[PF] Alternate Racial Stats

[QuidEst]

Playing Pathfinder, I've noticed a bit of a problem. Whatever you want to do, it can almost always be done better by Tiefling or Aasimar. Now, it's not always true, but they have some of the best racial bonuses (Darkvision, second level spell 1/day from level 1, elemental resistances, skill bonuses)- then, on top of that, they have a bunch of different stat arrays to pick from. Want a Wizard? Base Tiefling is optimal stats, and they come in Small size. Sorcerer? You can get +Cha, +Dex with an Aasimar, no drawbacks. Gunslinger? +Wis, +Dex with Aasimar, throw on -Int for Tiefling (and again, small size is available). And so on and so forth. Meanwhile, using a core race can feel a bit limited.

My goal is to provide stat array options for core races to give similar options. There won't be equal options for all races, but hopefully this will allow for some more varied characters. Suggestions welcome!

(Note- for the most part, each 1/1 trade can be made independently, unless a specific stat array is given.)

The fixed-stat races:

Dwarf: Dwarves are both hardy and strong, wise and intelligent, and gruff and slow. As such, +Con can be traded for +Str, +Wis for +Int, -Cha for -Dex.

Elf: Elves are long-lived, and as such, should be able to have bonuses in any mental stat depending on whether they've spent their time in research, reflection, or diplomatic work. Their bodies are not especially susceptible to disease (or else they would live shorter lives), so it makes sense that they might be physically weak instead of frail. As such, +Int can be traded for +Cha or +Wis, and -Con for -Str.

Gnome: Gnomes are sometimes inventors, and are not always very sensible. As such, +Cha can be traded for +Int, and -Str for -Wis. Fell Gnomes are more serious and withdrawn, and can take +Wis, +Con, -Str for their stats.

Halfling: Halflings are hardy and sensible, but not known for their studious nature. As such, they can trade +Dex for +Con, +Cha for +Wis, and -Str for -Int.

The variable-stat races: (Note- any options here are alternatives to the players choice of a single +2.)

Human: Humans are charming, clever, and strong, but often short-sighted and greedy. They may use +Cha, +Str, -Wis or +Int, +Str, -Wis as their stat array instead of a variable bonus.

Half-Elf: Half-Elves combine their Human and Elvish ancestry, and may take after one or the other more strongly. They may use +Int, +Str, -Wis or +Dex, +Cha, -Con for their stat array instead of a variable bonus.

Half-Orc: Half-Orcs are strong, instinctive, but appear brutish and are not usually given to academic pursuits. They may use +Str, +Wis, -Cha or +Str, +Wis, -Int for their stat array instead of a variable bonus.


EDIT: Proposed change is to only allow trading out one positive bonus or the other, but not both. This makes the number of choices more even and keeps races feeling more like their original versions.

Thoughts?

[AttilaTheGeek]

Ooh, interesting. I like! You've addressed a subtle, but very real problem in high-op Pathfinder play.

My only critique is on the variable-stat races. By giving them a choice between a couple different arrays, they actually wind up with less flexibility than the fixed-stat races. However, I'm not sure how you could go about fixing that. With the increased power boost to races, it makes sense to give any two bonuses (or any one mental and any one physical), but the penalties that would be needed to balanc it... I don't know. Hope I was helpful anyway?

[QuidEst]

Ooh, interesting. I like! You've addressed a subtle, but very real problem in high-op Pathfinder play.

My only critique is on the variable-stat races. By giving them a choice between a couple different arrays, they actually wind up with less flexibility than the fixed-stat races. However, I'm not sure how you could go about fixing that. With the increased power boost to races, it makes sense to give any two bonuses (or any one mental and any one physical), but the penalties that would be needed to balanc it... I don't know. Hope I was helpful anyway?

I agree that they're less flexible- kind of. That was by choice, actually… the flexible ones get used a lot as-is, and are the only core-race strength bonuses. If you could pick one mental and one physical with any penalty, then they'd still get the most use. I think it makes sense to tip it the other way- encourage people to play more Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, and non-Wizard Elves. Humans remain a fantastic and optimal option for Paladins, Oracles, and Maguses. Half-Elves are a little more narrow… I'm considering changing that -Con to -Str. Half-Orcs make even better Fighters now, and now make great Monks.

I said kind of. The reason being that if I want to play a Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc, I can do it with whatever class I want. The fixed-stat races, even with the added options, can't do that. Elf Barbarian still isn't going to work. Dwarves still make bad Sorcerers.

I appreciate the feedback! If you want better balance, my recommendation would be to take away a good option from each of the fixed races (except Gnome, which already has fewer). Elf can't change their -2 Con, Dwarves are stuck with +2 Con, Gnomes lose the Fell Gnome stat array, Halflings cannot trade +2 Cha.

[Vadskye]

Just a minor point - but the reason humans have almost always been, and should always be, the most generically powerful race is simply that they are by far the most common race in the world (at least for most campaign settings). The power of a race should roughly match the frequency with which the race appears in the world. Thus, I would definitely recommend not using your current system for humans. It's too restrictive to deal with the sheer breadth of variety capable in humans.

Half-elves and half-orcs, on the other hand, are among the rarest of races due to their unique ancestry. Thus, a more restrictive (and thus, less objectively powerful) set of stat modifiers is appropriate.

[QuidEst]

I'm carrying out a bit of a personal bias here. It bugs me that humans are varied and you can't nail them down to a particular stat set, but dwarves? Everybody knows they're gruff, tough, and wise. The goal is to give similar flexibility to other races. Humans are the only ones without a "typical", which is what I want to introduce. They don't lose out on their choice of a single +2. They just get extra options.

Humans are still one of the best choices. If you want to play a gish or Paladin, the human fixed stats are the best. If you want to play anything else, the choice of +2 is good, and +1 skill point is like +2 Int for any class that doesn't cast with it. Then throw on a free feat and the best racial feat options.
Their options under the new system:
+2 Cha, +2 Str, -2 Wis
+2 Int, +2 Str, -2 Wis
+2 to any stat
+2 to any two stats, but give up their extra skill point and feat.

That said, I'd love suggestions for how to change it. I feel that +Cha is pretty characteristic of humans, since they're the race that ends up making all the half-blooded races.

[Vadskye]

I guess we are coming from different perspectives here. I agree that the Pathfinder dwarf is weird. Your solution is to add more restrictions on to ability selection. But I think that the answer is that no race should have mental ability modifiers (except half-orc). That means that, for example, my dwarves get +Con, -Dex. They are physically sturdier (because I can't imagine a true dwarf that isn't), but less agile (because... well, just look at them). Should all dwarves be wise? Absolutely not. But your solution feels... kind of arbitrary. I mean, why do both the human "innate" stat blocks include Strength? That makes them seem as strong as half-orcs, which isn't right. Why is Wisdom the only mental stat they can't get as part of a default array? It just feels... arbitrary.

[QuidEst]

Your solution is to add more restrictions on to ability selection.
… it's to add less restrictions, actually. :smallconfused: Before, if I played a Dwarf, my mental bonus was Wisdom. Now it's Wisdom or Int. If I wanted to play human, I could get any +2, but that was it. Now I can get any +2 or I can take one of the two stat sets provided.


But I think that the answer is that no race should have mental ability modifiers (except half-orc). That means that, for example, my dwarves get +Con, -Dex.
:smalleek: That's unpleasant from a game mechanics perspective. And different races do have different focuses culturally. This is not so much about trying to fix the fluff of all dwarves being wise. It's providing mechanical options so that the races stack up more favorably against the many choices of Aasimar and Tieflings, and so that the races can be played effectively with more classes. Under the new system, I could play an excellent dwarf wizard, elven bard, fell gnome necromancer, or halfling ranger. In addition, if I wanted to play the ever-popular concept of a dwarven bard, I wouldn't get slapped on the wrist so hard. Halfling rogues have the option to hit with strength instead of investing in dex-to-damage paths, and a strength-based magus now has races for it.

Now, I am doing my very best to provide these options in a way that fits the fluff of the races as they stand.


Should all dwarves be wise? Absolutely not. But your solution feels... kind of arbitrary. I mean, why do both the human "innate" stat blocks include Strength? That makes them seem as strong as half-orcs, which isn't right. Why is Wisdom the only mental stat they can't get as part of a default array? It just feels... arbitrary.
It is somewhat arbitrary. I'd love suggestions on what feels more representative! My reasoning, which I'm not wholly satisfied with:
-Of the three physical stats, strength seems to fit humans the best. We're not particularly resilient (I couldn't see the Black Plague sweeping through a dwarven civilization), so I don't think Con works. Dex could be one of the options, certainly, but I think in general, humans are out working the fields, serving as soldiers, moving goods around, and so on. (As for the half-orc argument, humans and half-orcs are already equal strength as far as mechanics go.)
-As for Wisdom, I think that's pretty true. We have a lot more charismatic leaders or brilliant scientists than we do great philosophers. In-game, humans are the most populous (I'd associate that with Charisma) and get skill points and feats (very much Intelligence). Wisdom is humanity's mental dump stat on the whole.
-Humans can get +2 Wis just fine- that's what the variable option is for.

What would you pick for the two optional human arrays? (Or how would you handle variable stat races?)

[Vadskye]

… it's to add less restrictions, actually. :smallconfused: Before, if I played a Dwarf, my mental bonus was Wisdom. Now it's Wisdom or Int. If I wanted to play human, I could get any +2, but that was it. Now I can get any +2 or I can take one of the two stat sets provided.
I'll grant that "restrictions" isn't necessarily the best word. But this system is more complex and has more rules.


:smalleek: That's unpleasant from a game mechanics perspective.
I would put it to you that, due to the nature of spell save DCs, it is actually more unhealthy from a game mechanics/balance perspective for races to have mental ability bonuses. That's a different discussion, though.


And different races do have different focuses culturally.
Absolutely. By why make cultural tendencies part of the inherent racial template? I think that this is best represented by saying that your typical dwarf NPC put more points in Wisdom / rolled a higher Wisdom / however you do your NPCs, he just has a higher wisdom. That's how you represent culture.


This is not so much about trying to fix the fluff of all dwarves being wise. It's providing mechanical options so that the races stack up more favorably against the many choices of Aasimar and Tieflings, and so that the races can be played effectively with more classes. Under the new system, I could play an excellent dwarf wizard, elven bard, fell gnome necromancer, or halfling ranger. In addition, if I wanted to play the ever-popular concept of a dwarven bard, I wouldn't get slapped on the wrist so hard. Halfling rogues have the option to hit with strength instead of investing in dex-to-damage paths, and a strength-based magus now has races for it.
All of those things (except the Strength-based halfling, which I argue makes little sense) are equally true in a system where no race gives mental ability bonuses.


Now, I am doing my very best to provide these options in a way that fits the fluff of the races as they stand.
You are, and I appreciate that. I just think it's a quixotic quest. I'd put it this way: nothing about being a dwarf should make you inherently more intelligent. That just doesn't make sense from the fluff, and it doesn't make sense intuitively. If I were to take generic NPC Bob and make him a dwarf instead of his previous race, I would be startled if his Intelligence increased - particularly if his Con also didn't increase. I mean, increasing Con is the single most consistent thing that dwarves have ever done! Same thing if I made him a half-orc and suddenly his Wisdom increased. That's particularly weird, since Humans don't get Wisdom as part of a default block, so the implication is that being part orc actually made him wiser.

Another way to put it is: Imagine a hypothetical race that gave +Str, +Int, -Cha. What kind of race would that be? I can tell you that I definitely wouldn't expect the answer to be "a dwarf".

Now, I can understand that some people might think that having more Int and only ordinary Con makes sense for their dwarves. And maybe, maybe, your orcs are particularly wise. But I think that as long as you try to take these very vague and subjective racial "cultures" and represent them mechanically, you're going to get stuff that feels weird. That's why I stick with purely physical differences for the most part.


It is somewhat arbitrary. I'd love suggestions on what feels more representative! My reasoning, which I'm not wholly satisfied with:
-Of the three physical stats, strength seems to fit humans the best. We're not particularly resilient (I couldn't see the Black Plague sweeping through a dwarven civilization), so I don't think Con works. Dex could be one of the options, certainly, but I think in general, humans are out working the fields, serving as soldiers, moving goods around, and so on. (As for the half-orc argument, humans and half-orcs are already equal strength as far as mechanics go.)
-As for Wisdom, I think that's pretty true. We have a lot more charismatic leaders or brilliant scientists than we do great philosophers. In-game, humans are the most populous (I'd associate that with Charisma) and get skill points and feats (very much Intelligence). Wisdom is humanity's mental dump stat on the whole.

-Humans can get +2 Wis just fine- that's what the variable option is for.
Many humans are farmers and soldiers, and farmers and soldiers would typically have higher Strength than Dex. However, I think you're confusing cause and effect here when you say that this means that humans should inherently be stronger. This goes back to my ideas on culture before. Your typical human has more Strength than Dex, and less Wisdom than the other scores. But that doesn't mean that humans have an inherent racial bonus to Strength or a penalty to Wisdom. (And I completely agree that the Black Plague couldn't sweep through a dwarven civilization - so dwarves shouldn't be able to trade away their Con bonus. It's inherent, not cultural.)


What would you pick for the two optional human arrays? (Or how would you handle variable stat races?)

Now that I've gone on and on about "physical stat only", I still think we can find a compromise that incorporates variable stats. My proposal is that the physical changes are inherent, but races can have variable mental bonuses. This would work as follows:

Dwarves are +2 Con, -2 Dex, and +2 Int/Wis.
Elves are +2 Dex, -2 Con, and +2 Int/Wis/Cha.
Gnomes are +2 Con, -2 Str, and +2 Int/Wis.
Halflings are +2 Dex, -2 Str, and +2 Wis/Cha.

The human races are a little more flexible.
Half-orcs are +2 Str, -2 Int/Wis/Cha, +2 Int/Wis/Cha. (I am less sure about this one, but I really think half-orcs should be stronger than other races, and some sort of penalty to mental ability scores feels appropriate given the orc blood.)
Half-elves get +2 to Dex or any mental ability score.
Humans get +2 to any ability score.

This gives the races a distinct flavor, even when it comes to the mental attributes, while making a clear distinction between the inherent aspects of the race and the more flexible aspects.

Now, I write this without considering the Aasimar and the Tiefling. But frankly, they're the problem, not the core races. They have 15 racial points, and the core races are balanced around 10 racial points. They are inherently better than the core races, and monkeying around with the ability score modifiers is not going to change that. Many monstrous races are just better than the core races, and that's a separate problem.

[QuidEst]

I would put it to you that, due to the nature of spell save DCs, it is actually more unhealthy from a game mechanics/balance perspective for races to have mental ability bonuses. That's a different discussion, though.
I love me some casters. I like being able to get an 18 in casting and still have points to invest in other stuff. I find a system without mental bonuses to be extremely unpleasant because it makes it much more difficult for me to represent my characters, and playing without a net bonus is not as fun.


You are, and I appreciate that. I just think it's a quixotic quest. I'd put it this way: nothing about being a dwarf should make you inherently more intelligent. That just doesn't make sense from the fluff, and it doesn't make sense intuitively. If I were to take generic NPC Bob and make him a dwarf instead of his previous race, I would be startled if his Intelligence increased - particularly if his Con also didn't increase. I mean, increasing Con is the single most consistent thing that dwarves have ever done! Same thing if I made him a half-orc and suddenly his Wisdom increased. That's particularly weird, since Humans don't get Wisdom as part of a default block, so the implication is that being part orc actually made him wiser.
And I would argue that something about being a dwarf should make you inherently more intelligent. Dwarves are long-lived, and nearly every myth about the portrays them as clever and master magical craftsmen. As it stands, they're great at crafting regular stuff, but rubbish at magical stuff. They get bonuses to crafting as a wizard, but you wouldn't play one as that. As for the strength thing, Dwarves are strong. They're better known for sturdiness, but it seems silly to have them passed by for melee because they don't swing an axe any harder than an elf.

Personally, I would not be surprised for half-orcs to be wiser in general than humans. (Admittedly, +2 vs. -2 is more extreme than I'd expect, but nailing the scale is impossible.) I would expect them to have more common sense, be more in touch with nature, and be better at surviving and seeing. Those are all traits of wisdom.


Another way to put it is: Imagine a hypothetical race that gave +Str, +Int, -Cha. What kind of race would that be? I can tell you that I definitely wouldn't expect the answer to be "a dwarf".
I do agree here. But if I said +Str, +Wis, -Cha, "a dwarf" fits pretty well. If I said +Con, +Int, -Dex, "a dwarf" fits pretty well. I don't like what you get when you chance both the plusses, but fixing that would have been needlessly complicated. Dwarves are the reason I started on this, actually. I like them, but I don't like most divine classes.


Now, I can understand that some people might think that having more Int and only ordinary Con makes sense for their dwarves. And maybe, maybe, your orcs are particularly wise. But I think that as long as you try to take these very vague and subjective racial "cultures" and represent them mechanically, you're going to get stuff that feels weird. That's why I stick with purely physical differences for the most part.
Currently, we have mental bonuses. Sure, it feels weird. But Half-Orc Bards running around with +2 Cha feel weird. I am not interested in restricting stat bonuses even further than they already are, and I think this results in something more natural.



Many humans are farmers and soldiers, and farmers and soldiers would typically have higher Strength than Dex. However, I think you're confusing cause and effect here when you say that this means that humans should inherently be stronger. This goes back to my ideas on culture before. Your typical human has more Strength than Dex, and less Wisdom than the other scores. But that doesn't mean that humans have an inherent racial bonus to Strength or a penalty to Wisdom.
Humans are difficult to stat up because they're the only real ones. I am attempting to look at humanity in the exact same light that we look at dwarves and elves- find what is typical or iconic for that race. When I consider humans compared to elves, I expect elves to be nimbler and humans to be stronger. When I compare humans with halflings, I would expect halflings to be wiser and humans to be smarter. And so on.


(And I completely agree that the Black Plague couldn't sweep through a dwarven civilization - so dwarves shouldn't be able to trade away their Con bonus. It's inherent, not cultural.)
I didn't claim that Con bonus was at all cultural. But I think it's reasonable that some dwarves are born particularly strong instead of particularly resilient. (Yes it can be represented by assigning stats. But I'm trying to make it a sensible choice even from a metagaming perspective.) You have dwarves who can take blows all day, and wade into battle with an oaken shield. Then you have dwarves who are out hacking away with an axe, wading through their enemies. From a mechanics perspective, I want a dwarf fighter to be able to be just as bashy and smashy as a half-orc fighter.


Now that I've gone on and on about "physical stat only", I still think we can find a compromise that incorporates variable stats. My proposal is that the physical changes are inherent, but races can have variable mental bonuses. This would work as follows:

Dwarves are +2 Con, -2 Dex, and +2 Int/Wis.
Elves are +2 Dex, -2 Con, and +2 Int/Wis/Cha.
Gnomes are +2 Con, -2 Str, and +2 Int/Wis.
Halflings are +2 Dex, -2 Str, and +2 Wis/Cha.

The human races are a little more flexible.
Half-orcs are +2 Str, -2 Int/Wis/Cha, +2 Int/Wis/Cha. (I am less sure about this one, but I really think half-orcs should be stronger than other races, and some sort of penalty to mental ability scores feels appropriate given the orc blood.)
Half-elves get +2 to Dex or any mental ability score.
Humans get +2 to any ability score.

This gives the races a distinct flavor, even when it comes to the mental attributes, while making a clear distinction between the inherent aspects of the race and the more flexible aspects.
I consider physical attributes to be flexible as well, though. Gonna hold up dwarf here again as an example- see above. Or halflings. I think -2 Str is double-counting their size sometimes. They have reduced carrying capacity and lower weapon damage already, all the attributes of low strength. Then they take a further penalty to it.

One other problem with this is it doesn't work well as a house-rule. I can't take my existing gnome bard and port him over. Same for any dwarf, half-orc with a bonus not in strength, and some half-elves.


Now, I write this without considering the Aasimar and the Tiefling. But frankly, they're the problem, not the core races. They have 15 racial points, and the core races are balanced around 10 racial points. They are inherently better than the core races, and monkeying around with the ability score modifiers is not going to change that. Many monstrous races are just better than the core races, and that's a separate problem.
It is a separate problem, but I am making it this problem. That's my goal here. The issue could be resolved by removing those races, but that provides less choice and DMs can already do that. I wan't to take that as an example of a good thing, and apply it to other races!

[Vadskye]

I love me some casters. I like being able to get an 18 in casting and still have points to invest in other stuff. I find a system without mental bonuses to be extremely unpleasant because it makes it much more difficult for me to represent my characters, and playing without a net bonus is not as fun.
Playing without a net bonus is definitely not as much fun! But I think there's nothing that an 18 does that a 16 can't do too. It's all relative - 18 is expected in PF because +2 bonuses are so common. But take that away, and a 16 is just a special as an 18 used to be.


And I would argue that something about being a dwarf should make you inherently more intelligent. Dwarves are long-lived, and nearly every myth about the portrays them as clever and master magical craftsmen. As it stands, they're great at crafting regular stuff, but rubbish at magical stuff. They get bonuses to crafting as a wizard, but you wouldn't play one as that.
They definitely are crafters, and there should be a crafting system that lets non-mages craft awesome magic stuff. (If you know of any, let me know! I haven't gotten around making one yet.) But doesn't necessarily imply Intelligence. When Bruenor crafted in the Drizzt books, it had nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with being a dwarf. There's a lot of room to represent cool stuff about the dwarven racial heritage without resorting to a comparatively mechanical +2 Int.


As for the strength thing, Dwarves are strong. They're better known for sturdiness, but it seems silly to have them passed by for melee because they don't swing an axe any harder than an elf.
It sounds to me like you're arguing that dwarves fit almost every ability score. If you try hard enough, I think you could make an argument that every race should "inherently" be better at at least three or four ability scores. But if you do that, you're just making the races less special, not more special, because you're making the core identity of the race so malleable. As Syndrome said, when everyone is special, no one is.


Personally, I would not be surprised for half-orcs to be wiser in general than humans. (Admittedly, +2 vs. -2 is more extreme than I'd expect, but nailing the scale is impossible.) I would expect them to have more common sense, be more in touch with nature, and be better at surviving and seeing. Those are all traits of wisdom.
Your orcs must be very different than mine.


I do agree here. But if I said +Str, +Wis, -Cha, "a dwarf" fits pretty well. If I said +Con, +Int, -Dex, "a dwarf" fits pretty well. I don't like what you get when you chance both the plusses, but fixing that would have been needlessly complicated. Dwarves are the reason I started on this, actually. I like them, but I don't like most divine classes.
I feel like adding "you can make one of these trades, but not both" is a fairly marginal amount of complexity in comparison to the already substantially increased complexity you have suggested. With that said, I definitely agree that dwarves shouldn't be so tied to divine classes.


Currently, we have mental bonuses. Sure, it feels weird. But Half-Orc Bards running around with +2 Cha feel weird. I am not interested in restricting stat bonuses even further than they already are, and I think this results in something more natural.
Half-orc bards running around with +2 Cha feels weird, yes - but nothing either of us have proposed (except my no mental ability mod system) would prevent that. I would say that half-orcs running around with +2 Str, +2 Cha, -2 Int/Wis feels less weird because then at least they have retained their core identity - they're orcs! They're strong!


Humans are difficult to stat up because they're the only real ones. I am attempting to look at humanity in the exact same light that we look at dwarves and elves- find what is typical or iconic for that race. When I consider humans compared to elves, I expect elves to be nimbler and humans to be stronger. When I compare humans with halflings, I would expect halflings to be wiser and humans to be smarter. And so on.
See, I don't think the +2 Dex for elves represents what is "typical or iconic" for the race. It's not that most elves choose to be rogues. It's that they are just inherently more graceful. It's as much a part of being an elf as the trance, and it can't be traded away any more than the human skill points should be traded away.


I didn't claim that Con bonus was at all cultural. But I think it's reasonable that some dwarves are born particularly strong instead of particularly resilient. (Yes it can be represented by assigning stats. But I'm trying to make it a sensible choice even from a metagaming perspective.) You have dwarves who can take blows all day, and wade into battle with an oaken shield. Then you have dwarves who are out hacking away with an axe, wading through their enemies. From a mechanics perspective, I want a dwarf fighter to be able to be just as bashy and smashy as a half-orc fighter.
If the Con bonus can be traded, it's not inherent to the race. It's cultural by definition, since it relies on the assumption that "most dwarves" would choose the Con. And I would say... it's okay if dwarves aren't able to smash a door as well as a half-orc, just like a half-orc can't tank blows as well as a dwarf. That's not a problem. It makes the races feel different.


I consider physical attributes to be flexible as well, though. Gonna hold up dwarf here again as an example- see above. Or halflings. I think -2 Str is double-counting their size sometimes. They have reduced carrying capacity and lower weapon damage already, all the attributes of low strength. Then they take a further penalty to it.
I guess it depends on how strong you think a creature that's maybe two and a half feet tall should be. If anything, I think the -2 Strength is undercounting the difference - the minimum acceptable difference if you want the world to keep a semblance of reality.


One other problem with this is it doesn't work well as a house-rule. I can't take my existing gnome bard and port him over. Same for any dwarf, half-orc with a bonus not in strength, and some half-elves.
True. (Though I forgot - of course gnomes should get +Cha as an option if you are using the flexible mental stat idea. I just hate gnomes. They don't have a proper flavor role.) But I think most changes worth making have the potential to invalidate some aspect of the previous ruleset. If they don't, it wasn't significant enough to change.


It is a separate problem, but I am making it this problem. That's my goal here. The issue could be resolved by removing those races, but that provides less choice and DMs can already do that. I wan't to take that as an example of a good thing, and apply it to other races!
Do you think it is a good thing mechanically for players to expect a +2 bonus to two stats that are integral to their character? Because I think that that is definitely not a healthy expectation.

[QuidEst]

Playing without a net bonus is definitely not as much fun! But I think there's nothing that an 18 does that a 16 can't do too. It's all relative - 18 is expected in PF because +2 bonuses are so common. But take that away, and a 16 is just a special as an 18 used to be.
Wizards usually go in with a 20. I do 18 because I like having enough point to spend on a what are normally dump stats. Having that be a 16 would be a big hit- saves start getting too good.


They definitely are crafters, and there should be a crafting system that lets non-mages craft awesome magic stuff. (If you know of any, let me know! I haven't gotten around making one yet.) But doesn't necessarily imply Intelligence. When Bruenor crafted in the Drizzt books, it had nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with being a dwarf. There's a lot of room to represent cool stuff about the dwarven racial heritage without resorting to a comparatively mechanical +2 Int.
Not just crafting, though. In myths they're very clever. Sure, there's stuff to represent some of those aspects, but their stats shove them very forcefully towards divine casters. (Like you mentioned.) Almost anything running off Int dumps Wis, and the only thing that doesn't also needs bonuses to Dex or Str. They have a penalty to Cha, so that's out of the question. And any mundane class is going to need to boost damage or accuracy more than hitpoints.



It sounds to me like you're arguing that dwarves fit almost every ability score. If you try hard enough, I think you could make an argument that every race should "inherently" be better at at least three or four ability scores. But if you do that, you're just making the races less special, not more special, because you're making the core identity of the race so malleable. As Syndrome said, when everyone is special, no one is.
I don't want their stats to make them special. I want everything else to make them special. When it's stats making them special, I feel like I don't have much choice from core. I want to play a wizard? Elf or variable race. I want to play a cleric? Dwarf or variable race. I want to play a rogue? Halfling or variable race. How 'bout a strength fighter? Dwarf (no bonus) or variable race. That's just… annoying. Under a new system, if I want to play a wizard, I now have elf (for boosts to perception and beating spell resistance, and better AC), dwarf (for boosts to saves and faster crafting, and better hitpoints), gnome (for better illusions and better AC and hitpoints), or a variable race. To me, that feels more special. I'm no longer forced to cut out half my choices because of the Int bonus. Does taking away everybody's Int bonus do that? Sure. But then you're taking away everybody's Int bonus, and that's no fun.


Your orcs must be very different than mine.
My half-orcs. There's a big difference there, I think. But yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the stat options for half-orc and half-elf. But it's the best option. If I do a standard stat arrays for half-orc, I need a bonus in a mental stat. Is it Charisma? No, they're ugly and brutish. Intelligence? That's even worse. Wisdom? Yeah, I can see justifications. So Wisdom it is.


I feel like adding "you can make one of these trades, but not both" is a fairly marginal amount of complexity in comparison to the already substantially increased complexity you have suggested.
I think that's a good idea. Trade one bonus, and you can trade the penalty if you want. Dwarf Magus just doesn't fit. :smalltongue: Looking through, there's nothing that doesn't improve or not change.


Half-orc bards running around with +2 Cha feels weird, yes - but nothing either of us have proposed (except my no mental ability mod system) would prevent that. I would say that half-orcs running around with +2 Str, +2 Cha, -2 Int/Wis feels less weird because then at least they have retained their core identity - they're orcs! They're strong!
I'm not really trying to prevent the +2 Cha half-orc… I'm just bringing it up to point out that this doesn't need to be perfect so long as it's more reasonable than that.


See, I don't think the +2 Dex for elves represents what is "typical or iconic" for the race. It's not that most elves choose to be rogues. It's that they are just inherently more graceful. It's as much a part of being an elf as the trance, and it can't be traded away any more than the human skill points should be traded away.
… I appreciate how effectively you're arguing against yourself here. :smallconfused: Elves don't trance any more. They got rid of that. And humans have ten options for trading away their skill points. And I agree that the +2 Dex is extremely important to elves. That's why they only have options for trading mental stats. But when you look at gnomes, halflings, and dwarves, all their physical traits have something else that is also very common. Gnomes are fey-like and small, so Dex makes sense. Tolkein's halflings were known at least as much for being hardy and resilient as for being sneaky. And I've gone over the dwarf thing enough. XD


If the Con bonus can be traded, it's not inherent to the race. It's cultural by definition, since it relies on the assumption that "most dwarves" would choose the Con. And I would say... it's okay if dwarves aren't able to smash a door as well as a half-orc, just like a half-orc can't tank blows as well as a dwarf. That's not a problem. It makes the races feel different.
They don't choose it… they're born that way. Both strength and constitution are inherent to the race. Mechanics-wise, we're not going to boost both, so instead we say that they get +2 in one or the other.


I guess it depends on how strong you think a creature that's maybe two and a half feet tall should be. If anything, I think the -2 Strength is undercounting the difference - the minimum acceptable difference if you want the world to keep a semblance of reality.
This is where I always picture Sam Gamgee, hauling a gigantic load of cooking equipment and adventuring gear without the benefit of Muleback Cords. :smalltongue:


True. (Though I forgot - of course gnomes should get +Cha as an option if you are using the flexible mental stat idea. I just hate gnomes. They don't have a proper flavor role.) But I think most changes worth making have the potential to invalidate some aspect of the previous ruleset. If they don't, it wasn't significant enough to change.
I like gnomes well enough, but they're generally played poorly. And you can do strictly additive rules without much trouble.


Do you think it is a good thing mechanically for players to expect a +2 bonus to two stats that are integral to their character? Because I think that that is definitely not a healthy expectation.
I think it's already an option. First of all, humans can pick any two if they give up their feat and skills. If you're playing with all races, there's one restriction on one mental, one physical: Int always goes with Dex. (Otherwise it's paired with a mental stat.) You can get anything else. What's more, you can do it all with Aasimar and Tiefling. Two races, any mental/physical stats you want. Easy ban right there, or play core races and go back to the problem above, but I like options. That's what I'm playing Pathfinder for, the customizable characters.

[Vadskye]

Not just crafting, though. In myths they're very clever. Sure, there's stuff to represent some of those aspects, but their stats shove them very forcefully towards divine casters. (Like you mentioned.) Almost anything running off Int dumps Wis, and the only thing that doesn't also needs bonuses to Dex or Str. They have a penalty to Cha, so that's out of the question. And any mundane class is going to need to boost damage or accuracy more than hitpoints.
In myths, dwarf crafting is almost supernaturally intricate. That takes great finesse - so why not give them Dex? Also, they are renowned for their stubbornness and strong (if not likeable) personalities. That sounds like Charisma to me. My point is that if you try to represent everything with ability scores, you end up saying everyone should get just about everything. Ability scores represent inherent ability in a wide variety of areas, not just one facet of that ability.


I don't want their stats to make them special. I want everything else to make them special. When it's stats making them special, I feel like I don't have much choice from core. I want to play a wizard? Elf or variable race. I want to play a cleric? Dwarf or variable race. I want to play a rogue? Halfling or variable race. How 'bout a strength fighter? Dwarf (no bonus) or variable race. That's just… annoying. Under a new system, if I want to play a wizard, I now have elf (for boosts to perception and beating spell resistance, and better AC), dwarf (for boosts to saves and faster crafting, and better hitpoints), gnome (for better illusions and better AC and hitpoints), or a variable race. To me, that feels more special. I'm no longer forced to cut out half my choices because of the Int bonus. Does taking away everybody's Int bonus do that? Sure. But then you're taking away everybody's Int bonus, and that's no fun.
I agree with literally everything you said until you go to the end. :smalltongue:


My half-orcs. There's a big difference there, I think. But yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the stat options for half-orc and half-elf. But it's the best option. If I do a standard stat arrays for half-orc, I need a bonus in a mental stat. Is it Charisma? No, they're ugly and brutish. Intelligence? That's even worse. Wisdom? Yeah, I can see justifications. So Wisdom it is.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." If the system you use for half-elves doesn't work for half-orcs, then don't use it. Also, I think you'll find it much easier to work with the half-orc once you separate the idea of "ugly and brutish" from Charisma. They aren't the same. Ugly and brutish is about social skills. Charisma is about force of personality. You can easily have the one without the other. (This is also why I really dislike -Cha on dwarves.)


I appreciate how effectively you're arguing against yourself here. :smallconfused: Elves don't trance any more. They got rid of that. And humans have ten options for trading away their skill points. And I agree that the +2 Dex is extremely important to elves. That's why they only have options for trading mental stats. But when you look at gnomes, halflings, and dwarves, all their physical traits have something else that is also very common. Gnomes are fey-like and small, so Dex makes sense. Tolkein's halflings were known at least as much for being hardy and resilient as for being sneaky. And I've gone over the dwarf thing enough. XD
Wait, they don't trance, but they're immune to sleep? :smallconfused: As far as halflings being hardy and resilient - I think this is a great example of how, if you try hard enough, you can attach almost any ability score to any race. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.


They don't choose it… they're born that way. Both strength and constitution are inherent to the race. Mechanics-wise, we're not going to boost both, so instead we say that they get +2 in one or the other.
Mechanically, +2 Str is almost always better than +2 Con, as you said before. So... why aren't dwarves known for their strength instead of their resiliency? Put another way, why are (almost) all PC dwarves unusual (by having Str instead of Con)?


This is where I always picture Sam Gamgee, hauling a gigantic load of cooking equipment and adventuring gear without the benefit of Muleback Cords. :smalltongue:
Heh. Yeah, though the fun part of Small characters is that their carrying capacity is 3/4 normal, but most items made for Small characters weigh 1/2 normal (and rations weigh 1/4 normal). So they're actually better at carrying things!


I think it's already an option. First of all, humans can pick any two if they give up their feat and skills. If you're playing with all races, there's one restriction on one mental, one physical: Int always goes with Dex. (Otherwise it's paired with a mental stat.) You can get anything else. What's more, you can do it all with Aasimar and Tiefling. Two races, any mental/physical stats you want. Easy ban right there, or play core races and go back to the problem above, but I like options. That's what I'm playing Pathfinder for, the customizable characters.
I think this boils down to a difference in design philosophy. You think that a character should expect all of their abilities to facilitate their character concept, and anything that doesn't should be traded for something that does. That is a theoretically viable form of game design, but it's not one that I ascribe to. I think that chraacter design is about maximizing choice within limitations. That is, I think humans just get a skill point at every level, and leave it at that. There is already a massive amount of flexibility inherent in that. When everything can be traded or replaced, there's no feeling of consistency, and I think some of the world continuity is lost.

[QuidEst]

In myths, dwarf crafting is almost supernaturally intricate. That takes great finesse - so why not give them Dex? Also, they are renowned for their stubbornness and strong (if not likeable) personalities. That sounds like Charisma to me. My point is that if you try to represent everything with ability scores, you end up saying everyone should get just about everything. Ability scores represent inherent ability in a wide variety of areas, not just one facet of that ability.
Supernaturally intricate is Int still. That's what it runs off of. They aren't described as having any of the other things associated with dexterity. They were known in Norse mythology for trying to get the goddesses and repulsing them. Intelligence should represent skill (which they clearly have) and cleverness (dwarves in mythology are usually cunning). They're much more often referred to as wise, certainly, but I think intelligence is a good fit.


I agree with literally everything you said until you go to the end. :smalltongue:
This is a fix for people who like stat bonuses. If my character is intelligent, I'd like a bonus there.


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." If the system you use for half-elves doesn't work for half-orcs, then don't use it. Also, I think you'll find it much easier to work with the half-orc once you separate the idea of "ugly and brutish" from Charisma. They aren't the same. Ugly and brutish is about social skills. Charisma is about force of personality. You can easily have the one without the other. (This is also why I really dislike -Cha on dwarves.)
I know that they say Charisma is force of personality. But half-orcs are not usually able to win people over with the force of personality (that would be the force of strength doing the work), they don't appear friendly or trustworthy… the only Charisma skill they're associated with is Intimidate, and there's a skill bonus there. Looking at the races, I don't see Charisma represented in that way.



Wait, they don't trance, but they're immune to sleep? :smallconfused: As far as halflings being hardy and resilient - I think this is a great example of how, if you try hard enough, you can attach almost any ability score to any race. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
They're immune to magical sleep.
Gandalf went on at great length several times about how surprisingly hardy hobbits are. *shrugs* I agree that it's not the best fit, but I don't think it's a bad one.


Mechanically, +2 Str is almost always better than +2 Con, as you said before. So... why aren't dwarves known for their strength instead of their resiliency? Put another way, why are (almost) all PC dwarves unusual (by having Str instead of Con)?
Only for melee. I considered this, actually. I think +2 Con would get taken a fair amount. First off, anybody playing an Int dwarf takes it. (Wizard, Alchemist, Sage Sorcerer, Magus- not likely to be played, and Witch.)
Wisdom classes: Cleric will probably take Con. Druid will take it on caster builds, but not wildshape builds. Monk takes Strength. Ranger takes Strength. Gunslinger (not going to happen) takes Con. Inquisitor takes Strength.
Fighter will take Str, and Barbarian will be split, leaning towards Str.
It's not too bad. Anything that would take strength, though, wasn't getting many dwarves before. I'd rather ask "why are these PCs strong instead of sturdy" instead of "why are there no dwarf fighters".


Heh. Yeah, though the fun part of Small characters is that their carrying capacity is 3/4 normal, but most items made for Small characters weigh 1/2 normal (and rations weigh 1/4 normal). So they're actually better at carrying things!
Rations are half, I though. That's true, but you carry a lot of full weight stuff. I found that it ended up balancing out for me pretty evenly at the start- and it'd get worse as slotted items got added. (That's only for a wizard-level strength-dump, though. XD)


I think this boils down to a difference in design philosophy. You think that a character should expect all of their abilities to facilitate their character concept, and anything that doesn't should be traded for something that does. That is a theoretically viable form of game design, but it's not one that I ascribe to. I think that chraacter design is about maximizing choice within limitations. That is, I think humans just get a skill point at every level, and leave it at that. There is already a massive amount of flexibility inherent in that. When everything can be traded or replaced, there's no feeling of consistency, and I think some of the world continuity is lost.
I agree. Part of my view is that since I can get any stats I want, there's no huge benefit to people only playing elves when they want a wizard, witch, or magus, dwarves when they want a cleric or caster druid, and halflings when they want a rogue. You look at a human, and see you can do anything. I look at a dwarf, and feel I can't play it without being a divine caster.