tapestry, you will find THIS ANSWER. Be very, very afraid . . . .

I prefer tyranids but I see your point. synthesist summoner halflings here i come.


without out halflings, my barbarian wouldn't have a ready supply of body bludgeon fodder around and would be stuck fighting goblins, just to make use of that ability!

halflings are useful!


I have had many humans and elves through the years. However, the other racial congress have always been wide because I allowed non-standard races in every campaign when the trace could reasonably or is it present. I've had three Minotaurs, 3-4 Kobolds, some half-elves amd half-orcs here and there, Dragonkind, Tieflings, 2 Goblins, and one or two dwarves. The most recent campaign is very diverse, but no PCs are Dwarves, Gnomes, or Halflings (other player plans tip play a Halfling next though).

I hadn't noticed it but most players do not gravitate to those three races in my games.


I can tell you from gming experience that - what is "standard' or 'underused' varies greatly from table to table.


I know for me, making a new character is having a concept and then seeing if I can make it workcrunch wise. Some people work the reverse way. If you leave these races as is, they seem pretty ordinary. Changing assumptions about the race to for your campaign world can make underused options attractive by making them novel/new.

My current campaign setting has Halflings as ancient Mongolian type nomads that are one of the slaver cultures left on the continent. Gnomes live in a country with a history of kings worshipped as divinities and mummification, but now is been a totalitarian Lawful Good country with secret police and laws to convert or jail or exile people who are Evil or Chaotic. Those who can't be converted are turned to stone or reincarnated to prevent their souls to taken by evil outsiders in the afterlife. The Dwarves, once the ancient founders of civilization, before their fall 10000+ years ago, are now behind technologically because they cling to traditional thought and philosophy and instead of scientific research per see focus on finding lost Dwarven knowledge instead of reinventing the wheel, so to speak, or adopting foreign cultural ways, except for Kobolds, who are respected by Dwarves and are seen as the true heirs of Dwarven culture.

You can also change simple stuff in a non -crunch way to blow someone's mind. For instance what if you add a distinct gender to Gnomes/Dwarves/Halflings?


Also, jus say they are very rare. Suddenly, people will crop up wanting to play them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Also, jus say they are very rare. Suddenly, people will crop up wanting to play them.

Lol. Reverse psychology works great. It's amazing how players will want to play a class or race if you restrict or ban it first.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Regarding small races (halflings & gnomes), it seems to me there is an alternate rule in one of the PF books (perhaps the gamemastery guide?) that suggests allowing weapons of a different size category to translate into a smaller or larger size:
- medium shortsword used as a small longsword
- medium dagger used as a small shortsword
- medium light mace used as a small heavy mace
etc.

Seems eminently reasonable to me, especially for found magic items.

Regarding halflings with slings, why not simply allow halflings to throw a rock as if using a sling - same stats, same range increment, just no need to use a sling. Sure, they'd still be hosed at higher levels with their iterative attacks and so on, but by then they ought to have a small composite bow or similar anyway. Yes, it'd be a houserule, but a very reasonable one.

I personally prefer core races to the many exotic snowflake races in splatbooks like the "Advanced Race Guide". YMMV. And the fact that the core races are all very different is *good*. Don't houserule them into vanilla homogeneity.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

Regarding small races (halflings & gnomes), it seems to me there is an alternate rule in one of the PF books (perhaps the gamemastery guide?) that suggests allowing weapons of a different size category to translate into a smaller or larger size:

- medium shortsword used as a small longsword
- medium dagger used as a small shortsword
- medium light mace used as a small heavy mace
etc.

Seems eminently reasonable to me, especially for found magic items.

Regarding halflings with slings, why not simply allow halflings to throw a rock as if using a sling - same stats, same range increment, just no need to use a sling. Sure, they'd still be hosed at higher levels with their iterative attacks and so on, but by then they ought to have a small composite bow or similar anyway. Yes, it'd be a houserule, but a very reasonable one.

I personally prefer core races to the many exotic snowflake races in splatbooks like the "Advanced Race Guide". YMMV. And the fact that the core races are all very different is *good*. Don't houserule them into vanilla homogeneity.

isn't that 3.5 or something.

Shadow Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Regarding small races (halflings & gnomes), it seems to me there is an alternate rule in one of the PF books (perhaps the gamemastery guide?) that suggests allowing weapons of a different size category to translate into a smaller or larger size:

- medium shortsword used as a small longsword
- medium dagger used as a small shortsword
- medium light mace used as a small heavy mace
etc.

Seems eminently reasonable to me, especially for found magic items.

Regarding halflings with slings, why not simply allow halflings to throw a rock as if using a sling - same stats, same range increment, just no need to use a sling. Sure, they'd still be hosed at higher levels with their iterative attacks and so on, but by then they ought to have a small composite bow or similar anyway. Yes, it'd be a houserule, but a very reasonable one.

I personally prefer core races to the many exotic snowflake races in splatbooks like the "Advanced Race Guide". YMMV. And the fact that the core races are all very different is *good*. Don't houserule them into vanilla homogeneity.

isn't that 3.5 or something.

3.0. Mostly I remember that because that's how it worked in Neverwinter Nights, which was based on 3.0. 3.5 introduced the differently-sized variants of weapons.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I may recall it from the DD3.5 rulebook, but it is eminently reasonable - doesn't break anything, makes the game more flexible for small guys.

Grand Lodge

There seems to be a misconception going around that I'm trying to homogenize all of the core races. That's not the case.

What I'm trying to do is make each race a viable, effective choice for every class by altering their attributes and traits. Hopefully, what we end up with is a situation where an elf wizard isn't better than a dwarf wizard in every way, but one in which a dwarf wizard has some interesting features that make them fun, effective, and powerful wizards as well. A gnome warrior should be seen as potentially just as dangerous as a half-orc fighter, but for different reasons, as expressed by their attribute arrays and racial traits. Does that make more sense?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Headfirst

I think that making it so that every race is good at every class does homogenize the races. To accomplish something where a gnome was as effective as a half-orc at being a barbarian you'd have to either erase some of the differences or provide enough options for every race that they basically weren't different anymore anyway.

The race differences make race choice compelling to me. For example, you say an elf wizard is better than a dwarf wizard in every way. I'd argue that getting 2 additional HP per level, having a +2 boost to my fort save, a +1 boost to my will save, and a stacking +2 to saves against spells and SLAs with the option to bump it up to +4 with steel soul are all reasons why dwarfs make great wizards compared to flimsy elves. Especially when you don't need the bonus to Spell Pen or the +1 DC from INT because you'll be buffing and summoning more than debuffing opponents. If we gave Dwarves the option to trade in Hardy or Weapon Familiarity for something like Elven Magic or Gnome Magic, it would just water down Elves and Gnomes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DocShock, maybe this isn't the thread for you. These are just ideas; they can't hurt you or change your local game. We're brainstorming here.


Headfirst wrote:
DocShock, maybe this isn't the thread for you. These are just ideas; they can't hurt you or change your local game. We're brainstorming here.

You phrased that much more nicely than I was going to. You gained +1 Diplomacy. =P

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to be honest, I don't think Dwarves should be on this list. They have an absolute ton of really nice stuff going for them, and are pretty much the toughest race in the whole game. The combination of full movement in even the heaviest armors with their innate bonuses versus spells (which can be buffed even more with a trait and feat) make them super good for characters that want to be "tanky". Adding to this, they have some of the coolest racial weapons (dorn-dergar, boulder helmet, longaxe/hammer) and a bunch of really neat (and actually pretty strong, mechanically) archetypes, they stand heads and shoulders over the poor gnomes and halflings.

Personally, I think all that really needs to be done is to allow each race to have alternate racial heritages (much like the Aasimar and Tieflings) so that they can fit more roles and have more variation among individual members of that race. So, while one dwarf clan may be stronger and smarter than another, they wouldn't be as tough or wise. That's the kind of thing I'd want for every race.


Headfirst wrote:
DocShock, maybe this isn't the thread for you. These are just ideas; they can't hurt you or change your local game. We're brainstorming here.

It's just an opinion, man. I don't think s/he is being threatened by your ideas.

The idea that those 3 races "needing fixing" is also an opinion. I personally have played each race, including melee and casters without ever feeling outdone. Just change the races with your own bonuses to match what they are in your world, I.e. if Dwarves don't fight Giants in your campaigns, then substitute it with something equally powerful but perhaps more appealing, such as a bonus versus Dragons. Beware that the more flexible you make the races with choice such as bonus feats or more similar options, the more mechanically homogenous they become.


For dwarves, if they existed in my setting, I'd probably make their defensive training give a +2 against creatures of large size or greater, instead of just Giants to illustrate their skill in fighting the "big stuff". It is useful in a lot of situations, but still not "all" situations. Granted, I'm all for removing all "cultural training" material from races as it is and have done so in my own setting, so take it with a grain or two of salt.


70 posts I feel compelled-

GNOMES RULE ALL!


Da'ath wrote:
For dwarves, if they existed in my setting, I'd probably make their defensive training give a +2 against creatures of large size or greater, instead of just Giants to illustrate their skill in fighting the "big stuff". It is useful in a lot of situations, but still not "all" situations.

Also it works for those of us who don't want to have to throw in a "required" number of giants to make the trait as useful as it needs to be.


Headfirst wrote:


DocShock, maybe this isn't the thread for you. These are just ideas; they can't hurt you or change your local game. We're brainstorming here.

I'm not trying to butt heads here, I just think many of the races are really good as is and don't get enough love.

But I apologize if I'm taking this thread off topic.

You asked for suggestions for how you could fix gnomes so that they could be good barbarians. Here's my suggestion: Play the mounted fury archetype. Buy a pony to get you through the first four levels (your gnome boost to CHA will help you make the required handle animal checks), then upgrade to a wolf for levels 5-11, and then switch over to a boar. With lance charges and the Rage class feature you won't miss the 2 STR you lose for being a gnome. You'll also have a significantly increased base speed from being mounted all the time, so no issue with the slow speed. And since you're riding a medium mount you'll be able to charge quite often, even in relatively cramped quarters. That's a solid barbarian build.


You know you could just find a race who's stats you want, adjust the few things needed to make them the flavor choice you want, and play that.

So if you want to play a gnome barbarian you play a Small sized half-orc.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Da'ath wrote:
For dwarves, if they existed in my setting, I'd probably make their defensive training give a +2 against creatures of large size or greater, instead of just Giants to illustrate their skill in fighting the "big stuff". It is useful in a lot of situations, but still not "all" situations.
Also it works for those of us who don't want to have to throw in a "required" number of giants to make the trait as useful as it needs to be.

Exactly. There are a lot of "relics" like this that just flat out need removed.


I've always felt Kobolds were kind of shafted by the devs with those stat penalties. Not that strength and con aren't logical weakpoints for a Kobold, but damn, -4. And yes, I realize that Kobolds being the runts of the entire universe's litter both both in flavor and mechanics is very meta and hilarious. I liked one suggestion that was to reduce the -4 to a -2 and add +2 Int. Tricky, nimble, but weak in both muscle and stamina.

...I also found this picture and fell in love with the idea of a gold-scaled Kobold Alchemist. Can you blame me!?

Dark Archive

Da'ath wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Da'ath wrote:
For dwarves, if they existed in my setting, I'd probably make their defensive training give a +2 against creatures of large size or greater, instead of just Giants to illustrate their skill in fighting the "big stuff". It is useful in a lot of situations, but still not "all" situations.
Also it works for those of us who don't want to have to throw in a "required" number of giants to make the trait as useful as it needs to be.
Exactly. There are a lot of "relics" like this that just flat out need removed.

I personally think it's fine. Dwarves don't spend decades training to be harder to hit by large creatures: they spend decades practicing to avoid the mighty blows of giants. It's not as widely applicable, no, but it actually matters. A Dwarf is a full 20% harder to hit for a giant than anyone else, and that's pretty damn significant.

And if you never fight giants? You've still got a bunch of abilities that are really neat (and can be traded out for other neat things thanks to the alternate racial traits).

I think that if you start cutting out things like Stonecunning and Defensive Training, you start ending up with races that have lost all of their flavor. The Halfling is lucky and hard to hit due to his size, the Human is an all-rounder, the Dwarf is tough as nails. Their racial traits reflect what they are. I'm not saying there shouldn't be more variety, but simply cutting out current racial stuff is kind of a "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of deal.


I did a quick search of the size category of giants. Most are large creatures, several are huge creatures. I think we can safely say, using your example, that dwarves DO spend decades training to be harder to hit by large creatures.

You say it's quite alright to change out the traits for alternate traits - which my suggestion could very well be an alternate trait if I so chose - but then you go on to say the race loses its flavor when you cut things out - which is it?

Athasian halflings aren't "lucky", for example, but according to you, Timothy Brown's original concept and take on them destroys their flavor, because its different. Or are you saying it's only okay to excercise creative license if a big name company changes it, then charges you for it?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If I've misunderstood your point - I apologize - but please spell it out more clearly.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Just thought I'd stick my head in and say that dwarves are one of the best and most commonly played races at our table. I don't think we've had a single game without a dwarf in the group.

Elves and halflings are the least commonly played races at our table. For elves the fix is easy: get rid of the hit to CON. There is literally no class that doesn't suffer when subject to a CON penalty, and the classes the elf is best in are also the ones least able to afford that hit (particularly at the 1-5 stretch of the game).

I think halflings are actually pretty solid, they just don't really click as much with our players. I think someone was looking at playing a Mouser from the ACG and had come up with a way to deal ludicrous amounts of damage, so.... There's that, I guess. I'm not really sure that I'd do anything to "fix" them, as they're already really good.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

One thing I never liked about the way races are designed is that they combine biological and ethnical traits, which leads to racial stereotypes. For my upcoming homebrew campaign, I'm going to separate them and offer my players a wide array of ethnical/social character options.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amanuensis wrote:
One thing I never liked about the way races are designed is that they combine biological and ethnical traits, which leads to racial stereotypes. For my upcoming homebrew campaign, I'm going to separate them and offer my players a wide array of ethnical/social character options.

This is a really good point and idea! Maybe someone should do a supplement where all the core races are trimmed down to their biological traits, then given 3-5 regional options that layer on a few more abilities. That way we might end up with the best of both worlds as they pertain to this debate.


Amanuensis wrote:
One thing I never liked about the way races are designed is that they combine biological and ethnical traits, which leads to racial stereotypes. For my upcoming homebrew campaign, I'm going to separate them and offer my players a wide array of ethnical/social character options.

This a lovely idea and I really like it. My little contribution would be to remove the standard racial stat bonuses and make them based off of the PCs backstory. Which has to be approved of coarse but I like to work the backstories into the plot if I can. Lucky for me I have three PCs who have done that in my campaign.


Oh and in S&S we are playing with a mermaid barbarian and a ratfolk alchemist.


Amanuensis wrote:
One thing I never liked about the way races are designed is that they combine biological and ethnical traits, which leads to racial stereotypes. For my upcoming homebrew campaign, I'm going to separate them and offer my players a wide array of ethnical/social character options.

This would be better than the plethora of races (many but not all from the Advanced Race Guide) that have no backstory that we can find.

Regional cultural variants would also be the more sensible place to put things like weapon proficiency.

Grand Lodge

Okay, who wants to take a stab at this? Pick a race and give us the base biological traits, then write up three cultural variants that provide a few more traits.


To be Slothful and go with the easiest one: Humans in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting would have regional expertise similar to the Noble Scion Class Feature; however, instead of needing to pick these as Feats, they would get toned down versions of them as Regional Expertise Traits (to avoid clashing with the existing Regional Traits list); these Regional Expertise Traits would stack with the actual Feats if you went to the trouble to get them, making Noble Scion have a bit of muscle bind it instead of being largely flavor. For Regional Weapons, Exotic Weapons would become Martial Weapons, whereas characters with matching regional expertise would be proficient in Regional Martial Weapons (like several of the Eastern Weapons).

Note that Kyonin is on the Noble Scion Regional Expertise list for Elves, and one could reasonably easily figure out something similar for Drow (assuming you wanted to lump them all together as just one variant of Elf rather than having their own regional culture variants), but finding Regional Expertise Traits and Feats for Elves (and Drow) from other regions would take a good bit more work.

The background on Avistan Dwarves (such as those from the Five Kings Mountains, but that's just a starter) and Pahmet Dwarves (Osirion) suggests that something like this should exist for them, but neither of them is on the Noble Scion list at all.

The Halfling backstory gives them a decent excuse for picking up their reegional characteristics from the Humans they live with.

Unfortunately, the Noble Scion Regional Expertise list cuts out places that do not have traditional nobles (and I don't mean just Andoran and Galt).

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not going to use any of the core races for my campaign (beside humans), but the format I use is something like this:

Species: Ability Score Modifiers/Creature Type/Speed/Size/Resistances/Vision
Ethnicity: Regional Bonus Feat or Unique Ability/Bonus Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiencies/Languages
Social Background: Trait bonus on three different skills or some other minor boon related to the characters occupation before becoming an adventurer [this replaces the standard traits]

Of course this allocation is somewhat arbitrary (a surface-dwelling dwarf might lose darkvision and gain low-light-vision, etc.)

If I were to use Golarion as a Campaign Setting, it would look something like this:

Example 1: Human Ulfen Guard:

- gets all the standard human racial traits for being a human
- gets the Storm-lashed feat and proficiency with handaxes and thrown axes for being Ulfen
- gets the bodyguard trait (+1 trait bonus on intimidate, perception, and sense motive, one of these skills is always a class skill)

Example 2: Half-Orc Journalist from Absalom:

- gets all the standard half-orc racial traits (except intimidating and weapon familiarity) for being a half-orc
- gets the Cosmopolitan feat and proficiency with rapier and handcrossbow for being Absalomite
- gets the printer trait (+1 trait bonus on craft (clockworks), Investigate, and Knowledge (any one) checks, one of these skills is always a class skill)

Example 3: Dwarven Smuggler from Osirion:

- gets all the standard dwarf racial traits (except defensive training, hatred, greed, stone-cunning and weapon familiarity) for being a dwarf
- gets the Desert Dweller feat and proficiency with falcata for being Osirion
- gets the dockworker trait (+ 1 trait bonus on Profession (dockworker) and Streetwise checks. You may treat your treat your Strength score as +1 higher than normal when calculating your carrying capacity)

Example 4: Halfling Emissary to the Five Kings Mountains:

- gets all the standard halfling racial traits (except fearless, halfling-luck, sure-footed, and weapon familiarity) for being a halfling
- gets the stone-cunning feature and proficiency with waraxes and warhammers for being from the Five Kings Mountains
- gets the emissary trait (+1 trait bonus on Linguistics, Negotiate, and Sense Motive checks, one of these skills is always a class skill)

Example 5: Gnome Dockworker from Rahadoum:

- gets all the standard gnome racial traits (except defensive training, hatred, illusion resistance, obsessive and weapon familiarity) for being a gnome
- gets the Godless Healer feat and proficiency with the scimitar for being from Rahadoum
- gets the smuggler trait (+1 trait bonus on Appraise, Stealth, and Streetwise checks, one of these skills is always a class skill).

Some of these would make for interesting characters...

Note: If you feel that the small races lose too much (the OPs original concern), adding some resistances would be an easy solution.


^That's pretty cool, except the Falcata is the regional weapon of Taldor, not Osirion -- for Osirion, you want the Khopesh.


That is pretty cool.

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

...it seems to me there is an alternate rule in one of the PF books (perhaps the gamemastery guide?) that suggests allowing weapons of a different size category to translate into a smaller or larger size:

- medium shortsword used as a small longsword... etc.
isn't that 3.5 or something.

3.0 used that system. It had its little issues, but at least weapon-using gnomes and halflings weren't marginalized by the magic item tables.


Amanuensis wrote:

I'm not going to use any of the core races for my campaign (beside humans), but the format I use is something like this:

Species: Ability Score Modifiers/Creature Type/Speed/Size/Resistances/Vision
Ethnicity: Regional Bonus Feat or Unique Ability/Bonus Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiencies/Languages
Social Background: Trait bonus on three different skills or some other minor boon related to the characters occupation before becoming an adventurer [this replaces the standard traits]

This looks pretty solid, and I will definitely be using it for inspiration with my own attempts to seperate species and culture.

One question, though. Did you ever notice any increased limits on what characters are capable of? I know it's not something that would pop up right away, or even after several sessions, but I'm worried that modifications like this might make some characters that are lacking in unexpected ways.


I agree with Pendagast,

Halflings, as classically described in Tolkien, famously used the equipment of larger races. I have ranted on this before. If Bilbo had been from Pathfinder he would have remained armed with a walking stick sized for him and died holding it as Spider venom surged through his veins.

All small races should be allowed to use selected medium equipment without penalty. It is just lame to make them use toy weapons, not to mention mechanically punishing. I have played a Halfling warrior and you just never find anything useful. That sucks and so they suck.

I always house rule that small races can use medium items at one step in size up. A medium sized dagger, like Sting, is a Short sword to a Hobbit. I mean give me a break. Fix that and you fix them.


Frederic wrote:
I always house rule that small races can use medium items at one step in size up. A medium sized dagger, like Sting, is a Short sword to a Hobbit. I mean give me a break. Fix that and you fix them.

Now, does that weapon do damage as a medium sized short sword or a small short sword? If it maintains the 1d4 (medium dagger = small short sword), that's a solid idea. However, it does not make sense if it suddenly jumps up a die size simply because it's in the hands of a smaller creature.


Rawhead,

Of course the damage remains the same. So Sting does 1d4 without its magical and masterwork properties weather wielded by an Elven prince or a wandering Hobbit.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Rawhead wrote:
One question, though. Did you ever notice any increased limits on what characters are capable of? I know it's not something that would pop up right away, or even after several sessions, but I'm worried that modifications like this might make some characters that are lacking in unexpected ways.

Since racial bonuses don't scale with level, they should lose importance as the character advances (which also represents the capability to 'overcome' one's origins). There may be some exceptions (a character build that 'requires' a specific trait which is not available anymore), but in general, I see no problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rawhead wrote:
Frederic wrote:
I always house rule that small races can use medium items at one step in size up. A medium sized dagger, like Sting, is a Short sword to a Hobbit. I mean give me a break. Fix that and you fix them.
Now, does that weapon do damage as a medium sized short sword or a small short sword? If it maintains the 1d4 (medium dagger = small short sword), that's a solid idea. However, it does not make sense if it suddenly jumps up a die size simply because it's in the hands of a smaller creature.

The easiest thing is to simply use the standard, medium-sized chart for weight, damage, properties and so on. A medium longsword requires 2 hands for a small character to wield, but you stat it as a medium longsword. Same for medium dagger (used as short sword by small races), shortsword (used as longsword), light mace (used as heavy mace) etc. Without needing to make an exhaustive conversion table of weapons, simply apply common sense for a small character using a medium weapon.

All of which *doesn't* imply that a DM should be similarly forgiving regarding medium characters using large weapons. I just think that small races like halflings and gnomes would have rather a bit of practice adapting to medium weapons.


Just as you describe.

This is what I run as a GM and I only play Small martials when other GMs agree to this house rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A little note to the OP, what you observe can vary tremendously. Dwarves are exceedingly popular in my neck of the woods in campaign play (cant say for PFS). I had 2 players asking to play gnomes recently. I've yet to see any elves.

So it can vary quite a lot.


Frederic,

Good to know. That's what I was assuming, but it's good to be sure.


I'd like to point out that Kobold is hands-down the most overpowered race when it comes to racial feats, favored class bonuses, and archetypes (generally). If you can get around the extremely garbage stat distribution and play up their strengths, once you play a kobold, you'll have spoiled yourself.

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Fixing Underused Races All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.