and gnomes.
two aasimar heritages are con +mental, though with no penalty.
a couple tiefling variants too.
ganzi?
Maybe a couple more I'm missing.
Though it's all con/cha and con/wis. No con/int race that I can find.
You're overlooking Jiangshi-spawn Dhampirs (+2 STR, +2 INT, -2 DEX) - which I personally helped deliver on. ^_^
Throwing more support your way via a cross thread post :)
|
Even most birds and lizards have the females being larger and stronger than the males.I wouldn't mind a sexually dimorphic race that has it the other way around, too (mighty females, lithe males) - be good for a race of anthropomorphic mosquitoes (which, incidentally, has precedent in DRAGON magazine's 3.5 conversion of the China Miéville races).Would love to see alternate racial mods for Lashunta.
Female +2Int +2Cha -2Str
Male +2Str +2Int -2ChaOr any other insectoid race.
Many arthropods have larger females than males.
The infamous Black Widow spiders and Praying Mantises, for instance.
There's also arthropods where the femlae population significantly outnumbers the male; members of the Apocrita suborder (ants, bees, and wasps) come to mind.
So if we see a Formain or Thriae player race, I'd *hope* for sexual dimorphic stats skewed for physically strong females.
I think it's mostly just mammals which have bigger/stronger males. Probably has something to do with the females being at least semi-incapacitated while pregnant and needing the males to do the figurative heavy lifting for awhile.
|
I think it's mostly just mammals which have bigger/stronger males. Probably has something to do with the females being at least semi-incapacitated while pregnant and needing the males to do the figurative heavy lifting for awhile.
If we're going to go by that logic, then wouldn't it make at least as much sense for females to be all the stronger themselves, since s%&! happens and they can't count on a male always being around?
|
|
It's hardly universal even among mammals, just look at hyenas.
Humans have larger males than females, on average, but you shouldn't assume that's generally true or applicable at all.
I didn't mean that all mammals have bigger/stronger males - just that most cases of species where the males are bigger/stronger are mammals. (Though even that's not 100% true. I know male alligators are a bit bigger. But - that's why I said 'mostly'.)
You flipped my logic around. You did the classic dog/poodle fallacy. (Just because all poodles are dogs does not mean that all dogs are poodles.)
|
I didn't mean that all mammals have bigger/stronger males - just that most cases of species where the males are bigger/stronger are mammals. (Though even that's not 100% true. I know male alligators are a bit bigger. But - that's why I said 'mostly'.)
You flipped my logic around. You did the classic dog/poodle fallacy. (Just because all poodles are dogs does not mean that all dogs are poodles.)
I was more clarifying than disagreeing...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Larger size in males is linked to polygyny. In situations where some males get a harem and some males don't get to mate at all, competition between males is particularly fierce, putting more evolutionary pressure on males to be big and strong.
I don't agree with that at all. Str/int is half and half, which makes it the opposite of ideal for either end of the spectrum. Etc.Strength and Intelligence are the two 'power attributes' that everyone gets use out of but are primary to fighters/barbarians/etc and wizards/arcane spellcasters respectively.
As such, a Str/Int race is ideal for both diametrically opposed classes as well as Gish builds.
You've misunderstood me. The key word is 'respectively' at the end of the sentence, which means Str is primary for Fiighters/etc. and Int is primary for Wizards/etc.
Touch attacks, for example, exist to give low-strength, low-BAB spellcasters a chance to actually do something hand to hand, give them higher strength or the ability to optimize for str and int you're going to get synergies that the devs probably don't want to deal with.What broken synergy are we talking about here?
I wasn't talking specifics, just think about it from a developer's point of view. How many books are in the Pathfinder line? You don't know all the synergies, I don't know all the synergies and the devs... they probably know better than us but nobody can keep track of every rule or corner case. This is what happened by design to 3.5, the class combos mounted and mounted and mounted and finding new broken combos practically became a sport. Pathfinder developers don't want that, to their credit, so they're going to be extra paranoid about what they create.
Better touch attacks? I'd rather just take weapon finesse. Before you say "oh but that costs a feat" the theoretical strength based wizard is taking improved initiative, lightning reflex and all of the nonexistent feats that improve your AC(artful dodge I guess?) and is still way, way behind the wizard who just..
Your assumption that wizards are way better than fighting classes in the fighter's specialty in Pathfinder is incorrect. Yes, Wizards are crazy good and they can be built to be crazy good at anything including face tanks at higher levels. They can even customize themselves to face tank one day then socialize or blast the next. Fighters just face tank/single target dps output but they are scary good at that job. I don't know, maybe you look at power attack or 2-handing and Improved Critical and think 'eh, these bonuses are so small, they won't mount up to much', I can tell you from experience that they do. Or maybe you look at save or die spells and think 'wow, that's just one save away from owning something' and forget that intelligent high level enemies have ways of being flat out immune to those spells.
Also, you're missing the major point: DnD is about a small group of 4-5 PCs all of which are involved in solving the problem, not one egomaniac hogging all the attention. If you think wizards already do that, hooo-boy you should consider what a wizard with 1.5 BAB or full BAB could do. All of those buff spells? Yeah, just pile them onto better str and better class bonuses and watch everyone else at the table cry.
Ok, to address another point in my favour about this, people have pointed out the male Lashunta and the Jiang-shi Dhampir. I claimed aboved that any Str/Int race, from the dev's perspective, probably has a downside to prevent op fighter/wizard/gish synergies. Note both of them take a penalty to two useful attributes - no help dumping charisma for you, you're either going to be a little more oblivious to your surroundings or have worse AC.
While you can mitigate the downsides of the Jiang-shi Dhampir, their healing issues and weakness to sunlight are huge downsides for what you get in that package and blunting those weaknesses also dulls the other benefits of the Dhampir. Not that this race is untenable, I'm just saying you have to accept the downside.
The male Lashunta are quite a bit more reasonable and their spell-likes support a role as some form of Gish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As stated, it clearly cannot be for mechanical reasons, but has to be for conceptual/flavor ones that there is a dearth of +Str/Int races. It is demonstrably not in any way a mechanically overpowered stat bonus combo, by any metric.
I would be slightly more concerned if a +Con/Int race popped up, though, as that could possibly edge out +Dex/Int as a favorite for certain Int-based caster builds.
While I'm sure there are other stat combinations that are also underrepresented, this particular combo is important to me since I count Magi, melee Alchemists, and melee Occultists some of my favorite type of characters in the game. Theres the male Lashunta and the Ru-shi variant Dhampir, Scaleheart Skinwalkers used to but got errata'd to constitution over intelligence. I can't think of any others though. So why is this so rare?
Because there's no point in doing so. One might build such a race, but charopers aren't going to beat a path to your door to play it. The Lashunta were built the way they were more as an homage to pulp tradition than for any other reason.
Melee Alchemists do not need super high Int scores, as the only person they affect with their "spells" is generally themselves.
Magi do the bulk of their damage via spells, enough to overshadow the benefits of pumping up Str to get a couple of static points. You hardly get mention of Str builds compared to to even non-dervish dex builds for that reason.
And while I've seen wizards built to 18 strength, they tend to be dwarves run by players looking more to play an oddity rather than any other reason. They also tend to have short careers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm sure there are other stat combinations that are also underrepresented, this particular combo is important to me since I count Magi, melee Alchemists, and melee Occultists some of my favorite type of characters in the game. Theres the male Lashunta and the Ru-shi variant Dhampir, Scaleheart Skinwalkers used to but got errata'd to constitution over intelligence. I can't think of any others though. So why is this so rare?Because there's no point in doing so. One might build such a race, but charopers aren't going to beat a path to your door to play it. The Lashunta were built the way they were more as an homage to pulp tradition than for any other reason.
Melee Alchemists do not need super high Int scores, as the only person they affect with their "spells" is generally themselves.
Magi do the bulk of their damage via spells, enough to overshadow the benefits of pumping up Str to get a couple of static points. You hardly get mention of Str builds compared to to even non-dervish dex builds for that reason.
And while I've seen wizards built to 18 strength, they tend to be dwarves run by players looking more to play an oddity rather than any other reason. They also tend to have short careers.
Melee Occultists have an argument for prioritizing intelligence over strength. It's an insanely good stat for them.
Magi do the bulk of their damage via spells, enough to overshadow the benefits of pumping up Str to get a couple of static points. You hardly get mention of Str builds compared to to even non-dervish dex builds for that reason.
Strength based Magus takes longer to come "online" because they don't start with proficiency in the heavier armor types. It is still less feat intensive to build a strength based Magus. They don't get medium armor proficiency until 7th level, 13th for heavy.
|
|
Magi do the bulk of their damage via spells, enough to overshadow the benefits of pumping up Str to get a couple of static points. You hardly get mention of Str builds compared to to even non-dervish dex builds for that reason.Strength based Magus takes longer to come "online" because they don't start with proficiency in the heavier armor types. It is still less feat intensive to build a strength based Magus. They don't get medium armor proficiency until 7th level, 13th for heavy.
There's also the Deep Marshal to speed that up a bit. They start with Medium and get Heavy at 9th.
You lose some stuff, but you gain a few interesting options too, and the better armor earlier can be make or break for a Str Magus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think it's worth being limited to weapons that crit only on a 20?
Depends on the rest of the party and how valuable you find the divergent spell list.
It'd certainly make one hell of a flanking buddy with a Butterfly Sting crit-fisher TWF with kukris. Heavy Pick plus Shocking Grasp auto-critting gets ugly. Especially once Outflank gets involved.
I actually had a Lore Warden and a Dex Magus (with a Light Pick) pull that exact trick in my recently finished CotCT game. It was pretty vicious.
It could be partly carryover from the 3.0 design philosophy. I remember in the DMG section about making new races, in regards to stat bonuses, they ranked the significance of each stat... With Strength considered the most significant. Hilarious, I know, but it was in there. So, perhaps part of that perception still lingers and guides design away from using strength in racial modifiers.
Smart bruisers could definitely use more race options, especially compared to the dex/int (Elf, Ratfolk, Sylph, Tengu, Tiefling, Android, Wayangs etc.) and dex/cha (Halfling, Catfolk, Dhampir, Drow, Fetchling, Ifrit, Kitsune, Vishkanya etc.) options.In part that's because the baseline is medium sized, and so many small races (either actually small sized or smallish in lore) get +2 Dex & never +2 Str. And large sized characters are inherently OP.
After having recently creating a large sized half-giant race with the ARG, I'm going to have to disagree. Powerful Build in 3.5 was super super dumb, but actually being large is honestly just as much of a hindrance as it is a help. There are so many small, claustrophobic spaces in dungeons and having a large PC makes it very hard for your party to maneuver. I spent half my time squeezing and in the end scrapped the character because of how inconvienient it was.
It's one of the reasons I hate the druid's shapeshifting, because half the time you're not in an area large enough to take advantage of the ability to turn into a T-Rex and bite someone's head off. Large characters are super strong and do lots of damage, sure, but they're so unwieldy it's honestly not worth it unless your campaign is primarily outdoors or in large cave systems and huge monolithic structures.