PCs get upset when the big strong monster does LESS damage then they were expecting?
You're only focusing on half of the statement. If the GM describes to the players that there is a scrawny guy in the corner, but once combat starts, the guy is hitting like a dump truck without any sneak attacks or magical bonuses, then the players have a right to be upset.
I mean, when someone puts on a belt of giant strength, do they suddenly have to get more muscular so that this increase in strength has an outward physical manifestation?
That's magic, and quite the point. If someone looks very weak but is actually very strong, the players should be able to infer that magic is involved. Not creative descriptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perception, if nothing else. It's deceiving and something that many players would be upset about if the GM did likewise to them -- that is, an NPC or monster described as strong looking and yet was far weaker, while a seemingly weak-looking individual was actually very strong.PCs get upset when the big strong monster does LESS damage then they were expecting?
In a setting where wizards tell reality to suck it, I'm thinking any perception issue is probably only a passing issue. I mean, when someone puts on a belt of giant strength, do they suddenly have to get more muscular so that this increase in strength has an outward physical manifestation?
While the stats aren't a full indicator of description, they should at least tie into them somewhat I'd hope.I would agree, that they SHOULD USUALLY do so. I disagree that they MUST ALWAYS do so.
Ha! No, not that they do less damage. But if the GM describes someone as being heavily muscled there are assumptions one might make -- right or wrong -- that can alter what they may do. No, the belt doesn't usually make one look more muscular, although I suppose one could have that as fluff text if they wanted. Still, if the GM describes an enemy as larger, bigger, stronger looking and so on, the players will make assumptions and plan accordingly.
And you are quite correct, it doesn't have to be. But this thread is all about what players do when optimizing and I find that the number that will take a score and then try to spin how it appears disheartening. The number of tiny little girls who can bench press cars saddens me, for example. A trope is fine every once in a while. Every time? No thank you.
That tends to be my entire issue with dropping stats in general -- people enjoy the points they get but try to play down any disadvantage as much as they can. It's human nature, and it is one of the things that can inspire some bad feelings.
Anyway, I've gone off rambling here. Basically my point is that descriptions matter, regardless if wizards can "tell reality to suck it". Once in a while, sure, great. But from the number of "My character can look however with low stats because I want it that way" just isn't my cup of tea. Your mileage may vary, etc etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usually when I have seen people complain about a player trying to get around a poor score it is related to a character with a poor Cha score and the player saying that they are "roleplaying" and so they don't have to roll Cha related skill checks. If you act the situation out, you don't have to roll diplomacy. And the easiest way to handle that is to make it clear that they still have to roll those skill checks. i.e. they don't get to circumvent a mechanical disadvantage.
So the idea that someone describing their character as attractive or strong, but not having a high Cha or Str is a non-issue to me. Now if they said something like, "My character doesn't have to make a Str check to lift that gate because you, the GM, agreed he could look like a body builder.", then maybe that would be trying to circumvent the poor score and the GM in that case should make them roll just as they do for the "roleplayer" above. But as long as they are using the actual mechanics for mechanical issues, I fail to see the real advantage being given.
But NPCs might react to their description! So what? Are we to assume that is always going to be in the PCs favor? Yeah, maybe those two thugs go looking for easier prey, but it is just as likely that four orcs attack the big looking (but actually wimpy) guy while everybody else in the party has to deal with only one each.
She looks pretty and some guy tries to hit on her only to realize that she is "weird" and not in that sexy freaky way but in that going to boil your rabbit and stab you in the eye with a high heel way.
But YMMV.
|
There is nothing wrong with tricking your players. If they assume that the small, weak looking guy in the corner is a rogue when he's really a barbarian wearing a hat of disguise, whose fault is that? For that matter, they could assume the sorcerer on the balcony above them can't fight physically. Truth is, sorcerers can pump out ridiculously high damage with physical attacks. Mere supposition being taken to heart is not the fault of the GM.
PCs get upset when the big strong monster does LESS damage then they were expecting?You're only focusing on half of the statement. If the GM describes to the players that there is a scrawny guy in the corner, but once combat starts, the guy is hitting like a dump truck without any sneak attacks or magical bonuses, then the players have a right to be upset.
there are ways you can be wiry yet still hit pretty darned hard, look at Jet Li, Bruce Lee and Rick Yuen. they all have "Stealth Muscle" slightly framed, but man, do they hit hard
That's magic, and quite the point. If someone looks very weak but is actually very strong, the players should be able to infer that magic is involved. Not creative descriptions.I mean, when someone puts on a belt of giant strength, do they suddenly have to get more muscular so that this increase in strength has an outward physical manifestation?
again, at lot of actors from the Orient have "Stealth Muscle". you wouldn't know they were strong if you neither saw them, met them, nor knew their nationality. but all 3 of them, are slightly framed, and can batter the insides of a guy in full plate with karate chops as if their hands were maces or clubs
i'm not saying they are scrawny or anything, it's just their muscles are really dense for their weight and could easily be concealed by any loose fitting garment to give them the scrawny look while they hit hard.
no magic involved, merely charles atlas superpower
Ha! No, not that they do less damage. But if the GM describes someone as being heavily muscled there are assumptions one might make -- right or wrong -- that can alter what they may do. No, the belt doesn't usually make one look more muscular, although I suppose one could have that as fluff text if they wanted. Still, if the GM describes an enemy as larger, bigger, stronger looking and so on, the players will make assumptions and plan accordingly.
And you are quite correct, it doesn't have to be. But this thread is all about what players do when optimizing and I find that the number that will take a score and then try to spin how it appears disheartening. The number of tiny little girls who can bench press cars saddens me, for example. A trope is fine every once in a while. Every time? No thank you.
That tends to be my entire issue with dropping stats in general -- people enjoy the points they get but try to play down any disadvantage as much as they can. It's human nature, and it is one of the things that can inspire some bad feelings.
Anyway, I've gone off rambling here. Basically my point is that descriptions matter, regardless if wizards can "tell reality to suck it". Once in a while, sure, great. But from the number of "My character can look however with low stats because I want it that way" just isn't my cup of tea. Your mileage may vary, etc etc.
a character can look pretty with a low charisma, until some guy hits on her and finds her weird. but not in the "Sexy Kinky Weird" but in the, "i need to puke kinda weird". watching the creepy kuthite inquisitor lady talk about how she wants to "bathe herself in your innards after she slowly skins you alive with a fishhook" i'm sure would freak out the people in the tavern
a 'tiny little girl' can be pretty darn strong, as long as tiny doesn't mean scrawny. the same stealth muscle techniques used by a lot of chinese actors could be practiced by anyone really.
there are literally thousands, if not millions of ways, one could build there muscles to accomodate their desired appearance. the big hulking body builders with the huge bulky muscles, they literally tailor their diet and excercise methods to maximizing the bulk of their muscles to show off.
i had a female Suli Oracle with a high charisma whom everybody assumed was a badly battle scarred, highly scary and psychopathic, and highly repulsive male.
There is nothing wrong with tricking your players. If they assume that the small, weak looking guy in the corner is a rogue when he's really a barbarian wearing a hat of disguise, whose fault is that? For that matter, they could assume the sorcerer on the balcony above them can't fight physically. Truth is, sorcerers can pump out ridiculously high damage with physical attacks. Mere supposition being taken to heart is not the fault of the GM.
players should have that right as well, even without a hat of disguise
whose to say that wiry male in brigandine with the glaive and longbow is a ranger?
it could just as easily be a barbarian in the western version of kikko armor
the key is, don't say "the wiry man in brigandine rages"
say, "the wiry male in brigandine licks his lips with a look of bloodthirst and glances at the possible wizard with an intent to kill deep within his eyes as he enters a form of warrior's trance. he then charges the scrawny male in the back, the one clad in robes, and lets out a flurry of slashes with his glaive."
if the group or DM doesn't like this reskinned barbarian, point out, anyone with a lick of time to design their character could do something similar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this isn't about tricking players or playing word games. Bruce Lee, in the above example, doesn't look like someone with a 5 strength. If a player told me that they looked like Bruce but had a 5 strength, I'd probably have to have a long conversation with them.
The equivalent to what some (note the word some? Good, keep that in mind before you say "but not me!!!!11") players want to do is to have your GM describing a huge ancient red dragon as a young one with no real way to determine the truth. This isn't the dragon using some magic item or spell, this is just a blatant misrepresentation.
And people do that. Note the not all above before you protest. There are some players that utterly ignore the dump stat. They are as smart as a whip all the time. As wise, as charismatic, as skilled, as whatever as they want to be the sheet be darned.
And if that is how your table wants to play then good on you. But not everyone believes that way. Some may find it tantamount to cheating -- you aren't that Charismatic, you aren't a tactical wiz, etc. If that is what you want to be, that is why there are stats. Saying that you dumped strength but still look uber buff so that you can maybe spin that for intimidation purposes borders -- no, dives right into -- a gray area for many players and GMs.
tl;dr: Your character is not divorced from the sheet. At least at my table, if you start telling me how much of a great leader you are without any backing you'll be out of luck, just as if you tell me that in that complex background you wrote up you have a magic sword that totally isn't on your sheet but you have it won't work. And yes, that's been tried before sadly.
Sorry, just seeing a lot of work at justifying these low stats. If you wanted to dump them to be better at something, embrace it and move on. You don't have to try to hard sell that your character is still average when they clearly aren't. If you don't want to be sub par, then don't be sub-par.
This, for me, is one of those red flags that Vincent often talks about, the ones where I have to disengage myself from the table. Because if you tell me that your Intelligence 5 fighter is really really smart he just can't express any of it and his skill list includes 'drool' and that's it, I've walked into the wrong game.
well, i do tie a lot of a character's appearance to their physical scores and though i use some words that may indicate a positive appearance, but usually, the appearance is based upon my own standard which is different from most other standards
now, i have played little girls whom can bench press cars before, but they usually have some form of wiry, lean, stealth muscle and often wear baggy outfits
but expect my weak characters to look something akin to either petite, scrawny and/or vulnerable, whether childlike, elderly, or simply scrawny
for charisma, all my bonuses or flaws are usually personality based, plus i base such factors on charisma as impression, presentation, confidence, and pride, in place of appearance, but in addition to the other factors
the higher charisma one of my PCs possesses, the prouder and more confident you should expect them to be, and the more caring of presentation and impression you should expect them to be
usually my low charisma characters i more often play, have a variety of anime inspired personality flaws, ranging from indecisiveness and rapid mood swings (tsundere), to obsession with detail, shyness and being easily embarrassed, the reverse in the form of shamelessness, extremely irritable personalities, being highly demanding, often accompanied by a high intimidate skill, being creepy or wierd to the point of making other wretch, low self esteem, being blunt, honest, and straightforward to the point it is considered rude, offensive, and bad enough to frustrate the king when you don't bother to sugarcoat his mistakes in front of his daughter, or simply being very petty and vindictive
I prefer to design characters who have a principle functioning strength during adventures (e.g. their role!) but who also have a breadth of function too (i.e. they can do other stuff). This is generally dictated by a role-playing consideration (the character!) and not so much a rules one.
I find my characters hold their own during adventures, and also contribute during down time (unlike the characters who dumped charisma) and all in (and this is the most important bit) I am almost always doing something positive during a gaming session.
Min-Max if you want, but in our games, you'll find a breadth of approach tends to pay off more.
characters whom dumped charisma can still have passable results in the social skills they desire to utilize if they invest the skill ranks. it merely takes more effort
the characters whom can't contribute in downtime, didn't simply dump charisma, they simply dumped both intelligence and charisma on a skill starved martial class for an extra point or two of damage.
i often have a dump stat or two, depending on how they go together, and charisma is a common choice for most martial builds, but i usually put the excess points in intelligence or wisdom on a martial character to afford enough skill points to have a passable social skill that scales rather than one that starts decent but doesn't scale
but i never dump intelligence, and a constitution dump is only used in certain highly specific builds that also dump strength and only in highly specific cases
in fact, intelligence investment allows me to work around some of the drawbacks of a low charisma. though usually not all. it helps me focus the aspects i want with wise trait selection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with knightnday that if a player is going to give their character a very (yes... a 7 is considered) hampering weakness, then it should be played up by the player. A 7 Int, you don't have to be a drooling vegetable, but are you going to understand any complex concepts? No.... probably not.
I don't necessarily hate "optimization" (in the sense of trying to find a good solid mechanically built character that matches a concept) but I do hate the min-max thing, and the concept of "dipping". Anytime I see people posting builds like this (Wiz 3/Ninja 4/Fighter 4/Monk 2) makes me want to cry... It makes me long for the day of hefty penalties to over multi-classing.
I'm more of a rounded character guy. Sure perhaps my character with a primary stat of 16 isn't going to be tearing down baddies left and right, but he/she doesn't have a glaring weakness that is just begging to be exploited by the DM. That's my thing, if you are going to give you character that strong weakness, be prepared for it to hamper your character severely, especially for those folks who go the route of taking a 5 stat... But that's just my personal player/GM style preference.
|
|
Let us not forget how easy it is to negate weaknesses through the use of magic items. My dwarf barbarian's CHA was drained down to a 5 to accommodate as much holycrapbroken as possible on a 20 point buy system. Solution? There is an extremely inexpensive head slot item (let's face it, what else is a barbarian going to do with its head slot?) that completely negates the penalty. You could go a step further and acquire a headband of mental prowess (WIS + CHA) to further buff that up. You've got even more incentive 'cause hey, more will saves! The same basic principle applies to any stat you dump. It's extremely easy to fix them. Sure, it might cost a few thousand gold, but that's usually just a drop in the pond.
If someone wants to make Baron Herp von Hugenderp with an int of five (dumping INT is a bad idea no matter what you can do to help curb the negatives, obviously), their character may well wind up having above average intelligence a few levels in. In any case, the end result is that Pathfinder has made it very easy to create characters that excel at quite literally everything. That barbarian I mentioned? It's a super strong, super tough, super fast, super intelligent, wise and oddly charismatic little engine of destruction at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us not forget how easy it is to negate weaknesses through the use of magic items. My dwarf barbarian's CHA was drained down to a 5 to accommodate as much holycrapbroken as possible on a 20 point buy system. Solution? There is an extremely inexpensive head slot item (let's face it, what else is a barbarian going to do with its head slot?) that completely negates the penalty. You could go a step further and acquire a headband of mental prowess (WIS + CHA) to further buff that up. You've got even more incentive 'cause hey, more will saves! The same basic principle applies to any stat you dump. It's extremely easy to fix them. Sure, it might cost a few thousand gold, but that's usually just a drop in the pond.
If someone wants to make Baron Herp von Hugenderp with an int of five (dumping INT is a bad idea no matter what you can do to help curb the negatives, obviously), their character may well wind up having above average intelligence a few levels in. In any case, the end result is that Pathfinder has made it very easy to create characters that excel at quite literally everything. That barbarian I mentioned? It's a super strong, super tough, super fast, super intelligent, wise and oddly charismatic little engine of destruction at this point.
Which is where the optimization argument always interests me, especially on the builds I see on the boards. They all make the assumption that these items will just be sitting on a shelf waiting to be scooped up or that there will be plentiful amounts of them for the intrepid adventurer.
While I've heard the usual arguments that the game presumes that you might have X and Y items as you advance, there are some GMs out there that don't have the Magic Mart in every town and chuckle at the 75% chance that the item of your dreams is available. It's always good to find out where your GM stands on these things before making the good Baron. There are even some GMs that frown on making things "as much holycrapbroken as possible on a 20 point buy system".
I know, I know, but they do exist. And that's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? There are those of us that don't really like that sort of thing and really don't like it being presumed to be the norm. Thankfully there are tables for all of us, and many of us get to play in the style we prefer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I simply disallow dropping any stat below 10 during character creation when we play with point buy.
If a player really wants to dump the stat, I will warn them that it will have consequences. Sometimes severe, and that if he doesn't roleplay that stat well, we will have words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I simply disallow dropping any stat below 10 during character creation when we play with point buy.
If a player really wants to dump the stat, I will warn them that it will have consequences. Sometimes severe, and that if he doesn't roleplay that stat well, we will have words.
Boom. I would love to see more of this. It's nice to see more folks like this here!
I think some people in this thread must have an apoplexy when the skinny old Chinese man starts ripping into the young, muscular thugs stepping on his turf.
I'm not as shy about it as 137ben. I think it is very silly to lock out whole character concepts for no adequately explained reason.
By not allowing variations in a stat, you lock out many real world characters. A character cannot be attractive without being a commanding presence...which is blatantly untrue. Stop that.
I think some people in this thread must have an apoplexy when the skinny old Chinese man starts ripping into the young, muscular thugs stepping on his turf.
I'm not as shy about it as 137ben. I think it is very silly to lock out whole character concepts for no adequately explained reason.
By not allowing variations in a stat, you lock out many real world characters. A character cannot be attractive without being a commanding presence...which is blatantly untrue. Stop that.
The skinny old Chinese man who probably has greater skill than the young thugs, if we're going by every movie and show? But then, I doubt he was dumping stats at his old age nor hiding his physique in some attempt to spin how he is deceptively strong. As an aside, the people that are saying that Bruce Lee was deceptively strong may never have seen pictures of him with his shirt off. He looks like someone who could rip your arm off.
As far as attractiveness goes .. meh. Be good looking with your 5 Charisma if it thrills you. We've been dabbling with Comeliness again at our table, and I'm less worried that someone's stunning good looks will override that 5. But using that as some sort of measuring stick to say "Well you can LOOK strong but not be ..." I've seen far less real world examples of that. The body builders that often get brought up as an example would not be high on my list of people that have lower than average stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some players that utterly ignore the dump stat. They are as smart as a whip all the time. As wise, as charismatic, as skilled, as whatever as they want to be the sheet be darned.
And if that is how your table wants to play then good on you. But not everyone believes that way. Some may find it tantamount to cheating -- you aren't that Charismatic, you aren't a tactical wiz, etc. If that is what you want to be, that is why there are stats. Saying that you dumped strength but still look uber buff so that you can maybe spin that for intimidation purposes borders -- no, dives right into -- a gray area for many players and GMs.
And when the GM asks them to make a skill check appropriate for their actions and they fail miserably because their stat is really bad, where is the "cheating" occurring? Sounds like some GMs that are just too lazy to actually have the players roll appropriate skill checks to me.
I mean an uber buff guy doesn't have to roll intimidate? Seriously, I want to play in that game. I get to buff up my strength and not have to worry about how bad my Cha is or if I spent points in the intimidate skill? That sounds like a group that is getting around stat weaknesses, not the one where someone describes their guy as big looking but is really weak (never heard of that one in RL? never met a big guy that hurt his back before I take it).
And when the GM asks them to make a skill check appropriate for their actions and they fail miserably because their stat is really bad, where is the "cheating" occurring? Sounds like some GMs that are just too lazy to actually have the players roll appropriate skill checks to me.
Its about the world being internally consistent. We're all sitting around the table trying to create a collaborative story. We're all trying to imagine in our heads what the PCs, NPCs, settings, etc. look like. Having 5 strength bodybuilder types ruins that immersion into the fantasy world. And for me, saying "oh, the description they gave doesn't matter, they'e going to get a penalty to the stats" is tantamount to saying that roleplaying isn't important.
I mean an uber buff guy doesn't have to roll intimidate? Seriously, I want to play in that game. I get to buff up my strength and not have to worry about how bad my Cha is or if I spent points in the intimidate skill? That sounds like a group that is getting around stat weaknesses, not the one where someone describes their guy as big looking but is really weak (never heard of that one in RL? never met a big guy that hurt his back before I take it).
What skill would a beauty contest fall under? Let's say a PC and 2 NPCs are being rated on their beauty by a group of NPCs. The contestants don't speak, act, or anything. They simply stand there.
Would you say "make a charisma check"? If so, then the PC that described their 5 charisma character as "really cute" is getting a penalty. Which means that they are objectively NOT "really cute".
This is similar to a character's backstory. If you ask for backstories from level 1 characters, and one of the players brings you a story full of slaying dragons, do you accept it? Sure, I mean, it doesn't affect any mechanical rolls right? It's just backstory so you just disregard it right?
Then what's the point of a backstory?
If a player really wants to dump the stat, I will warn them that it will have consequences. Sometimes severe, and that if he doesn't roleplay that stat well, we will have words.Boom. I would love to see more of this. It's nice to see more folks like this here!
Agreed. Every now and again I think "these kids have gone and ruined table top gaming" in an incredibly melodramatic moment of frustration. It's good to see that that is not always the case.
By not allowing variations in a stat, you lock out many real world characters. A character cannot be attractive without being a commanding presence...which is blatantly untrue. Stop that.
I don’t see anyone saying that. For example, I said that a character could be RPed as attractive and only have a CHA of 10 or even 9. A 10 is not ‘commanding”, in fact it’s ‘wallflower’ level. That’s why stats like CHA have four factors: “personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.” If you have a score 8-16, you can RP these factors around to a reasonable extent. But when you have a super extreme stat like 5 or 20 then you should have those factors somewhat is line with your score. So, if you are super humanly beautiful, you will certainly turn heads and be a presence. Of course if you have no ranks in diplomacy the Joe Pesci guy may well be able to out-talk you.
The game allows for all that. But still, if you have a Str of 5, there’s only so much you can lift, in both a FRP and IRL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What skill would a beauty contest fall under? Let's say a PC and 2 NPCs are being rated on their beauty by a group of NPCs. The contestants don't speak, act, or anything. They simply stand there.
Would you say "make a charisma check"? If so, then the PC that described their 5 charisma character as "really cute" is getting a penalty. Which means that they are objectively NOT "really cute".
First thing, most such contests do include talking, walking, acting and posing. But even if not, then they smile, make eye contact, and stand with confidence.
But a 5 charisma character can’t be ‘really cute”, IMHO. It’s simply wrong to do so. The thing is- you assign the numbers, almost always. If you want a ‘really cute” PC, then put a decent score in CHA.
First thing, most such contests do include talking, walking, acting and posing. But even if not, then they smile, make eye contact, and stand with confidence.
Agreed - as I've been trying to explain why I think a low charisma character can't be beautiful, other posters have been trying to change the parameters of the issue with other mechanical factors. So I was being extra careful to highlight a situation that would measure a character's attractiveness alone.
But a 5 charisma character can’t be ‘really cute”, IMHO. It’s simply wrong to do so. The thing is- you assign the numbers, almost always. If you want a ‘really cute” PC, then put a decent score in CHA
Agreed.
What skill would a beauty contest fall under? Let's say a PC and 2 NPCs are being rated on their beauty by a group of NPCs. The contestants don't speak, act, or anything. They simply stand there.
Would you say "make a charisma check"? If so, then the PC that described their 5 charisma character as "really cute" is getting a penalty. Which means that they are objectively NOT "really cute".
Wait, you call for a Cha but already have determined the outcome before the roll is made? I mean you could have someone with a Cha 5 (-3 mod) and someone else a Cha 17 (+3 mod) and if the first rolls a 20 (total of 17) and the second rolls a 1 (total of 4), the first would be marked as hot and the second as fugly.
And as DrDeth points out, there are none verbal cues that can give off impressions besides just the physical attractiveness of the body itself. I have seen women (and men, but I am not as good of judge of attractiveness in them) that have a worse body that come off as hotter because they got the 'tude to do it. Whereas someone with a better body might come off as bit repulsive because of how they are holding themselves.
This is similar to a character's backstory. If you ask for backstories from level 1 characters, and one of the players brings you a story full of slaying dragons, do you accept it? Sure, I mean, it doesn't affect any mechanical rolls right? It's just backstory so you just disregard it right?
Then what's the point of a backstory?
I actually agree on some level that the backstory is actually pretty irrelevant. It is fluff. I don't think someone is a worse roleplayer because they didn't write a 10 page story about their 1st level character.
In fact I would suggest requiring such a thing of 1st level characters is only going to lead to silly situations like you describe. We are basically talking about newbs/greenhorns. They have no adventures to describe, because they haven't had any yet (see 0 xp).
Sure covering things like where are you from, where did you learn your trade, family, etc might be relevant, but asking about prior experience when the characters don't have any, is silly in the first place and a GM should probably be embarrassed for asking about it.
EDIT: Now if the player wants the character to go around telling people about their so-called adventures (and making bluff checks along the way), I see no problem with that. But if they say they don't have to make knowledge checks about dragons because they were a dragon slayer, sorry, you want to get mechanical info, you got to a mechanic check. Use the rules as written. Don't complain that things don't work just because you are not using the RAW.
Wait, you call for a Cha but already have determined the outcome before the roll is made?
No - I'm asking you how YOU handle it. You're implying that the person with the higher charisma score simply wins without a roll, correct? So therefore, higher charisma = more attractive?
I actually agree on some level that the backstory is actually pretty irrelevant. It is fluff. I don't think someone is a worse roleplayer because they didn't write a 10 page story about their 1st level character.
"Fluff" is the bread and butter of roleplaying.
No - I'm asking you how YOU handle it.
I have no problem with the GM calling for a Cha check. Because what wins the contest probably isn't based solely on how one looks, but things like bearing and attitude, which Cha measures as well.
You're implying that the person with the higher charisma score simply wins without a roll, correct?
Incorrect, that is what YOU appear to be implying.
If so, then the PC that described their 5 charisma character as "really cute" is getting a penalty. Which means that they are objectively NOT "really cute".
Having a penalty and not being "really cute" are not the same thing if you call for a Cha check. The result of that check tells you if objectively the character as viewed as "really cute" or not. You are making the objective determination prior to the roll being rolled based solely on the modifier, or at least that is how it sounds to me.
So therefore, higher charisma = more attractive?
Higher Cha CHECK, absolutely. But attractiveness is not based solely on appearances.
"Fluff" is the bread and butter of roleplaying.
Perhaps, but the actual interaction between players and their characters is the meat and potatoes of roleplaying. And between the two, the interaction is more substantial.
Let's turn this around. Could someone describe their character as not very personable, having no significant magnetism, totally a follower (all hallmarks of a low Cha score wouldn't you agree) but being drop dead hot (indicative of a high Cha) and having a high Cha? Would having only one of features be significant be enough to justify having the high Cha? Because that seems to be what you are arguing by saying if you want your character to be attractive despite being a total beta-(fe)male, then you have to have a high Cha.
What if they are only missing one, think about all those guys that aren't that hot to look at (Clinton anyone), but due to total attitude and bearing, the chicks dig. Would you say they would have a high Cha score, or does the lack of one feature limit it? Where is the line? Could someone have an average Cha score (say 10) and have some of those traits be really good and others suck horribly?
Role play should be FUN.
FORCING a negative role play attribute onto someone over a few points of stat difference is NOT FUN and BAD GMing. If a character has a negative modifier let them identify it any way they wish. The game will attend to the crunchy parts all on its own.
I also like to point out the total hypocrisy of the "punish low stats via forced negative role play" crowd. Note they never FORCE you to play high stats do they? Why? Because they know you wouldn't be able to. So why force negative role play on someone and not positive? Because they aren't interested in Role Play at all they just want to make the game unfun for you.
I don’t see anyone saying that.
Then you've ignored every single one of Tormskull's posts.
For example, I said that a character could be RPed as attractive and only have a CHA of 10 or even 9. A 10 is not ‘commanding”, in fact it’s ‘wallflower’ level. That’s why stats like CHA have four factors: “personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.” If you have a score 8-16, you can RP these factors around to a reasonable extent. But when you have a super extreme stat like 5 or 20 then you should have those factors somewhat is line with your score. So, if you are super humanly beautiful, you will certainly turn heads and be a presence. Of course if you have no ranks in diplomacy the Joe Pesci guy may well be able to out-talk you.
The game allows for all that. But still, if you have a Str of 5, there’s only so much you can lift, in both a FRP and IRL.
Yes, MOST of those factors should be in line with your score.
I disagree with the idea that a stat always, without exception, affects ALL of the factors it says it may govern.
Mostly mental stats here, because they're a bit more nebulously defined. Intelligence IRL is really just your ability to retain knowledge, and how quickly you learn new concepts. It means more than that in-game, and having the stat entirely govern every aspect of that leads to scenarios where your extremely intelligent person hasn't retained any useful information (no ranks in Knowledges) and your drooling idiot has a PHD in Russian Literature, speaks 16 languages, and can describe in great detail the anatomy of an entire classification of fantastic creatures.
The line is a bit blurred with mental stats. Let it be blurry. Hyper defining it hurts much more than it helps.
A guy with 5 Int should be able top be played as an idiot savant, which Tormskull's interpretation of what stats govern makes impossible. Ditto the attractive ditz and the highly perceptive, but super reckless character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some players that utterly ignore the dump stat. They are as smart as a whip all the time. As wise, as charismatic, as skilled, as whatever as they want to be the sheet be darned.
And if that is how your table wants to play then good on you. But not everyone believes that way. Some may find it tantamount to cheating -- you aren't that Charismatic, you aren't a tactical wiz, etc. If that is what you want to be, that is why there are stats. Saying that you dumped strength but still look uber buff so that you can maybe spin that for intimidation purposes borders -- no, dives right into -- a gray area for many players and GMs.
And when the GM asks them to make a skill check appropriate for their actions and they fail miserably because their stat is really bad, where is the "cheating" occurring? Sounds like some GMs that are just too lazy to actually have the players roll appropriate skill checks to me.
I mean an uber buff guy doesn't have to roll intimidate? Seriously, I want to play in that game. I get to buff up my strength and not have to worry about how bad my Cha is or if I spent points in the intimidate skill? That sounds like a group that is getting around stat weaknesses, not the one where someone describes their guy as big looking but is really weak (never heard of that one in RL? never met a big guy that hurt his back before I take it).
Ah, turning it into an attack on the GM instead? The quote unquote cheating -- and it may be in the minds of some, granted -- occurs by misrepresentation. One could say that the player is equally lazy in representing their character properly,and I doubt either comment would be correct.
As for a real life large guy who hurt his back, I'd say that their strength is limited by the accident, sure. But in game, when that can be taken care of by magic, I'm less likely to believe it for a character reason.
Role play should be FUN.
FORCING a negative role play attribute onto someone over a few points of stat difference is NOT FUN and BAD GMing. If a character has a negative modifier let them identify it any way they wish. The game will attend to the crunchy parts all on its own.
I also like to point out the total hypocrisy of the "punish low stats via forced negative role play" crowd. Note they never FORCE you to play high stats do they? Why? Because they know you wouldn't be able to. So why force negative role play on someone and not positive? Because they aren't interested in Role Play at all they just want to make the game unfun for you.
I find this interesting, given the thread that we're in. Define fun for me. Define bad GMing.
What is fun for you is not always fun for others. For some, having a person play a hyper optimized pile of stats that has to jump through hoops of rationalization to be an idiot savant cutie with no common sense for that extra few plusses in combat is offensive.
One might even say that it makes the game unfun for that GM, or players at the table who have to deal with Mr. Optimization. One could even accuse them of being less interested in role play at all.
As for your earlier assertion that no one forces problems with high stats, well I've had first hand sightings that would prove that untrue. Super pretty/charismatic characters that are swamped in suitors, for example? Where I've seen it most obviously is almost always centered around Charisma and the downside that being that Charismatic can bring.
But yes, the game should be fun. For everyone involved, not just one person.
|
|
Role play should be FUN.
FORCING a negative role play attribute onto someone over a few points of stat difference is NOT FUN and BAD GMing. If a character has a negative modifier let them identify it any way they wish. The game will attend to the crunchy parts all on its own.
I also like to point out the total hypocrisy of the "punish low stats via forced negative role play" crowd. Note they never FORCE you to play high stats do they? Why? Because they know you wouldn't be able to. So why force negative role play on someone and not positive? Because they aren't interested in Role Play at all they just want to make the game unfun for you.
I also force my players to roleplay high stats as well. Intelligent characters have better vocabularies, high wis character notice things others don't etc...I work with them on it too.
Holy balls I forgot about this thread since I don't usually visit other sections of the site. This has been quite the conversation.
Hama, how do you expect someone to not play high intelligence just because they might not want to be a walking dictionary irl? That sort of forced roleplay detracts from the fantasy. It goes with DMs who expect me to articulate exactly how I'm using diplomacy or bluff on a character with almost godlike charisma as is. It breeds an expectation that if you can't be irl proficient with a topic then you can't roll certain classes. Did I miss your point or is this what you're talking about?
To a couple comments that a 22 save should be cake at level 10 I'd ask how.
7 (base high save) + 5 (assuming 20 ability score) + 2 (cloak of resistance) = 14. You need an 8 on your good save. Likely to win but not near cake territory which I take to being 2 or 3 maybe 4 on the d20 roll. This assumes a balanced expenditure of WBL. On a weak save you'd likely need a 12 or so. Others will be easier depending on racial bonuses to certain things and buffs but you're far from being wholly carefree.
To a couple comments that a 22 save should be cake at level 10 I'd ask how.
7 (base high save) + 5 (assuming 20 ability score) + 2 (cloak of resistance) = 14. You need an 8 on your good save. Likely to win but not near cake territory which I take to being 2 or 3 maybe 4 on the d20 roll. This assumes a balanced expenditure of WBL. On a weak save you'd likely need a 12 or so. Others will be easier depending on racial bonuses to certain things and buffs but you're far from being wholly carefree.
Depends -- Human Fighters have the hardest time buffing their save throws (rogues are right behind them) but everyone else typically has some extra perks to throw down as well.
Paladins have their charisma bonus added giving 3~4 more.
Dwarves have their bonus and then can take a feat to boost it more giving 2~4.
Iron will gives +2 to everyone.
Halflings and half orcs have a luck bonus to give +1
Barbarians have superstitious.
Clerics are going to have wonderful will saves as are druids, and inquisitors aren't going to be shabby either, thanks to everything wisdom helps them with.
The array of options there is always impressive to see but you only get one or two of them and then you gain circumstantial bonuses... circumstantially. They matter, yes, but you're not running a party of all dwarven paladins with the iron will, lighting reflexes, and great fortitude feats either. To simply hand wave that you have your ideal save at hand is missing so many other scenarios when you're actually more likely to only have a couple bonuses at any given moment. The overall cockiness level needs to come down a touch is all I'm getting at.
Just pointing out that the 14 was low as it didn't even include iron will. By 10 I generally want a +3 cloak honestly, and again if you aren't a human fighter then you are probably going to have 2~3 better on your bonus than the human fighter would (also you could easily have a trait for +1 on will save as well.
I don't think your base numbers are too far off, but including iron will and a trait you'll be at +17, and with the cloak 1 better you would have +18... which isn't anything to sneeze at.
Is it 'ideal'? No. But if the human fighter can manage that then just about everyone else can do better on will saves.
I fully agree it is unlikely to have a rage domain paladin dwarf with superstitions and iron soul. But even so there is enough to get to 20ish without too much issue.
|
The more I play, the more I hate the feeling as if I have to optimize my characters. If I don't, I question whether or not I'm really contributing to the group. If I force myself not to, I get questions like "that's all?" when I mention a save DC or get frustrated because I can't land attacks or my spells get saved against often. It's infuriating and deflating, honestly. When I do it, and I can do it well, my characters are capable but often shallow in build.
Does anyone else feel the same? Is there a balance between the worlds?
Play 1e pre-Unearthed Arcana. Perfect for what you seem to want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+3 cloaks are 9k. At level 10, the even split distribution for all armor and protective items (including magic ones) is only around 15,000gp. You're sacrificing elsewhere. Probably AC or disposables. On your weaker saves you're likely to only have a 12 - 16 score in it if anything at all depending on build as well making that weak d20 roll more of a 15 or so.
This is part of the reason I say I hate optimization. Instead of relying on your teammates and playing to group strengths, as you build a character you're often thinking of "what can I do?" The mere idea of fighting defensively, drinking potions, aid another for AC/atk, or just using terrain and position advantage, etc are often after thoughts or "oh yeah" moments in the middle of play. The urge seemingly is to reach some nigh impervious state of being at very early levels.
I know what is possible with the rules. I have min/maxed characters. This thread is about how I've come to loathe such play as it comes across so shallow. You have this super awesome build, yes, but it will inherently lock you in to a style of play. I like looking at my sheet and realizing some off the wall piece of gear is perfect for an out of the box scenario because I opted to not buy a magical trinket instead. Or, knowing I have some favors in pocket because I did a service for a local organization that was way off the campaign rails. That could be more of a result of the campaigns I play or the people I play with but that's my experience so far.
as i said, what a character looks like, the character's physical build and their base cosmetic features, should be based upon their physical scores.
Charisma is Confidence, Presentation, Impression, Deceptiveness, Charm, and Subtlety of Wording. all of which are other aspects of a character's 'appearance'
an example of a cosmetically cute anime character with a 5 charisma
This is part of the reason I say I hate optimization. Instead of relying on your teammates and playing to group strengths, as you build a character you're often thinking of "what can I do?"
I think there is a better explanation of this: when thinking about a character, you don't always know what the rest of the party will look like. This is especially true for PFS, where you don't play with a consistent party. When building a character, you don't rely on having a bard in the party inspiring courage. If you do have a bard in the party, you'll happily take the bonus. But you don't build your character to require it. It's a decent heuristic: four characters who are all effective individually will likely make a strong team.
I don't play PFS. I've tried. It's just not for me. If that's how that world operates so be it.
I don't play PFS either, but it is a factor in how people on these forums talk about characters.
That's true.
Truthfully I don't try to cover everything the group needs. I do ask what can I do -- but I realize that also means what I cannot do, and what I can do poorly or at great expense.
I optimize to do two things:
1. Fully handle my role, and be able to support other roles. I have no illusions about handling those secondary roles nearly as well as whoever is primary, but I find that if there are roles no one fills, but everyone can support that role having a party of second placers in that role works almost as well as having one person fill the role.
2. Not be a drag on the party's resources. That means I shouldn't need rescued and bailed out all the time. Part of this is play style (if I'm not suited to the frontlines of combat I try to not be on the frontlines without good reason -- of course what you try for and what happens aren't always the same).
Maybe its my service, I don't mind helping or carrying a battle buddy -- but I expect my battle buddies to be ready and able to do the same for me if needed.
+3 cloaks are 9k. At level 10, the even split distribution for all armor and protective items (including magic ones) is only around 15,000gp. You're sacrificing elsewhere. Probably AC or disposables. On your weaker saves you're likely to only have a 12 - 16 score in it if anything at all depending on build as well making that weak d20 roll more of a 15 or so.
Agreed. I will be sacrificing somewhere. Generally I'll let reflex lag a bit as usually it doesn't hurt quite as much since there is usually some resistance that helps lessen the effects of a failed reflex save (of course not always), and depending on the character I'll take hits on different areas.
If I'm the 'fighter' (barbarian whatever) I'll generally let a bit go on offense being perfectly content with a 'simple' magical weapon (+2 or if I've had good luck +3) and rely on my feats, class features, and such. Defense (AC and save throws) can often also be covered to some extent the same way. While not every character can use crane style to give a +6 to AC for a -1 to hit or a shield, or any of the other options available most can use a bit of it.
If I'm the 'wizard' (or a primary spellcaster of some flavor) I'll generally give up more on offense since I shouldn't be swinging a stick anyways.
Realizing that this is a 'standard' for a 'standard' game with the 'standard' rules. It is a generalization. Not a declaration of what must be in order for me to be happy.
As always what happens at the table may vary.
The two areas I try not to shun is will saves and fort saves. Generally 9k on the cloak will handle what I need money wise, leaving about 18k for weapons, 12k for defense (+2 armor, +2 shield, +1 ring, +1 amulet) and 23k (14k after my cloak) for other stuff, like a belt, headband and 'stuff'. Worse comes to worse having a +2 weapon saves 10k and is still potent enough for a frontliner at 10th level.
Of course this is a generalization -- not a declaration of what I must have or not have. It is a 'standard' look I go for on a 'standard' build for a 'standard' game following the 'standard' rules -- what happens at the table may of course vary based on the type of game, number of players, and many other factors including (and especially) character concept.
Pathfinder has had plenty of Ugly Monsters with high Charisma and Plenty of Cosmetically Attractive NPCs with a low charisma.
the night hag is a popular example of the former and Amiri the iconic barbarian, and example of the latter.
I don’t see anyone saying that.
Then you've ignored every single one of Tormskull's posts.
No, no- quite the opposite. I have actually read them.
Play 1e pre-Unearthed Arcana. Perfect for what you seem to want.The more I play, the more I hate the feeling as if I have to optimize my characters. If I don't, I question whether or not I'm really contributing to the group. If I force myself not to, I get questions like "that's all?" when I mention a save DC or get frustrated because I can't land attacks or my spells get saved against often. It's infuriating and deflating, honestly. When I do it, and I can do it well, my characters are capable but often shallow in build.
Does anyone else feel the same? Is there a balance between the worlds?
Or do what I do- play PF with Roleplayers, not Optimizers. Actually, that works with just about every Roleplaying game. There were Optimizers in OD&D, there will be Roleplayers in Next. The Edition doesn't matter, it's the players and the DM. The rules only help or hinder, they can't make you into a roleplayer or stop you from optimizing- or the other way around.
And yes- Stormwind or no- few players do both well. More do both poorly.
No, no- quite the opposite. I have actually read them.
I don’t see anyone saying that.
Then you've ignored every single one of Tormskull's posts.
I don't see how that's possible when he's directly stated what I've said on multiple occasions.
Stating a stat must represent all aspects of what its description says results in exactly what I said: All people who are attractive must have commanding presences, and vice versa (ugly people never have a naturally commanding presence).