|
I have a problem with players who just say that my character pre-plans elaborate battle tactics and can direct armies because he's an 'instinctual general' so he ignores his 7 int. To me this is ignoring a low ability score not RPing it.General Custer was actually a highly intelligent person who used an intelligence-based series of tactics based on the best information he had.
For those with low intelligence? The Mongols are probably a pretty good example of how low intelligence can combine with high wisdom to produce an unstoppable army. It's really hard to narrow it down to any specific leader; it seems they pretty much has this as their hat for a few centuries.
Wait, what? Mongols with low intelligence? Why is that? They are some crossbreed between neanderthal and homo-sapiens in your opinion? I think not. The Mongols used complex military organization that confused to no end their enemies. Many times they bested armies that were 3, four times their size, using guile and cleverness. They had a destructive philosophy, but that doesn't make them stupid, because they weren't. I'm not saying that there wasn't any low intelligent mongol, of course there was not so bright individuals, as in all others armies they faced. By the way, the most brilliant Mongols generals selected their soldiers not only by strength and skill, but also by their intelligence.
I think, Gengis Khan, Kublai Khan and Tsubodai had higher intelligence scores than Gen. Custer.
I'm really annoyed about your example, but i agree completely with it's meaning. Instinct and insight (both came from wisdom) are very important on a battlefield, many times more important than anything. But i'm with Aranna on that. If a low int score character could thwart the GM battleplans just because the player outsmarted him, that's not the player problem, and the GM has no right to punish him because of that. I'm sorry, of course the GM can punish the player because of that, but don't expect the player coming back next session.
There is no rule in the rulebook that says a low int/wis/cha/whatever cannot do something like that. It could be dumb luck of the character, so what? And if it is, just make him roll the test and see if he succeeds.
I do not recall in which thread i wrote about what i think of abilities scores, maybe i even didn't, so i will write here:
Ability Score are as abstract as hit points. A high strength can mean a pile of muscles, but can also mean efficiency to hit were it hurts, timing, combat willpower, combat effectiveness, etc. Dextery can mean coordination, foresight, speed, nimbleness, etc. and so on. That is my opinion, before anyone think that my writing is law.
About characters better than players: Here i see no issues, if the character is more charismatic than the player, simply make the player roll the dice (encourage a bit of roleplay, but not enforce it if he it's not comfortable), and says how great was his speech (or how lame, depending on the dive result). In my table, i encourage the roleplay of all rolls (even grunts from strength checks), when a character convices a npc with a charisma check, but the player don't feel confident to roleplay, i ask him the guidelines of his speech, or just a idea that he thinks how their character speech was. Sometimes, just that is enough to the player speak for his character, when it's not, i narrate his speech, and ask if it's more or less what he imagined his character said. Easy as that.
Ability scores are supposed to the the foundation on which the character stands. They represent their core strengths and weaknesses.
For these to be ignored in roleplay is mind boggling.
Yes, really.
I mean theres no real difference between a 10 and an 8 Charisma, but when you're getting into the 5 area, he may have learned how to overcome his lack of personality via the use of skills, but unless he's actively trying, at all other times he should be RP'd as a bore with very little charisma.
I have a problem with players who just say that my character pre-plans elaborate battle tactics and can direct armies because he's an 'instinctual general' so he ignores his 7 int. To me this is ignoring a low ability score not RPing it.General Custer was actually a highly intelligent person who used an intelligence-based series of tactics based on the best information he had.
For those with low intelligence? The Mongols are probably a pretty good example of how low intelligence can combine with high wisdom to produce an unstoppable army. It's really hard to narrow it down to any specific leader; it seems they pretty much has this as their hat for a few centuries.
Wait, what? Mongols with low intelligence? Why is that? They are some crossbreed between neanderthal and homo-sapiens in your opinion? I think not. The Mongols used complex military organization that confused to no end their enemies. Many times they bested armies that were 3, four times their size, using guile and cleverness. They had a destructive philosophy, but that doesn't make them stupid, because they weren't. I'm not saying that there wasn't any low intelligent mongol, of course there was not so bright individuals, as in all others armies they faced. By the way, the most brilliant Mongols generals selected their soldiers not only by strength and skill, but also by their intelligence.
I think, Gengis Khan, Kublai Khan and Tsubodai had higher intelligence scores than Gen. Custer.
You and I have a different definition of "intelligence," which is why we come to different opinions of what the Mongols as a people were like. Genghis Khan I hold to be a wise, charismatic person... if he were alive today, there would be entire alliances existing just to keep him contained to a single large territory. And those alliances would go to sleep every night, praying he did not decide to test their resolve. But there were several items, under him and other military leaders of the Mongols, they I do not hold as very intelligent.
Now, note that our disagreement about whether or not the Mongols were an intelligent empire reflects what I had said earlier about people disagreeing about what each stat means even when accounting for the game definition. The source of the disagreement between you and I on the Mongols is that we define Intelligence differently; by your definition, they are a highly intelligent empire. By mine, they're not. It gets worse when the disagreement is over whether or not a character is acting intelligently.
|
Yes, really.
I mean theres no real difference between a 10 and an 8 Charisma, but when you're getting into the 5 area, he may have learned how to overcome his lack of personality via the use of skills, but unless he's actively trying, at all other times he should be RP'd as a bore with very little charisma.
Not disagreeing with the sentiment but what indicates this is true?
Common sense? Does one need a rule in a roleplaying game to ask or suggest for them to roleplay their characters strengths and weaknesses?
I mean, if I were GM and saw this, I wouldn't throw a fit, but I would be disappointed. There would be less of an RP xp award for that player as well.
|
|
Common sense? Does one need a rule in a roleplaying game to ask or suggest for them to roleplay their characters strengths and weaknesses?
I mean, if I were GM and saw this, I wouldn't throw a fit, but I would be disappointed. There would be less of an RP xp award for that player as well.
Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.
|
|
Common sense? Does one need a rule in a roleplaying game to ask or suggest for them to roleplay their characters strengths and weaknesses?
I mean, if I were GM and saw this, I wouldn't throw a fit, but I would be disappointed. There would be less of an RP xp award for that player as well.
Yes, yes roleplaying the ability scores is essential for a roleplaying game become somethin different for eargame or board game. But a clever player can roleplay why his low score pc could had succeded in a complex situation. And the gm can do nothing if the scene was roleplayed in a credible manner.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, really.
I mean theres no real difference between a 10 and an 8 Charisma, but when you're getting into the 5 area, he may have learned how to overcome his lack of personality via the use of skills, but unless he's actively trying, at all other times he should be RP'd as a bore with very little charisma.
This is the crux of the disagreement.
The idea that a low mental stat should be role-played....somehow...is one thing, but the idea that it has to be role-played in one specific way chosen by someone else is fundamentally wrong.
All a player has is his PC. It's utterly wrong for a DM to take away the players right to create his own PC's persona.
Using your example, there are many more ways to portray a low Cha than being a bore.
Ok, I just used bore and CHA as an example. If the player can think of other ways to portray the low score, then fine.
To do mental gymnastics to think of a way around having it effect the character is not.
Especially in a point buy situation. You're taking a negative to a stat to raise another one, you should play both the benefit and the negative, not write it off or explain it away.
IMHO, of course.
...if the scene was roleplayed in a credible manner.
Agreed.
Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.
That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.|
|
Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
I hear ya and I tried posting the same thing. Some folks want some type of baseline or justification though. /shrug
Well, if 10 is human average, and 2 is animal intelligence, each step backwards from 10 is a doozy. The penalties don't seem to reflect that though...
/shrug.
Well, if 10 is human average, and 2 is animal intelligence, each step backwards from 10 is a doozy. The penalties don't seem to reflect that though...
/shrug.
Actually, 3 is human intelligence. 10 reflects the intelligence of the average person, but 3 is the minimum necessary to be capable of language, which would put it at the lowest end of the human intelligence range.
Ability scores are supposed to the the foundation on which the character stands. They represent their core strengths and weaknesses.
For these to be ignored in roleplay is mind boggling.
The problem is that they're not codified and defined, and if they were, that would be extremely limiting. Using ability scores to inform roleplaying is HIGHLY subjective. Two completely different approaches to playing the same score can both be correct.
This actually gets into one of my pet peeves about D&D-style games. If you hand out 100 copies of a character sheet at a convention, you'll end up with at least 50 different opinions on how to roleplay the character. There is very little on the sheet that actually informs you what the character's personality is, the most informative being alignment, but even that is vague and cause of endless debate.
Debate and discussion about the topic can be useful in helping formulate your own personal roleplay style. To say that there is even a hint at a correct way to do so is to ignore the fact that there is little to no direction within the game about it. For being a roleplaying game, the actual rules on roleplaying are virtually non-existent, which is fine as a kind of catch-all game where people can play it based on their own traditions at the table.
|
The problem is when player min-max real life. High intelligent, wise or charismatic players sometimes feel that their don't need to have high attributes in INT, WIS, or CHA because they can manipulate the GM into letting they do what they want (technically a strong player can bully the GM also, but its not the same). How to stop that from happening ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People people... the mechanical side of the game will attend to itself. If Silver Tongue the rogue, Real Man the barbarian, Miss-understood the sorceress, and Social Butterfly the oracle all attend a high class ball then the game doesn't care which ones have a high or low charisma, or how many ranks of diplomacy they bought (etiquette is still a Diplomacy roll I believe), or even what the d20 toss ends up as. And the only care the game gives to actual role play is what circumstance bonuses or penalties the player may earn as a result. The only REAL thing that matters is your final result.
less than 10: you get asked to leave the party. Clearly you are THAT GUY/GIRL.
10-19: you are largely ignored or seen as just another face in the crowd.
20-29: People genuinely respond well to your attempts at conversation and you can interact favorably with the other party guests.
30+: You are the life of the party and the hosts make certain to add you to the guest lists of any up coming events, you may even earn special gifts depending on how you play your role during the event.
Clearly the more social of the group have a better modifier on the roll... BUT if social butterfly rolls a 1 and real man rolls a 20 he will make a better impression then she will despite his low Cha stat. In the end the mechanics only care about the result, not how you got there. So lets look at the two odd cases here Silver Tongue has a low Cha but purchased ranks of diplomacy and plays as a charming flatterer, while Miss-Understood has a high Cha and no ranks of diplomacy and plays in an off beat emotional anime inspired style. At the party the flatterer will earn a circumstance bonus because the GM has decided these people love hearing all that empty flattery where as miss emotional might have a bonus or penalty depending on how her emotional outbursts fit into the role play dialog. But in the end silver tongue is no more likely to do better than miss-understood overall. BUT the d20 is king here IT can elevate real man higher than social butterfly if it wishes, and it tends to be really fickle. As role players we realize this and role with whatever the die hands us. If we wish a certain result we can stack modifiers in our favor either through stat, skill, or even role play style and that will throw things in the direction we desire more frequently but it is NO guarantee of end result case by case.
Now look at that and realize just how tragic it is when the GM steps in and arbitrarily says NO since silver tongue and real man have low charisma score they automatically get the unfavorable result and social butterfly and miss-understood get the best result simply because their stat is high. IN FACT this GM is penalizing silver tongue for improperly role playing his low charisma as well and he is leveling slower than the team. No roll and of course all those points silver tongue and social butterfly spent on diplomacy are wasted since this GM is bound and determined to force poor role play down the groups throats. You never get those amusing moments where real man impresses the guests with his impressions of the battle of high march and social butterfly gets sidelined during the event by the jealous NPC Polyanna Pure Breed and vows to get revenge next party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is when player min-max real life. High intelligent, wise or charismatic players sometimes feel that their don't need to have high attributes in INT, WIS, or CHA because they can manipulate the GM into letting they do what they want (technically a strong player can bully the GM also, but its not the same). How to stop that from happening ?
Require the appropriate attribute or skill to be rolled.
Too often I see the roleplay vs rollplay debate framed as either/or. At my table, good roleplaying doesn't give you a bonus to a roll, instead it allows you to roll. Just because you gave the perfect speech to the king doesn't mean he's convinced, your roll still determines success.
This also applies to the concept of puzzles. A puzzle is either solvable by the players, or by the characters. If it's solved by the players, there's no roll that can get them past it without solving it out of the game as well. If it's solvable by the characters, a good idea from a player just earns them a roll to solve it, but it still relies on the stats of the character (plus the dice) to solve.
|
Yes, yes roleplaying the ability scores is essential for a roleplaying game become somethin different for eargame or board game. But a clever player can roleplay why his low score pc could had succeded in a complex situation. And the gm can do nothing if the scene was roleplayed in a credible manner.Common sense? Does one need a rule in a roleplaying game to ask or suggest for them to roleplay their characters strengths and weaknesses?
I mean, if I were GM and saw this, I wouldn't throw a fit, but I would be disappointed. There would be less of an RP xp award for that player as well.
Nobody is saying characters cant have moments of greatness. Its the players who play their characters as constantly better then their ability scores thats the problem.
The problem is when player min-max real life. High intelligent, wise or charismatic players sometimes feel that their don't need to have high attributes in INT, WIS, or CHA because they can manipulate the GM into letting they do what they want (technically a strong player can bully the GM also, but its not the same). How to stop that from happening ?Require the appropriate attribute or skill to be rolled.
Too often I see the roleplay vs rollplay debate framed as either/or. At my table, good roleplaying doesn't give you a bonus to a roll, instead it allows you to roll. Just because you gave the perfect speech to the king doesn't mean he's convinced, your roll still determines success.
This also applies to the concept of puzzles. A puzzle is either solvable by the players, or by the characters. If it's solved by the players, there's no roll that can get them past it without solving it out of the game as well. If it's solvable by the characters, a good idea from a player just earns them a roll to solve it, but it still relies on the stats of the character (plus the dice) to solve.
Do you ever have players who roleplay their roll? To where they let the dice determine how they're going to roleplay?
|
|
Require the appropriate attribute or skill to be rolled.Too often I see the roleplay vs rollplay debate framed as either/or. At my table, good roleplaying doesn't give you a bonus to a roll, instead it allows you to roll. Just because you gave the perfect speech to the king doesn't mean he's convinced, your roll still determines success.
This also applies to the concept of puzzles. A puzzle is either solvable by the players, or by the characters. If it's solved by the players, there's no roll that can get them past it without solving it out of the game as well. If it's solvable by the characters, a good idea from a player just earns them a roll to solve it, but it still relies on the stats of the character (plus the dice) to solve.
Say that to professional attorney players that can logic lock the GM reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever have players who roleplay their roll? To where they let the dice determine how they're going to roleplay?The problem is when player min-max real life. High intelligent, wise or charismatic players sometimes feel that their don't need to have high attributes in INT, WIS, or CHA because they can manipulate the GM into letting they do what they want (technically a strong player can bully the GM also, but its not the same). How to stop that from happening ?Require the appropriate attribute or skill to be rolled.
Too often I see the roleplay vs rollplay debate framed as either/or. At my table, good roleplaying doesn't give you a bonus to a roll, instead it allows you to roll. Just because you gave the perfect speech to the king doesn't mean he's convinced, your roll still determines success.
This also applies to the concept of puzzles. A puzzle is either solvable by the players, or by the characters. If it's solved by the players, there's no roll that can get them past it without solving it out of the game as well. If it's solvable by the characters, a good idea from a player just earns them a roll to solve it, but it still relies on the stats of the character (plus the dice) to solve.
Odd as it may be, I have one player that does. As GM I have fun setting the background and scene as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever have players who roleplay their roll? To where they let the dice determine how they're going to roleplay?The problem is when player min-max real life. High intelligent, wise or charismatic players sometimes feel that their don't need to have high attributes in INT, WIS, or CHA because they can manipulate the GM into letting they do what they want (technically a strong player can bully the GM also, but its not the same). How to stop that from happening ?Require the appropriate attribute or skill to be rolled.
Too often I see the roleplay vs rollplay debate framed as either/or. At my table, good roleplaying doesn't give you a bonus to a roll, instead it allows you to roll. Just because you gave the perfect speech to the king doesn't mean he's convinced, your roll still determines success.
This also applies to the concept of puzzles. A puzzle is either solvable by the players, or by the characters. If it's solved by the players, there's no roll that can get them past it without solving it out of the game as well. If it's solvable by the characters, a good idea from a player just earns them a roll to solve it, but it still relies on the stats of the character (plus the dice) to solve.
You can do that, but that isn't my preferred style. I'd rather you tell me what your character does, or say what they're going to say. If you do something that triggers a mechanical rule, great, we'll pause your description/dialogue, make the roll, then continue on with those results included.
I don't always do it, but I also like running with the rule of:
Success: You get to describe what happens
Failure: I get to describe what happens
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever have players who roleplay their roll? To where they let the dice determine how they're going to roleplay?
I actually used to encourage my PbP players to do this. I'd ask them to preview their results so that it could help inform their narrative.
For example, if at a gala, a character with great social skills flubbed their roll, then they might narrate their efforts as being caught off-guard, confusing an NPC's name, smiling with something stuck in their teeth etc. Because they were highly skilled (and many PCs had reroll abilities), the narration might also include an attempted recovery, etc.
On the flip-side, if that same character aced their roll, they might instead author their post trying to play up their character's sense of flair, or describe their radiant charm. In either case, the roll results would still determine if their attempt passed or failed, but I felt that it gave the players some more creative freedom without shoehorning the narrative into an awkward place from having described a low result in glowing terms.
Some players seemed to enjoy it, others were less comfortable with it. When done by those who 'got it' though, it did help to ease my work as GM because it gave me more input to work with. I haven't used the exact same approach with my local group, but I will allow players who are so inclined to narrate their successes or failures after revealing the basic outcome — the players seem to really enjoy such moments.
Not a rule at my table but it does play out that way often.I don't always do it, but I also like running with the rule of:
Success: You get to describe what happens
Failure: I get to describe what happens
I don't use it for everything, it doesn't completely fit with Pathfinder's style as a game. But it's a useful tool in the arsenal.
I do run a game where that is explicitly a rule, and as the GM I'm not allowed to overrule the player during their narrations. I can make suggestions, but it's the player's choice. But that's a game where every session I run, someone becomes a god, and so being unable to overrule them helps reinforce the character's importance and control over the world.
I do tend to roleplay my rolls, if a GM or DM will allow it. Mainly because it's fun. As DM, I encourage players under me to do it.
I noticed I tend not to get many fights over what the scores mean, in part because it's just part of the style of game. Plus, I think people are sometimes laughing too hard when I roll a 1 on diplomacy...
|
|
Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
It's an anecdote, but here it is:
I have a friend who has a low brain-mouth filter. He's loud, boorish and frequently puts his foot in his mouth. I mean frequently... like a dozen times over the course of dinner.
He's also a very successful salesman. Something I'd argue is a Charisma based skill. He convinces people they want the things he's selling, and he convinces them on the things that improve his commission the most. He's tried moving up in management, but it's just not for him, he doesn't have the skills of leading people, just selling products.
There's an author, Carol Dweck, who talks/writes pretty well about the subject of success. She has a pretty good argument for the most fundamental reason for why some people are successful and others aren't. You either believe that skills are obtained or that they're innate. People who believe skills are obtained tend to grow more, they learn new skills, improve ones they already have, etc. They set goals and find out what they need to do to obtain them. People who believe that skills are innate tend to stagnate and plateau, they think that they aren't good enough to reach the next level, that others who have are innately better at whatever it is.
You can look around the sports world for tons of examples. There are lots of stories of talented athletes who arrive at the pro's and basically flamed out. They had some initial success, but they quickly plateaued and were left behind. Meanwhile, stories of hardworking athletes who dedicated themselves to achieve success abound. Obviously at the top levels like that, it's not just about hard-work, but between two talented individuals, the harder working one is usually going to prevail over the long term.
As you learn and improve your skills, you SHOULD overcome weaknesses of your inherent talents. If a player puts a 7 in Charisma, but then invests skill points and feats to make Diplomacy better... well, they're still spending resources from their character to do so, so I don't see what the problem is.
The game system as a whole fundamentally buys into the concept that experience and growth trump inherent talent. A 5th level fighter with 10's in every stat will beat a 1st level fighter with all 18's most of the time.
As you learn and improve your skills, you SHOULD overcome weaknesses of your inherent talents. If a player puts a 7 in Charisma, but then invests skill points and feats to make Diplomacy better... well, they're still spending resources from their character to do so, so I don't see what the problem is.
I have a friend who has a low brain-mouth filter. He's loud, boorish and frequently puts his foot in his mouth. I mean frequently... like a dozen times over the course of dinner.
He's also a very successful salesman. Something I'd argue is a Charisma based skill. He convinces people they want the things he's selling, and he convinces them on the things that improve his commission the most. He's tried moving up in management, but it's just not for him, he doesn't have the skills of leading people, just selling products.
You answered your own question, and addressed my point. Your friend, when he's using the skill, overcomes his boorish behavior. When he's not actively trying to sell something, he's at his default CHA.
The skill only wipes out the low CHA stat when that skill is being used. The rest of the time, the low stat should be represented in RP.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that gets to my earlier point, there are so many ways that it could be roleplayed that attempting to have a "standard" is pointless.
Is a low Charisma being boorish? Is it being shy? Is it being physically unattractive which colors people's opinion of you? Or is there some other personality trait that turns people off from you subtlety? Given time I could keep coming up with more explanations.
This is without getting into what the difference between an 8, 9 or 10 might be.
Ability scores can be useful in determining how to RP a character, but they are imprecise and massively subjective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I clearly haven't learned my lesson after several years on these boards. Whenever someone includes an analogy to highlight something, the other person will invariably spend their time nitpicking specifics in the analogy.
Lets change it to 20th level with all 3's and 1st level with all 24's. The 1st level can even be in all MW gear, anything you want, while the 20th level fighter is naked.
The game values experience over raw talent. When experience is roughly the same (like being the same level, or very close) raw talent will be the deciding factor, but overall, experience is the larger factor over a longer period of play.
And I'd like to point out, I've already hinted at an avenue that would actually nullify this issue completely. Add something to the game where clear choices about personality and RP direction are made and placed on the character sheet. Because again, right now you can take a character sheet, hand it to a dozen people who will each RP the character differently. You can't give people vague directions and expect them to adhere to specific expectations.
|
|
I'm sorry, I clearly haven't learned my lesson after several years on these boards. Whenever someone includes an analogy to highlight something, the other person will invariably spend their time nitpicking specifics in the analogy.
Lets change it to 20th level with all 3's and 1st level with all 24's. The 1st level can even be in all MW gear, anything you want, while the 20th level fighter is naked.
The game values experience over raw talent. When experience is roughly the same (like being the same level, or very close) raw talent will be the deciding factor, but overall, experience is the larger factor over a longer period of play.
And I'd like to point out, I've already hinted at an avenue that would actually nullify this issue completely. Add something to the game where clear choices about personality and RP direction are made and placed on the character sheet. Because again, right now you can take a character sheet, hand it to a dozen people who will each RP the character differently. You can't give people vague directions and expect them to adhere to specific expectations.
Still not sure what your trying to get at, call me dense. Thats why tbe 5th lv-1st lv example didnt make sense.
I didnt respond to the rest of your post because Kryzbyn pretty much covered it.
The 20th level Fighter just uses Snake Style chain, and Skill Focus (Sense Motive), plus a feat to get a trait that makes Sense Motive a class skill and he can easily get a +26 to his Sense Motive checks.
The 1st level fighter can get a +10 to attack fairly easily, but even that means he needs to roll a 17 or higher to hit. If he misses, he is subject to an AoO.
Meanwhile assuming the 1st level has AC 22, the higher level Fighter misses on a 1/5/10/15, making it likely he hits at least 2-3 times per round, dealing 1d3+4 per hit. At minimum damage, 5, he needs 4 hits to win.
He could also use Greater Vital Strike for 4d3+6 damage. 2 hits and the lower level Fighter is done.
Deadly Stroke does double damage (2d3+8 + 1 Con), again, 2 rounds, done.
|
|
This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
Is there something in the rules that says you are inept at particular skills because of a low ability score? I mean beyond modifier?
|
|
Is there something in the rules that says you are inept at particular skills because of a low ability score? I mean beyond modifier?This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
Not sure what your asking?
|
|
The 20th level Fighter just uses Snake Style chain, and Skill Focus (Sense Motive), plus a feat to get a trait that makes Sense Motive a class skill and he can easily get a +26 to his Sense Motive checks.
The 1st level fighter can get a +10 to attack fairly easily, but even that means he needs to roll a 17 or higher to hit. If he misses, he is subject to an AoO.
Meanwhile assuming the 1st level has AC 22, the higher level Fighter misses on a 1/5/10/15, making it likely he hits at least 2-3 times per round, dealing 1d3+4 per hit. At minimum damage, 5, he needs 4 hits to win.
He could also use Greater Vital Strike for 4d3+6 damage. 2 hits and the lower level Fighter is done.
Deadly Stroke does double damage (2d3+8 + 1 Con), again, 2 rounds, done.
So yes a 20th lv fighter with all 3s could beat a 1st lv, and the point of this example?
Also I think your 1d3+4 is wrong...not positive though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the example was to illustrate the concepts of the paragraphs that preceded it. I was using real world concepts and ideas to illustrate why the argument that a negative Charisma mod should permanently doom a character to being a social failure was fundamentally flawed.
People can and do overcome personal shortcomings with learned skills all the time. It's actually so common, we don't recognize it most of the time, particularly in regards to social skills.
Not to mention the fact that what a -1 or -2 in Charisma or Wisdom means is highly subjective, so enforcing some sort of standard would at best be highly arbitrary.
|
|
Not sure what your asking?Is there something in the rules that says you are inept at particular skills because of a low ability score? I mean beyond modifier?This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
I am asking if you have any basis for thinking a low ability score should have penalties beyond modifier.
|
|
I am asking if you have any basis for thinking a low ability score should have penalties beyond modifier.Not sure what your asking?Is there something in the rules that says you are inept at particular skills because of a low ability score? I mean beyond modifier?This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.Considering one person finds a 7 int to be below average and the next thinks its mentally challeneged, I wouldnt say its common sense at all. This thread can attest to that.That's immaterial to my point. My point is simply roleplay your stats!
If you and the GM agree that a 7 INT isn't Forrest Gump, then just decide if it's below average enough to worth pointing out in RP. If you both decide it's not, then great.
Not sure were your getting ineptitude at skills or penalties beyond the normal modifer numbers from what I posted.
This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.
From this, about 1/2 a page up.
It seems to insinuate that even after apply skill points that the character should still be hindered in some fashion.
|
|
This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.From this, about 1/2 a page up.
It seems to insinuate that even after apply skill points that the character should still be hindered in some fashion.
Its talking about not roleplaying ability scores.
Its talking about not roleplaying ability scores.This would work great yes. Except that there are people who believe that the game mechanic penalty for the low ability score is enough, so they can roleplay their characters anyway they fell like even when it doesnt coincide with their ability scores. They also believe taking ranks in skills completely wipeout their ability score penalties, i.e. ranks in diplomacy means they can completely ignore their cha score.From this, about 1/2 a page up.
It seems to insinuate that even after apply skill points that the character should still be hindered in some fashion.
Okay, would you like to try creating a standard by which we can measure whether someone is roleplaying their ability scores correctly?
Okay, would you like to try creating a standard by which we can measure whether someone is roleplaying their ability scores correctly?
Certainly. "If the GM is happy with it." Like, oh, I don't know, literally everything else in the game?