7 cha = stoic?

Shouting with bold on is about the least effective way of getting your point through. You have no idea of what kind of group the OP's group is like. They might have never dumped stats, they might have had 15 stat points as an earlier baseline and a player dumps because they have always done so. Who knows what kind of expectations the OP had of his group?

Really, StealthElite, approach this in a rational way: What do you wish from the game and what do you imagine your players wish from the game? You are not going to get a consensus from an internet board, especially one that's a notorious hotbed for optimization. There's going to be posters with various kinds of backgrounds from "stats don't matter for RP" school of thought to people allergic to starting stats above 16-17.

Ask yourself what kind of game you want to GM and whether you want this kind of optimization in that kind of game? Whatever the answer, rule accordingly and make the same thing true for all players.

In my opinion, stats that high require extra time investment from the gm, since they have to rebalance some encounters to take the munchkinism into account. Especially if you are playing in an adventure path, which are, with some exceptions(looking at you, end of RotRL)), balanced for a team of 4 with 15 stat point allocations. If you are ready to rebalance accordingly, then no problem, but I'd still get ready for a lot of enemy encounters ending on the first turn. Super-high casting stats tend to make the rest of the party into coup-de-grace machines, instead of valuable combatants. Same thing with, for instance, hulked out barbarians.

Where before only the endgame(levels 11-20) was about who acted first, these days it can start far earlier if people play in the high end of cheese. Like camembert or somesuch. Lower stats sometimes, but not always, lead to longer battles where character's get to use a lot of resources and that's a cool way to play as well.

No lower than 8 after racial modifiers.

The only reason people drop a stats to less than 8 is to max another stat and then they create some b.s. role-playing story to go along with it. I don't have a problem with dumping stats on a 15 point buy (which I would never play) but anything more than 15 and dumping stats is cheese. Sure, anyone with half a brain can make a corny back-story of being "stoic" or "aloof" but we all know the real deal.

Whether or not you want to allow it is up to you, but I wouldn't. Every person in my gamer group, is on the same page with no stats less than 8 after racial modifiers and the GM never really even made it a point. IT was just a understood rule. We usually have 1 floating position for people who we meet on websites, work, etc and if they show up with a 7 they are voted out after the first session. I know it sounds harsh, but that level of min/maxxing just irks us.

Orcadorsala wrote:

On "dump stat is cheese": It so is if all the player wants out of it is munching his stats to be powerful. If the campaign is about RP and interaction as much as fighting, you'd need a character that isn't going to be useless for that. (Or if your concept is being useless at that you'd need a talented player and some...

I have two distinct point in reply to this:

1) If you prevent a min/maxer from dumping stats then they do not suddenly become a better roleplayer.

Becoming a better role player requires a lot more than not having dump stats.

----

2) Following the rules (you can reduce stats down to 7, which means down to 5 if you have a negative penalty) is not cheese.

Cheese is bending rules, breaking rules or using strange RAW combinations to get over-powerful effects.

How can doing exactly what is written in the rulebook be cheese?

Building the most powerful character you can is not cheese in my mind. For some people this is the fun part of the game. For some its part of the fun of the game.

If you want better role play encourage it, set a good example. Use some carrots and if needed some stick.

In my opinion don't change the RAW to try and encourage role playing. Especially when it will have almost no effect.

Point 1: Yes, I completely agree. Sadly you are right. But I suppose that also in a group of children, some will not play nice until you set at least a couple of limits that in some way enable them to find out that playing nice can be fun too and that everyone else will also benefit from this. A notorious min/maxer will not try anything else unless forced or talked into trying. So why the heck not make an attempt, if min/maxing results in a playing style you wish to avoid in your group?

Point 2: Because some people, me included, feel that we want a focus to our campaigns that is less on firepower and more on well-rounded or at least partially rounded characters who are also powerful. Hence 25 PB, which enables you to build nearly whatever you please and build it well, and (as the GM clearly should have stated from the start) no stats below 8 (or 10, if you'd prefer) to avoid idiot savants.

A lot of people playing RPGs seem to ignore the part about role-playing and focusing on the part that is a game which can be won (by having high fighting stats, for instance, and ignoring role-playing stats). I say of course they can do that, I'm not the boss of them, but if they were playing in my campaign min/maxing would in the very least be frowned upon and I would like a story reason and know that the player can handle it. The games I play with my different groups are all story and character focused and people are allowed to be powerful as long as it "makes sense" and is not just done for the numbers.

To sum it up: IMO, that something is RAW doesn't mean it will fit everyone's style of play. The rules also give examples on other ways of doing abilities, so there's no one single way that is absolutely "true". What is beautiful about the Pathfinder rules is that it enables all playing styles - you actually have a choice. I won't decide for you unless we're in the same group at some point, at which I might try persuading you not to min/max. That's all.

If Pathfinder didn't make Cha so useless to most characters (by not giving the Cha skills to many classes; and having no abilities BUT cha skills tied to it for many classes) people would not dump it so readily.

To the Fighter, who is never going to be making Cha skill checks, Cha looks useless to him.

If you dump any other ability score, there are more readily visible consequences. Except for maybe Strength.

Definitely making Will saves Cha-based in my future games.

I find threads like this interesting. Mostly because the entire NPC population of Golarion has a pre-racial 8 somewhere.

I don't think stoicism implies either a high or low charisma necessarily.

I think he needs to be "stoic AND interpersonally challenged to an extreme degree " if that's the route he's taking.
He's very stoic,......also he mumbles weird s!&% to himself all the time, and giggles, and has ripe cheesy gunk in his armpit hair, which he crosses his arms to twist absentmindedly.

And he's a very close talker. Who forgets to cover his mouth when he sneezes. And shouts really loud in your face when he does sneeze.
Without covering his mouth.

That's a 7 cha in a nutshell.

But he suffers well, because,.....all this will only make him stronger.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but yes, he should be something of a clod.

I really don't see what the big deal is. A charisma of 7 is a charisma of 7. So long as they don't mind their character only getting the girl/guy when money is involved and actually play their character as something of a social idiot, it's cool by me.

I have to pipe up on this as well. I've made plenty of characters who dump Cha. It has nothing to do with role-playing, nothing. That's on the person who is playing the character to role-play.

A good example of what I mean: I play a Barbarian (wild rager)/Fighter with a 9 Cha. The reason behind his 9 Cha goes back to his back-story that I created. The points I hit on and the reason behind his low charisma are...
*He's a big strong dude who has problems controlling his rage when he gets into a fight.
*He's hurt friends in the past because of his rage problems...
*He is fiercely loyal to his friends, but is scared to make new friends, so he keeps to himself.
*He'll never be the "face" of the group
*When he talks to people he usually has his eyes downcast and mumbles a bit because he seems less intimidating to people that way - at least he thinks so.

So with all of the stuff I said above, sure he'll have a hard time with in-game "skill checks" that use the CHA modifier, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a good role-player because of this stat being low. This comes down to the player, not the stats, plain and simple.

Anyone who can't see past the numbers just doesn't get it. They can be used as a "jumping off point" to help with concept and flavor, but you shouldn't be tied at the hip with limitations to that character for them other than to hinder a few skill checks. Don't pigeonhole your player and ruin his fun because he isn't making a character you wouldn't. That's not fair to him and not fair to you because both of you will end up not having fun in your game.

In games that I've GM'd, I even give arbitrary bonuses to good role players who have bad skill checks. I enjoy it when someone thinks outside the box and role-plays the game instead of just rolling the dice alone.

I really don't see what the big deal is. A charisma of 7 is a charisma of 7.

It should be obvious from the OP that there's a lot of bias involved.

...but there is actual role playing and having the charisma of a badger just doesnt seem like a good idea.

...

I asked him how he was planning to rp having the cha of a troll.

If that doesn't scream "I'm not open to other ideas, I've already made up my mind", I don't know what does.

The OP also doesn't own a dictionary.

I guess when I think of stoic it actually screams dang that guy have cha oozing out of him.

Stoic means quiet, indifferent, calm.

I remember when I played a bard once, my cohort was a woman I rescued with Charisma of 7 or 8. She never spoke a word to ANYONE other than my character because she was so painfully shy. She was a wizard of some skill, and often tagged along on adventures, but wouldn't do much save perhaps cast the VERY occasional spell and turn to mist. The party almost NEVER knew she was there, save for one time she pulled an Ant-Man when we were in combat and saved our bacon, as I recall.

Anyone who can't see past the numbers just doesn't get it. They can be used as a "jumping off point" to help with concept and flavor, but you shouldn't be tied at the hip with limitations to that character for them other than to hinder a few skill checks. Don't pigeonhole your player and ruin his fun because he isn't making a character you wouldn't. That's not fair to him and not fair to you because both of you will end up not having fun in your game.

So lets say the Stat dumped down to 7 wasnt cha, Lets say it was Int.

even though the character has an Int of 7(to some IQ equals statx10 so 70IQ) he still wants to roll play a extremely knowledged character that just takes a little more time to learn something i.e. less skill points per level but can solve calculus problems equal to that of a graduate level aero space engineer?

Freehold DM wrote:

I really don't see what the big deal is. A charisma of 7 is a charisma of 7.
It should be obvious from the OP that there's a lot of bias involved.

StealthElite wrote:
...but there is actual role playing and having the charisma of a badger just doesnt seem like a good idea.

...

I asked him how he was planning to rp having the cha of a troll.

If that doesn't scream "I'm not open to other ideas, I've already made up my mind", I don't know what does.

The OP also doesn't own a dictionary.

StealthElite wrote:
I guess when I think of stoic it actually screams dang that guy have cha oozing out of him.
Stoic means quiet, indifferent, calm.

As a person that has been playing since 3.5 I look at the players handbook which references what things have stats usually associated with scores.

1. somebody impassive: somebody who is unemotional, especially somebody who shows patience and endurance during adversity
-----------------------------------
sto·ic (stk)
n.
1. One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.
2. Stoic A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 b.c., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order.
adj. also sto·i·cal (--kl)
1. Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive: "stoic resignation in the face of hunger" (John F. Kennedy).
2. Stoic Of or relating to the Stoics or their philosophy.

Who doesn't notice that guy that is completely calm while everything is blowing up around them.

So lets say the Stat dumped down to 7 wasnt cha, Lets say it was Int.

even though the character has an Int of 7(to some IQ equals statx10 so 70IQ) he still wants to roll play a extremely knowledged character that just takes a little more time to learn something i.e. less skill points per level but can solve calculus problems equal to that of a graduate level aero space engineer?

No one's suggesting (that I've seen) that he should be allowed to roleplay as though he had a high CHA despite having a low one. You just think your player wants to do so because you don't know what "stoic" means.

Remember:

Every NPC in Golarion has an 8 in a stat. If the population as a whole has randomly-assigned stats, then fully ONE-SIXTH of all dwarves on the planet have less CHA than what your player asked for.

I have to wonder whether your player only got "pissy" after you responded to his idea with incredulity and accusation.

I find threads like this interesting. Mostly because the entire NPC population of Golarion has a pre-racial 8 somewhere.

The NPC population is built on a 15 pt array if they have class levels in PC classes, less if they don't.

I feel for the GM in this case. The player looks to be on the path towards a long grey beard, staff, and pointy hat.

Jiggy wrote:

I find threads like this interesting. Mostly because the entire NPC population of Golarion has a pre-racial 8 somewhere.

The NPC population is built on a 15 pt array if they have class levels in PC classes, less if they don't.

So? It's not like that's what forced them to have a low score (they could have had 14/13/13/12/12/10). The point is that Paizo decided that normal people have an 8 in a stat, but when a player wanted to go just a single point lower, suddenly he's animalistic or needs to pick at his armpits or whatever.

To suggest that the difference between 8 and 7 is the difference between a normal person and a slobbering idiot (or a klutz, or an invalid, etc based on which stat is at 7) is ludicrous.

Charisma of 7 seems like a valid reason to roleplay a severe personality disorder in a character.

Then one-sixth of heroic dwarves have a severe personality disorder. One-third of common dwarves have one as well.

Your argument is unfounded.

I have to wonder whether your player only got "pissy" after you responded to his idea with incredulity and accusation.

Thank you for assuming as you don't know the conversation between the actual player and myself.

also

there is more than 1 definition of stoic, try looking them up.

Every NPC in Golarion has an 8 in a stat. If the population as a whole has randomly-assigned stats, then fully ONE-SIXTH of all dwarves on the planet have less CHA than what your player asked for.

yes exactly they have an 8 and the only reason they would have lower is if they were dumping thier stats which most NPCs dont do.

Also why are you using dwarves for an example when we are talking about humans?

In almost all fiction dwarves are almost always dipicted as being difficult to be around, stubborn, and off putting

Dumping Cha and being stoic in this case seems more like a reason for a player to role play a character that doesnt have to think in social situations and rely on everyone else to do thier talking.

So lets say the Stat dumped down to 7 wasnt cha, Lets say it was Int.

even though the character has an Int of 7(to some IQ equals statx10 so 70IQ) he still wants to roll play a extremely knowledged character that just takes a little more time to learn something i.e. less skill points per level but can solve calculus problems equal to that of a graduate level aero space engineer?

If the stat was 7, you obviously can't equate him to real life aerospace engineer as in this setting that doesn't exist. I'll go ahead and bite on your argument though, but I'll equate it to something that is more relevant in this setting.

I'd say that a high INT would normally have to be a wizard/casting class. So a better example is a warrior trying to figure out the secrets of the universe and how to do a ritual which would normally be easy for a wizard to figure out. Knowledge check Arcana for this purpose.

If he wants to be this kind of guy, he'd probably be putting every skill point he had into Knowledge Arcana so that he wouldn't be getting negative checks to the skill every time. Perhaps he has some traits to help him in this or additional feats for this purpose. He'd definitely be lacking in other areas, but that's the kind of warrior he wants to be...

Sure give him a shot at trying to figure it out, use the base DC of say 20. He can "attempt" to figure it out, but the chances would be pretty slim to none. Rolling the dice, lets say he can't do it, even with the help of the rest of his party (who for some reason don't have anyone other than the warrior trying to figure this out...)

This is where role-playing comes in (in my games that I run). I'd give the player a shot to think outside the box. I give the player a chance to figure it out by utilizing other tools at his disposal. He could go visit a sage who is knowledgeable in these types of rituals, he could study books/scrolls to obtain an answer, he could find an artifact that would do it for him. There are a lot of possibilities to getting past a skill check when someone has lower than needed points in the specific stats.

I think Sheldon on Big Bang Theory is a good example of a 7 Chr.

Jiggy wrote:

Every NPC in Golarion has an 8 in a stat. If the population as a whole has randomly-assigned stats, then fully ONE-SIXTH of all dwarves on the planet have less CHA than what your player asked for.

yes exactly they have an 8 and the only reason they would have lower is if they were dumping thier stats which most NPCs dont do.

So an 8 isn't dumping, but a 7 is? Why the magical threshold? Not to mention the conveniently-ignored-by-you dwarves, one third of whom have a CHA of 7 or less. If you want your player to roleplay 7 CHA as a more severe deficiency than that of a typical gruff dwarf, then you're just being a hypocrite. (Unless you roleplay dwarves as being like trolls and badgers?)

Dumping Cha and being stoic in this case seems more like a reason for a player to role play a character that doesnt have to think in social situations and rely on everyone else to do thier talking.

If the wizard can rely on the fighter to do all the hitting, and the fighter can rely on the rogue to do all the lock-picking, and the rogue can rely on the wizard to do all the casting, then why is it bad for the quiet person to rely on the boisterous person to do the talking?

there is more than 1 definition of stoic, try looking them up.

I did (dictionary.reference.com, if you care). I pulled my word choices ("quiet, indifferent, calm") from there. So yes, stoic can mean a few different things, exactly ONE of which could be considered impressive. And that's the one you chose to focus on.

So let's recap:
• A player wants a CHA score that's 1 point outside normal for most races and well within normal for dwarves, and you want to treat him like a monster/animal;
• A player says he wants to roleplay as being "stoic" and you selectively choose to look at the one definition that could correspond to a higher CHA instead of giving him room to roleplay one of several more appropriate definitions (did you even ask?);

So although I wasn't present for the conversation...

Thank you for assuming as you don't know the conversation between the actual player and myself.

...the evidence you've presented so far is pretty compelling.

@jiggy thank you for your input, i think posts have given me a good guideline as to what a person with 7 cha is like.

Also i think you have racial modifiers confused with dumping stats.

If a race has an automatic 8 due to a racial penalty then its not really dumping the stat is it?

Also on a side note. He did just want to have a 16 in con. So im sorry I didnt want to post texts and quote exact words spoken but instead give more of a summary.

His reasoning to have his stats all stem from the "fact he only wants to use the core book instead of trying to break the game with advanced classes and races from any other paizo book"

True, the DM should have made that clear, and I am sure he will do so. But “no stats below 10 with a 25 pt buy” is completely reasonable, even generous.

Also i think you have racial modifiers confused with dumping stats.

If a race has an automatic 8 due to a racial penalty then its not really dumping the stat is it?

I'm not talking about 8 due to racial modifiers. I'm talking about an 8 to start, and then dwarves have a 6 after racial adjustments.

According to the rules, every random commoner has a stat array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 (before racial adjustments). Heroic NPCs have an array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (again, before racial adjustments).

This is what I'm talking about when I say everyone in Golarion starts with an 8. Even the heroic ones. So your player is asking for a score exactly 1 point outside the norm for most races.

In the case of dwarves, if their 8 just happens to land in CHA, then they end up with 6 CHA. This is one-sixth of the population of dwarves. Among non-heroic dwarves (i.e., "normal people"), every dwarf whose 8 or 9 lands in CHA will have a final CHA of 6 or 7. One third of dwarves have a CHA score no better than what your player is asking for, and are still considered "normal", not bestial.

In the case of every single other common race, a CHA of 8 (or any other score of 8) is a normal person, not a handicapped one. If going from 8 to 7 takes you from "normal" to "handicapped", then you've done something wrong as the GM.

Jiggy, you're my hero.

Jiggy, you're my hero.

*hero pose*

Then have fun playing your commoners which are usually peasants. But this about Heroes who are above the normal.

I guess with that logic of 1 point shouldn't make a difference maybe the guy with 12 str should be allowed to take power attack because it shouldn't matter much that the person with 13 str just just lift on average 10lbs more.

I guess there would be nothing wrong with a character with the background of a lumber jack having the stats of 20/16/16/7/7/7 since he probably doesnt go to school, could cuts trees by himself, no other human interaction so he doesnt know how to social.

Would you let a player take higher than an 18 using pb?

Say they want to dump a bunch of stats and spend the points to get a stat to 19 starting.

I mean its just 1 point higher than the usual max amount after all

Don't be silly, Stoic is a feat, it's got nothing to do with your cha score!

Sorry, I had to; my serious but nitpick-ey answer is, I'd describe that character as aloof rather than stoic, just for the sake of the connotations, but it seems a perfectly valid take on a low cha.

Then have fun playing your commoners which are usually peasants. But this about Heroes who are above the normal.

Did you miss the part where every single heroic NPC also has an 8 (pre-racial)? And even the non-heroics are more than just commoners. Every warrior, adept, expert, and aristocrat has a pre-racial 8 somewhere.

Every NPC bard, barbarian, cleric, wizard, fighter, sorcerer, rogue, druid, monk and paladin has a pre-racial 8 somewhere.

If the best retort you can come up with when someone shows you how the game works is to take one item out of a list and say "have fun playing with just that", then I can rest easy that I've made the point.

I have to wonder if the standard heroic pretend had more than a 15 pb if they would still have an 8 somewhere not tied to a racial penalty?

I have to wonder if the standard heroic pretend had more than a 15 pb if they would still have an 8 somewhere not tied to a racial penalty?

They might, they might not. Even with 15pts, they could've given them non-dumped stats, like so:

14/14/13/12/10/10
15/14/12/11/10/10
15/13/13/12/10/10
15/14/13/10/10/10

Etc. So you have to assume that they chose the array they did not because they didn't have "enough" points. Considering that there's not even different arrays for different classes, it's obvious that they weren't trying to "optimize" and had to "dump" a stat to "make it work".

They freely chose to make one of those stats an 8 when they didn't have to*. One can only assume, then, that the 8 still falls within an acceptable range of what could be expected of a hero (which in turn means it doesn't represent a crippling disability).

*My guess is that 15/14/13/12/10/8 makes a nice, smooth progression from high to low.

Jiggy why does it seem you that you want to turn a thread in the advice forum into a game that you have to "win"

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I mine.

You can disagree with my opinion and I've read your point and to me it doesnt hold water and the same with your view on my opinion on the matter.

Just like in the many threads where people want to argue that pathfinder is only western medieval fantasy and that guns and eastern flavor dont belong what so ever but sentient hello and dinosaurs with a single bite attack can whirlwind attack 10 enemies in 1 round of combat can.

In the end I will just have to go with rule 0 and say no dumping down to 7.

Also remember a lot of the pregens when they first came out were based off of 3.5 races not pathfinder races meaning they probably used the 3.5 pb which started at 8 in every stat instead of 10

And when they converted them they didn't bother changing their stats

Good old 28 point buy.

But I guess only JJ can tell us the reasoning behind the 8 in their stats

To me what a 7 charisma says is........

Imagine that guy, we all know him. The guy that is beyond irritating in everything he says and does. He may mean well, he may have the best intentions, he may be the nicest person on the planet, but his interaction with others is so abnormally bad that no social interaction seems to go his way.(Remember a 7 charisma is a low ability score and should be interpreted as a hindrance or a penalty.)

Think Steve Urkle from that Family Matters show. Nice guy, best of intentions, but his interactions are so flawed that nobody can stand to be around him.

A 7 Charisma doesn't mean that you will fade into the background, not in the least. If you saw a troll..........you would remember it. A 7 charisma is the whole package, socially inept, perhaps ugly, no people skills, no person manipulation skills.

It could be considered that Sloth from the Goonies had a low Cha, but he was a very likable character, so one could argue against it.

If you make a character with a charisma of 7 you are effectively the Murphy's law of social interaction, for whatever reason you want to give, but it must be balanced; if you are a nice guy then you have to have the face of a Garbage Pail Kid; if you are an Adonis then you have to be as likeable as Prince Geofery from Game of thrones. It all must be in balance.

Jiggy why does it seem you that you want to turn a thread in the advice forum into a game that you have to "win"

I don't, I just like to educate. Go ahead and houserule a cap on stat-dumping. I'm not even trying to convince you not to.

All I was interested in was the assertion (by yourself and others) that having a CHA (or other stat) of 7 was essentialy feral or otherwise handicapped. That assertion is wrong, as evidenced by the rules I cited. A score of 7 is just a hair weaker than "normal".

If you want to say "I don't like X, so I'll ban it", great. Have at it.

But if you want to say "X means Y" and it doesn't, I'm going buck against the spread of misinformation. It's what I do.

StealthElite wrote:

I have to wonder if the standard heroic pretend had more than a 15 pb if they would still have an 8 somewhere not tied to a racial penalty?

They might, they might not. Even with 15pts, they could've given them non-dumped stats, like so:

14/14/13/12/10/10
15/14/12/11/10/10
15/13/13/12/10/10
15/14/13/10/10/10

Etc. So you have to assume that they chose the array they did not because they didn't have "enough" points. Considering that there's not even different arrays for different classes, it's obvious that they weren't trying to "optimize" and had to "dump" a stat to "make it work".

They freely chose to make one of those stats an 8 when they didn't have to*. One can only assume, then, that the 8 still falls within an acceptable range of what could be expected of a hero (which in turn means it doesn't represent a crippling disability).

*My guess is that 15/14/13/12/10/8 makes a nice, smooth progression from high to low.

It could just be that the designers were simply trying to simulate everyone having strengths and weaknesses.

Also remember a lot of the pregens when they first came out were based off of 3.5 races not pathfinder races meaning they probably used the 3.5 pb which started at 8 in every stat instead of 10

And when they converted them they didn't bother changing their stats

Failing to read the rules citations provided by others really hurts your credibility (especially when you've already tried to accuse the same person of not looking something up). As I linked before, there's a whole section of the CRB devoted to creating NPCs, and it gives those arrays I listed.

I didn't grab a pile of years-old pregens and look at their individual stats. As a matter of fact, I've run PFS games that were using 3.5 rules and had NPCs with stats of 11/11/11/10/10/10. So the "everyone has an 8" thing is obviously a deliberate change in Pathfinder.

It could just be that the designers were simply trying to simulate everyone having strengths and weaknesses.

Of course. My only issue is when people try to label the "weakness" of an 8 as a crippling disability or making you bestial. If an 8 (or even a 7) is a disability, then Golarion can't function as a world.

To me what a 7 charisma says is........

Imagine that guy, we all know him. The guy that is beyond irritating in everything he says and does.

Good Lord, we're talking about a 7 charisma, not a 3!

Backing up Jiggy here, but 7 isn't the worst charisma ever, just a 10% below average chance of success. If a 7 charisma goes out and hits on people every night, he'll get lucky 40% of the time, not zero.

(No insult Mogart.)

Moro wrote:

It could just be that the designers were simply trying to simulate everyone having strengths and weaknesses.

Of course. My only issue is when people try to label the "weakness" of an 8 as a crippling disability or making you bestial. If an 8 (or even a 7) is a disability, then Golarion can't function as a world.

I completely agree. As the Pathfinder rules state, the normal range of ability scores runs from 3 to 18. I do not understand why so many people who play the game refuse to acknowledge the existence of the lower third of that range.

I know some of the stereotypes regarding gamer nerds include higher-than-warranted opinions of ourselves and a fascination with pretending to be powerful beings, but to assume that the worst that a character can be is somewhat below average at any one thing is sort of ludicrous.

What the mentality of "No scores below a 10 (or 8)" actually does is warp the view of what those ability scores mean, turning the real "average" into more of a 13 or 14, rather than a 10 or 11.

7 isn't the worst charisma ever, just a 10% below average chance of success. If a 7 charisma goes out and hits on people every night, he'll get lucky 40% of the time, not zero.

Another very good point. Someone with CHA 7 and no ranks or bonuses whatsoever would have a -2 to Diplomacy. They could still (on high roll) get someone with a CHA of up to 16 to move from "indifferent" to "friendly" to "helpful", and then head back to his place. It'd be difficult, but it'd happen now and then. If the "target" only has 10-11 CHA, it gets easier.

To use another ability, imagine a character with 7 STR and one with 16 STR. They're each faced with a stuck door that needs a DC 15 STR check to open.

Neither of them will make it taking 10. Both of them will make it taking 20. Sitting around rolling, only 25% of results will have the strong guy opening the door while the weak guy fails.

So to recap:
A score of 7 is a weakness, not a disability.

Hitdice wrote:

7 isn't the worst charisma ever, just a 10% below average chance of success. If a 7 charisma goes out and hits on people every night, he'll get lucky 40% of the time, not zero.

Another very good point. Someone with CHA 7 and no ranks or bonuses whatsoever would have a -2 to Diplomacy. They could still (on high roll) get someone with a CHA of up to 16 to move from "indifferent" to "friendly" to "helpful", and then head back to his place. It'd be difficult, but it'd happen now and then. If the "target" only has 10-11 CHA, it gets easier.

To use another ability, imagine a character with 7 STR and one with 16 STR. They're each faced with a stuck door that needs a DC 15 STR check to open.

Neither of them will make it taking 10. Both of them will make it taking 20. Sitting around rolling, only 25% of results will have the strong guy opening the door while the weak guy fails.

So to recap:
A score of 7 is a weakness, not a disability.

Keep them coming Jiggy.

*Hops on his soap box*

Sorry StealthElite, you are just wrong in your assertions and Jiggy is correct in what he/she is saying about the stats. A 7 is not THAT bad of stat to have in CHA, a point that Hitdice just made as well. It is not a 3, it's a 7.

At the same time I say this, it's YOUR game and YOUR table, so you can do what you want with the stats and place whatever limitations on the point buys that you want. I think this might be you wanting to stop your table from min/maxing, which is totally up to you and well within your rights as a GM.

All I'm going to say is that you shouldn't come here looking for validation to your silly house-rule trying to argue your point where most of the peanut gallery (us forum posters) will tell you that you are wrong with the actual RAW of what a 7 means. You don't have to like our opinions or follow our advice, but when most of the posters are quoting from the actual books you how the game is currently set up giving you specifics on what the stats mean maybe take a hint. Swallow your pride and let your player have some fun at your table with a character who could be pretty interesting to play. So what if he can't interact very well socially on a dice roll w/o putting skill points into certain areas? This doesn't hamper role-playing in the least for anyone that I've ever played with.

In the end, everyone just needs to have fun so try to work on a compromise with your player and keep open communication going with him. Ask him for a reason why he wants to dump the stat(s), if he's power-gaming only let him know that you don't like that at your table. If he's doing it to role-play a quiet and "stoic" character, work on other aspects to role-play with him on. Not all social interactions are Charisma based.

*Hops off his soap box*

Recap:

Decision to raise the minimum allowed stat in your own friggin' game: TOTALLY VALID

Personal preference of disliking stats below a certain number: ALSO TOTALLY VALID

Assertion that a 7 is bestial or crippling or whatever: WRONG

The rules allow you to dump to 7 and then have a -2 racial penalty for a 5, and still possibly be a hero.

I would say anything 5 and above is functional for people, even if it is a noticeable weakness.

Low Char also = more susceptible to being told what to do. Since normal people with average Char (8-10) already respond very timidly to authority (Miller's Test) someone with a 5-7 would probably have a tough time asserting themselves or interacting with their peers.

Below a 5, would probably be mentally handicapped people, who might be incapable of understanding the social implications of their actions.

Low Char also = more susceptible to being told what to do. Since normal people with average Char (8-10) already respond very timidly to authority (Miller's Test) someone with a 5-7 would probably have a tough time asserting themselves or interacting with their peers.

Below a 5, would probably be mentally handicapped people, who might be incapable of understanding the social implications of their actions.

Umm not really. You have your stats confused. More susceptible to being told what to do would be more along the lines of Wisdom and someone having a very low Wisdom would be ready to go along with whatever someone else said thinking it's a good idea.

A low CHA wouldn't mean a mental handicap. I'd say that a very low INT would be that kind of handicap (think Forrest Gump).

This would be more of a social ineptness. Think (as someone else has stated above) Sheldon Cooper from TBBT. He's BRILLIANT (probably has a 18-20 INT in PF terms), but he's SOCIALLY handicapped (probably about a 6 or a 7 in PF terms) where he doesn't know how to treat his friends and this leads to awkward situations.

CommandoDude wrote:

Low Char also = more susceptible to being told what to do. Since normal people with average Char (8-10) already respond very timidly to authority (Miller's Test) someone with a 5-7 would probably have a tough time asserting themselves or interacting with their peers.

Below a 5, would probably be mentally handicapped people, who might be incapable of understanding the social implications of their actions.

Umm not really. You have your stats confused. More susceptible to being told what to do would be more along the lines of Wisdom and someone having a very low Wisdom would be ready to go along with whatever someone else said thinking it's a good idea.

Actually, the Diplomacy DCs for influencing a person (whether to improve their attitude or to make a request) is modified by the target's CHA modifier.

It looks like Jiggy has things in hand here. I might not even need to post again. :)

My very first campaign DMing I had to talk a guy out of making a 3 charisma tielfing factotum (3.5 bardic/roguish class). Player was pretty frigging angry at first but I had to point out to him that he was playing a Octopus with 20 int, he finally relented.

One of my favorite characters was a dwarf with a Cha of like 5. The best part was when we got saddled with a Drow henchman for a little while (lesser of two evils type situation) and I tried so hard to convert him to "the side of Good." Dude was just NOT having it.

Good times.