1. Generally yes, but since I don't run games in Golarion the deity's background / campaign role might by altered. For example, in my current campaign the starstone doesn't exist, and a truce between heaven and hell means Ragathiel's half-devil status would be a little less controversial.
2. Yes, and I've considered allowing clerics farther than one step from their deity.
I also include homebrew deities in my campaigns, allow philosophy clerics, include homebrew philosophy faiths, and will allow players to homebrew their own deity if it makes sense and can be fit into the campaign (likely as a minor local deity).
Oh wow, I get busy for a few days and my thread keeps going. Some great suggestions here. A bit more of an explanation of my specific idea:
The iron shortage is regional, not worldwide. One nation has little or no natural iron resources, and is isolated enough (and on hostile enough terms with its neighbours) not to be able to easily trade for it. It is not necessarily poor in other metals.
I'm seeing the region as being unaware of iron's existence until one of its neighbours invades with iron weapons. Realizing that these weapons are superior to their bone / stone / obsidian / bronze weapons, they seek to obtain iron and steel. They are able to scavenge some from their invaders, but not enough to meet their needs. Eventually a powerful caster or small group of casters discovers that iron can be magically produced. The end result is the creation of an important role in this culture: the “Metal Maker,” whose job is essentially to travel the region conjuring iron (Fake Healer mentioned this idea). Since iron made in this manner is more costly, it would be used more sparingly and so things like obsidian arrowheads would be common and some warriors might still use bone / stone spears.
I don't want this to be as big a deal in the world as Dark Sun - the campaign world has major defining traits and minor quirks and I want this to be the latter.
For my needs the expensive power component ( suggested by Poldaran) fits and I like the idea of it being something not just expensive but morally questionable (though not as drastic as the innocence of a child as Mark Hoover suggested). A costly refining process (first mentioned by Mojorat) would also work. I also like the idea of a rust effect (suggested by Pizza Lord) because it meshes well with the fact that the region in question has a few magical quirks that make invasion difficult, and allows me to bleed iron out of the region faster, preventing it from accumulating (any idea how fast iron rusts / wears down mundane terms?). I might combine that with the costly refining process by having the region's local, magic-made iron resistant to rust at the end of the process.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
If you want a magical way to get Iron I suggest using a summoning spell of some sort and bargaining with a creature from the elemental plane of earth. Off the top of my head lesser planar ally seems like it would work. This would be considered a nonhazardous task so it would probably be around 50 GP per HD. I would probably say that the payment gets a 1 to 1 trade value for iron. This would mean that lesser planar ally can get you 600 GP or iron for 1100 GP. Normally this is a horrible way to use the spell, but in a truly iron poor area it may be worth it. This could also be used to get any other rare material like adamantine, or mithiral.
Also a good suggestion.
Pizza Lord wrote:
If you've made an iron-poor world or region. Work with it. It's like making an adventure based on a world with a poisonous atmosphere but then giving everyone special lungs to breathe and function in it. Why have gone to the effort?
Because the method of production of iron is supposed to be interesting - again, see Mark Hoover's creepy example where the magical forging of iron requires the sacrifice of children.
Which is why I like the suggestions made for houseruling a new balanced (or underpowered but flavourful) mechanic that works with the story.
What I'm trying to do is tell a story, not make money. The gp value was only there to illustrate the fact that a wall of iron would, minus the balance factor, make a lot of longswords (~3,000gp worth or 825).
Since I missed the restriction on actually using the iron for anything other than a wall, I'm wondering if there's, say, a Masterwork Transformation-like spell that says "you convert a material that is not iron into an amount of iron of equal value" or burns an equal-value material component to the same effect.
More a resource transmuation deal.
I'm perfectly happy to throw 10gp worth of material components at creating 1gp worth of useable iron. In fact it fits the story better because the whole point is "iron is valuable in this region because they can only get it using spell X."
Missed that line.
Think there's any way to get around that, or any other way to conjure / transmute something into useable iron or steel?
Not looking at turning this into a money-making venture, just trying to salvage a world-building idea.
As GM for this one, fiat is an option but I prefer to work within the rules.
This. I understand a desire not to cheat when designing NPCs, but waiving alignment restrictions is not the same as, say, ignoring feat pre-requisites. It doesn't increase the power of your NPCs at all - alignment restrictions are a flavour thing, and campaign flavour is a GM's playground.
Just be open to players asking for alignment restrictions to be waived for PCs.
Sure works as written.
Intentional? Don't know. It seems a little strong to me, especially since some spells with component costs can be abusive if cast without cost. Simulacrum or Animate Dead could create free armies, while Masterwork Transformation turns into a money-printing spell. But Blood Money also lets you get around component costs, so it's not like they're inviolable. Also, you do have to spend the component cost at least once, and using a higher spell slot means you can't pull this trick with your most powerful spells.
The typical passive wondrous items would be Belts of (Physical Ability) +X, Headbands of (Mental Ability) +X, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance, and Amulets of Natural Armour. These are very useful, but some people find them boring. Skill boosting items like a Cloak of Elvenkind (+5 stealth) or Ring of Swimming (+5 swim) are also be a good choice. With the exception of a Cloak of Resistance +1, these items are a little too valuable for a 2nd-3rd level party, but you could easily introduce them between levels 3 and 5 (with bonuses scaling up though higher levels similar to weapons & armour). At higher levels, also keep in mind more interesting passive items like Goggles of Night (grants darkvision).
If you're in a low-magic area at the moment, also consider masterwork items and alchemical items to increase PC abilities without actually introducing a lot of "magic." Acid and alchemist's fire are great if you don't have a caster to apply energy damage. Weapons and ammo made from silver or cold iron might also be appreciated depending on what your party is fighting.
Remember to make sure there's a character with a decent UMD skill before awarding scrolls and wands as a caster substitute.
Really? I thought that you could switch between sustained force and combat maneuver every round so long as you concentrated, with only violent thrust requiring total commitment on casting. It does say the spell has different effects "depending on the version selected" but doesn't say you select on casting and are stuck with that version.
Also doesn't make sense to me from a realism POV that you would be able Disarm someone one round and grapple them the next, but not disarm them and then manipulate the weapon.
And you can't switch between Combat Maneuver and Sustained Force, I'd expect the disarm-shoot wouldn't work at all because as mentioned above I don't think it's fair to allow a Sustained Force application to perform a Combat Maneuver when there's a separate application of telekinesis for that.
I think the gun works. First use telekinesis to perform a combat maneuver (disarm) and then use the "sustained force" option to manipulate and fire the weapon - I'd probably rule that accurately aiming and firing a weapon was a "delicate activity" like untying simple knots, requiring the DC 15 Int check. And then the caster would roll an attack normally.
EDIT in response to Owly: The disarm rules state that "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped" so I don't think that you'd have to drop the gun after using the Disarm application of telekinesis. I also don't think it's appropriate to use the Sustained Force application to disarm someone when there's a separate, more specific application of Telekinesis for that purpose. I stand by my above interpretation.
The spell does not allow a Ref save to avoid being hurled out a window (presumably using the violent thrust variant) - instead you get a Will save to resist movement. If you wanted to be nice you might allow a Ref save to catch onto the window frame after being hurled through, but the spell doesn't require it.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Ok so send Ashiel's sample character to SKR or whoever you have access to and ask them their take on the example. I'd like to see what a designer would have to say.
You just responded to a post quoting the FAQ stating that the human bonus skill point is on top of the minimum 1 skill point per HD. An FAQ is about as official as it gets.
Who said Urist McCraftySquirrel had an intelligence of 3? He's just as smart as other squirrels. Plus, you don't become a magical beast for having an intelligence higher than 2.
By allowing him to take ranks in Craft or Profession, you're implying Int 3:
Animal Companion Skills wrote:
Though this rule specifically deals with animal companions, it strongly suggests that Int 3 is a pre-requisite for some skills, Craft included, so a normal squirrel can't lean it. An animal companion of a 4th level druid who increased their companion's intelligence could take Craft, but in that case as Ashiel pointed out you are talking about a supernaturally smart animal and so it's not a great comparison. Not to mention that many animals are much smarter than most people give them credit for. Corvids have excellent problem-solving skills - just google "crow tool use." And songbird song appears to be learned in a way similar to human language.
Personally, I don't think 3.X/PF handles animal intelligence well. There's a firm cut-off between "20% more likely to fail at remembering facts and solving puzzles" and "cannot speak or learn most skills or feats" and no real guidance for reconciling that cut-off.
Note that the Village Idiot, Int 4, is described as being able to represent any "simple commoner" given a Craft or Profession skill.
I think there are extended haggling rules in Ultimate Campaign, and that they involve Appraise (know value of object), Diplomacy (convince other party to give you a good deal), Sense Motive (to determine whether the seller thinks they're offering an honest price) and maybe Bluff (if you want to offer a dishonest price).
It certainly won't hurt your game to ignore the Appraise skill and just sell at half price. But if one or more of your characters is actively interested in using the skill, it can be fun. I wouldn't roll for every little thing the PCs sell, but hoards might have one or two interesting nonmagical art objects or pieces of jewelry a PC could appraise. If you agree to split the sale proceeds from appraised objects evenly you don't need to worry about whether you can trust the appraiser because there's no motivation to cheat.
Note that Appraise isn't always about avoiding being scammed - you could always find a rusty but masterwork dagger or genuine antique in a junk stall somewhere, or notice that the town you're in is selling furs or some other local resource at below their usual value.
You could also make it a plot point. Maybe someone has been selling jewelry made of low-value materials like tin and glass, but are passing it off as silver and gemstones, and an Appraise check will identify the false wares (and help the PCs find the culprit). Or an NPC offers the PCs a favour in exchange for help appraising the objects in his deceased grandmother's old chest.
"Make Request: Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request."
If you want to make a creature more willing to help you in general, then you do need a minute, but a simple request like "could you tell me how to get to town hall?" can be made in just one round using Diplomacy.
This means that the primary use of a flat Charisma check would be to communicate with creatures of Int 3 or less or who do not share your language, or the handful of specific checks mentioned in the CRB (such as those in charm, planar binding, and enthrall).
Ciretose: Yes, those are all other examples of when you would use Charisma, not Diplomacy - though I wonder if it is intentional that a straight Charisma check can permanently change a creatures attitude, even if it is written that way.
Is it intentional that a straight cha check can change a creature's alignment, since that would be an influence on them? The RAW is that Diplomacy doesn't permanently change an NPC's attitude, not that straight charisma checks do. It doesn't specifically forbid permanently changing an NPC's attitude with a charisma check, but I can't see any support for the idea and some evidence that that was not the intent.
The country boy from NY is probably also suffering from a -2 circumstance penalty for an unfamiliar environment.
@ciretose: fine, my semantic argument was flawed. Please address the second two concerns:
1) "Check" means a d20 roll against a DC, so if you're allowing a check to influence starting attitude you should be using a DC. (And if this regularly comes up in your actual play before you should be able to give an example of the sorts of DC you use.)
2) Just because checks made to influence others are modified by charisma does not mean that any type of influence can be achieved by a charisma check. Example: RAW does not support changing a person's alignment with a charisma check.
Social situations are usually at least a little subjective, and GM discretion is always a factor. However, you seem to be arguing that there is specific RAW support for the call you are making, and if you are not treating this situation as a check, your argument doesn't even get off the ground.
At this point, we hit argument 2 - is this actually something that should be decided / achieved via a check, or is it unbalanced or unfair?
As for the general validity of using cha to influence starting attitude, while there isn't much guidance in determining starting attitude, the optional Relationships rules have two interesting points.
Firstly, your relationship is determined primarily by your experiences with a person and the actions you have taken relative to them (gifts, insults, rescuing or humiliating them).
Secondly, the effect of charisma on your score is to increase it in either a friendly or competitive direction. Meaning that charisma doesn't necessarily improve attitudes, it just makes people feel more strongly about you in either direction. And that's something to take into account if we are using GM discretion to set NPC starting attitudes without a check.
So people inclined to be friendly towards the PCs might make minor extra gestures towards the high cha person, people inclined to be indifferent will be curious (more likely to approach) but not actually more helpful or trusting, and people inclined to be hostile will likely target the high-cha PC first.
EDIT: Note I'm not talking about a significant enough effect to justify a change in mechanical attitude, just enough to notice the flavour / enjoy the RP.
That's... basic logic? To determine that point B (something that you have influenced) is different from point A (that thing if you didn't influence it) you have to have a point A?
That everything that exists must have some state of existence and you can't interact with (and thus influence) something that doesn't exist (has no point A)?
I agree with. My charisma influences how people view me. My personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are all factors that will influence others.
And what makes you think that "influence" specifically takes the form of setting starting attitude?
Remember, in PF terms starting attitude is a mechanical concept. That's assuming you're using Diplomacy RAW.
I think redward is trying to get me to pin down some save DC's for a circumstance that has no specific DC anywhere. As many, many things have no specific DC anywhere.
He's trying to get a sense of how you would apply this, mechanically, in a game. And if you're applying it mechanically (as a "check to influence people)", you must have some idea of what general sort of number you would be using - even if just to decide whether it's worth asking for a roll.
For example, I'd probably set an Acrobatics check to catch a chandelier mid-jump and change your trajectory at, say, DC 18. Hard for a novice, but a well-trained person (3 ranks, class bonus, and +2 Dex) could do it confidently if not rushed, and a real expert (10 ranks, class bonus, and +4 Dex) would never fail. Maybe you'd set the DC at 15, or 20, but at least now we're talking specifics.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Unfriendly may be a bit too much, but I can certainly see people pointing and laughing at - possibly even shunning - the character with the really ugly face/scar/speech impediment. Having trouble asking for simple advice and directions - with a low enough CHA that would actually be a possibility. I think the question is how low it'd have to be to have a noticeable rules effect or whether to just RP it, and as with any such thing that's pretty much up to the individual GM to decide.
I'm perfectly happy to have subtle differences in the way NPCs would talk to an NPC with low vs high cha (see examples at the bottom of this post), even with equal social skill modifiers.
But when you're talking about the real mechanical effect of "can my character get the NPC to do what I want" the Diplomacy check determines the overall outcome - unless you're in one of the handful of situations in which you can't make a Diplomacy check (no common language is a good example).
Oxford Dictionary: Influence: to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something.
To have an effect on (influence) something, you are changing a starting point. If you are influencing someone's attitude, you start with their starting attitude. You do not make a check to see where point A is; you make a check to see if you can get to point B.
Moreover, it is unreasonable to claim that just because checks to influence others are generally charisma checks, any attempt to influence others may be achieved by a charisma check. For example, it is not supported in RAW that you may change a person's alignment ("have an effect on their character") by making a Cha check.
I would say that I am sorry the developers didn't spell out the DC for every possible interaction with an NPC that could occur, but actually that would be incredibly bad design.
Of course not, but they give a general set of guidelines in the rules for social skills, and they also note starting attitude as a relevant mechanic (analagous, as you pointed out, to carrying capacity to being a related mechanic to str/dex skills). However, while they clearly indicated that Str determines carrying capacity according to a chart, they did not mention "starting attitude can be determined by a charisma check." Further, examples of starting attitudes in published modules give a flat starting attitude rather than stating "with a DC X charisma check, NPC's starting attitude is helpful."
You want links?
Yes! After all, when you claimed "no one has responded to my point about how charisma checks are used to influence people " I gave you a link to a post responding to that point. Then, given a link, rather than respond to my points you simply re-iterated yours.
(On re-reading, I realize you wanted references to specific lines in the rules that demonstrate the listed checks were in fact Cha checks. Here you go:)
@redward - First off this post responded to you directly regarding that exact question, so pretending I didn't respond is crap.
You responded with an evasion. redward asked you for a DC. You said: "The bartender will almost certainly be open for a full minute conversation (assuming it isn't really busy). That is his job, after all. The other people at the bar...maybe, maybe not...although if someone with an 18 charisma wanted to chat...why that seems like someone who is interesting. I might put down my beer and give them a minute of my time to hear the sales pitch."
That is not a DC. Checks should have DCs. If you are arguing that "Charisma modifies checks made to influence people" means that "Charisma determines starting attitude," you should provide a DC.
If you're not rolling a check, it's because the DC is so low as to be automatic, as in the picking up a cup example or hearing a pitched battle right next to you. But a check should have a DC, and it should have numerical modifiers (is being from a distrusted race a -2 penalty? -5?).
Starting attitude currently doesn't have any DCs or modifiers described, probably because it's not intended to involve a check.
The entirety of the fluff for the monk class is against the mechanics. What is your point?
To be fair, that's just bad class design.
Circumstances influence starting attitude.
No arguments there. I'm more than happy to adjust starting attitude due to racial or political prejudices, how a character is dressed or armed, or whether the character has just kicked the NPC's puppy.
I do not think "charisma score" is a "circumstance" that should affect starting attitude. For starters, ability score modifiers are not circumstance modifiers.
Carrying capacity is defined as being a separate and specific function of strength, as in:
"You apply your character's strength modifier to:
Starting attitude is a mechanical construct similar to carrying capacity. If charisma was intended to affect starting attitude, it would also be listed as a separate and specific function of charisma, especially in a passive & automatic manner without a check as you appear to be using it (you're not calling for a Cha check to modify starting attitude, you're just kinda winging it).
The fact that the charisma section does not say "Your character's charisma score determines an NPC's starting reaction" or even "Your character's charisma score may affect an NPC's starting reaction" suggests that it is not intended to do so.
This is reinforced by the fact that there is no charisma-based effect on starting attitude mentioned in (1) the Diplomacy section, where it talks about NPC attitude or (2) game modules that list NPC starting attitudes. Also, the fact that the Relationship optional rules in Ultimate Campaign do specify that your Cha score determines your starting relationship (different from starting attitude) further supports the idea that if Cha was meant to have a passive, automatic effect on the starting attitude it would be mentioned somewhere.
No it is not. The other side is saying that charisma checks should not be used to determine starting attitude. They are not saying that Diplomacy should be used for anything other than temporarily changing NPC attitude (with a minute), making requests, or gathering information.
Meanwhile, you're adding functions to charisma that are not in the ability description.
I would rather discuss positions actually put forth by people.
So would I. Would you like to start?
I agree that Int is a multifaceted stat (as are Wis and Cha), which is why I'm not going to dictate how you RP it as long as your RP plausibly fits your character's overall mechanics. I just think that lack of education is one of the less plausible causes of a PC's Int 7 compared to, say "bad memory," "poor logical ability" or "difficulty visualizing abstract concepts." EDIT: Which could be RP'd by forgetting adventure details, using obvious logical fallacies, or needing ideas explained to you in simple language, respectively.
I would be perfectly happy to let a character take either a Knowledge or Profession skill for chess.
I think the reason for Linguistics being Int-based is that it involves pattern recognition, which I generally think of as an extension to reasoning ability (though it's true it's also related to perceptiveness/insight).
No roll is necessary, but unless the character has the appropriate combat manoeuvre feat the action will provoke attacks of opportunity. Note that only the one performing the manoeuvre provokes - the helpless/willing ally is safe from AoOs.
Minor correction: a combat maneuver only provokes from the target of the maneuver. Since the target is a helpless ally, the dragging character is also safe.
My 7 Int ranger has 4 skill points per level before human racial bonus or favored class bonuses. That's a LOT more than most classes get.
Skill points don't necessarily mean education, either. Ranks in Knowledge (arcana, planes, history, nobility) and maybe (engineering), or in Linguistics, would tend to suggest formal education to me.
At 1st level? Climb, Jump, Perception, and Stealth all seem pretty good for starters. 2nd level? Swim, Perception, Stealth, and Handle Animal. 3rd Level? A few more points in Perception and Stealth, and I might drop a rank in Disable Device and Spellcraft.
All what I'd consider “no education required” skills.
Not that I'd tell you you couldn't represent your character's Int 7 as being uneducated as long as you applied the appropriate mechanical penalties. I just think it would be a bit odd for an “uneducated” character to take a penalty at playing chess (which I'd model with an Int check) after having been introduced to the rules.
I honestly get the feeling there are some posters in here who would be perfectly fine with someone showing up with an Advanced Half-Fiend Tiefling who wrote 'Looks and acts Human' on the character sheet and then allowing them to play the character as a human. Because that's what the Player says the character is. *shrug* I guess I'm a grognard, I think the numbers on the sheet should actually describe the character, not just be random numbers that affect die rolls. I guess I'm just too old fashioned for this newfangled 'we don't keep score cause someone might feel they weren't as good as someone else' cotton candy world.
I'm just starting a campaign with a PC whose extraplanar heritage is unusually subtle. Most people can't put a finger on what's odd about him and he doesn't talk about it much - we're expecting him opening up about it to key people to be an RP moment. It's not that it doesn't affect the character, it's just that it's a bit more subtle.
Wouldn't allow it with a half-outsider, though. And the group's dhampir is all about being a dhampir.
Not necessarily. I still use synergy sometimes: for example, if making a check to identify a Fungus Queen (a plant with the extraplanar subtype) I might ask for a Knowledge(nature) check with a +2 bonus if you also are trained in / have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (planes). Likewise, if asked to solve a riddle that includes a reference to some animal, historical event, ancient language, etc, I would call for an Int check but allow a +2 bonus for training in the applicable skill.
Ornery Hobbit wrote:
One of the reasons my group rolls scores instead of using point buy – they feel more organic. Also no one gives you grief with putting a 7 in your barbarian's charisma, because if you rolled it it has to go somewhere and it's sure not going in your physical stats.
The problem this thread had was with deciding that a botched Diplomacy means that the PC has called a barmaid “Sweet****.” And the proposed alternative was telling the PC “Yes, you said X, but it came off as offensive for some subtle reason.”
(This seems to have gotten cleared due to one of the involved posters allegedly accusing another of misogyny)
There was a complaint about post length so I'll break this up. @ciretose:
On the very last post I made. I know they're long, but I make one post to every five of yours so I think you ought to read them, or else I stop reading yours.
Likewise, "Checks to influence others" does refer to checks involved in spells [edit: I'm referring to charm and planar ally], AS WELL AS wild empathy (a check to influence others that is not with a spell). It also factors into the Loyalty check a ruler makes to influence their kingdom, if using kingdom building. And you can make a charisma check to break someone else's Enthrall spell (note that the person making the charisma check isn't the one trying to use a spell to influence others).
That's three applications involving specific spells and two not involving spells.
The problem is that “checks that represent attempts to influence others” also includes Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff checks. The line does not refer exclusively to those skills; not just one but several examples outside skills have been given above. However, if a “check to influence others” properly falls within the jurisdiction of a Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Bluff check, that skill check should be used and not a flat Cha check. And the DC of the Diplomacy check in a situation in which Diplomacy should apply should not be set by the Diplomat's Cha score.
I've never said they should have a harder time using the same skill with the same bonuses.
If someone with an 18 Cha wants to make a Diplomacy check, the NPC will listen (but not to someone with an 8 Cha). Being unable to even attempt the check = having a harder time making the check.
I did say I read your posts.
We are not ignoring the text in the rules, we think your interpretation of that text is wrong.
Several non-skill charisma checks made to influence people have been mentioned. Your failure to take those into account suggests either you are ignoring your opponents' position or intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way it is making it very difficult to engage in rational discussion with you.
On one single point: you have stated that a low cha character who chooses to win someone over (with a one-minute diplomacy check to influence attitude) should have a harder time doing so than a high-cha character on top of the normal penalty to diplomacy because an NPC is less likely to give a low-cha character a full minute to talk.
If they are two different things, they should be used in two different situations, for two different tasks.
I'm saying diplomacy (or any of the other skills) have nothing to do with setting starting attitude. Circumstance is the primary determination of starting attitude, and reasonable the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of someone would effect your starting attitude toward them.
Except that starting attitude affects the DC of any Diplomacy checks you choose to make. So redward is correct that:
What you are proposing (and it is a proposal, being that is has no grounding in the RAW), is directly analogous to giving someone an Acrobatics check where the DC is set by a Dexterity check.
The DC of your Diplomacy check is set by the Cha check to determine initial attitude. If the Cha check says the bartender is friendly, your Diplomacy check has a DC of 10+Cha+Request Modifier, whereas if the Cha check says the bartender is only indifferent, your Diplomacy check has a DC of 15+Cha+Request Modifier.
Which is again saying that in a normal, low-pressure social situation you would allow a high-Cha person to attempt a check that a low-Cha person would not be allowed to attempt.Whereas my position is more along the lines of: the people in the bar are more likely to independently approach the high-Cha character and ask him/her to join them for a drink, but if both the high-Cha and low-Cha character walk up to the table, they should get the same Diplomacy check.
Going back to the Booth Babe analogy, they get paid to attract people to the booth so that someone can make a sales pitch. If they aren't drawn to the booth, all the skill in the world means nothing.
Which again ties into the idea that people are more likely to independently approach a high-cha person. Not that a high-cha person who has never had a speaking class is better at making an elevator pitch than a low-cha person who has an MBA and works in advertising.
DM Beckett wrote:
If one of the parties in the arranged marriage is unhappy with the situation, it's not mutually agreed upon by the lovers themselves (even if the arrangers agree) so it's exactly the sort of thing Arshea would oppose.
Am I the only person that remembers that the dude has a gigantic scar running across his freaking face?
Scars can be attractive. Heck, I'd give someone with a prominent scar a bonus for interacting with some cultures, like orcs.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm sorry, I can't keep up with this thread so I try to cover 2 pages of discussion in a post. XP
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think I was on that other thread. No, a low-int bard with lots of knowledge skills is not smart, because "smart" refers to innate talent. However, he is educated and specifically he is knowledgeable. Moreover, people who see him in a limited context might think he's smart because he knows a lot of facts - at least until they try to share complex plans with him, or observe him making obvious logical fallacies.
Similarly, a character with low cha but high diplomacy is not charismatic, he is a good negotiator. Someone who sees him negotiate might mistake him for a charismatic person, but someone who is observant and precise will see that he doesn't naturally draw people in when he isn't actively winning them over through conversation.
(I expect there are a number of politicians that are more socially skilled than they are actually charismatic - Canadian PM Harper comes to mind.)
@Ashiel - interesting idea with representing lack of worldly knowledge to Int, but I prefer to keep Int separate from education and simply voluntarily RP ignorance about certain things that fit the character concept.
All right, I'll agree that that would be a rare situation in which you might make a Cha check before making a Diplomacy check, as long as it is treated like a corner case. If you're at a party with the same rock star, for example, you should be able to just make your Diplomacy check.
Everyone seems to worry that there's a double penalty to having a low Charisma score. What they should really worry about is if there is any real benefit to having a high score if not one of three classes.
I agree that charisma is undervalued in the rules. I'd suggest the best way to increase the value of charisma would be to use some of the Ultimate Campaign rules like Relationships or Fame/Infamy, where your initial score depends on your Cha modifier. Or maybe give everyone a free Leadership feat except that your followers/cohort can't be used for combat or item crafting - then you get a set of contacts modified by your Cha score.
Or you could give the high-Cha character more minor RP perks that occur passively - like having a stranger spontaneously buy them a drink - which tie into the idea that the high-Cha character gets more attention when they're not trying. I don't know about your group, but mine enjoys these even if there's no real mechanical advantage.
Now, I don't agree with applying a circumstance penalty to your Charisma score in this situation [Tyrion]. THAT is double jeopardy.
The other poster wasn't suggesting applying a circumstance penalty for being deformed on top of a low cha. The suggestion was that Tyrion isn't actually low cha, he's just a member of a group that is prejudiced against in a particular context, and that that should apply a circumstance modifier. Just like an elf that walks into an orc village would get a circumstance penalty.While physical attractiveness is definitely part of a cha score, the subjectivity of attractiveness does create situations in which it's hard to measure attractiveness. I'd tend to correlate it more with things that have been shown to be generally attractive to all humans, like symmetry of features, lustrous hair, and clear skin rather than things like race, height, or build, which would provide circumstance modifiers.
I suppose something can be said for innate talent vs. learned skill, but I don't really see the need to differentiate between the ways in which a character might have come to have the bonus number on their sheet.
It's not always necessary, but I think it can sometimes lead to interesting, complex characterization and more fun RP – like the low wis character who knows people think they can take advantage of his foolishness, so he's suspicious and has gotten quite good at sniffing out lies (ranks in sense motive), or the low int sorcerer who has spent long hours studying magic (knowledge arcana and spellcraft) so that the wizards won't laugh at him for being uneducated.
Ornery Hobbit wrote:
So all fighters must be dumb? or socially clueless? or completely uneducated?
No, they're just more likely to be dumb than a wizard, more likely to be socially clueless than a bard, and more likely to be uneducated than either. This is because a character who is dumb or socially clueless is more likely to pursue a martial career than go to wizard/bard school, and because once they make the choice to pursue martial training they will not be exposed to as much academic knowledge as someone who chooses to to wizard/bard school.
I don't feel its against intent or odd at all. If it weren't this way we would not be able to detect outsiders without a subtype at all.
Is that a problem? I thought that the reason that aligned outsiders detect more strongly was that non-neutral outsiders are usually* strongly tied to / composed of the appropriate aligned plane, hence the subtypes (which enforce the ties of that alignment even if the individual outsider manages to deviate from the alignment somehow). And if they aren't physically composed of or otherwise invested with the stuff of the appropriate alignment, then why should they detect more strongly than, say, a dragon?
The non-neutral outsiders without the appropriate alignment subtypes appear to be limited to: Animate Dream, Asaku, Azer, Black Magga (native), Blood Queen (native), Cayhound, Coutal (native), Mihstu, Sandman, Garipan (native), Garuda, Genies, Kami, Magmin, Mercane, Mother of Oblivion (native), Oni, Rakshasa (native), Sandpoint Devil, Salamander, Scanderig, Scaeduinar, Triton (native), Umbral Shepherd, Urdefhan (native), Valkyrie, Wendigo (native), and Xill.
Also we wouldn't be able to detect a vampire in our midst if he had to have to evil subtype to be detected.
Undead are supposed to be extra-evil in PF even without the subtype, and they don't need to detect differently even if outsiders are changed.
It's a pretty minor change if outsider subtype was the intent:
Aligned outsider > Outsider with (aligned) subtype
I don't think you actually need to use the "aligned" term all over the place, because the spell already states that it detects alignment auras and it seems pretty obvious to me that a nonevil creature doesn't have an evil aura at all (under ordinary circumstances).
The best thing is all of this applies to Aasimars as well. Its about time there was a downside to playing those overpowered races.
Why do you see detecting more strongly as a downside? Because at level 1-4 the antipaladin or enemy inquisitor can find out your alignment?
If you still wanted Aasimar/Tieflings to detect abnormally you could always give the race an "Aura" trait just like the cleric has an "Aura," possibly limiting it to evil tieflings and good aasimar, or if you wanted to mess with these races then state that despite not having the (aligned) subtype they detect as an outsider with the (aligned) subtype in addition to having their normal aura - so a level 1 good tiefling detects as evil but not good, while a level 1 tiefling paladin detects equally strongly of good and evil. And the party's inquisitor could be tricked by a level 1-4 evil aasimar who detects as good.
No, I'm saying that the diplomacy check includes convincing an NPC who might take an interest that they should take an interest. I'm disagreeing with ciretose's elevator pitch argument - that you make a cha check as a standard action to convince an NPC to let you give your full minute-long spiel (diplomacy check).
That is not the same thing as convincing someone who is actively trying to harm you, or who is in the middle of an urgent task like running from a T-rex or even trying to serve a crowd of customers as quickly as possible, to stop and listen.
That's another situation in which nobody is getting to make a Diplomacy check so the cha check is fair. It's not a situation in which the magician or rockstar is picking the most attractive people to make a one-minute attempt to impress them, they're just making a snap judgement. I have agreed that this is an appropriate use for a Cha check from my first post.The problem I'm having is one in which a PC walks up to an NPC and says “I need to talk to you about X,” and whether the NPC is willing to talk to the PC for a minute is dependent on the PC's raw cha score.
You are really reaching to argue that the requirement of a full minute is a benefit of the skill rather than a restriction.
No, I'm arguing that the requirement of a full minute is a restriction against using diplomacy on someone who is in combat or involved in urgen business as described above, rather than a restriction preventing diplomacy from being used in normal social situations. Otherwise it would never be possible to use diplomacy to improve the attitude of a hostile person, because a hostile person would never listen to you for a minute.
And again, it is no more "double jeopardy" than Dex being added to reflex saves and dexterity skill checks is double jeopardy.
Again, those are two separate tasks used in two separate situations. Selling someone on the street something is one task made up of two parts (get attention + make sale) like hitting someone in combat is one task made up of two parts (make contact + bypass armour).
2. Even if it were, that is like saying it unfair to apply strength to both attack and damage.
I addressed this in a previous post. Two reasons why that system isn't unfair while the cha check elevator pitch is: (1) Weapon Finesse, ranged attacks, and magic all bypass the requirement for a str-based roll before doing damage, so strength isn't necessary to achieve the goal of doing damage. (2) Your attack bonus is also class- and level-based such that a low-str character can still have a decent chance of hitting in combat. A gunslinger with 6 Str is still better with a dagger than a wizard with 6 Str, and a high-level gunslinger is even more likely to hit with a dagger than a low-level Str 16 fighter.
Having to make a melee attack roll (usually str-based) before making a melee damage roll (usually modified by str) is much, much less punitive than “You must have Cha this high to pass go. This cannot be modified by level or any other character build choices.”
All of these are giving you two chances to avoid a negative outcome, which is different from requiring two successes in order to achieve a task. And all of these stats scale by level either automatically or with skill/feat/magic investment, whereas a straight ability check scales very poorly by level.
And “checks to influence others” outside of skill checks can be found in charm person, summoning magic, and wild empathy. Or cha checks could be used in situations in which diplomacy is actually inappropriate or impossible as discussed above. There is no need to turn this line into more than it is.
And you don't think this is indicative of the fact that the devs intend NPC starting attitudes in general, especially those you use skill checks on, to be independent of PC charisma?
You are ignoring the line under Charisma about checks to influence people. That line does not refer to spells. If it did, it would say 'with spells'. It doesn't refer to Skills, those are specified above it.
So because when it talks about Initimidate checks it doesn't say “Intimidate checks to demoralize people” it doesn't refer to checks to demoralize people? I don't need to / get to apply my Cha modifier to a check to demoralize?
The intimidate skill includes demoralizing AS WELL AS influencing attitude. Likewise, "Checks to influence others" does refer to checks involved in spells, AS WELL AS wild empathy (a check to influence others that is not with a spell). It also factors into the Loyalty check a ruler makes to influence their kingdom, if using kingdom building. And you can make a charisma check to break someone else's Enthrall spell (note that the person making the charisma check isn't the one trying to use a spell to influence others).
And yes, "checks to influence others" might include Cha checks to convince the rockstar bard that you're the groupie he wants to take backstage, since that's not a situation where Diplomacy can be used (the rockstar isn't going to listen to anyone talk for a full minute). But that doesn't mean that you ought to apply a charisma check in a situation in which Diplomacy is appropriate. That is like calling for a strength check to sunder an opponent's weapon because Strength is used for checks to break objects.
Oh, I've done that. One of the players tried to convince a succubus that he was falling for her charms and wanted to be a part of her evil schemes. He made an impressive bluff check and led her into a trap. Made for a very memorable end of an adventure, much better than anything I would have come up with.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Nice thought, but see above comments re: double jeopardy being unfair and re: catching attention being part of the diplomacy check.
I'd agree with an exception. Charisma should be applied in situations in which social skills have not yet been applied. Not just in ones where they cannot be applied.
Agreed. If you don't choose to take the time / make the effort to make a diplomacy check your raw cha informs peoples' reactions. Just so long as this doesn't prevent you from making a diplomacy check if you choose to apply the skill.
There should be no "talk to the hand" for low cha diplomats.
EDIT: That is to say, if the player says "I chat with the guy to make him friendly," the GM should say "roll Diplomacy," not "make a Cha check to see if he pays attention to you" or (without a roll) "he tells you he's not interested in talking to losers."
Sure, but my point was:
1) Intelligence checks for hints are found within published modules.
2) Charisma checks used to determine initial attitude are absent from published modules that mention NPC attitudes.
3) Therefore, "charisma can mode initial attitude up or down a step" has less support in RAW than "intelligence checks can be used to get hints" and the latter, while common practice, is not generally seen as RAW.
Really this comes down to if NPCs can make snap judgements. If they can't then you may as well just use Diplomacy and other skills. Charisma is useless and the attribute description is redundant for some reason. Mentioning that Charisma factors into the social skills twice on the same page, even.
Using a charisma check in a situation where an NPC must make a snap judgment and Diplomacy can't be used seems reasonable to me. Using a charisma check as a pre-requisite or gatekeeper for allowing a PC to make a diplomacy check does not seem reasonable to me because in a situation in which the RAW says diplomacy can be used (you have a minute to talk) Diplomacy should be used.
So you're a hero and you've been captured by an enemy who is going to torture you for information to be used against your friends. Or your friend has been implanted with a Xenomorph. Or someone is infected with a fatal and painful supernatural disease. Death is looking pretty good right now.
What are your options?
Is there something I've missed? Is spending 2,500gp on a dose of Hemlock and throwing your saves the best insurance against this situation? Or should one hand-wave CdG and say it can be used for this purpose?
Do you think it would be possible to balance a low-level spell or relatively cheap magic item to serve as a "cyanide pill" by restricting its use to truly willing targets (no magical compulsion or "unconscious targets are willing" allowed)? If so what level/cost would you suggest?
The dice decide in situations in which there should be doubt as to the outcome.
The dice do not decide whether a PC can successfully order a drink at a tavern. However, the dice would decide whether the goblin can order a drink in a dwarf bar or whether he gets told "we don't serve your kind here." Unless the dwarf bar is in a kingdom with a large bounty on goblin ears, in which case you probably don't need to roll to decide that someone is going to try and collect on the bounty.
In many situations you may not bother rolling dice, and that's fine. But rolling dice in social situations contributes the same two things that rolling dice in combat does:
1) It creates uncertainty. Taking action is more exciting if you don't know what the outcome will be.
2) It keeps things solidly, fairly based on the characters' abilities. You may think it's natural that Angry Albert tells anyone who expresses concern over his injury to "piss off," but maybe the bard actually is tactful and compassionate enough to get him to admit that his wound doesn't seem to be healing right. Recognizing that a skilled/talented character has a chance (see point 1) at succeeding at something makes players feel that their skills are being appreciated.
Personally, I think I call for a roll about every third or fourth major social interaction, usually when the PCs are trying to achieve something specific and plot-relevant like "get information from the suspect" or "convince the captain I've been framed."
Have you considered that getting someone to stick around for the whole minute is part of the diplomacy check? It states that you need a minute in order to make it clear that you can't use diplomacy in combat, or when you're in a rush, but that simply getting someone to pay attention to you for a minute is part of the success condition of an attempted diplomacy check, just like not drowning is part of the success condition of an attempted swim check? It is entirely plausible that a failed diplomacy check is due to having a poor “elevator pitch” and losing your target's interest before the minute is actually granted.
This is similar to how one attack roll both determines whether you make contact with the enemy and also whether you are able to bypass their armour, rather than having to roll once against a “dodge AC” and a second time against an “armour AC.”
Yes it is. You are requiring two checks to succeed at a single task – to influence someone – by requiring that the low cha person first obtain the target's attention before actually attempting to improve their attitude using a Diplomacy check.
Melee attack rolls and swim checks are two entirely different tasks that both happen to be based on strength. It's slightly more like melee attack rolls and melee damage rolls, but it's possible to decouple either from the Str mod, and there plenty of alternative strategies for reaching the end goal of “deal damage” such that a character isn't required to go strength or forget about damage.
Well to be fair, I have seen "Give the players an intelligence check" in modules.
But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?
That's fine by me as long as long as the person who snickers at first sticks around long enough for Tyrion to open his mouth and make that skill roll (should Tyrion actually decide to make the effort). If people are just walking away before he can open his mouth, that's a problem because it has neutralized the entire “bad first impression but very socially canny” concept.
I have no problem with low cha characters making a bad first impression, I just think that they shouldn't be prevented from changing that impression through social skills should they make the effort to do so.
Yes, the DC of your check to influence someone is adjusted by the target's charisma modifier in addition to the target's attitude. This is not the same thing as saying the starting attitude is adjusted by its charisma (or yours).
How is that unreasonable? How is that not using the circumstances to determine initial attitude?
The problem is that an "unfriendly" attitude + unwillingness to listen for one minute = totally unable to use Diplomacy against the target. Some circumstances would justify that (the PC just got caught stealing the target's wallet; the PC is an elf in an orc village or vice-versa). However, making Charisma a deciding factor double-penalizes the low Cha character, first by giving them a penalty on the actual check, and secondly by preventing them from actually attempting the check in situations in which a Cha 8 or 10 or 14 character (where's the cut-off?) would be allowed to talk.
In your example of the wizard, if the sword weighed more than he could generally lift, yes I would require a strength check to see if he could lift it. Wouldn't you?
A strength 1 character can still lift 10 pounds over his head (any one-handed weapon and some 2-handers) and a strength 2 character can lift 20 pounds over his head (and two-handed weapon) so this would only ever come up with a ridiculously low-Str character and/or oversize weapons.
And even then the wizard could just use a lighter weapon to make a melee attack against the same target.
In this example, diplomacy requires the NPC to be willing to chat with them for a full minute to change attitude if less than indifferent, and you only get one request with diplomacy.
And by saying that in some situations you would make charisma the deciding factor between an unfriendly and indifferent starting attitude, and that these targets aren't willing to stick around for 1 minute of attitude improvement, you are by fiat prohibiting the cha 6 fighter from using any tool whatsoever to use diplomacy against certain targets.
"The strength-drained kobold can't lift the ogre's greatsword and must use a dagger" is not comparable to "Harsk the iconic ranger can't negotiate with the snooty noble" in terms of the limitations you are placing on the character.
This is assuming you're using the RAW definition of unfriendly rather than “the noble scowls and says 'make it quick, lout.'”
Diego Rossi wrote:
Awesome, an actual example of how the devs want Cha to work outside of skill checks. All other things equal, low cha characters have a harder time forming stable meaningful relationships. People don't like and trust them as easily, or think of them as "worthy adversaries." But since there's no penalty for a negative relationship score, a low cha character isn't prevented from forming these relationships, it's just slightly slower because your starting line is moved back with a gradient depending on your modifier.
Charisma has a direct influence on fame and reputation. Fame and reputation have a direct influence on NPC attitudes and reactions. (Or I suppose you could just say it's another form of currency flavored as NPC attitudes and reactions.)
Yay, another rule that uses raw charisma! Since you can make a Diplomacy check to increase your reputation, this is similar to the above rule in that the low-cha character has a slightly lower fame but the only penalty for increasing fame is the one already applied to Diplomacy.
Now, a Cha 7 or lower character does start with a negative fame, and the rules do note that non-evil NPCs may be unfriendly to “infamous” characters. So technically you could say that people within a 100-mile radius of level 1 Harsk default to unfriendly, but that'll be irrelevant within a level or two of Harsk doing adventure things. I think it's also against the intent – the specification that “nonevil” NPCs react negatively certainly suggests infamy is a moral judgment, not an issue of someone having an abrasive personality (since evil NPCs would be just as repelled by the latter).
Knight Magenta wrote:
To be fair, your flat charisma modifier is used to determine your leadership score.
This too. Seems like plenty of RAW support for your charisma mattering outside of cha-based skills without arbitrarily using cha to adjust starting attitudes.
I misunderstood. I have elsewhere seen people advocate encouraging roleplaying by giving a circumstance bonus/penalty according to the quality of the speech, not the effort put into it. While this may be realistic it can backfire by discouraging shy players with "face" characters. Absolutely agree that players who try to be part of the story should get perks, and that playing against type can be a lot of fun in a safe & cooperative environment. Some of the player vs GM rhetoric on the boards just makes me wonder how many people actually experience the game as safe & cooperative.
It is hostile, but noticing what's going on would be far from automatic. Beguiling Voice as an (Ex) ability has no special components - no magic words or grand gestures - you just talk to someone.
The only thing that would be suspicious would be the leader's reaction to the sorcerer's talking, and for that I think blahpers' suggestion of a Bluff vs Sense Motive is a good one (the sorcerer would be trying to talk in such a way that a dazed response would seem natural).
You could also use the flat DC 20 sense motive for determining when a person is magically Charmed, but I think an opposed check is more fun.
Tsukiyo is LG, so his clerics can't cast (evil) spells.
EDIT: I don't see Nightmare on the Darkness domain spell list.
If Aligned Outsider is treated as "outsider with (aligned) subtype" and Aligned Creature is treated as "any creature having the alignment that does not fall within the other categories" then the evil tiefling falls into the Aligned Creature category just fine.
I agree that as mentioned on the thread I linked it seems perverse to interpret Aligned Creature as "creature of alignment" and Aligned Outsider as "outsider with sybtype."
However, it seems equally perverse to say that a good tiefling has an extra-strong aura of Good because it happens to be an outsider of good alignment, despite the fact that its extraplanar ties are to an evil plane. As far as I can tell that's RAW, but I don't think it's RAI.
I personally would consider houseruling that tieflings and aasimar get extra-strong auras only if their actual alignment happens to correspond with their extraplanar heritage, but that's definitely a house rule.
ciretose, if you're suggesting lowering NPC reactions to a low-cha PC to "unfriendly" to prevent the PC from attempting Diplomacy checks, that's profoundly unfair. There is no situation in the game where a PC is required to succeed at an ability check (or have some minimium ability score) before attempting a skill check.
Would you require a wizard to make a strength check before he attempts a melee attack roll?
On another note, I am somewhat OK with using OOC words to affect IC skill. Specifically allowing a bonus for the effort to roleplay. I do recall seeing modifiers that used player effort to apply a +/-2 or even +/-4. So, if a low Cha char's player gives an impassioned speech even though his char cannot, I can see a plus modifier for effort. If a high Cha char's play arrogantly tells the GM that his character succeeded at a check without bothering to actually make the check, I might give a penalty. This can apply even better with players that are themselves not very outgoing, as it rewards them for coming out of their shell. At no point would I let OOC words dictate the result, only a small plus or minus to the DC.
While I appreciate you're not making OOC words carry a lot of weight, you should know that some "not very outgoing" players would not react to this system by coming out of their shells, but would instead avoid playing "face" characters due to the penalty. My first high-cha character was actually unpleasant to play for this reason.
The question boils down to: does the term "Aligned Outsider" in Detect Evil mean "an outsider with the (evil) subtype" or "an outsider with an evil alignment (but not necessarily subtype)." If it's the former, a 1st level tiefling does not have an aura, but if it's the latter the tiefling will.
What you say your character says is just like what you say your character does. It's what you intend to happen, it's what he intended to say/do. But what actually happens is specified by the die roll, and the ACTUAL happenings (what comes out of his mouth or what he puts his foot into) is what reality is in the game.
The difference here is that in the case of "I backflip over the table" you are stating a desired result, whereas in the case of "I tell the barmaid that her eyes are like sapphires and her skin like fine parchment" you are actually stating the means you are using to achieve your desired result, where the result is probably to get the barmaid to like you. It is entirely possible for a character to say "Your eyes are like sapphires and your skin like fine parchment" and still not impress the barmaid - you could be leering, or stutter or slur your words.
Rolls determine success or failure in performing a certain task, and in the case of Diplomacy, that task is either "get someone to like me" or "get someone to do what I want," NOT "say X."
God if I had a $1 for every time I practiced what I wanted to say in my head, and then blurted out exactly the wrong thing instead, I'd be able to buy Paizo lock stock and barrel. I see no reason why in character this never happens because the PC magically never says something he didn't intend to. Apparently in your game world, PCs and NPCs never get tongue tied, and never blurt out the wrong thing at the wrong time, or say things they didn't mean to. Really wierd place you have.
This can absolutely happen in a game, and if a player is engaged in RP (and rolls before making his attempt so as to RP according to how high he rolled) it can be lots of fun. Some players are really good at this. But if a player chooses not to RP a foot-in-mouth instance they can still fail at what they're trying to do because Diplomacy involves more than just the actual words being said. And as long as the player doesn't try to argue with the fact that his character failed the check, that's fine and dandy.
Your fluff has no crunch. Tell me in a specific, actionable way how the dwarf can be depicted as uncharismatic by the games mechanics.
Does it need crunch? It could be as simple as the guy who gave you a good deal on the draperies saying "you drive a hard bargain so I'll offer..." instead of "because I like you I'll offer..." or the pretty barmaid being too embarrassed to tell her friends about the encounter with the dwarf (but not with the cha 20 halfling).
Agree with Jiggy that most people probably over-estimate how low a low score is.
As for whether charisma checks should exist outside of cha skills:
Ability checks are normally used when a task falls outside of normal skill parameters and/or where training is unlikely to increase success. Thus it seems reasonable that attracting attention and first impressions would be covered by a charisma check (with appropriate circumstance modifiers) since those things are not covered by Diplomacy (which does take a minute) and there's not a whole lot of training involved. And if PCs aren't actively trying to influence someone, a "take 10 cha check" should determine who gets approached first or who gets bought a drink.
On the other hand, a charisma check should never be required to allow a character to make a Diplomacy check. This would be like requiring a dex check before allowing a character to make an acrobatics check to tumble, to see if they have quick enough reflexes to react to their opponent. That is already taken into account with the ability modifier on your skill check. I would only use a “first impressions” charisma check in a situation in which you weren't going to get a Diplomacy check no matter how the charisma check resolved – and even then I might give a +2 bonus to someone highly trained in Diplomacy to represent a better understanding of body language or what one sentence is most likely to elicit a response.
An investment in charisma should be rewarded, but so should an investment in the Diplomacy skill.
So yes, the Cha 20 bard gets approached first all things being equal. But if doesn't have ranks in Diplomacy, he tells the NPC asking to hire the party to talk to the Cha 7 fighter with actual negotiation training.
EDIT: I think the lack of Cha checks in published material is probably due to the fact that they would have little influence on the ultimate success of most adventure tasks compared to Diplomacy; being bought a drink is more of a flavour perk.
The game tells you Charisma effects personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
And personality, personal magnetism, etc affect your ability to effectively use Diplomacy (or Intimidate or Bluff), hence those skills being charisma-based. Also Charisma affects your Leadership score (ability to lead).
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Just because someone has crap charisma doesn't mean they have crap diplomacy, they just grease palms to compensate. Same with low strength climbers with good equipment. Dumb people with books and time...
Greasing palms and good equipment represent circumstance bonuses, not training. A low strength climber with good technique can beat a climber with more muscle strength but poor technique even given equal quality gear. (Granted, some climbs tend to rely more or less on strength vs technique but that's a subtlety not covered by the skill checks system.)
This has not been my experience. My group uses both Diplomacy and Intimidate fairly regularly, and both with a fair amount of success.
Not that we really follow RAW for either. It's more about what's fun and fair, and that means that social skills will work very well sometimes and not so well other times, and you have to pick your tool to fit the situation. From my most recent campaign:
Intimidated the headmaster of a mages' college in his office, with several professors in the same building. Despite the headmaster's apparent position of power the PCs demonstrated enough of a magical, physical, and social threat to shut him down. Diplomacy wouldn't have worked well because the headmaster was already hostile towards the PCs.
Diplomacied a magically coerced NPC who was not easy to intimidate because her controller was holding a loved one hostage and she feared more for the hostage than herself. However, she did respond well to promises to rescue the loved one.
Ran a good cop-bad cop routine in which the Bad Cop scared the proud but cowardly BBEG and the Good Cop offered a compromise that allowed the BBEG to save face while surrendering.
Intimidated a house. It was a magic, intelligent house and the player had a large adamantine hammer and knew how to use it.
Elaborating on the above two posts:
There are two kinds of magic weapon special abilities: ones that have an enhancement equivalent of a +1 to +5 bonus (such as flaming), and those that have a flat gp cost (such as glamered). Note that the price for glamered is listed as +4000gp instead of +X bonus. Enhancement-bonus-equivalent abilities count against your effective enhancement bonus and contribute to the exponential increase in item cost. Flat cost abilities don't count against the limit and don't increase in price as the overall item gets more expensive. IIRC flat cost abilities are mostly "non-offensive" powers added to a weapon.
Both kinds of abilities are listed as Weapon Special Abilities.
"Zephyr," however, is not a weapon special ability. Horseshoes of the Zephyr are an entirely different magic item. Your GM may allow you to combine the item Horseshoes of the Zephyr with the item Horseshoes of Crushing Blows, but doing so would follow the guidelines Gauss mentioned above for adding new abilities (also found here), meaning you pay 150% of the cost of the Horseshoes of the Zephyr to add their power.
You will note that some weapon/armour special abilities with flat costs are essentially equivalent to separate items with this +50% surcharge: for example, the shadow armour property is just adding the power of a Cloak of Elvenkind to your armour at 150% of the cost of the cloak.
Lacking commitment to any specific principle except for protecting yourself.
1. The Apathist... or (I don't give a ^$%^$) philosophy. He literally isn't drawn to anything, or it may be a creature that's so unintelligent that it lives almost entirely on instinct. such as most animals.
Not true. True Neutral characters can be committed to some principles, or otherwise have strong motivations outside of selfishness (or a search for alignment "balance"). They just aren't dedicated to anything that falls within either alignment axis. Druids are committed to defending and revering nature, but are frequently of TN alignment (and can be good or evil, lawful or chaotic). Other principles falling within the neutral alignment include knowledge and beauty. You could also be a devoted follower of a TN deity like Pharasma, whose teachings are not tied to a particular alignment.
And while some TN characters are just out for themselves, characters of any alignment can have loved ones, and many will make sacrifices for those loved ones. (You don't fall into a Good alignment unless you'll help strangers and even enemies.)
Well, they could mean that 10 is the mode or most common score. That wouldn't require that there be an equal number of above- and below-average scores. But it's a little deceptive since the default meaning for "average" is generally the mean.
I've always assumed that the distribution of ability scores in the general population in PF was supposed to be similar to 3E. Ability scores exist on a 3d6 distribution. PC stat generation methods are designed to skew towards the high end of that distribution, and you sometimes make assumptions like "commoners get all 10s" to simplify making stats for nonheroic NPCs, but in theory the world runs on 3d6.
As a result, I find the absence of below-average stats in the NPC codex to be a little disconcerting. I expect they're just following the guidelines for creating a basic NPC, which assume an "average" array, and that the lack of a "below average" counterpart for the heroic stat array is simply due to the fact that there's more call to stat out above-average than below-average NPCs.
I am perfectly happy to assume that below-average NPCs were simply left out of the Codex. However, this ambiguity in what scores exist causes problems when attempting to visualize what a low ability score means for a character. If ability scores of 3 or 4 theoretically exist in the world, an 8 is not exceptionally bad. If however an 8 is the lowest existing stat pre-racial modifiers, your Int 8 character is about as dumb as it gets.
When a monster has an ability that is not defined in the monster's individual stat block, check Universal Monster Rules for how that ability works.
Universal Monster Rules: Web wrote:
Creatures with the web ability can use webs to support themselves and up to one additional creature of the same size. In addition, such creatures can throw a web up to eight times per day. This is similar to an attack with a net but has a maximum range of 50 feet, with a range increment of 10 feet, and is effective against targets up to one size category larger than the web spinner. An entangled creature can escape with a successful Escape Artist check or burst the web with a Strength check. Both are standard actions with a DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + the creature’s Con modifier. Attempts to burst a web by those caught in it take a –4 penalty.
So the DC is an escape DC once you've been hit, not a reflex save to avoid being hit (that's what the +11 ranged attack is for).
Universal Monster Rules: Web wrote:
Web spinners can create sheets of sticky webbing up to three times their size. They usually position these sheets to snare flying creatures but can also try to trap prey on the ground. Approaching creatures must succeed on a DC 20 Perception check to notice a web; otherwise they stumble into it and become trapped as though by a successful web attack. Attempts to escape or burst the webbing gain a +5 bonus if the trapped creature has something to walk on or grab while pulling free. Each 5-foot-square section of web has a number of hit points equal to the Hit Dice of the creature that created it and DR 5/—.
12hp is indeed the damage needed to cut a 5ft-square section (note that this matches the Bebilith's HD; note also the web has DR, which was not mentioned in the Bebilith's entry at all).
There does not appear to be any restriction in weapon used to damage the web.