How to make the fighter and monk in my group feel less useless?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
My dwarf started with an 8 Cha. I still roleplayed his Diplomacy checks as needed and accepted that he was not going to succeed at all of them. Part of the game, and you do few players favors by hand waving that part of the game.

Seconded. No one is saying not to roleplay. Yet if a player takes a 8 cha. He should succeed less at social situations than a player with a charisma of say 16. If anyone can succeed on every diplomacy check no matter their stats no player is going to invest more than one skill point in any skill such as diplomacy. What would be the point if investing skill points does mot make it easier or better to bet the odds of success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Owly wrote:
There are roles that people play in the world by virtue of their character's appearance and participation, AND by people's perception of them, not just their character class.

Sure. There's more to a character than their class. But of course, a character's appearance and participation is up to the player, not due to their class. Not all fighters look the same. Not all bards look the same. Etc.

Owly wrote:
A narrow example: A fighter and a sorcerer walk into a town that is beset with monster problems. Which PC are the simple townsfolk likely to approach? The townspeople are looking for a hero. They don't even know what a "sorcerer" IS. If they realized it was someone with magic in their blood, they might be afraid of him/her and would be indifferent at best, suspicious and fearful at worst.

Why does a fighter look more a hero than a sorcerer? What does a hero even look like?

Owly wrote:
An extreme example: A group of adventurers (cleric, fighter and bard) is seated at an important dinner with the king and his general. The king wants to discuss a problem with bandits. He sees the fighter as the group's warrior leader, and the cleric as the group's spiritual heart. The bard? Well, to a king a bard is entertainment. The player playing the bard attempts diplomacy roll after diplomacy roll until the king announces "If this one opens his mouth again, take him to the dungeon."
That would just be bad GMing.

Agree with your third point whole-heartedly! I find it interesting that folks will so easily hand-wave social skills, but be absolute tyrants when it comes to combat feats. I mean, we'll just ignore that 7 charisma and let the fighter speak to the king, while nerfing the bard, who invested precious skill points and stats into his ability to speak well. Why? Well, it's a game,or something... so quit whining, Bard. If a GM told his table that the TWF rogue got the equivalent of Power Attack simply because he roleplayed his attack strategy well, despite not having the feat, the same people here would lose their minds!

I also love the reverence for acting among the "roleplaying" defenders. Uhhm, when your director tells you that the character you are portraying is a dour, pessimistic man, and you decide that you're going to act him out as a giggling, fun-loving, glib jokester, you're doing a lousy job of acting. And your stats in PF ARE the director! When you tell a player to roleplay a Chr 7 fighter as clever or persuasive, you're just ignoring the rules of the game. Period.

PS. And, additionally, you are condemning a person who is not very persuasive or articulate in real life from ever playing a high Chr character. I get angry when I see a GM tell a player (who we all know is not very articulate) to roleplay out what his bard says to persuade the mob, then penalizes him for what he actually says. If the bard has a higher Chr than the player does in real life, why should the player be expected to do something he can't? I'd like to see some of those GMs be forced to fight in full plate armor in order to say that the monster hit us...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I find it very difficult to side with either argument, here, since the one side, saying the dice are more important are also the ones arguing that an 8 INT character should be RPed as barely mentally competent, despite only having a -1 modifier on intelegence skills and checks compared to a 10 INT character who didn't invest in int-based skills, or an 8 CHA character, some social incompetent, despite the fact that they only fail charisma based checks only slightly more often than a normal 10 CHA, no skill-ranks character.

Likewise, the ones that are saying the RP is more important also seem to be brushing away the impact of the dice and skill investment, as the great equalizer, in a sense. Not everyone is particularly charismatic, in person, but does that mean when they play the 20 CHA bard, that their character shouldn't be? Because if RP is all that matters, then the player's charisma would matter more than the character's.

I'd have thought there would be more people closer to the center, who don't require any character to have role-play restrictions based on their dump stats (after all, the effects of 8 STR or 8 DEX or 8 CON are all mechanical, so why not let that be true for Mental stats, and let the players play up their dump stats only if they want to), and go primarily by the dice, but with circumstance bonuses based on well reasoned arguments and good roleplay.


No one on the "Use statistics" side has said someone with an 8 INT must be played as barely mentally competent. There's lots of ways to roleplay an 8 INT. We aren't straight jacketing anyone to play 8 INT any particular way. You just aren't going to be fantastic at INT based stuff, unless you consistently roll very well.

An 8 CHA can be represented by a particularly gruff demeanor (Dwarves), an obviously shallow personality, or lack of confidence for example. Any of those is perfectly valid, but "I'm a super awesome war hero so the king will listen to me over the bard." is not roleplaying 8 CHA. Roleplaying 8 CHA in that scenario could be coming across as a cynical soldier, a straight forward personality with no manners, or anything else that fits. Now mind you if said Fighter had ranks in Diplomacy, then the statistics side would be perfectly fine him being roleplayed as a smooth talker... because he is. He just might not be as smooth a talker as that Sorcerer over there.


I want to address something here ... there is a difference between 'roleplaying' and 'overcoming a noncombat challenge'.

Roleplaying takes no dice. It's simply what you say or do, and you roleplay with every single facet of your character, both in and out of combat. Any time you make a decision, you roleplayed.

'Overcoming a non-combat challenge', on the other hand, involves die rolling, and is where the fighter and monk come up short, not just from lack of skills and skill points, but from 'there's a spell for that' syndrome.

The point of the skill system is to fairly determine what characters, not their players, can do. As Tholomyes says above ... if you don't expect your players to do Acrobatics like they have a real-life +15 modifier, why would you expect them to talk like they have a +15 modifier in Diplomacy? Or to the counterpoint, if someone is a slick-talker in RL, they could not put ranks in social skills and still reap the benefits.

The more of this thread I read, the more I feel like I should eliminate class skill lists.


Zhayne wrote:
The more of this thread I read, the more I feel like I should eliminate class skill lists.

The secret of Pathfinder is that something being a class skill isn't prescriptive to that character being the party's expert of that skill. This isn't 3.5, where if something wasn't a class skill, putting 20 skill points into q cross-class skill only got you 10 ranks. Any fighter can still get a base +20 to Perception, Stealth, or any knowledge they want.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with Anzyr.

No one is saying that you have to play a 8 int cha with less IQ than a houseplant. Or that a 8 Cha has to be a rude obnoxious slob. The issue that I have at least is being told that both a character with 8 cha and one with 20 cha should both have a equal chance to succeed with diplomacy.

Which I disagree because it penalizes someone like a Bard who probably has invested ranks in skills to be better at diplomacy or similar social skills. While also giving a free pass on someone who took no points in in and cha. Someone with a low cha and low int with no ranks in any socia. skills can try diplomacy in my games. He is not going to succeed at it as often as a Bard or someone with a high cha. I


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
The secret of Pathfinder is that something being a class skill isn't prescriptive to that character being the party's expert of that skill. This isn't 3.5, where if something wasn't a class skill, putting 20 skill points into q cross-class skill only got you 10 ranks. Any fighter can still get a base +20 to Perception, Stealth, or any knowledge they want.

At high levels, the difference between a class skill and a non-class skill is small. The +3 is dwarfed by ranks, ability modifiers, item bonuses, etc. But at low levels, it is quite a difference. In 3.5, you could have +2 to a cross class skill at 1st level. In Pathfinder, that's only +1. It's not until 4th level that the cross class skill bonus is higher in Pathfinder than 3.5.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
The more of this thread I read, the more I feel like I should eliminate class skill lists.
The secret of Pathfinder is that something being a class skill isn't prescriptive to that character being the party's expert of that skill. This isn't 3.5, where if something wasn't a class skill, putting 20 skill points into q cross-class skill only got you 10 ranks. Any fighter can still get a base +20 to Perception, Stealth, or any knowledge they want.

Perhaps, but the 'non-class skill' onus still seems to have a psychological effect. Admittedly, I've not been PF'ing long, but I do not believe I have seen any character invest in non-class skills*. I suspect it's due to the idea that a non-class skill gets thought of as 'something you're not supposed to take' for some bizarre reason, plus the loss of the +3 bonus.

*Outside of a point or two of Linguistics solely so the entire party speaks one identical non-common language.


Anzyr wrote:
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:

Can't read 194 posts, but the reason fighters/monks or whatever class that has limited skill points is when the DM forces them to roll every roleplaying interaction.

I had a DM like that. I'd have fun interacting with someone, and then he'd say "roll", and it was like, WTF, why even bother with the roleplay. Sure enough, I'd roll a 2 or 1 and it's a f'n failure and something bad happens.

I simply stopped role playing with that DM, and just said "Let me roll X". After two sessions, he said he missed my role playing. I told him, "That's interesting, go roll a D20 and I'll tell you how I'm going to respond to your comment." I think he figured it out after that.

So, if you want people to feel useful outside of combat, most of the time (from my personal experience) the problem is the GM making everything about rolls rather than role play. Which one is more fun? Sure, you have to role play a bad charisma, but it's a heck of a lot more fun than simply rolling a dice every time for every single thing.

So basically you like to punish players who want to roleplay suave characters without being suave in real life and reward bad roleplayers who roleplay as a suave person even though their character is not.

Is that really your position? Because the problem there seems to be that you didn't want to roleplay your character and if you wanted to roleplay being good at interacting with someone you should have put in the requisite points.

Honestly... I get the feeling I wouldn't terribly enjoy your campaigns in this respect either Anzyr. Sometimes a character concept doesn't precisely match the stats the stupid point buy system forces on the player due to the need for dump stats.

I'd say the best compromise here, and the one I tend to use in my games, is that social skills have a more limited role in general (things like forcing a lie, or handling disadvantaged negotiations, etc) but can be rolled as a crutch for players who wanted a character who could handle themselves in social situations but lacked social skills themselves.

That being said, I'm a firm believer that a player should stick to their concept. If that's being 'Le Strong Silent Type' then yeah, hang in the background, keep your trap shut, and find alternative ways to be useful. If your concept is the typical 'Champion of the people' often referenced on these boards as the RP archetype of the Fighter (not a philosophy I subscribe to in general, but there's no reason a gruff fighter couldn't handle himself alright in that role) then I don't mind you roleplaying that concept accordingly regardless your stats.


On a tangential note ... how often do you people actually call for skill checks? I suspect that they're being called for unnecessarily often in a lot of cases. Not every NPC interaction calls for a diplomacy check.


Anzyr wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The divide between role and roll continues. The extremists within either philosophy will do their best to keep any kind of compromise from coming up.
I'm sorry but I have literally never seen a single so called "roll" player argue against roleplaying. Now, I'm sure someone has, but in this thread (and forum in general) that viewpoint is essentially nonexistent. The problem is certain players have a tendency to decry things like "using the rules" as not "roleplaying". It's these "that not real roleplaying" types that are the sole source of the contention. The rest of us are simply correcting their inanity.

"I'm not the problem, it's the OTHER guy!!!"

Thanks Anzyr.

Liberty's Edge

One can also say

"rules scmules. I can act my way out of any rpg situation. My stats don't mean anything as long as my acting performace was oscar worthy at the table. The guy who invested skill points in diplomacy should go and apply for a acting class."


Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
The more of this thread I read, the more I feel like I should eliminate class skill lists.
The secret of Pathfinder is that something being a class skill isn't prescriptive to that character being the party's expert of that skill. This isn't 3.5, where if something wasn't a class skill, putting 20 skill points into q cross-class skill only got you 10 ranks. Any fighter can still get a base +20 to Perception, Stealth, or any knowledge they want.

Perhaps, but the 'non-class skill' onus still seems to have a psychological effect. Admittedly, I've not been PF'ing long, but I do not believe I have seen any character invest in non-class skills*. I suspect it's due to the idea that a non-class skill gets thought of as 'something you're not supposed to take' for some bizarre reason, plus the loss of the +3 bonus.

*Outside of a point or two of Linguistics solely so the entire party speaks one identical non-common language.

I've probably been playing it for longer, and I've only rarely seen a character not maximize their ranks in Perception, and a skill list has rarely impacted our consideration for which character should take certain skills. Class abilities are far more important. See: Trapfinding.

To answer your question about when I ask for rolls: Whenever the character wants to try and gain or accomplish something specific. Á la, "I want to convince him of something false" = Bluff Check, or "I want to make him like me more, so he'll tell me more" = Diplo Check, or "I want to scare him into letting us through" = Intimidate Check. I only very rarely call them for simple exposition or interactions, and for the occasional haggling with a merchant.

memorax wrote:

One can also say

"rules scmules. I can act my way out of any rpg situation. My stats don't mean anything as long as my acting performace was oscar worthy at the table. The guy who invested skill points in diplomacy should go and apply for a acting class."

No one has actually said this.


Anzyr wrote:
No one on the "Use statistics" side has said someone with an 8 INT must be played as barely mentally competent. There's lots of ways to roleplay an 8 INT. We aren't straight jacketing anyone to play 8 INT any particular way. You just aren't going to be fantastic at INT based stuff, unless you consistently roll very well.
It's a good thing that forums have the ability to quote, now, isn't it:
Dabbler wrote:
If you give your character an Int of 7, you are role-playing an idiot. If they have a Wis of 7 they are a fool, and if you take a charisma of 7 you have no social skills and are unattractive. To role-play otherwise is to be in defiance of the in-game reality - it's like taking a character with a strength of 7 and "role-playing" you can lift an elephant, it just doesn't happen.

Ok, it was 7 not 8; big difference there... So, yeah. Clearly no one on the use statistics side is doing any type of straight jacketing. To say so would just be silly. And untrue.


memorax wrote:

One can also say

"rules scmules. I can act my way out of any rpg situation. My stats don't mean anything as long as my acting performace was oscar worthy at the table. The guy who invested skill points in diplomacy should go and apply for a acting class."

different stanza, same refrain.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
aboniks wrote:

And herein lies the difference between those of us who of us who think of this as a role-playing game, and those of us who think of this as a role-playing game.

I appreciate both views, but I hold tight to the first.

And then there are those that think of it as a role-playing game and feel both parts are equally important.

Indeed. I'm speaking simply to the perspectives that appear, to me, to inform the opposing viewpoints in this thread.

The majority of the people responding here seem to interpret the problem the OP is presenting in one of two ways, and present their thoughts accordingly:

1. The OP is trying to address the results of on-the-table mechanical/mathematical issues, and so we should suggest/discuss/argue about mechanical solutions the DM could introduce, and their impacts.

2. The OP is trying to address the results of around-the-table player behavior/interaction issues and so we should suggest/discuss/argue about different ways the DM could interact with the players, and their impacts.

When I say I hold to the RP end of the RPG stick, I mean that my reading of the OP's request for help (based on what he has said, and what suggestions he has replied to) is that he really needs wants/needs ideas for engaging these two players, not a justification for giving their characters more skill points.

Just my read on it. Both approaches to helping the OP have value, but I question whether they both address his/her stated concerns.


Tholomyes wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
No one on the "Use statistics" side has said someone with an 8 INT must be played as barely mentally competent. There's lots of ways to roleplay an 8 INT. We aren't straight jacketing anyone to play 8 INT any particular way. You just aren't going to be fantastic at INT based stuff, unless you consistently roll very well.

It's a good thing that forums have the ability to quote, now, isn't it:

Dabbler wrote:
If you give your character an Int of 7, you are role-playing an idiot. If they have a Wis of 7 they are a fool, and if you take a charisma of 7 you have no social skills and are unattractive. To role-play otherwise is to be in defiance of the in-game reality - it's like taking a character with a strength of 7 and "role-playing" you can lift an elephant, it just doesn't happen.
Ok, it was 7 not 8; big difference there... So, yeah. Clearly no one on the use statistics side is doing any type of straight jacketing. To say so would just be silly. And untrue.

"I know that you understand what you think that I said, but I do not think you realise that what I said is not what I meant." ~Cunfucius

I re-read my statement and realised I had been reactionary and made a statement that could easily be misinterpreted, hence my second statement for clarifying. By my standard, Int 7 IS an idiot...but then, that leaves us with the definition of what an idiot is, doesn't it? Int 7 is as low as you can go without a racial penalty, so if on the "idiot to genius" scale of intelligence that doesn't qualify for an "idiot" in PC terms, what does? But then I realised that people had interpreted what I said to mean "incompetent and incredibly stupid to the point of not being able to function" and taken my feeling that people should roleplay the character their stats describe as a "strait jacket" on roleplaying that I thought I'd better clarify it. Clearly, I still didn't do a good enough job - that or you are spoiling for a fight, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there - and I hope this clears up any further misunderstandings.


A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.


Zhayne wrote:
A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.

7 is a low as a normal human can go in the game. For role-play reasons, think of the dumbest, lowest achieving person (at school) you have ever met or seen presented in the media, and they are probably your character's peer in intellect. In the same way that 18 intelligence is on a par with the smartest person you ever met or saw in the media.


Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.
7 is a low as a normal human can go in the game. For role-play reasons, think of the dumbest, lowest achieving person (at school) you have ever met or seen presented in the media, and they are probably your character's peer in intellect. In the same way that 18 intelligence is on a par with the smartest person you ever met or saw in the media.

I'm having a tough time deciding between Peter Griffin or Joe Dirt.


Zhayne wrote:
A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.

In terms of modifiers, yes. That might not be the best way to look at the relative difference between ability scores, though. For example, look at strength via carrying capacity. Max Load at 10 Str: 100 lbs. Max Load at 7 Str: 70 lbs. So while the modifier is only 10% less, the strength difference is probably closer to about 30%. Obviously these things aren't totally transitive, I'm just showing how a slight change in modifier could be representative of a larger difference in the character's abilities. Random note: Keep in mind that 22 Strength is enough to break Olympic weight lifting records.

While I agree that people with 7 Int probably aren't a complete thumb suckers, they probably are noticeably dimmer than the normal person and especially their party mates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.
7 is a low as a normal human can go in the game.

7 is as low as a PC using point buy can go. PCs who roll stats, or NPCs, can go to 3.

Someone mapped the bell curve for INT (assuming straight 3d6) to the bell curve for IQ. It put a 7 INT at about an 85 IQ. A bit slow, but by no means an idiot.

Sovereign Court

memorax wrote:
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
My dwarf started with an 8 Cha. I still roleplayed his Diplomacy checks as needed and accepted that he was not going to succeed at all of them. Part of the game, and you do few players favors by hand waving that part of the game.
Seconded. No one is saying not to roleplay. Yet if a player takes a 8 cha. He should succeed less at social situations than a player with a charisma of say 16. If anyone can succeed on every diplomacy check no matter their stats no player is going to invest more than one skill point in any skill such as diplomacy. What would be the point if investing skill points does mot make it easier or better to bet the odds of success.

This person though, is at least trying. My impression from the OP is that the monk and fighter weren't.


Anzyr wrote:

Hey now! My advice was pretty good. Fighters and Monks are ill-suited to out of combat (Fighters doubly so) and they should probably pick different classes if they want to be less useless out of combat.

Simple. Accurate. Problem-solving.

Your advice was terrible. It tries to assume a buy in to a fabricated issue, and doesn't aid a player who wants to accomplish something with a given character.

Useless. Antagonistic. Unreasonable proposition.

------------------

On top of what Coriat said, I find that figuring out what a player wants to accomplish out of combat goes well with any class and game. All characters can be challenged to find things to do out of combat, depending on the inclinations of their players and the DM's approach. Whether they want to found a school, romance a spouse or just have the best brew in town, figuring out their own personal ideas of success goes far beyond what class they chose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Again the Fighter does not have enough skill points to really broaden his horizons so to speak. As well if a player is going to give a character low int and cha he is going to roleplay those stats in my game. Meaning he fails more often then he succeeds in social situations

I am not advocating ignoring low stats or weak skills; when those rolls come up, they deserve to be treated as low stats and weak skills. What I am advocating is giving the player a chance to think creatively to avoid having to rely solely on those rolls every single time. The one thing I truly liked about 4E was the concept, if not the execution, of skill challenges, where the idea of using a wide variety of skills to accomplish a task was important. If the player steps up, finds way to be creative in making other rolls relevant, and is successful in whatever rolls they do make, they should not be penalized because they didn't roll the same things at the same time that the other characters did. If the player doesn't, than you as a DM have a ready answer when that player starts complaining that puts the resolution firmly in the player's court. Simply telling people that fighters, or similar characters, can't roleplay or don't have enough skill points is as noneffective as telling people that rolling the dice isn't necessary outside of combat. They are definitely more challenging and require a bit more creativity to do well outside of combat while staying within the rules, but it can be done if both the player and the DM try.

As an example, the king is not going to realistically expect a fighter to give an amazing speech, but if that fighter can demonstrate his martial skills and knowledge, or has frequently enough demonstrated such things in the past to gain a reputation for it,the king is likely going to see that fighter as worthy of respect, being good at his chosen art, and treat him accordingly. He's not going to be asked about how to deal with merchants or anything like that, but there's no reason why he would be ignored with the subject of how to defeat a foe came up or when making a request based on that scenario, especially if the party bard is largely a bystander in combat and can show little skill in managing others in combat.

In the end with fighters and similarly challenged characters, it may mean that instead of a single diplomacy roll every encounter you have to do 3 or 4 rolls every 3 or 4 encounters to play out a wrestling match or some other similar challenge, which when won gives that character a reputation that carries over to other encounters and grows with each success, but that character is still rolling about the same amount of dice with the same overall chance to successfully contribute something beneficial to either his own storyline and/or the party's progress through the campaign. It's not the exact same kind of success or result that a Diplomacy roll gives, but it can be largely functionally the same thing in terms of measuring progress.


DonKeebals wrote:
This person though, is at least trying. My impression from the OP is that the monk and fighter weren't.

I couldn't really tell on that to be honest. It's obvious that they weren't, but whether that was because of ignorance of alternate solutions or laziness was hard to tell. If the latter, then it's all on the players; if the former, then the DM shares responsibility in showing those players alternate solutions and creating scenarios where those solutions can potentially come into play.


Zhayne wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.
7 is a low as a normal human can go in the game.

7 is as low as a PC using point buy can go. PCs who roll stats, or NPCs, can go to 3.

Someone mapped the bell curve for INT (assuming straight 3d6) to the bell curve for IQ. It put a 7 INT at about an 85 IQ. A bit slow, but by no means an idiot.

About Forrest Gump level, really, about as dim as you can get while not actually being incapacitated by it. Which is fine, he can function - but he's not going to come up with clever and complex tactics, and any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing is my point.


Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
A 7 is only a 10% penalty compared to a 10. That is NOT a huge margin.
7 is a low as a normal human can go in the game.

7 is as low as a PC using point buy can go. PCs who roll stats, or NPCs, can go to 3.

Someone mapped the bell curve for INT (assuming straight 3d6) to the bell curve for IQ. It put a 7 INT at about an 85 IQ. A bit slow, but by no means an idiot.

About Forrest Gump level, really, about as dim as you can get while not actually being incapacitated by it. Which is fine, he can function - but he's not going to come up with clever and complex tactics, and any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing is my point.

Coming up with new tactics yes, but using tactics? No. Even a wolf pack uses tactics when hunting.

I'm not saying he's going to be a brilliant strategist, but a fighter is going to learn many of the common tactics simply because that's the nature of combat.

It's basically the same nature as military training. Gathering a group of people together and teaching them basic tactics and strategy and how to work together as a unit.


Dabbler wrote:
any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing in my opinion.

Fixed that for you.


Zhayne wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing in my opinion.
Fixed that for you.

You didn't change anything. No, you changed it to say "in my opinion", which shouldn't need saying, but hey if you feel the need to. If you feel that a character with an estimated IQ of 85 should be capable of the same complex planning and mental agility of a genius with an IQ of 180, then by all means argue your case. Otherwise, if you are running a character with lower intelligence than yourself, there are some things your character is not going to think of that you do, and using those ideas is metagaming and not role-playing - or so it seems to me. If you feel differently let me know, and please explain why.

I agree, Tels, he could learn tactics, but he's going to use them by rote and without imagination. He's a Nay, not a Napoleon, he can be capable, but he will never be brilliant.


But why did you bother to fix it with such an underwhelming addition? It's senseless, since not a single person here is the voice of G-D, and our postings here are by nature, when not citing specific facts, our opinion. This idea that something that is 'just an opinion' is somehow on par with all other opinions and thus can be dismissed is a relatively new one. A well supported opinion is far superior to someone's off the cuff gut feeling when it comes to utilizing them to formulate one's own position.


Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing in my opinion.
Fixed that for you.
You didn't change anything. No, you changed it to say "in my opinion", which shouldn't need saying, but hey if you feel the need to. If you feel that a character with an estimated IQ of 85 should be capable of the same complex planning and mental agility of a genius with an IQ of 180, then by all means argue your case.

Stop right here. He isn't arguing that the character with 7 Int is equivalent to a someone with 20 Intelligence. He's argued that someone with 7 Intelligence isn't that much dumber than the average human with, assuming 3d6, 10.5 intelligence. As far as I can tell, that's pretty reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So much hyperbole here...

I believe the OP was looking for a way to get two of his players more involved in the game. Not marginalize the bard, or give the fighter abilities beyond his statistics through "role playing".

It could even be something along the line of: as an adventure hook, a rogue tries to steal the fighter's coin purse. The rogue maybe targeted the fighter with the low charisma because he thinks the fighter is a jerk or something. After the fighter catches him, and the fighter and the monk have pounded on the rogue, the rogue tells them where they can find loot in exchange for being let go. The fighter calls the bard over, because the fighter is not allowed to talk to NPCs, and the bard deals with the rogue and figures out the particulars...

There! The fighter and monk get involved and feel like part of the story, and the bard was not marginalized. You can make the bard roll a diplomacy or intimidate check, or whatever feels appropriate, so as to not hand wave any mechanics.


Unfortunately the Op stop gicing feedback, I suppose he felt ovelwhelmed.


Did the Op that the fighter actually have low int/cha? he could perfectly have 10 in both and still feel bad out of combat.


Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing in my opinion.
Fixed that for you.

You didn't change anything. No, you changed it to say "in my opinion", which shouldn't need saying, but hey if you feel the need to. If you feel that a character with an estimated IQ of 85 should be capable of the same complex planning and mental agility of a genius with an IQ of 180, then by all means argue your case. Otherwise, if you are running a character with lower intelligence than yourself, there are some things your character is not going to think of that you do, and using those ideas is metagaming and not role-playing - or so it seems to me. If you feel differently let me know, and please explain why.

I agree, Tels, he could learn tactics, but he's going to use them by rote and without imagination. He's a Nay, not a Napoleon, he can be capable, but he will never be brilliant.

So, what, EXACTLY, can a 10 INT character do that a 7 INT can't? What can a 12 INT do that a 10 can't? Since you have the numbers so neatly stratified into what each is and isn't, you should be able to provide a detailed list.

We're dealing with abstract, all-but-undefinable characteristics here, and furthermore, each ability score is an aggregate of multiple such characteristics. Arbitrarily saying this number means this and you can NEVER do that makes no sense to me. Where is the cutoff?


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing in my opinion.
Fixed that for you.
You didn't change anything. No, you changed it to say "in my opinion", which shouldn't need saying, but hey if you feel the need to. If you feel that a character with an estimated IQ of 85 should be capable of the same complex planning and mental agility of a genius with an IQ of 180, then by all means argue your case.
Stop right here. He isn't arguing that the character with 7 Int is equivalent to a someone with 20 Intelligence. He's argued that someone with 7 Intelligence isn't that much dumber than the average human with, assuming 3d6, 10.5 intelligence. As far as I can tell, that's pretty reasonable.

Thank you.

Sovereign Court

I suggest that the fighter take one or (preferably) two levels of Urban Barbarian.

Urban Barbarians have great skills and class features. I use them in PFS to make sure that I have a character that can do something other than kill.

Barbarians can use Furious weapons. Adding Furious costs +1. Furious weapons give no adds except when the owner rages, when they add +2. So, a +3 Furious weapon costs the same as a +4 weapon but acts as a +5 weapon when raging.


Anzyr wrote:
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:

Can't read 194 posts, but the reason fighters/monks or whatever class that has limited skill points is when the DM forces them to roll every roleplaying interaction.

I had a DM like that. I'd have fun interacting with someone, and then he'd say "roll", and it was like, WTF, why even bother with the roleplay. Sure enough, I'd roll a 2 or 1 and it's a f'n failure and something bad happens.

I simply stopped role playing with that DM, and just said "Let me roll X". After two sessions, he said he missed my role playing. I told him, "That's interesting, go roll a D20 and I'll tell you how I'm going to respond to your comment." I think he figured it out after that.

So, if you want people to feel useful outside of combat, most of the time (from my personal experience) the problem is the GM making everything about rolls rather than role play. Which one is more fun? Sure, you have to role play a bad charisma, but it's a heck of a lot more fun than simply rolling a dice every time for every single thing.

So basically you like to punish players who want to roleplay suave characters without being suave in real life and reward bad roleplayers who roleplay as a suave person even though their character is not.

Is that really your position? Because the problem there seems to be that you didn't want to roleplay your character and if you wanted to roleplay being good at interacting with someone you should have put in the requisite points.

No. You roleplay the character's stats and skills. If you roleplay it well, then it should just be the way it is. If you can't roleplay the stats and skills, then the GM should force you to roll.

So, if you have a very low diplomacy and you try to come off as a seasoned politician, I'd make you roll since your role playing is far superior to what your character suggests. If you role play crappy diplomacy and your character has crappy diplomacy, then why do you have to roll?

If it ALWAYS comes down to a roll, then why bother doing any role playing at all? I know this seems like a difficult concept for you to understand, but try answering that one.

As such, if the GM values role playing, and the players can accurately role play their characters, then there's always stuff to do outside of combat. If you always default to the "roll the dice" part, then it just eliminates half the fun of the game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
If it ALWAYS comes down to a roll, then why bother doing any role playing at all? I know this seems like a difficult concept for you to understand, but try answering that one.

Because of circumstance bonuses. The GM can't apply any if you don't put in any effort.


Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:

Can't read 194 posts, but the reason fighters/monks or whatever class that has limited skill points is when the DM forces them to roll every roleplaying interaction.

I had a DM like that. I'd have fun interacting with someone, and then he'd say "roll", and it was like, WTF, why even bother with the roleplay. Sure enough, I'd roll a 2 or 1 and it's a f'n failure and something bad happens.

I simply stopped role playing with that DM, and just said "Let me roll X". After two sessions, he said he missed my role playing. I told him, "That's interesting, go roll a D20 and I'll tell you how I'm going to respond to your comment." I think he figured it out after that.

So, if you want people to feel useful outside of combat, most of the time (from my personal experience) the problem is the GM making everything about rolls rather than role play. Which one is more fun? Sure, you have to role play a bad charisma, but it's a heck of a lot more fun than simply rolling a dice every time for every single thing.

So basically you like to punish players who want to roleplay suave characters without being suave in real life and reward bad roleplayers who roleplay as a suave person even though their character is not.

Is that really your position? Because the problem there seems to be that you didn't want to roleplay your character and if you wanted to roleplay being good at interacting with someone you should have put in the requisite points.

No. You roleplay the character's stats and skills. If you roleplay it well, then it should just be the way it is. If you can't roleplay the stats and skills, then the GM should force you to roll.

So, if you have a very low diplomacy and you try to come off as a seasoned politician, I'd make you roll since your role playing is far superior to what your character suggests. If you role play crappy diplomacy and your character has crappy diplomacy, then why do you have to roll?

If it ALWAYS comes...

So basically you are giving the person who can make good and convincing arguments a free pass on his skills. This conversation will get much easier once you admit this is what you are doing.. because well that's what you are doing.

And to answer your question you roleplay by roleplaying the skills you have. If your charisma is bad and you have nothing invested in diplomacy... roleplay being bad at that. Yes, it will come down to a roll but that doesn't mean there's no roleplaying involved. You just don't get any bonuses for it. And what you seem to want are bonuses not roleplaying. If you don't want to roleplay because it comes down to a roll, that is on you.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Hey now! My advice was pretty good. Fighters and Monks are ill-suited to out of combat (Fighters doubly so) and they should probably pick different classes if they want to be less useless out of combat.

Simple. Accurate. Problem-solving.

Your advice was terrible. It tries to assume a buy in to a fabricated issue, and doesn't aid a player who wants to accomplish something with a given character.

Useless. Antagonistic. Unreasonable proposition.

------------------

On top of what Coriat said, I find that figuring out what a player wants to accomplish out of combat goes well with any class and game. All characters can be challenged to find things to do out of combat, depending on the inclinations of their players and the DM's approach. Whether they want to found a school, romance a spouse or just have the best brew in town, figuring out their own personal ideas of success goes far beyond what class they chose.

Yes my arguments are so powerful that they fabricated the OP and his groups problem. Clearly despite the thread being about the issue, it does not exist. That's some Zen stuff right there Kain Darkwind.

Oh and since my advice address the very real issue the thread is about, makes a suggestion that will work and will help the player achiever better results out of combat, I'd say that advice was easiest to implement thus far and one of the more effective methods to boot. Or do you really believe a Fighter is more capable out of combat then say a Ranger or Paladin. Do tell.


Anzyr wrote:
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:

No. You roleplay the character's stats and skills. If you roleplay it well, then it should just be the way it is. If you can't roleplay the stats and skills, then the GM should force you to roll.

So, if you have a very low diplomacy and you try to come off as a seasoned politician, I'd make you roll since your role playing is far superior to what your character suggests. If you role play crappy diplomacy and your character has crappy diplomacy, then why do you have to roll?

If it ALWAYS comes down to a roll, then why bother doing any role playing at all? I know this seems like a difficult concept for you to understand, but try answering that one.

As such, if the GM values role playing, and the players can accurately role play their characters, then there's always stuff to do outside of combat. If you always default to the "roll the dice" part, then it just eliminates half the fun of the game.

So basically you are giving the person who can make good and convincing arguments a free pass on his skills. This conversation will get much easier once you admit this is what you are doing.. because well that's what you are doing.

And to answer your question you roleplay by roleplaying the skills you have. If your charisma is bad and you have nothing invested in diplomacy... roleplay being bad at that. Yes, it will come down to a roll but that doesn't mean there's no roleplaying involved. You just don't get any bonuses for it. And what you seem to want are bonuses not roleplaying. If you don't want to roleplay because it comes down to a roll, that is on you.

It's not unreasonable to expect there to be mechanical encouragement for roleplaying in a roleplaying game.


Why? The mechanics are there for you to build something you want to roleplay. And to determine interactions without resorting "I shot you", "No you didn't."

What more benefit do you need?


Anzyr wrote:

Why? The mechanics are there for you to build something you want to roleplay. And to determine interactions without resorting "I shot you", "No you didn't."

What more benefit do you need?

Considering that the current mechanical benefit for trying to go beyond "I use skill X and modify it with class feature Y," is 0? More than 0.


The mechanical benefit isn't only skills.

My DM has us roll checks based off solely stats all the time for example.

You don't JUST need skills to interact and roleplay with the world. Every challenge isn't ONLY a skill role.

Every character has a strength. You can create challenges that are tailored to individual characters having a greater chance to succeed.

You can involve every character without changing the way the class functions.

It doesn't leave mechanics. It still uses mechanics to determine success or failure. It just how you craft challenges and what you base success or failure on.


aboniks wrote:

The majority of the people responding here seem to interpret the problem the OP is presenting in one of two ways, and present their thoughts accordingly:

1. The OP is trying to address the results of on-the-table mechanical/mathematical issues, and so we should suggest/discuss/argue about mechanical solutions the DM could introduce, and their impacts.

2. The OP is trying to address the results of around-the-table player behavior/interaction issues and so we should suggest/discuss/argue about different ways the DM could interact with the players, and their impacts.

When I say I hold to the RP end of the RPG stick, I mean that my reading of the OP's request for help (based on what he has said, and what suggestions he has replied to) is that he really needs wants/needs ideas for engaging these two players, not a justification for giving their characters more skill points.

Just my read on it. Both approaches to helping the OP have value, but I question whether they both address his/her stated concerns.

They need to be addressed in order. So long as the mechanics are broken, and they are broken, there's nothing to draw in a shy player.

And the real problem is something nobody has touched on at all.

The aid another mechanics don't work. They're supposed to engage multiple players in a task, but because the tiny skill point totals strongly encourage specialization there is generally only one character capable of a given skill anyways.

The game desperately needs cross-skill aid another. Most classes need either more skill points or more skill consolidation. 2+int skill points should have gone the way of 1d4 hit dice even with further skill consolidation.

You can't even use knowledge nobility to advise someone on how to better impersonate a noble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
If it ALWAYS comes down to a roll, then why bother doing any role playing at all? I know this seems like a difficult concept for you to understand, but try answering that one.

In any game I've run or played in, the roleplaying was telling the DM what you were doing. Either in first person narrative, or out of character description. Then the roll happens.

As in...
Me "I walk up to the King and say 'Your highness, we beseech your aid in our fight against the Lichking.'"
DM "Roll your Diplomacy check."
Rolls abysmally low.
DM "The King says 'You are quite eloquent for a soldier, however I cannot risk my country and person in your impossible quest.'"

Note that this is the same as any other skill. "I leap into the air and vault the bar." Roll acrobatics. "I tell the guy we aren't the adventurers he's looking for." Roll bluff. The roleplaying sets up the act and roll if needed.

So. Fighter attempts to roleplay, and isn't successful.

The problem isn't inserting yourself into roleplaying situations. The problem is having any effect once you have.

It's fun to be successful at things. The fighter was having a good time being successful at swimming checks. It'd be nice if he could be successful at things that are level-relevant once he's out of the "swimming matters" levels.


Atarlost wrote:

They need to be addressed in order. So long as the mechanics are broken, and they are broken, there's nothing to draw in a shy player.

And the real problem is something nobody has touched on at all.

The aid another mechanics don't work. They're supposed to engage multiple players in a task, but because the tiny skill point totals strongly encourage specialization there is generally only one character capable of a given skill anyways.

The game desperately needs cross-skill aid another. Most classes need either more skill points or more skill consolidation. 2+int skill points should have gone the way of 1d4 hit dice even with further skill consolidation.

You can't even use knowledge nobility to advise someone on how to better impersonate a noble.

The mechanics aren't broken; they are working exactly as designed, which is that its up to the DM to deal with their own personal players as they need to. Aid Another using different skills could be an interesting house rule, but it requires DM determination of what works and what doesn't, so it'd be hard to put in the core rules. PF already made the limited skill points a lot less painful by making it the same cost to get both class and cross class skills, so they've already taken the biggest step they can without stepping on DM's toes.

The problem with simply increasing the number of skill points is that by itself it doesn't really resolve any of the problems people have with skills, and in easing some of them, that solution simply makes others worse; as part of a more thorough revamp of how skill points are given out, it could work, but by itself, it's not worth it.

201 to 250 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How to make the fighter and monk in my group feel less useless? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.