Just because you are right doesn't mean you don't have to be tactful. One or two posts pointing out the OPs errors might be helpful. 148 additional posts pointing out exactly the same things is less helpful.
@Pual: When you open a thread by calling everyone who make an effective/specialized character "power gamers" and "poor roleplayers", you kinda deserve what you get. And on top of that, he did not explain to said player that they play what 90% of the forum-goers would call a "severely gimped game", and went on to bash him online instead of sitting down with the player and discussing the "problem". Then add an inability to answer a plethora of quite relevant and fair questions such as "Are you playing the opposition smart?" "What are the other players playing?" "Is he powerful because you are giving him way too much loot?" etc.
Perhaps he should've stopped posting he thought 20 dpr at level 10 was a good target and a focused damage dealing class doing 100 dpr was the end of the world.
What you really are with the stock standard 8CHA guy is a cardboard cutout cliche that has been done to death a million times and frankly if thats all yuo bring to the table you may as well be a DMPC.
Do you just build your players' characters for them and tell them how to be played so they have the "right" stats?
I'd rather not play 'Angry Average Villager, The RPG'
Says a person who wants a 15 point buy but NO dump stats (presumably nothing below 10). You ARE playing "Average Villager, the RPG"
Wizard:
Str: 10
Dex: 13
Con: 10
Int: 16
Wis: 12
Cha: 10
Presumably, the Int is too power gamer, so lets drop it to 14
Str: 10
Dex: 12
Con: 14
Int: 14
Wis: 13
Cha: 10
Hurray, it's "Slightly Better Than Average Villagers, the RPG"
Ross has not had to come in and remove posts so far, so I think this thread is quite civil by the standards I have come to expect.
There's not much point in removing anything now that the OP has apparently left for good...
|
But if an 8 is a horribly awkward nerd, shouldn't a 12 be the popular guy everyone wants to be around? Why does the one get such a huge reaction and not the other?
For me this is the scale, assuming no prior disposition.
7 or less is actively annoying to those around them.
8-9 annoying if you talk to them, but you probably don't even notice them
10-11 background noise
12-13 kinda interesting person if you get to know them, but not someone who stands out
14-15 Intriguing and interesting.
16-17 Life of the party
18-19 You are buying what that guy is selling, they are a born leader that people gravate toward.
20 + strangers would follow that guy into battle, right now, if he asked.
|
|
Which doesn't explain why the 7 Cha orc survives childhood but the 6 Cha half-orc doesn't in the previous argument I had with mdt. I'm at least glad your scale is better balanced than some people's around here. Me personally, I find the scores work better as abstract representations.
I say either "can" survive, but if you play with a 6, you are going to the 6. For a half orc, good luck in any city that already has issues with orcs if your also annoying as hell...
|
Which doesn't explain why the 7 Cha orc survives childhood but the 6 Cha half-orc doesn't in the previous argument I had with mdt. I'm at least glad your scale is better balanced than some people's around here. Me personally, I find the scores work better as abstract representations.I say either "can" survive, but if you play with a 6, you are going to the 6. For a half orc, good luck in any city that already has issues with orcs if your also annoying as hell...
But it's possible, which was my point.
An 8 in CHA can represent a quiet, introverted rogue just as easily as it could represent a loud, obnoxious barbarian. Depending on your character, it's all a matter of interpretation - you could be unpleasant to look at, or you could have a constant stutter that makes normal communication next to impossible. Inversely, you could be easy on the eyes, so people want to associate with you, or you could just have a god-given voice that people tend to find attractive.
At least, that's my argument against "All Sorcerers are sexy." My Half-Orc Aberrant sewer dweller would beg to disagree. >:D
|
|
Agreed. Cha is how memorable you are, not how attractive you are. Attractiveness plays a part, but is not the be all end all.
Well...I wouldn't use memorable as the word.
Napoleon and Hitler were not hot, but they were able to move people to action.
In game, charisma casters call forth arcane forces through the force of their will. When you think of it that way, low charisma problems make more sense.
TOZ is 100 percent right that a low abilty score can make it, I would just say it should present a challenge to the player in game, since it is a significant disability of sorts.
An 8 isn't that big of a deal. It's a -1. Big whoop.
It's slightly below average. It's no more a major loss than a 12 at +1 is a major boon.
I wouldn't care if a player had no good reason for an 8 other than, "that's just what it ended up being..". If they were to lower a stat to a 5 or lower, then I'd ask questions. The whole idea behind a point buy assignment of stats is the flexibility and trade off between scores. If a person can't go lower than a 10 without a "damn good reason", then it ceases to be so.
No one needs to be an RP god to play a character with an 8 in a stat.
Just my 2 cp.
|
|
Well...I wouldn't use memorable as the word.
Napoleon and Hitler were not hot, but they were able to move people to action.
If you're going to deny Charisma means memorable, you should probably not use the two of the most infamous military leaders as examples.
Memorable does not mean attractive, by the way.
Adding my $0,02. Charisma is not tied to physical attractiveness in any way.
The example I used on another forum of good charisma that illustrates this point is:
Bill Clinton. Yes, I know, controversial call here with the whole ML dry cleaning, "can you define what 'is' is?" scandal, but for the most part that man looks only slightly more tantalizing to the palate than roadkill. On the flip side of this coin, for those rabid fans, there is also Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, animal magnetism these men have, right? Is why they are worshiped by so many people today.
Physical attractiveness is only implied by the player, or, if you want, with a trait selected at character creation called Charming that gives you negligible bonus to bluff and diplomacy checks when dealing with people who could find you attractive, and also a slight bonus to language dependent spells. It's the ultimate seductive bard trait.
Examples of poor charisma I have seen portrayed and considered using myself is just a general lack of confidence in character, maybe smelling bad, or... being uncouth in general. It's not particularly awful when you meet a low charisma NPC that hasn't bathed in two and a half weeks and still smells like the last brothel worker that had the unfortunate assignment of pleasing him, but neither is it a pleasant thing. And yeah, maybe it will be memorable, or maybe it won't be.
This is why I prefer high point buys that forbid dropping below 10 (except racial penalties.) That way you build your character UP instead of dumping things down. Something like 30ish :PAn 8 isn't that big of a deal. It's a -1. Big whoop.
It's slightly below average. It's no more a major loss than a 12 at +1 is a major boon.
I wouldn't care if a player had no good reason for an 8 other than, "that's just what it ended up being..". If they were to lower a stat to a 5 or lower, then I'd ask questions. The whole idea behind a point buy assignment of stats is the flexibility and trade off between scores. If a person can't go lower than a 10 without a "damn good reason", then it ceases to be so.
Personally, I think the absurdly high stat expectations are to blame for people going "OMG! CHA 7!? BARF!". When 10 is minimum, and then considered "weak, unattractive, dumb", you no longer play people, you play comic-book characters.
Case in point: My wife was used to playing with people who had crazy stats, and now that she has a bard with wis 8, she plays her like a complete airhead ponce that barely has a self-preservation instinct, much less any common sense.
I know the OP isn't posting anymore, but my take. . .
LONG VERSION:
It sounds like the group wants to go one direction with the game and the "powergamer" wants to go another direction. Fine. If you really don't want the "powergamer" to over-optimize his character for combat, change the game to where combat is a tertiary concern. Social situations and basic problem solving can fill an entire session without a single magic missile. The combat-optimized character in that game has suddenly found herself with a rather ineffective character. Assign experience rewards for certain roleplaying situations and problems being solved. Allow combat to be an option with medium frequency, but steer the party to make the non-combat options simply better. If the character is forcing combat options against the will of the party, that's poor playing on the part of the "powergamer". . . and justifiable for removing him from the group.
Why punish the "powergamer" for doing what is expected of her by the game system? Of course you're supposed to heroically stop the bad guy. If combat is the primary way this is done, then the best way to do it is to make your character as effective as possible in combat. Dumping as many stats as possible and boosting your primary combat stats to maximum levels is clearly the route to go. By taking a negative attitude toward the "powergamer", you're really redirecting the true negativity -- that the game isn't really doing what you want it to do.
SHORT VERSION:
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
stuffs
Ah, well sounds like you have a handle on what is going on at least. It might be time to retire the campaign: Sometimes that happens.
What you really are with the stock standard 8CHA guy is a cardboard cutout cliche that has been done to death a million times and frankly if thats all yuo bring to the table you may as well be a DMPC.Do you just build your players' characters for them and tell them how to be played so they have the "right" stats?
I'd rather not play 'Angry Average Villager, The RPG'Says a person who wants a 15 point buy but NO dump stats (presumably nothing below 10). You ARE playing "Average Villager, the RPG"
Wizard:
Str: 10
Dex: 13
Con: 10
Int: 16
Wis: 12
Cha: 10Presumably, the Int is too power gamer, so lets drop it to 14
Str: 10
Dex: 12
Con: 14
Int: 14
Wis: 13
Cha: 10Hurray, it's "Slightly Better Than Average Villagers, the RPG"
Hmmmm...looks like I prefer to play Less than Average Villagers, the RPG. So far everyone is having a grand time, too. Some of the players in the game seem to even have the mindset of most of the people on these forums that think a DM who allows 15 point buy or less as evil. Said players at my table are pleasently surprised. To each their own, I guess.
Ultimately, it's all math and it all scales and it's all relative.
|
|
Personally, I think the absurdly high stat expectations are to blame for people going "OMG! CHA 7!? BARF!". When 10 is minimum, and then considered "weak, unattractive, dumb", you no longer play people, you play comic-book characters.
Case in point: My wife was used to playing with people who had crazy stats, and now that she has a bard with wis 8, she plays her like a complete airhead ponce that barely has a self-preservation instinct, much less any common sense.
Dex: 22
Con: 16
Int:12
Wis:16
Cha:14
Played like an ADOS kid (attention deficit oooo shiny), constantly interrupting the party about her collection of monster teeth, and often distracted by other players throwing a ball of yarn.
** spoiler omitted **
Personally, I think the absurdly high stat expectations are to blame for people going "OMG! CHA 7!? BARF!". When 10 is minimum, and then considered "weak, unattractive, dumb", you no longer play people, you play comic-book characters.
Case in point: My wife was used to playing with people who had crazy stats, and now that she has a bard with wis 8, she plays her like a complete airhead ponce that barely has a self-preservation instinct, much less any common sense.
But, but wis 16! She should be the most concentrated, focused super-mind ever. She is the opposite of wis 4. You... you dare play different than stats dictate?! :P
|
|
But, but wis 16! She should be the most concentrated, focused super-mind ever. She is the opposite of wis 4. You... you dare play different than stats dictate?! :P
I believe in letting my players play the character they want to play, not the character I think they should play. :)
You can hear a prime example of Ti'al in our latest session log if you have the time and inclination. Warning: Shackled City spoilers.
But, but wis 16! She should be the most concentrated, focused super-mind ever. She is the opposite of wis 4. You... you dare play different than stats dictate?! :PI believe in letting my players play the character they want to play, not the character I think they should play. :)
I think that means you are a bad DM.
And this is why I have no problem with having low stats. You get a mechanical penalty. Play your character as suave as you want, but if you have cha7 and no ranks in diplomacy, you will fail horrendously at everything social. Be it your body language, smell, display of symbols, use of words etc etc, something makes you fail where the charismatic bunch succeeds.
My paladin has wis 8, which leads me to get ambushed 19 our of 20 times, as I hardly ever make any perception checks, and my will save is lower than it could have been. I also fail at survival checks and so forth. I can still play him as a calm and collected person, as his classes, background and upbringing all reflect that. But then again, since dumping wis gives you such a huge mechanical drawback compared to dumping cha, fewer people seem to care.
Case in point: My wife was used to playing with people who had crazy stats, and now that she has a bard with wis 8, she plays her like a complete airhead ponce that barely has a self-preservation instinct, much less any common sense.
hey, i represent that comment. at least i have enough sense to make sure to keep the NPCs that are efficient in combat around, thanks.
using lots of magic for vain things like drying her hair and scribbling in the air with prestidigitation and reciting poetry and singing songs while taking a pleasure cruise in the fey wilds isn't airheaded, it's fun. not all fey are bad, just the ones that want to steal her soul to make her a host for their dark mistress's reign of terror on the material plane.
But, but wis 16! She should be the most concentrated, focused super-mind ever. She is the opposite of wis 4. You... you dare play different than stats dictate?! :PI believe in letting my players play the character they want to play, not the character I think they should play. :)
Wisdom covers many types of perception, not just the perception skill or Will saves. Maybe she's better with emotional perception. . . or perhaps the sensory input simply overwhelms her.
And cats are very easily distracted. Get a laser pointer and test it out on a cat some time. Tigers/leopards/lions/cheetahs (which the laser pointer works on as well) all have a positive Wisdom modifier.
But, but wis 16! She should be the most concentrated, focused super-mind ever. She is the opposite of wis 4. You... you dare play different than stats dictate?! :PI believe in letting my players play the character they want to play, not the character I think they should play. :)Wisdom covers many types of perception, not just the perception skill or Will saves. Maybe she's better with emotional perception. . . or perhaps the sensory input simply overwhelms her.
And cats are very easily distracted. Get a laser pointer and test it out on a cat some time. Tigers/leopards/lions/cheetahs (which the laser pointer works on as well) all have a positive Wisdom modifier.
Of course. And this is what makes the whole "how dare you play a character with negatives without being pants on head retarded?!" argument moot. Everything is reflected mechanically.
Low int knowing big words? No problem, as long as you have a knowledge rank in the relevant topic, you have learned of it. Your knowledge is incomplete, but you DO know stuff.
Intuitive low wis? Sure, if you have spent ranks in Sense Motive, you are the kind of person who picks up on subtler things, and understand how people work, and is sensitive to their needs.
Attractive low-cha? Sure, there are plenty of them. Any given person should know a bimbo/pretty-boy who is about as personable as a doorknob, with self-esteem issues out the wazoo.
I suspect the original poster is long gone, but there was a simple solution to the problem I think. Just remove Power Attack from the game, including as prerequisites for other feats.
If at 8th level the character is making 3 attacks a round with Haste and is using a weapon 2h then that's -27 dpr in an instant. It also means the character can do more interesting things, like take Overrun or Cleave and start to think about positioning more than simply dealing damage.
As for low stats, compared to an average peasant a character with a 7 in a stat is only 10% worse (on a d20 skill check), which hardly makes them a meathead, social pariah or blind. 10% is practically nothing. Admittedly, the average peasant is hardly a brilliant base-line, so 10% of crap is still pretty crap, but I can't see low stats as something that justifies sending a player away. If they take a rank in a class skill which has a stat of 7 they go from 10% worse than a peasant to 10% better...
And if my statistics are flawed, that's because I have an Int of 7 and I'm 10% worse at it than you guys!
My, what fun!
Just a few thoughts after reading through the entire thread:
1) The OP's basic problem, taking RP vs. Optimize/Powergame BS out of it, is a problem with incompatible playstyles. Some folks addressed that thoughtfully, most of the rest fell into the BS trap.
2) People are really thin-skinned about the RP vs. Opt/PG thing, seeing insults even when none are intended.
3) Everybody thinks they are a good roleplayer, even those who think roleplaying is when you say: "I make a diplomacy roll! Tell me what i learn" as soon as the bartender offers them a drink.
4) As many have beaten to death, optimization/powergaming and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. That said, not everybody is good at everything, and it has been my observation that a lot of players tend to be better at one than the other. I think recognizing what your strengths, weaknesses and preferences are, as a player, helps a lot more in finding good gaming than being defensive about them.
5) On stats, I'm old school and believe in rolling for stats and using randomly rolled 3d6 in order folks to populate the world. That's the history of the game and I haven't moved away from it. So 10.5 is the midpoint on the curve, not 10. So 8 is 2.5 below the average, while 12 is only 1.5 above. Small, but significant difference that is not reflected in the RAW, but could reasonably be expected to be reflected in roleplaying.
6. On roleplaying and stats, I agree that stats shouldn't absolutely determine how a character is roleplayed, but believe that they also shouldn't be ignored. They give clues for good roleplaying, just like race, alignment, backstory and chosen personality. If you allow players to completely ignore the stats they select in a Point Buy game, in particular, you are opening a big door for potential abuse by some powergamers.
Small, but significant difference that is not reflected in the RAW, but could reasonably be expected to be reflected in roleplaying.
Except when you realize role-playing has no effect on mechanics and has nothing to do with d20 as a game.
If you allow players to completely ignore the stats they select in a Point Buy game, in particular, you are opening a big door for potential abuse by some powergamers.
Damned adventuring parties trying to be good at adventuring and killing mythological beasts.
2) People are really thin-skinned about the RP vs. Opt/PG thing, seeing insults even when none are intended.
True, but, you don't have to intend to be insulting to actually be insulting (even to a person who isn't all that thin-skinned.)
6. On roleplaying and stats, I agree that stats shouldn't absolutely determine how a character is roleplayed, but believe that they also shouldn't be ignored. They give clues for good roleplaying, just like race, alignment, backstory and chosen personality. If you allow players to completely ignore the stats they select in a Point Buy game, in particular, you are opening a big door for potential abuse by some powergamers.
I am unclear here; do you mean mechanically ignore, or rp-wise ignore? Because I fail to see what "abuse" you could do here. Came up with a great idea? Hand it to the wizard and cleric with a int/wis average waaaaay higher than all of the players combined. Unless you hand-wave diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rolls for RP, the system mechanically penalizes you sufficiently for having low scores.
And if we look at it from the other extreme(And bear in mind, this is intended to be hyperbole); do you/your GM hand the int26 wizard the solution to every puzzle in the game? Does everyone you meet automatically become the fanatic followers of the Cha26 oracle?
Do you demand that you have membership in Mensa before you're allowing someone to play a wizard with int16+? Do you only let the most well-spoken and extrovert players have positive charisma modifiers?
Having a character not being able to bypass his limitations is something I agree to. A Cha7 with no ranks should be no more able to convince someone to heed their argument than a Str7 with no ranks in climb should be able to free-climb a wall.
....i think the OP needed. "Talk to him and try to work out a compromise,We tried that
That mentality is what irritates me, the "if your not playing this way your doing it wrong" it happens to often. The OP asked a question in trying to find a way to talk/work...
Actually that is not the prevailing attitude. It just happens to be the one that gets the most attention, kind of like the loud kid in school.
As to the OP, very reasonable advice was given but he did not want to deviate from the core rules in any way. He even said as much when I suggest he ban full BAB classes if he thinks they do too much damage. What he wanted was for the barbarian to not to the only thing barbarians are good at.
edit:Changed "he" to "the"Seemed to me that the good advice was hidden by 150 posts implying that they were playing wrong. I'm not saying that the OP's post and replies were particularly good but it's hardly surprising she got defensive.
To be honest, and I'm not saying it was anybody's intention, but this thread looked like bullying to me.
I am not saying nobody was rude to him, but most of us were giving reasonable answers the first, and 2nd time he left.
Using a 20 pt. buy for a Half-Orc Barbarian...
STR 20 (+2 racial)
DEX 12
CON 17
INT 7
WIS 7
CHA 7
Okay, so this character is total crap, but he's only here to set an example. But that asides, say this character's player portrayed him as a streetwise genius that always looks for traps, doesn't rush into every enemy he sees, and isn't ridiculously ugly and/or obnoxious.
Not only are some of these examples are of metagaming, but they also present a character whose personality doesn't fit his stats in the slightest. Heck, this guy probably wouldn't live through childhood.
I'm all for "play the character how you like!", but the above example is an exaggeration of the exceptions I make.
For the heck of unbalancing the game, I tend to use the Core's Standard roll system for stats, with any score 10 or below being allowed rerolled. I reason that since everybody's stats will be above average anyway, I might as well let them play their characters how they want.
I think that means you are a bad DM.But, but wis 16! She should be the most concentrated, focused super-mind ever. She is the opposite of wis 4. You... you dare play different than stats dictate?! :PI believe in letting my players play the character they want to play, not the character I think they should play. :)
I am failing my sense motive here so have I have to ask, are you serious?
I'll preface this woth the fact that my last character was called a twink by another player due to having an 18 str. as I said in my earlier post I'm sure if I'd played an 18 int wizard no one would have batted an eye.
in general though I think part of at least my perception of the whole optimization thing at least being slightly removed from rp is the often stated dislike of fluff I see when optimizers talk about feats.
there was another thread about a bit ago where a player planned to make a stupid character and wanted ideas (I presume for a 6 int 6 cha char like the barbarian in this thread) any how I recall poster in that thread pretty much saying he wouldn't do anything tactically stupid which in my view should happen frequently for 6 int characters.
however I at least get the feeling a lot of the time players offender chars just gloss over the weaknesses and don't even act remotely stupid or realize the 6 cha prevents any real interaction with society
ie how many of them act out Lenny from of mice and men?
I'd like to add finally I'm not against optimization but I also think you need to design characters with the scope of your play group. my current char was built with angry villager stats. the same arguments made saying an 8 isn't that bad also hold true of a 16 vs an 18.
I am failing my sense motive here so have I have to ask, are you serious?I was pegging it as serious, since Cartigan is the snarky kind. If he were kidding I think he would have elaborated more. But does it really make a difference?
Seems silly to me. To paraphrase another poster, the DM controls the entire world, all the npc's, and anything not covered by those 2 categories. All the players get are the PC's, they should at least get to control that.
I am failing my sense motive here so have I have to ask, are you serious?I was pegging it as serious, since Cartigan is the snarky kind. If he were kidding I think he would have elaborated more. But does it really make a difference?
No I wasn't serious, I was making a joke at the expense of all the other control freak DMs by saying you were a bad DM for not being one.
|
|
Well...I wouldn't use memorable as the word.
Napoleon and Hitler were not hot, but they were able to move people to action.
If you're going to deny Charisma means memorable, you should probably not use the two of the most infamous military leaders as examples.
Memorable does not mean attractive, by the way.
It is hard to cite anyone who isn't memorable ;)
The point is that I agree the issue isn't about pretty, but I remember a lot of people who couldn't lead a horse to water, let alone get them to drink.