Sorcerer vs. Wizard (Flavor)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So a witch's bond/pact with her familiar means she is charismatic? Clearly we all know that married couples are more charismatic than single people and that long standing relationships with gnomes are way more likely than with dwarves, right?


Ion Raven wrote:
So a witch's bond/pact with her familiar means she is charismatic? Clearly we all know that married couples are more charismatic than single people and that long standing relationships with gnomes are way more likely than with dwarves, right?

Have you even been following this thread??

If you had, you would have known that noone said that a witch's bond/pact with her familiar means she is charismatic.


I was being sarcastic. There were plenty enough of people suggesting that the witch should be charisma based because of her bond/pact.

My point was that forming a meaningful bond and being charismatic are two independent things.


Ion Raven wrote:

I was being sarcastic. There were plenty enough of people suggesting that the witch should be charisma based because of her bond/pact.

My point was that forming a meaningful bond and being charismatic are two independent things.

They are two different things - just like programming a computer and being intelligent are two different things or bench pressing a lot of weight and being strong are two different things.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:

I was being sarcastic. There were plenty enough of people suggesting that the witch should be charisma based because of her bond/pact.

My point was that forming a meaningful bond and being charismatic are two independent things.

They are two different things - just like programming a computer and being intelligent are two different things or bench pressing a lot of weight and being strong are two different things.

Yeah, but being intelligent helps program computers;

Being strong helps lift weights;
And while being charismatic helps getting people to do things for you, it doesn't necessarily help form strong relations.

A strong bond requires things outside of being able to get someone to do something for you. Charisma doesn't exactly insure loyalty. In fact, if the only thing you're relying on is your ability to manipulate others, you're not going to gain a lot of loyalty from them.

Charismatic people are generally portrayed as flighty.
If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

LilithsThrall wrote:

No matter what the rules say, some of you are going to bend over backwards in order to find some Deus ex Machina justification. And that's fine. I've never said that such justifications aren't possible. I've only said that to do them consistently breaks verisimilitude.

APG wrote:
To learn or cast a spell, a witch must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a witch’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the witch’s Intelligence modifier.

Seems like someone has bent over backwards so much he's forgotten what the rules say.

Anyway... I like Sorcerers because of my own weaknesses. Give me too many tools, I can become paralyzed. Sorcerers (and Psions) have a limited set of tools, but can get to them faster, rather than rummaging around in the toolbox or carrying a smaller toolbox (memorization) and lamenting I don't have the right tool handy.

Though bonded item does help address my weakness :-)


Ion Raven wrote:

And while being charismatic helps getting people to do things for you, it doesn't necessarily help form strong relations.

A strong bond requires things outside of being able to get someone to do something for you. Charisma doesn't exactly insure loyalty. In fact, if the only thing you're relying on is your ability to manipulate others, you're not going to gain a lot of loyalty from them.

Charismatic people are generally portrayed as flighty.
If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it.

"If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it."

I know several strong relationships that have been based on lies (such as married couples who stay married for a long time despite infidelity), intimidation (such as the bully's relationship to a favorite target in junior high school), etc.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:

And while being charismatic helps getting people to do things for you, it doesn't necessarily help form strong relations.

A strong bond requires things outside of being able to get someone to do something for you. Charisma doesn't exactly insure loyalty. In fact, if the only thing you're relying on is your ability to manipulate others, you're not going to gain a lot of loyalty from them.

Charismatic people are generally portrayed as flighty.
If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it.

"If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it."

I know several strong relationships that have been based on lies (such as married couples who stay married for a long time despite infidelity), intimidation (such as the bully's relationship to a favorite target in junior high school), etc.

Infiedelity is that all as bad thing for a relatoinship. Their are worse tings like sabotaging dinner each night making sure the kids do not get to sleep and causing more pain. Making a mess of everything improperly cleaning dishes not doing any housework. Breaking things wrecking vacuum filters. That is what my mom is like and she is still married to my father. Does that mean it is a strong working relationship. I would rather have her be sleeping with someone else as then at least someone is happy. I think this relationship is more opportunistic than anything else.


doctor_wu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:

And while being charismatic helps getting people to do things for you, it doesn't necessarily help form strong relations.

A strong bond requires things outside of being able to get someone to do something for you. Charisma doesn't exactly insure loyalty. In fact, if the only thing you're relying on is your ability to manipulate others, you're not going to gain a lot of loyalty from them.

Charismatic people are generally portrayed as flighty.
If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it.

"If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it."

I know several strong relationships that have been based on lies (such as married couples who stay married for a long time despite infidelity), intimidation (such as the bully's relationship to a favorite target in junior high school), etc.

Infiedelity is that all as bad thing for a relatoinship. Their are worse tings like sabotaging dinner each night making sure the kids do not get to sleep and causing more pain. Making a mess of everything improperly cleaning dishes not doing any housework. Breaking things wrecking vacuum filters. That is what my mom is like and she is still married to my father. Does that mean it is a strong working relationship. I would rather have her be sleeping with someone else as then at least someone is happy. I think this relationship is more opportunistic than anything else.

Inability to cook or clean vs. sleeping around - goes to show that what makes for a strong relationship is in the eye of the beholder, not some objective measure. It's not based on objective facts (intelligence), but on perception and feeling (charisma). That's why diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate are based on charisma.


LilithsThrall wrote:


"If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it."

I know several strong relationships that have been based on lies (such as married couples who stay married for a long time despite infidelity), intimidation (such as the bully's relationship to a favorite target in junior high school), etc.

I would hardly call a relationship where a person has to lie about their infidelity a "strong" relationship; if you're at the point where you must lie to and bribe your partner, your relationship is probably at it's seams.

I hardly think the target of a bully would consider himself as 'bonding' with the bully.

I feel bad for you if you really know 'several' relationships that are built on lies, bribing, and bullying. :<

Shadow Lodge

LilithsThrall wrote:

No matter what the rules say, some of you are going to bend over backwards in order to find some Deus ex Machina justification. And that's fine. I've never said that such justifications aren't possible. I've only said that to do them consistently breaks verisimilitude.

It sounds like we have multiple reasonable and logical explainations as to why Charisma is the not or not always the key stat for witches and we have one person denying their validity to an extent that consistently breaks verisimilitude.


Getting back to the original topic, I really like the flavor of the wizard. It has that academic, genius aspect who may not always be listened to, even when she has a good plan.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

No. Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate require SKILL RANKS. Charisma is nowhere 'required' for you to take ranks. It just helps you.

WRONG. Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate all require Charisma. You cannot determine your Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate score without factoring in your Charisma - even if that Charisma bonus is 0.

First you call him wrong, then basically agree with what he said?


Ion Raven wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


"If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it."

I know several strong relationships that have been based on lies (such as married couples who stay married for a long time despite infidelity), intimidation (such as the bully's relationship to a favorite target in junior high school), etc.

I would hardly call a relationship where a person has to lie about their infidelity a "strong" relationship; if you're at the point where you must lie to and bribe your partner, your relationship is probably at it's seams.

I hardly think the target of a bully would consider himself as 'bonding' with the bully.

I feel bad for you if you really know 'several' relationships that are built on lies, bribing, and bullying. :<

We've never defined what either of us means by the phrase 'strong relationship'. I'd take it to mean that the relationship is a fundamental part of how a person defines themself. How do you define the term?


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

No. Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate require SKILL RANKS. Charisma is nowhere 'required' for you to take ranks. It just helps you.

WRONG. Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate all require Charisma. You cannot determine your Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate score without factoring in your Charisma - even if that Charisma bonus is 0.

First you call him wrong, then basically agree with what he said?

He said that charisma is nowhere 'required' to take ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. And that's what I said was wrong. And I never agreed with his statement.

Frankly, I believe I made that quite clear.


Kerney wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

No matter what the rules say, some of you are going to bend over backwards in order to find some Deus ex Machina justification. And that's fine. I've never said that such justifications aren't possible. I've only said that to do them consistently breaks verisimilitude.

It sounds like we have multiple reasonable and logical explainations as to why Charisma is the not or not always the key stat for witches and we have one person denying their validity to an extent that consistently breaks verisimilitude.

There's been no reasonable and logical explanation as to why intelligence and not charisma should be the prime stat for the witch class. There's been attempts to make such explanations, but none of those attempts make sense. On the other hand, what you do at your table is your business. Hell, if you want to make dex the prime stat of witches at your table, go ahead and do so. I've never said that it was badwrongfun. I've simply said that RAW should be logically consistent and rational.

Shadow Lodge

LilithsThrall wrote:

He said that charisma is nowhere 'required' to take ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. And that's what I said was wrong. And I never agreed with his statement.

Frankly, I believe I made that quite clear.

Ahem, to take ranks in Diplomacy? To calculate your final Diplomacy bonus, yes, but not to take ranks in the skill. For that, you need skill points to spend.

That's just the completely wrong definition, here.

Shadow Lodge

And back before the concerted effort of LilithsThrall to hijack the thread...

I see the wizard vs. sorcerer balance as the Batman vs. Superman dichotomy. Wizards are the knowledgeable, long-term capable sages and crafters of perfection, while sorcerers are great for getting the job done now--albeit not always perfectly.


I prefer Alchemists to both.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


"If you're in a strong relationship, you shouldn't need to lie, intimidate, or cheese up to keep it."

I know several strong relationships that have been based on lies (such as married couples who stay married for a long time despite infidelity), intimidation (such as the bully's relationship to a favorite target in junior high school), etc.

I would hardly call a relationship where a person has to lie about their infidelity a "strong" relationship; if you're at the point where you must lie to and bribe your partner, your relationship is probably at it's seams.

I hardly think the target of a bully would consider himself as 'bonding' with the bully.

I feel bad for you if you really know 'several' relationships that are built on lies, bribing, and bullying. :<

We've never defined what either of us means by the phrase 'strong relationship'. I'd take it to mean that the relationship is a fundamental part of how a person defines themself. How do you define the term?

By that definition sex slaves have a strong relation with their captor. Or a person in a wheelchair after a car accident with the person that rear ended their car.


InVinoVeritas wrote:

And back before the concerted effort of LilithsThrall to hijack the thread...

I see the wizard vs. sorcerer balance as the Batman vs. Superman dichotomy. Wizards are the knowledgeable, long-term capable sages and crafters of perfection, while sorcerers are great for getting the job done now--albeit not always perfectly.

I didn't make a concerted effort to derail the thread. I stated a fact - that the witch class makes charisma even more confusing to understand and irrelevant by basing pact making on intelligence and, also, that basing the witch on charisma makes no sense.

Then, several people flooded the thread making ridiculous, irrational counter arguments to assert that I was wrong. These people hijacked the thread. I even made an effort, following TOZ' post, to drop the whole thing but these people -continued- to flood the thread with ridiculous, irrational counter arguments. All I did was point out how their posts were ridiculous, irrational, and/or not even relevant to my point.

Shadow Lodge

Lordofkhybr wrote:
I prefer Alchemists to both.

Interesting, what do you prefer about alchemists?


LilithsThrall wrote:

I didn't make a concerted effort to derail the thread. I stated a fact - that the witch class makes charisma even more confusing to understand and irrelevant by basing pact making on intelligence and, also, that basing the witch on charisma makes no sense.

Then, several people flooded the thread making ridiculous, irrational counter arguments to assert that I was wrong. These people hijacked the thread. I even made an effort, following TOZ' post, to drop the whole thing but these people -continued- to flood the thread with ridiculous, irrational counter arguments. All I did was point out how their posts were ridiculous, irrational, and/or not even relevant to my point.

You are more ridiculous and irrational than them and cannot see your irrationality when it is explained to you. I suppose that's the definition of irrational. You cannot abide reason, including the rationality that attempts to get you to see reason. Please stop posting.


InVinoVeritas wrote:
Lordofkhybr wrote:
I prefer Alchemists to both.
Interesting, what do you prefer about alchemists?

I prefer the ability to cross out the words 'alchemy,' 'spell,' and 'arcana' on my character sheet and write in 'SCIENCE!!!'

This was incentive enough to be an alchemist.


WAIT! I'LL SAVE THE DAY!

I believe the Wizard is WAAAAAAY cooler aesthetically. My reasoning: A Sorcerer's magic is inborn, so it's not really a choice. I mean, yeah, you as a player choose, but the character suddenly wakes up one day and his body is dripping acid, or he's grabbing people and electrocuting them without knowing the "why" of it, necessarily. A Wizard chooses magic, and there is nothing more potentially terrifying, devastating, or interesting than the paths of men who have the audacity to try and control the universe with their will alone.

My ideal game, the one I know I'll never play, is a group of wizards (I'd be down with a group of full spellcasters, too) that bully, connive, murder, bribe, baleful polymorph, geas, and in general fight to the top of the political totem pole, in order to create society in their own likeness. A sorcerer can be just as ambitious, and their charisma will see them through the social maneuvering of a game like that better than a wizard (though there is something to be said about a wizard specializing in enchantment), but the sorcerer didn't choose to be a sorcerer AND take on the world (obviously the player chooses mechanically to continue being a sorcerer, but as far as the actual increase of power in-game, it'd be like a guy with aspberger's deciding to be brainy, or a balding man shaving his head).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

LT is still crazy. Charisma is not required to take ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, and INtimidate. The only REQUIREMENT is skill points. Charisma is just a MODIFIER. Knowledge in this game is exemplified by ranks, not inbuilt talent.

And when you devolve to posting snide definitions, you know you lost and are just trolling. Eesh. The three skills are uses of skill ranks, modified by Charisma, that's it.

Charisma is social talent, and ranks are social intelligence.

===Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fepriest wrote:

WAIT! I'LL SAVE THE DAY!

I believe the Wizard is WAAAAAAY cooler aesthetically. My reasoning: A Sorcerer's magic is inborn, so it's not really a choice. I mean, yeah, you as a player choose, but the character suddenly wakes up one day and his body is dripping acid, or he's grabbing people and electrocuting them without knowing the "why" of it, necessarily.

You must be someone who never "got" the X-Men then.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

To be honest, X-Men is more like a random roll on the 1E psionics table then sorcery is! :)

==Aelryinth


LazarX wrote:


You must be someone who never "got" the X-Men then.

I see your X-men and raise you a Dr. Strange and a Zatanna. Probably better examples of the innate power sorcerers actually, being actual casters and all :)


Fepriest wrote:

WAIT! I'LL SAVE THE DAY!

I believe the Wizard is WAAAAAAY cooler aesthetically. My reasoning: A Sorcerer's magic is inborn, so it's not really a choice.

This is why I preferred the 3X Sorcerer. It's power was inborn only in the sense that a poet's talent is inborn. A person chooses to be a poet.


LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

I see this error FAR too often. Yes, people making facts and surviving them is a function of intelligence - social intelligence - which, in this game is measured by charisma.

I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.

Shadow Lodge

WPharolin wrote:
LazarX wrote:


You must be someone who never "got" the X-Men then.
I see your X-men and raise you a Dr. Strange and a Zatanna. Probably better examples of the innate power sorcerers actually, being actual casters and all :)

Magick, Witch/Sorceress and Mutant is a great example of a character whose origin could work well for any of the 'big three' arcane classes.


Aelryinth wrote:
LT is still crazy. Charisma is not required to take ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, and INtimidate.

You're still wrong. Something without charisma, cannot take Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. That's because Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate only modify the bonus set by charisma.


J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

I see this error FAR too often. Yes, people making facts and surviving them is a function of intelligence - social intelligence - which, in this game is measured by charisma.

I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.

The wording of a contract is of no consequence if the contract isn't signed by both parties. The game has established (in the example set by Diplomacy) that that is based on charisma.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
LT is still crazy. Charisma is not required to take ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, and INtimidate.
You're still wrong. Something without charisma, cannot take Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. That's because Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate only modify the bonus set by charisma.

Oh, you're talking about things with '-' Cha, aren't you?

Do those even exist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Oh, you're talking about things with '-' Cha, aren't you?

Do those even exist?

Yes.

They're called objects.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh, okay, so only animated objects can't take Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate?

Edit: Whoops, animated objects have 1 Cha. They can't take skills because they have - Int.

I guess we should be saying a Cha bonus is not required to take the skills?


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Oh, okay, so only animated objects can't take Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate?

Edit: Whoops, animated objects have 1 Cha. They can't take skills because they have - Int.

Yeah. All creatures have a Cha score, even if it's incredibly miserable in some cases.


Mathematically, if you add any Integer to NaN you get NaN where NaN means "not a number". So, no object with a Charisma of "-" could possibly have Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. Which means that Charisma is required for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate.


This is hilarious.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Agreed.


LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

I see this error FAR too often. Yes, people making facts and surviving them is a function of intelligence - social intelligence - which, in this game is measured by charisma.

I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.

The wording of a contract is of no consequence if the contract isn't signed by both parties. The game has established (in the example set by Diplomacy) that that is based on charisma.

Because force of personality is the best and only reason to enter into a contract, right?

Nice dodge.


J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

I see this error FAR too often. Yes, people making facts and surviving them is a function of intelligence - social intelligence - which, in this game is measured by charisma.

I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.

The wording of a contract is of no consequence if the contract isn't signed by both parties. The game has established (in the example set by Diplomacy) that that is based on charisma.

Because force of personality is the best and only reason to enter into a contract, right?

Nice dodge.

There's a common misunderstanding in this thread by several posters. That misunderstanding is that if someone says something brilliant, that people will agree with him and it doesn't matter if he's charismatic or not.

And while there are a lot of ways to point out the error in that thinking, the most devastating one is by pointing out all the examples from real world history where that has proven to be false. Frankly, it'd take too much time to do so. Some of them come from the long battle of scientific progress against the status quo - the new theory of stomach ulcers, the solar centric solar system, the round earth, the germ theory of disease, etc. all had substantial scientific support, but only gained wide acceptance when championed by charismatic people.


LilithsThrall wrote:

There's a common misunderstanding in this thread by several posters. That misunderstanding is that if someone says something brilliant, that people will agree with him and it doesn't matter if he's charismatic or not.

And while there are a lot of ways to point out the error in that thinking, the most devastating one is by pointing out all the examples from real world history where that has proven to be false. Frankly, it'd take too much time to do so. Some of them come from the long battle of scientific progress against the status quo - the new theory of stomach ulcers, the solar centric solar system, the round earth, the germ theory of disease, etc. all had substantial scientific support, but only gained wide acceptance when championed by charismatic people.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that force of personality is the best and only reason to enter a contract?

Still dodging.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
Mathematically, if you add any Integer to NaN you get NaN where NaN means "not a number". So, no object with a Charisma of "-" could possibly have Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. Which means that Charisma is required for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate.

Mathematically, if you add up the number of creatures in Pathfinder with a Charisma score of "-", you get Nada, where Nada = Zilch = Zero.

LT has, however, established that Objects are not able to form meaningful social relationships because they lack a Charisma score (unless they're Animated Objects, in which case they have a Charisma score of 1). Therefore, a Chest of Drawers cannot be a Witch.

Well done, sir!


J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

There's a common misunderstanding in this thread by several posters. That misunderstanding is that if someone says something brilliant, that people will agree with him and it doesn't matter if he's charismatic or not.

And while there are a lot of ways to point out the error in that thinking, the most devastating one is by pointing out all the examples from real world history where that has proven to be false. Frankly, it'd take too much time to do so. Some of them come from the long battle of scientific progress against the status quo - the new theory of stomach ulcers, the solar centric solar system, the round earth, the germ theory of disease, etc. all had substantial scientific support, but only gained wide acceptance when championed by charismatic people.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that force of personality is the best and only reason to enter a contract?

Still dodging.

I'm saying that entering a contract requires persuading others to agree with your arguements and this is a factor of your personal magnetism.

That's not a dodge.


DeathMetal4tw wrote:

I'm beginning to have a major preference for sorcerers over wizards, especially in the role playing department. Here's why:

A typical wizard will have a staggering hodgepodge of useful utility, damage, debuffing and other spells. You get so many new spells granted that you can learn large chunks of the classes' spell list.

On the other hand, a sorcerer has so few spells to gain per level that he can sort of collect every spell around a certain theme. For example, a necromancer can make it his goal to collect only death spells and related dark, icky spells like black tentacles, undead anatomy and perhaps magic missiles modified by sickening spell.

On top of that the sorcerer gets awesome flavor abilities based off his bloodline which in many cases are actually pretty damn good.

It's a preference lots of people have. Currently I'm playing a sorcerer in a game where you're allowed to add to your spells known via spell research, and I'm using the human favored class option to get extra spells instead of HP/Skill Points. She's themed as a necromancer who calls herself a witch with a smattering of different spells to mix up her weirdness.

Quote:
I see wizards as more of a minmax class and sorcerers as more of a role playing option, with wizards summoning dire badgers one minute and throwing fireballs the next where a sorcerer can have a more cohesive theme and still function fairly well.

As Treantmonk pointed out, this is not a truth for either class.

Quote:
Anyone agree?

Truthfully I prefer psions over wizards and sorcerers most of the time. While they lack the raw power of both wizards and sorcerers, I find their intuitive spellcasting system and flavor set them up as more suited for being generic spellcasters. Their system revolves around using powers (their spells) from a power point pool (like a personal mana reserve from within) to produce magical effects through their will/spirit/mind. Instead of being born with magical power, they practice hard and spend hours meditating to replenish their reserves, whereas wizards and sorcerers both basically have magic guns. They "fire and forget" and load their slots and then unload them through the day.

Likewise I feel like the whole theme with crystals is closer traditional magics, where crystals have associated magical applications, along with types of wood (such as oak, yew, etc), and other similar things.


LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

There's a common misunderstanding in this thread by several posters. That misunderstanding is that if someone says something brilliant, that people will agree with him and it doesn't matter if he's charismatic or not.

And while there are a lot of ways to point out the error in that thinking, the most devastating one is by pointing out all the examples from real world history where that has proven to be false. Frankly, it'd take too much time to do so. Some of them come from the long battle of scientific progress against the status quo - the new theory of stomach ulcers, the solar centric solar system, the round earth, the germ theory of disease, etc. all had substantial scientific support, but only gained wide acceptance when championed by charismatic people.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that force of personality is the best and only reason to enter a contract?

Still dodging.

I'm saying that entering a contract requires persuading others to agree with your arguements and this is a factor of your personal magnetism.

That's not a dodge.

No, entering into a contract requires persuading the other party that you have something they want, or actually having something they want. You'll note the latter doesn't require any great personal magnetism. I work in a business were nearly everything is done in one year contracts, and believe me when I say that the most socially retarded and uncharismatic people get signed on regularly, because they have something the person offering the contract wants.

And if you have something a patron wants enough to offer you a pact (a soul, first born, championing their cause, the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, et c.) , then that brings us full circle back to my original questions. So if you would like to actually address them now, by all means.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Pact making is influenced by both Int and Cha, and even Wis. However, since almost no one likes having spellcasting depend on more than one stat, a single stat was chosen to determine a witch's spellcasting ability.

You can stop arguing personal views now.

In fact, we can even argue the merits of having all spellcasters determine spells known by Int, bonus spells by Wis, and save DC by Cha, if you feel up to it.


J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


I'm saying that entering a contract requires persuading others to agree with your arguements and this is a factor of your personal magnetism.

That's not a dodge.

No, entering into a contract requires persuading the other party that you have something they want, or actually having something they want. You'll note the latter doesn't require any great personal magnetism. I work in a business were nearly everything is done in one year contracts, and believe me when I say that the most socially retarded and uncharismatic people get signed on regularly, because they have something the person offering the contract wants.

And if you have something a patron wants enough to offer you a pact (a soul, first born, championing their cause, the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, et c.) , then that brings us full circle back to my original questions. So if you would like to actually address them now, by all means.

No, entering into a contract requires agreeing that the other party wants something AND at the agreed upon exchange rate.

Getting the other party to agree to your desired exchange rate is persuading them to agree with your arguments and this is a factor of personal magnetism (charisma) playing out in the bartering process.

151 to 200 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Sorcerer vs. Wizard (Flavor) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.