Also, one more elaboration:
I'm not saying you should use my reasoning, that you have to agree on that reasoning, or that you have to agree with me on what I think each level of CHA is.
What I'm saying, ultimately, is that there are mechanical ways to have CHA influence Diplomacy and just general social interactions, beyond basic rolls. The exact level is totally up to you and your DM. But the basic tools are there- attitude and circumstance modifiers, and its not really an awful thing for the GM to use them, nor is it truly "homebrew" to use situational reasoning that takes CHA into account when considering circumstance modifiers.
(And with this I have to go, back to work...)
No, that sounds pretty accurate for the lower common denominator of Dwarves. >_>
I mean I'm still not suggesting physical deformity like Chess Pwn said. But more than greasy hair (try bug-infested greasy hair) and pimples. (or, alternatively, really bad body posture or manners or attitude making up for a relative ok appearance).
But again, PF is kinda vague when it comes to exactly what bad CHA is. My argument is just that it's BAD, it should mean more than just a few relatively minor features of appearance. And that's not even really my central point- just that mechanically low CHA should have a significant effect on the circumstances in social dealings (with, I should add, characters that care about such things).
EDIT: Not trying to be a dwarf racist here, so I'll elaborate. It's a trope that Dwarves do things that are offputting to normal Humans (and other races with normal CHA). They're also much less interested in nice things like taking showers. It's a different cultural standard. But to your standard Human, it's going to be more than a tad offputting to meet a Dwarf that has done the full CHA dump. That's why we get the trope of awkward culture clashes between Dwarves and other races.
Charisma and physical appearance are not tied together. This would imply you'd need to be fairly good-looking to be much good at disguise or playing guitar or scaring the bejeezus out of someone. Hell, even that you need to be good-looking to be any good as a liar.
Charisma is people skills. That's the beginning and the end of it, in my book. Knowing how to trick someone into believing your lies, knowing how to talk someone around to your point of view, knowing how to sell a disguise or work a crowd or how to hoodwink a device you weren't meant to use normally. Someone with low charisma could be fairly attractive, even, they'd just be bad with people. Without extensive practice, they're not very good liars or don't present their views well, and they can't work a crowd like...
I don't disagree with any of that. It's up to each character to decide exactly what their low CHA "is", IMO.
But it is there, it should be obvious in the case of extreme charisma scores, and it has a measurable effect on interactions with others.
The easiest way to do this is with appearance, but there's a whole host of other ways to represent it- body posture, odor, raw vitality or lack of it.
An int of 3 is all that's needed to understand language and to read and write, he's a poor learner and reasoner, but other than that he's able to function fine.
But a 5 charisma instantly puts off anyone that sees you.
Mechanically a low cha DOES have a significant effect on social dealings, you're worse at them, and less likely to aid. It doesn't lower the starting position for the entire party or put a penalty to the face.
EDIT: Think I actually edited this post when I meant to reply and deleted it's original content. Opps.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, that sounds pretty accurate for the lower common denominator of Dwarves. >_>
I mean I'm still not suggesting physical deformity like Chess Pwn said. But more than greasy hair (try bug-infested greasy hair) and pimples. (or, alternatively, really bad body posture or manners or attitude making up for a relative ok appearance).
Okay, so in your campaigns, one third of dwarves have bugs crawling out of their hair, or some other flaw of the same caliber. Got it.
But again, PF is kinda vague when it comes to exactly what bad CHA is. My argument is just that it's BAD, it should mean more than just a few relatively minor features of appearance.
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook calls the dwarven CHA penalty "a bit gruff". That doesn't really sound like it's in the same league as your ideas.
And that's not even really my central point- just that mechanically low CHA should have a significant effect on the circumstances in social dealings (with, I should add, characters that care about such things).
Social dealings are covered by skills. Trying to alter someone's attitude toward you? Explicitly Diplomacy. Same with making a request. It's Diplomacy, regardless of which stat you managed to use.
EDIT: Not trying to be a dwarf racist here, so I'll elaborate. It's a trope that Dwarves do things that are offputting to normal Humans (and other races with normal CHA).
It's interesting to watch you vacillate between "off-putting" and "bugs in hair" depending on your conversational needs.
They're also much less interested in nice things like taking showers.
So... they smell like everyone else?
It's a different cultural standard. But to your standard Human, it's going to be more than a tad offputting to meet a Dwarf that has done the full CHA dump. That's why we get the trope of awkward culture clashes between Dwarves and other races.
Again, that's what Pathfinder calls "a bit gruff".
Can you blame him, that's gonna take him out of the fight because the restoration family of spells sucks at its job.Saturday before last I cast Greater Restoration on the party tank because he was eating three different types of ability drain.
Still takes 3 rounds of casting so you can't fix it mid-combat.
Still takes 3 rounds of casting so you can't fix it mid-combat.You misunderstand. It WAS in combat.
Wait what? How the hell did you pull that off...and how the hell di combat last that long?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, the tank was soaking three different ability drains from the monster, and our positioning kept it from dimension dooring into the room past him due to space issues. I had to burn a reroll to avoid having my spell disrupted, but there was little else I could do to it. (This is of course an outlier.)
Okay, so in your campaigns, one third of dwarves have bugs crawling out of their hair, or some other flaw of the same caliber. Got it.
Given that I was referring to lice, bedbugs and the like, Yes. I don't think the Dwarves that dumped CHA to 5-7 levels really care about that. Considering most peasants and an awful lot of travelers on the road have the same problems, this isn't crazy, and most people in a fantasy world wouldn't care THAT much unless they were nobility. That also means, yes, bugs in the hair = offputting. It's just a slightly more extreme level of offputting than the "mostly harmless" 8 CHA variety.
*tries to remember a story/setting that included both dwarves and showers*
*fails*
So... they smell like everyone else?
You got me, I meant bathe, and there are quite a few settings/environments where baths are totally a thing. (PS: Didn't Shadowrun have Dwarves?)
Finally, -2 CHA for 8 CHA is a bit gruff. A dwarf that does the full dive is going to be more than "a bit gruff"
Social dealings are covered by skills. Trying to alter someone's attitude toward you? Explicitly Diplomacy. Same with making a request. It's Diplomacy, regardless of which stat you managed to use.
Have you never used Circumstantial mods to modify the DCs of skills? Honest question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just looks for builds you see a lot (to often) that your kinda bored with and tired of seeing.
Mine:
1. Small race mounted combat characters, the rules on this are so broken it's practically cheating.Halfling dual welding rogues. So tired of seeing this character.
Hyper-optimized save-or-suck sorcerer
Two-handed barbarianShocking grasp "nova" magus
Two-weapon fighting rogue
Jekel / Hyde alchemist
"God" wizard
Master summoner super focused on summoning
Bards
Clerics
Sword-and-board paladins that always TWF
Cross-blooded Sorcerer (Orc/Dragon) 1 / Evoker X
Pistoleroes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
any sorcerer seems to take the same spells over and over and wind up a litle samey.
Full arcane casters end up samey because they tend to be so general. Given the entire massive Sorc/Wiz list to choose from, people will naturally avoid choosing/preparing redundant spells in another example of convergent evolution—ironically enough, converging on the widest possible generalist. Even specialist Wizards aren't all that specialized.
This means that the most powerful casters end up being, as someone else dubbed them, Incoherent Piles of Good Spells. I know Spheres of Power is supposed to fix this issue, and it comes highly recommended, but I still haven't had a chance to play it myself.
Two-weapon fighting rogue
I know the list is tongue-in-cheek but the Flask Rogue build from the original PF playtest was killed off pretty much entirely because any Rogue whose schtick wasn't "tumble into flanking and attack with double daggers" was considered "cheesy".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so in your campaigns, one third of dwarves have bugs crawling out of their hair, or some other flaw of the same caliber. Got it.Given that I was referring to lice, bedbugs and the like, Yes. I don't think the Dwarves that dumped CHA to 5-7 levels really care about that. Considering most peasants and an awful lot of travelers on the road have the same problems, this isn't crazy, and most people in a fantasy world wouldn't care THAT much unless they were nobility. That also means, yes, bugs in the hair = offputting. It's just a slightly more extreme level of offputting than the "mostly harmless" 8 CHA variety.
If the bugs in the hair are the same lice everyone else has, then why is it affecting anything?
...And how does having a higher CHA keep them away, for that matter?
You're starting to implode a bit, I'm afraid.
You got me, I meant bathe, and there are quite a few settings/environments where baths are totally a thing. (PS: Didn't Shadowrun have Dwarves?)*tries to remember a story/setting that included both dwarves and showers*
*fails*
So... they smell like everyone else?
I was under the impression that fantasy baths were kind of a rich-people thing, not an everybody-but-the-low-CHA-folks thing.
Finally, -2 CHA for 8 CHA is a bit gruff. A dwarf that does the full dive is going to be more than "a bit gruff"
No, the description the CRB gives for the racial penalty does not only apply to a single score.
Remember which game we're talking about: the random commoners don't have 11/11/11/10/10/10, they have 13/12/11/10/9/8. So where a non-dwarf's CHA will be somewhere in the 8-13 range, dwarves' CHA will be 6-11. The difference of that whole range is what's called "a bit gruff".
The difference between a human and a dwarf with the same pre-racial CHA is that the dwarf is like the human except "a bit gruff". That's the caliber of impact that Pathfinder ascribes to a score two points lower.
Social dealings are covered by skills. Trying to alter someone's attitude toward you? Explicitly Diplomacy. Same with making a request. It's Diplomacy, regardless of which stat you managed to use.Have you never used Circumstantial mods to modify the DCs of skills? Honest question.
Yes, to reflect circumstances. Circumstance modifiers come from circumstances, not ability scores. Those have their own modifiers. Does a 7 STR attacker get a -2 "circumstance" penalty on their attack roll? Does the 14 INT researcher get a +2 "circumstance" bonus on his Knowledge check?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ugly but charismatic thing exists, they're called rock stars. On the flip side, I've met some incredibly beautiful women with the personality and affect of a rock. Dwarves just need to be impassive, "low energy" personalities, or dour, not actually gross to justify a Charisma penalty.
If the bugs in the hair are the same lice everyone else has, then why is it affecting anything?
...And how does having a higher CHA keep them away, for that matter?
You're starting to implode a bit, I'm afraid.
It wouldn't, if the baseline CHA was that low. I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that Peasant probably wouldn't care.
A character with a higher CHA would keep their room cleaner, or live in an area that doesn't have lice infestations. In reality, lice or bedbugs is an example, just one of many that could be used, an example used specifically in comparison to "greasy hair" example.
I was under the impression that fantasy baths were kind of a rich-people thing, not an everybody-but-the-low-CHA-folks thing.
I was under the impression that many (not all) inns had a basic bath- nothing fancy, no hot water, no soap, but a basic spot to bathe, probably made of wood. You're right, this one is arguable.
No, the description the CRB gives for the racial penalty does not only apply to a single score.
Remember which game we're talking about: the random commoners don't have 11/11/11/10/10/10, they have 13/12/11/10/9/8. So where a non-dwarf's CHA will be somewhere in the 8-13 range, dwarves' CHA will be 6-11. The difference of that whole range is what's called "a bit gruff".
The difference between a human and a dwarf with the same pre-racial CHA is that the dwarf is like the human except "a bit gruff". That's the caliber of impact that Pathfinder ascribes to a score two points lower.
I'm going to just have to flat out disagree here. If that gruffness affects their score to the point that it is a 6, that commoner has effectively dumped CHA and that will be obvious in SOME WAY. The 7 CHA dwarves are honestly an edge case, I don't think 7 CHA is *that* bad, but it is notable. The rest would be fine in most cases, being mostly average by human standards.
Yes, to reflect circumstances. Circumstance modifiers come from circumstances, not ability scores. Those have their own modifiers. Does a 7 STR attacker get a -2 "circumstance" penalty on their attack roll? Does the 14 INT researcher get a +2 "circumstance" bonus on his Knowledge check?
I swear I've explained that this would mostly apply in extreme cases- everyone but the face having very low (5-7 depending on the NPC judging) CHA. Therefore, the circumstance is NOT a single CHA value, it's a whole group of characters who fail at people skills being associated with the guy who's trying to sweet talk someone.
If you had an entire group of 14 INT researchers, then yeah actually I could make an argument for that, if they were trying to think of something that was generally common enough that a collective effort could help each other.
But attack rolls are made by one guy and are completely independent of everyone else. If a situation somehow arose that the guy swinging his sword could be hurt by everyone around him being awful at combat, then sure, I'd give him that -2 (though in general I don't like giving circumstance stuff in combat).
Who the hell bathes when Prestidigitation is a thing? Maybe if the town lacks a mage's guild the town might need to resort to bathing but otherwise it's up to the poor sap who has town cleanup duty that day.
Because there's no way a mage guild is going to cast prestidigitation for free on a bunch of stinky common folk? For free anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because there's no way a mage guild is going to cast prestidigitation for free on a bunch of stinky common folk? For free anyway.
They are if they want the town to be less stinky and reduce the amount of diseases running around.
The ugly but charismatic thing exists, they're called rock stars. On the flip side, I've met some incredibly beautiful women with the personality and affect of a rock. Dwarves just need to be impassive, "low energy" personalities, or dour, not actually gross to justify a Charisma penalty.This also has the nice element of making it more of a cultural than a biological thing.
Dwarves are not inherently less attractive or hygienic or whatever, they are from a culture that tends to be more gruff and has less use for small talk and social niceties than most.
On the broader subject of charisma, I feel it is a poor GMing move to try and use scare tactics against dumping, as this will come across as vindictive and a warning sign you might be dealing with an adversarial GM whose first instinct is how they can punish you rather than how they can make the situation fun.
Adding a rule to the game where bad things happen to you if you dump a stat does not make the game more fun. It increases ability taxes and forces point buy to be spread more thinly. Adding a rule that incentivizes having more balanced stats or a decent if "unneccessary" charisma score makes the game more fun. If you don't like dump stats, I would strongly advise GMs to consider how to make a more even spread more appealing to their players rather than focusing on how to punish someone who does have focused stats. Positive reinforcement beats negative reinforcement pretty much every time; when there's a cool new bonus to having good charisma, a player will be interested and consider how to work with it. When your player is keeping their charisma at 12 because they suspect you will make life harder for their PC if it goes any lower, there will be a certain sense of resentment there.
I missed these posts.
TBQH, I'd hardly consider it a scare tactic, it's just having NPCs act naturally. Even for characters with awful CHA, aid another is not a hard thing to do, and considering at most I'd be applying a -3 modifier, a few aid anothers would neutralize that modifier (represting, then, that the players have to spend some effort in order to make up for the fact that they are a bunch of 5 CHA slobs normally). This gets laughably easy if characters put points into Diplomacy.) Characters that tried to do things that made themselves seem more charismatic than they normally are could also make CHA checks to reduce the damage (in addition to aiding the diplomat). Alternatively, there's the classic tactic of "low CHA characters sit outside", though I don't really think that's necessary most times.
I also want to reiterate that I would only really start applying circumstance penalties to a party that had extremely low CHA- I stated 5 or lower. That's the lowest CHA a party can have without taking into account age penalties (or ability drain). I think that is fair.
The ugly but charismatic thing exists, they're called rock stars. On the flip side, I've met some incredibly beautiful women with the personality and affect of a rock. Dwarves just need to be impassive, "low energy" personalities, or dour, not actually gross to justify a Charisma penalty.
I've never denied this. I used appearance as a general example (specifically, I said "antisocial, ugly warrior types" in my first post , and that was the only reference to appearance in my original post- notice it also contains a reference to attitude!), Chess Pwn mentioned that low CHA is only greasy hair/pimples, I thought that low (5-7 level) CHA would be a lot worse than that- but only if it was low CHA based on appearance, which is only one part of the spectrum of CHA and by no means a requirement.
The fact that it's very possible for the least charismatic portion of dwarves to also be ugly by human standards and tbqh that fits a lot of traditional depictions in large part is something I just find extra interesting. But this centered the argument around CHA as appearance, which is something I actually don't agree with AT ALL.
One guy I used to play with would only ever make a blackened flame oracle or a strength based TWF ranger, so I might just throw up if I see another one of those at the table.
It would help if Ranger and Slayer weren't the only classes where twf was worthwhile.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A character with a higher CHA would keep their room cleaner, or live in an area that doesn't have lice infestations.If the bugs in the hair are the same lice everyone else has, then why is it affecting anything?
...And how does having a higher CHA keep them away, for that matter?
The hell? Your CHA score reflects your place of residence now? So the cleaner parts of town go to the smiley folks instead of being based on price? Do you even hear yourself?
I'm going to just have to flat out disagree here.No, the description the CRB gives for the racial penalty does not only apply to a single score.
Remember which game we're talking about: the random commoners don't have 11/11/11/10/10/10, they have 13/12/11/10/9/8. So where a non-dwarf's CHA will be somewhere in the 8-13 range, dwarves' CHA will be 6-11. The difference of that whole range is what's called "a bit gruff".
The difference between a human and a dwarf with the same pre-racial CHA is that the dwarf is like the human except "a bit gruff". That's the caliber of impact that Pathfinder ascribes to a score two points lower.
What exactly are you disagreeing with here?
Are you disagreeing with the claim that the Pathfinder basic stat array is 13/12/11/10/9/8? Because I can show you that in the books.
Are you disagreeing with the claim that dwarves get a -2 CHA penalty that's described as them being "a bit gruff"? I can show you that one in the books as well.
Are you disagreeing that 8-2=6? I'm pretty sure I can find proof of that one as well.
So what is it that you're saying you disagree with?
If that gruffness affects their score to the point that it is a 6, that commoner has effectively dumped CHA
We're talking about one sixth of the dwarven population here. See above.
...and that will be obvious in SOME WAY.
In a way that's believable to be true for one sixth of the entire dwarven population, yes. Your assertions thus far seem a bit far-fetched for that requirement, though.
Yes, to reflect circumstances. Circumstance modifiers come from circumstances, not ability scores. Those have their own modifiers. Does a 7 STR attacker get a -2 "circumstance" penalty on their attack roll? Does the 14 INT researcher get a +2 "circumstance" bonus on his Knowledge check?I swear I've explained that this would mostly apply in extreme cases- everyone but the face having very low (5-7 depending on the NPC judging) CHA. Therefore, the circumstance is NOT a single CHA value, it's a whole group of characters who fail at people skills being associated with the guy who's trying to sweet talk someone.
The problem is that you're doubling up: the situation of the "face" being the only one with a CHA higher than 7 is already accounted for by the fact that his allies have lower chances of succeeding at Aid Another, making the face's own potential for low rolls more risky compared to the face of a more socially adept group.
It's already built into the system, and then you're talking about adding that drawback again by adding a circumstance penalty.
If you had an entire group of 14 INT researchers, then yeah actually I could make an argument for that, if they were trying to think of something that was generally common enough that a collective effort could help each other.
Again, the Aid Another mechanic already covers this, and having the whole team have positive modifiers is already rewarded. Again, you're double-dipping.
Labeling one of your two instances of the negative CHA mod as a "circumstance penalty" doesn't mean you're not double-dipping anymore.
It would help if Ranger and Slayer weren't the only classes where twf was worthwhile.
One of the many reasons I don't often play other people's Pathfinder games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Works alright for me...
Sure it works now, but you're not going to be able to get Improved TWF or two weapon rend with your dex score unless you invest a lot of your wealth into improving it.
My issue with TWF is you have to pump so much into dex to make it better than just two handing a big old sword...and even then going with natural attacks is just better because you get so many attacks at full BAB if you do it right making it worth them having less power.
And don't get me started on weapon handling, you really need to abuse quick draw for this style and switch hit for when you can't TWF, and the lack of quick sheath just hurts the style.
Two-weapon fighting rogueI know the list is tongue-in-cheek but the Flask Rogue build from the original PF playtest was killed off pretty much entirely because any Rogue whose schtick wasn't "tumble into flanking and attack with double daggers" was considered "cheesy".
I think I missed this history lesson. Could you explain more?
I think I missed this history lesson. Could you explain more?
Two-weapon fighting rogueI know the list is tongue-in-cheek but the Flask Rogue build from the original PF playtest was killed off pretty much entirely because any Rogue whose schtick wasn't "tumble into flanking and attack with double daggers" was considered "cheesy".
I believe the short form is "you can't quick-draw alchemist's fire or acid or anything other than a strictly-defined weapon."
Also, I'm pretty sure if the uncharismatic party member has to make a charisma check for social reasons, the correct response is for the other party members to intercede and either make the check or at least aid him on it. One or more +2s can help smooth over bad impressions.
|
|
Sure it works now, but you're not going to be able to get Improved TWF or two weapon rend with your dex score unless you invest a lot of your wealth into improving it.
Already done, I should really update his profile. I built him with the intend that he would upgrade his Dex belt to keep up with the TWF tree.
Edit: Done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I missed this history lesson. Could you explain more?
Two-weapon fighting rogueI know the list is tongue-in-cheek but the Flask Rogue build from the original PF playtest was killed off pretty much entirely because any Rogue whose schtick wasn't "tumble into flanking and attack with double daggers" was considered "cheesy".
As far as I remember it:
The Flask Rogue is one that gains Blink via Ring of Blinking, and throws splash weapons as his usual method of attack. Back in 3.5, having Blink on yourself explicitly denied your target his Dex to AC, allowing you to use Sneak Attack. And Sneak Attack worked with splash weapons in 3.5 (and even got a specific FAQ to that effect).
During the Pathfinder playtest, the Powers That Be saw some Flask Rogue tests and decided to kill that build by adding lines to both Blink and splash weapons to no longer allow sneak attack, and (only from what I have heard) making it much harder to get ranged sneak attacks in general.
It should be noted that the Flask Rogue was a solution to what the overwhelming consensus acknowledges as the major problems with the Core Rogue, namely their difficulties getting into melee, surviving in melee, landing hits, and getting Sneak Attacks consistently.
Honestly, precision damage with splash weapons never made sense to me anyways.
And while the rulings did kill a viable rogue, I think it was really that the thematics of a rogue throwing a bunch of flasks and getting sneak attack damage to kill things was definitely not what they had in mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that rogue archetype that gives sneak attack on alch fires...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I think Paizo should have a grand pow-wow, rehash ALLLLL the stuff they've published - the stories and themes and twists and turns including the "secret" stuff, go over the controversies and community feedback in its various forms, update their standards, work out any questions among themselves, and move forward with a single strategy complete with a long blog entry detailing what they've worked out. According to some remarks, that's kinda happened, but it didn't come with any kind of announcement so there's this huge disconnect between prior statements and a lot of the other material.
Most recently for me, James Jacobs remarked on Nethys not being omniscient when he's described as such in the 2008 Osirion book and repeated basically as such in the ISWG. They need to get together and draw out an assmap so they can find their own rear. I'm not mad about it, though it is frustrating. Instead of burying their heads in the sand like nothing's wrong and grumbling about their own fanbase, maybe eat a little crow to the community, regroup, and proceed. I might even subscribe to something at that point. Holy crap would I be impressed.
That's the main issue, I think. There's a massive transparency problem both within the company and outwardly facing to us which is so unlike Paizo from just a couple years ago. Sure, they've grown, but holy hell do companies a ton larger than they are operate a lot more efficiently. Me thinks they may be resting on their laurels a bit much.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligence vs IQ debates?
"We need an updated streamlined game"?
The company/game has gotten too big?
Rogues don't get enough love?
What does charisma really mean?
I thought this thread was for tired builds, not tired thread topics.
It seems the OP is exhausted a bit.
Though, on topic, my tired "characters" (cuz, tbh, I don't go around examining my fellow players' character sheets) is the rogue who doesn't care, the holy types who constantly repeat "by Grabthar's hammer!," the dumb fighter, the thieving rogue, the always angry barbarian, the ever-grumpy dwarf, the haughty elf, and many other such tropes.
It seems the OP is exhausted a bit.
Though, on topic, my tired "characters" (cuz, tbh, I don't go around examining my fellow players' character sheets) is the rogue who doesn't care, the holy types who constantly repeat "by Grabthar's hammer!," the dumb fighter, the thieving rogue, the always angry barbarian, the ever-grumpy dwarf, the haughty elf, and many other such tropes.
Lol By Grabthar's Hammer, great Galaxy Quest reference!
|
Honestly, I could name more concepts I'm tired of than "builds".
• The grumpy, Klingon-minded, beer-swilling dwarf who is either a fighter or cleric, generally dislikes elves, and has a last name which references some mix of hammers, shields, and/or stone.
"What 'ave ye got agains' dwarves, eh? We dwarves forge th' bes' weap'ns on Golari'n! If i's nae dwarven, i's crap!"
"What 'ave ye got agains' dwarves, eh? We dwarves forge th' bes' weap'ns on Golari'n! If i's nae dwarven, i's crap!"Honestly, I could name more concepts I'm tired of than "builds".
• The grumpy, Klingon-minded, beer-swilling dwarf who is either a fighter or cleric, generally dislikes elves, and has a last name which references some mix of hammers, shields, and/or stone.
Funniest thing is that one of my uncles actually talks like that. He stand 6' 6" but everyone's first thought is Dwarf meeting him. lol
Dwarves are so much more fun when they're mad scientists.
