Charisma is not Physical Beauty


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Trimalchio wrote:

Appearance, it's right there in the rules, and right there in the dictionary, can't help you beyond that buddy, sorry.

For players who dump CHA it actually shows something of a lack of system msatery. CHA is one of the more important stats in pathfinder for a few reasons.

Use magic device is the big one, at higher levels UMD is about as important a skill as perception and having a negative CHA can really hurt especially for classes that can't afford to put more than a few skill points into it.

Second is saves for anyone who qualifies for divine protection. Third, many class abilities go off of CHA, finally even skills a straight fighter might be interested using such as intimidate or bluff use CHA, sacrificing a feat to use STR for intimidate is rather painful, especially since STR is pretty much the worst stat from a mechanics perspective.

Actually like any other attribute it can dumped if you know you wont rely on it, and even more if you know the GM does not run the in a way that requires it. So dumping it could be a sign of system mastery. UMD is mostly useful when you are missing a divine or arcane caster so you can use wands and scrolls. While it is a powerful skill if all of the bases are covered it rarely comes up.

Most classes are not using charisma for saves so they don't need it either.

As for sacrificing that feat it is actually a not a bad idea if you had no use for charisma anyway. Just dump the points into another stat that you actually need. There are not many poisons/diseases/etc that go after charisma anyway so you are unlikely to get it damaged or drained unless the GM homebrews something.


being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.

If you blowing a UMD check is life or death in a campaign, your group or you have made a terrible mistake somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.

I don't split the party, and I have never been in a game where it was forced to happen, so I guess this is a difference in play style. I have seen things in adventures where the odd(mcguffin) item may work with UMD, but many times spellcraft was offered as an alternative.

PS: Don't take this as me not liking UMD or saying it is not useful. I am saying that unless you need charisma it is likely a stat you can dump and get away with, with not real repercussions, per my last post.


wraithstrike wrote:

If the rules always said what they meant you would have a point, how since that is not the case then you don't.

Wut? I've got no point? I'm not really sure what YOUR point is. Of course people can equate "appearance" with "attractiveness". That doesn't make them right. Paizo changed Charisma's description for a reason.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

If the rules always said what they meant you would have a point, how since that is not the case then you don't.

Wut? I've got no point? I'm not really sure what YOUR point is. Of course people can equate "appearance" with "attractiveness". That doesn't make them right. Paizo changed Charisma's description for a reason.

My point is that your suggestion that "if the rules meant it they would say it" is false because sometimes what the rules say, and what they mean are not the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:


To be fair gnomes can have whatever color hair they wish for, so by my standards it's easier for a gnome to be quite attractive to me.

However this also applies to elves, half-elves, undines, aasimar, and tieflings.

And then there's the kitsune when half-shifted with fluffy tail...I'm getting off topic aren't I?

Mmmmmm piiiiit haaaag.... [/Homer]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I have a question. If charisma implies force of personality, can characters with really high (25+) charisma suppress it if they want to remain somewhat inconspicuous? My sorcerer has a 30 charisma and wants to be able to have normal conversations with people and not have them fawning all over him.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I've always figured all conversation comes to a screeching halt when a high level sorceror walks into the room.

Ever stood next to a top notch professional athlete on game day...a sorcerer gives that off.....all the time.

There's a reason some mages hang in the back.


Trimalchio wrote:
being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.

Either your GM is a huge jerk for forcing the team apart or you play with some really dumb players that split up poorly.


Xexyz wrote:
So, I have a question. If charisma implies force of personality, can characters with really high (25+) charisma suppress it if they want to remain somewhat inconspicuous? My sorcerer has a 30 charisma and wants to be able to have normal conversations with people and not have them fawning all over him.

Bluff check?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
So, I have a question. If charisma implies force of personality, can characters with really high (25+) charisma suppress it if they want to remain somewhat inconspicuous? My sorcerer has a 30 charisma and wants to be able to have normal conversations with people and not have them fawning all over him.
Bluff check?

Disguise, the skill about being less noticeable, is Cha-based. Cha is how strong your appearance is, not what king, so Disguise is making your appearance, "inconspicuous" and Cha is how inconspicuous you are able to make yourself. But think about it; if a highly charismatic celebrity walks into a room, people are going to react in a certain way. Even disguising himself to be inconspicuous is an agency of his force of personality. A 30 Cha character can't just passively, "turn the personality down" any more than a 30 Int character can avoid being constantly surrounded by idiots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Disguise, the skill about being less noticeable, is Cha-based. Cha is how strong your appearance is, not what king, so Disguise is making your appearance, "inconspicuous" and Cha is how inconspicuous you are able to make yourself. But think about it; if a highly charismatic celebrity walks into a room, people are going to react in a certain way. Even disguising himself to be inconspicuous is an agency of his force of personality. A 30 Cha character can't just passively, "turn the personality down" any more than a 30 Int character can avoid being constantly surrounded by idiots.

That's an interesting take on the disguise skill. My question would be - since disguise is opposed by perception - what does someone whose perception check is greater than the user's disguise check notice? Since the user isn't trying to disguise their identity, what information is relayed to the perception user?

Also, there's the whole bit about it taking 1d3 x 10 minutes to create a disguise, which seems nonsensical in this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Where's that damn horse when you need it.

Someone called for a....oh. The other horse. Nevermind.

Are you looking at my teeth?....

The Exchange

Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Yeah I've always figured all conversation comes to a screeching halt when a high level sorceror walks into the room.

Ever stood next to a top notch professional athlete on game day...a sorcerer gives that off.....all the time.

There's a reason some mages hang in the back.

Another example is actor/resses. People get all flustered talking to a person of fame that they recognize. Not all people, but a good amount. George Clooney/Brad Pitt/Norman Reedus/Halle Berry walks into someplace and they are now the topic of conversation and getting all the focus. If a hero with a 25+ charisma wants to go about without being noticed it is gonna take a disguise check (which may have some difficulty adjustment based on local/regional fame).


Xexyz wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Disguise, the skill about being less noticeable, is Cha-based. Cha is how strong your appearance is, not what king, so Disguise is making your appearance, "inconspicuous" and Cha is how inconspicuous you are able to make yourself. But think about it; if a highly charismatic celebrity walks into a room, people are going to react in a certain way. Even disguising himself to be inconspicuous is an agency of his force of personality. A 30 Cha character can't just passively, "turn the personality down" any more than a 30 Int character can avoid being constantly surrounded by idiots.

That's an interesting take on the disguise skill. My question would be - since disguise is opposed by perception - what does someone whose perception check is greater than the user's disguise check notice? Since the user isn't trying to disguise their identity, what information is relayed to the perception user?

Also, there's the whole bit about it taking 1d3 x 10 minutes to create a disguise, which seems nonsensical in this case.

Perception is about noticing inconspicuous things. Disguise is about remaining inconspicuous, among other things. Regarding the time it takes, this isn't just a jedi mind trick. It isn't about, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." You've actually got to make yourself appear inconspicuous because, as I said before, Charisma doesn't control what you look like, just how much. You can't Charisma your way into looking inconspicuous. Say we've got a pair of identical twins again. They are reasonably well known in the area so they want to go incognito. They each don a heavy black coat and a wide brimmed hat that shadows their face. But, while physically identical, one of them is a very confident individual rocking a 30 Charisma while the other is a bit more mundane sitting on only a 12. Our 30 Cha twin is absolutely confident on his ability to avoid recognition and, so, has a strong chance of doing just that. Meanwhile, our 12 Cha twin is not quite so confident and seems to "stand out" more. They are both identical in appearance, both in body and in dress, but one, due to shear overwhelming confidence that they will be unnoticed, remains unnoticed. But if they didn't bother with the disguises, of course both would be recognized right away; that's where Stealth comes in and that's about avoiding being seen to be recognized. In other words, Perception counters Disguise in the same way that Sense Motive counters Bluff.


Because of their self confidence, they are less likely to exhibit the body language 'tells' that people make when they are trying to deceive. It like the phenomenon where the prison trying hard not to be noticed in a crowd is easier to see. The high charisma guy has the inherent social self confidence to pull it off without giving away the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Perception is about noticing inconspicuous things. Disguise is about remaining inconspicuous, among other things. Regarding the time it takes, this isn't just a jedi mind trick. It isn't about, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." You've actually got to make yourself appear inconspicuous because, as I said before, Charisma doesn't control what you look like, just how much. You can't Charisma your way into looking inconspicuous. Say we've got a pair of identical twins again. They are reasonably well known in the area so they want to go incognito. They each don a heavy black coat and a wide brimmed hat that shadows their face. But, while physically identical, one of them is a very confident individual rocking a 30 Charisma while the other is a bit more mundane sitting on only a 12. Our 30 Cha twin is absolutely confident on his ability to avoid recognition and, so, has a strong chance of doing just that....

Thing is, you're approaching this from the perspective of being recognized, which irrelevant in the case I'm describing. Suppose my 30 charisma sorcerer goes to a city he's never been to before, where there's no chance of anyone recognizing him. Without bothering to use any sort of concealment, does his extreme charisma become evident even when interacting with a complete stranger - who's never met nor heard about him - in a mundane fashion such as buying a pastry to snack on?

If so, and if he can use the disguise skill to subdue his presence, how would he do so? I don't think a heavy black cloak or wide brimmed hat would have any effect since he's not trying to hide his identity or anything. Does he just 'act casual' or something?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

CHA is the new DEX
pay attention to what you can do with it now

also leave my CHA 5 inquisitor alone
he is sexy as hell and can sell a ketchup Popsicle to a woman in white gloves


Have you ever seen a celebrity that you didn't realize was a celebrity and just instinctively known, "There's something about this person"? Such a character can't help but draw eyes. If he's handsome, he'll draw eyes because he's handsome. If he's ugly, he'll draw eyes because he's ugly. If he's authoritative, he'll draw eyes because he has an air of authority. I used Disguise as an example for actively trying to change your appearance from "known" to "inconspicuous". But if you're just trying to be "not as charismatic", that's like trying to be "not as knowledgeable" or "not as wise". You can feign ignorance, but that involves answering questions wrong. Likewise, you can feign anonymity, but that involves subduing your presence in some manner. Think of Aragorn, the future King of all Men, wearing a ranger's hood and sitting over in the corner of a dark little tavern. He's got a decent Charisma about him so, even without knowing exactly who he is, his presence will affect those around him. Frodo's eyes are even drawn to him (he rocked that perception check) and knew this isn't just some random hooded stranger sitting in a tavern. People respond to confidence a lot more than they respond to intelligence and somewhat more than they respond to wisdom.

A Charismatic person outright reeks of confidence. It's their confidence that bolsters their appearance; their actual physical appearance is a mere tool of their intangible force of personality. If you are confident, than an big facial scar will look all the more intimidating; you're someone who will take a big hit to the face and keep going. If you lack confidence, that same scar will give others the impression that you messed up and got messed up in the face... maybe you're all talk. Conversely, a scar can act as a totem. Some rules elements allow physical aspects to affect your effective Charisma score. Getting a bonus from a scar is about bolstering your confidence, "Wow, that was close, but I survived because I'm so awesome," and the scar boosts your charisma not because of the physical effect on others, but because on the mental effect upon you, yourself, it is a constant reminder of how well you work under pressure. Conversely, if the scar gives a penalty to Charisma, it is, again, working on your confidence, but this time as a detriment, "Wow, that was close... I almost died... maybe I'm not as awesome as I thought I was." You become plagued by self-doubt and this hampers your ability to enforce your personality.

PS: @Lamontius
Your Cha 5 Inquisitor is plagued by self-doubt and self-esteem issues... but his faith fills in the gap. He may be a walking golden ratio with a perfectly symmetrical face, an exemplar of perfect health, and virile to boot, but his lack of forceful personality will mean people overlook this aspect of him. More importantly is that he understands people; he knows what makes them tick, their virtues and, more importantly, their vices. He knows what buttons to push. He doubts constantly and is always expecting failure around every corner, but his faith, based in Wisdom, lets him know that someone far more perfect than he could ever hope to be is watching over his shoulder and guiding his actions. He knows that it's his deity's guiding hand, not his own words, that convinces that woman that clean white gloves are a sin.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

man what
no


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Lamontius
Your Cha 5 Inquisitor reeks of confidence—and that's not all he reeks of. His faith informs everything he does, and since he lost the book on libations, he's putting that particular activity on moratorium. He's charming enough, as long as you don't expect him to go hunting or horseback riding, as dogs and horses mistake him for a goblin and seek to kill him at once. He is insecure about his height and makes up for it by walking around in nothing but a loincloth and insisting everyone call him "Steve". Nobody's exactly sure what significance that name bears, but nobody wants to question him, as his temper is legendary. Clean white gloves throw him into a berserk rage due to jealousy over being able to keep something clean, and the women who wear them will buy his horrible homemade products he's so proud of solely to avoid his wrath.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

what is even happening now


@Lamontious - Your CHA5 Inquisitor is exactly as you choose to describe him, no matter what any of these people may say, since he's your PC, and none of these individuals are you, your GM, or even other players in your game, so however they may choose to analyze your decisions doesn't mean a lick of diddly squat, no matter how much they hate on how you chose to implement character generation within the legitimate rules as given and interpreted by your GM.

Or, to put it more colloquially...
Haters gonna hate.


Lamontius wrote:

CHA is the new DEX

pay attention to what you can do with it now

also leave my CHA 5 inquisitor alone
he is sexy as hell and can sell a ketchup Popsicle to a woman in white gloves

If he can pass the diplomacy or bluff check, of course.

But he can certainly try.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

lvl 11
Diplomacy + 17
Bluff + 16
Intimidate + 18
unbuffed

usually rolls with buffed skills in the low 20s

not main party face

but he has the mechanics to back up how I play him and what I say in-character, rather than having the titles given to collections of game mechanics defining the only way to play the game

my general response on a successful roll, when my CHA is brought up


Nice. I'm guessing back at L1 was a lot rougher but still, nice.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
I'm guessing back at L1 was a lot rougher

Not too familiar with inquisitors, eh? ;) Hint: I'd bet dollars to donuts he used the Conversion Inquisition.


ding ding ding
winner


Ah. Having a class ability that can be summed up as "Ignore your charisma score" makes a pretty significant difference.

And is also kind of a red herring in the ongoing discussion then.

Shadow Lodge

So you abused your granted power to sell ketchup popsicles to make a few coins....


I abused what now


@Lamontius
Your Cha 5 Inquisitor is granted powers of sexiness by his god, with the caveat that he use them wisely and with restraint. Should he abuse them by, say, trying to sell a thread* of goblin babies to any white glove-wearing young women, inquisitor falls.

Lamontius wrote:


Intimidate + 18

I was going to call shenanigans, but y'know, I think that pretty closely matches most marketing strategies I've seen.

*New unit of measurement. One mikaze = Eight threads; One thread = Three goblin babies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is some confusion in that my character
A. does not actually sell anything
2. does not actually produce or carry ketchup Popsicles
D. does not specifically interact with women wearing white gloves

but just to bake some noodles further
he IS a devoted shelynite


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BUY GOBLIN BABIES NOW, OR ELSE!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:


"Charisma determines a character's physical beauty" doesn't seem so certain anymore, does it?

Two words: Tyrion Lannister.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*no goblin babies were harmed, sold or covered in ketchup popsicles during the creation of my character


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Have you ever seen a celebrity that you didn't realize was a celebrity and just instinctively known, "There's something about this person"? Such a character can't help but draw eyes. If he's handsome, he'll draw eyes because he's handsome. If he's ugly, he'll draw eyes because he's ugly. If he's authoritative, he'll draw eyes because he has an air of authority. I used Disguise as an example for actively trying to change your appearance from "known" to "inconspicuous". But if you're just trying to be "not as charismatic", that's like trying to be "not as knowledgeable" or "not as wise". You can feign ignorance, but that involves answering questions wrong. Likewise, you can feign anonymity, but that involves subduing your presence in some manner. Think of Aragorn, the future King of all Men, wearing a ranger's hood and sitting over in the corner of a dark little tavern. He's got a decent Charisma about him so, even without knowing exactly who he is, his presence will affect those around him. Frodo's eyes are even drawn to him (he rocked that perception check) and knew this isn't just some random hooded stranger sitting in a tavern. People respond to confidence a lot more than they respond to intelligence and somewhat more than they respond to wisdom.

So basically you're saying that no matter what my sorcerer does, as soon as he opens his mouth (or gives someone a glance or look) they're going to be struck by his appearance/presence/personality?

If so, how does this interact with charisma skills? If he expresses disapproval toward someone, are they going to be a bit intimidated even if I didn't make an intimidate roll because it wasn't my character's intention? Or, because I didn't use a particular skill, they might be intimidated, or more likely to change their view to agree with his, or basically give his words more weight because of his charisma score?

Is there just no way - short of actually reducing your charisma score - of reducing or eliminating its impact?


Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Yeah I've always figured all conversation comes to a screeching halt when a high level sorceror walks into the room.

Ever stood next to a top notch professional athlete on game day...a sorcerer gives that off.....all the time.

There's a reason some mages hang in the back.

as usual good stuff to consider for the future.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My go to image for anyone that says Cha equals attractiveness:

Charisma 20.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.
Either your GM is a huge jerk for forcing the team apart or you play with some really dumb players that split up poorly.

Thanks for telling me what is bad/wrong fun.

In a less sarcastic note, if you've never been separated from the group than your enemies suck and the GM plays constant softball, but I think that's cool if you have fun playing that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless you are concerned about including copious amounts of sex in the game theres really no reason to be concerned about attractiveness at all.

In my games there are copious amounts of adventuring, fighting, exploring, and other such activities. How hot you are is irrelevant. Now that might be largely because the group I play in is mixed gender and no one is particularly interested in that kind of atmosphere at the table, but seriously...who cares.

If you are playing in such a way that it matters so much how you look you might want to reevaluate your priorities. Isn't that part of why people play in the first place? To escape the pressures and problems of their real lives to have some relaxing fun, why would you introduce sexualization, quite possibly the one stressor that hits young people most, into that mix? Now it could be that I'm 30, in a long term relationship with kids that ensures I really don't give a rip about how hot my fantasy character is but still...I don't want to play 50 shades of pathfinder in a mixed group (at least not my current group)...much less a group of all one gender.

I actually enjoy playing socially awkward or inept characters. Possibly because I am actually quite a personable and confident person that I can put that force of personality into someone who is utterly inept and serve as a master of comic relief at the table, at my own expense of course.

The fact that someone would feel the need to play a hot and serious character makes me sad for them.


smells like burning tires


Trimalchio wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.
Either your GM is a huge jerk for forcing the team apart or you play with some really dumb players that split up poorly.

Thanks for telling me what is bad/wrong fun.

In a less sarcastic note, if you've never been separated from the group than your enemies suck and the GM plays constant softball, but I think that's cool if you have fun playing that way.

Yes, because sitting down and doing nothing while one person has to fight off whatever they're fighting off is tons of fun. I absolutely love waiting and waiting for my character to be able to do something in what could be an important battle or scene.

But seriously, as someone that had to sit through a dream sequence fight and a hunter running off and soloing half a dungeon, sitting around while my character is not relevant is not fun at all. Maybe you find waiting fun but most people don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The initiative system can handle two fights or three in different locations.

Dark Archive

As a DM, I would have physical attractiveness/beauty tied to Charisma though I would allow that one with low Charisma could be attractive and those with high Charisma... yet at the same time I would only allow this so far. A 5 Charisma would at best be plain and I would not see sense in allowing a character to dump the stat and then say their character is beautiful/attractive.

For me, while it is only a part of what makes up Charisma, attractiveness/beauty would be connected to the stat in question I feel. That and I also have a rule in my campaign that a player can't have any stat lower then 8 except on a case to case basis and I only if I know the player can properly roleplay such low stats. I would make sure the player understands there will be additional challenges involving whatever stat is so low.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.
Either your GM is a huge jerk for forcing the team apart or you play with some really dumb players that split up poorly.

Thanks for telling me what is bad/wrong fun.

In a less sarcastic note, if you've never been separated from the group than your enemies suck and the GM plays constant softball, but I think that's cool if you have fun playing that way.

Yes, because sitting down and doing nothing while one person has to fight off whatever they're fighting off is tons of fun. I absolutely love waiting and waiting for my character to be able to do something in what could be an important battle or scene.

But seriously, as someone that had to sit through a dream sequence fight and a hunter running off and soloing half a dungeon, sitting around while my character is not relevant is not fun at all. Maybe you find waiting fun but most people don't.

There is no reason that a player cannot be involved in a scene just because their character is not. Players and DM can collaborate together to create the scene and adventure for the character who is on stage at the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:

As a DM, I would have physical attractiveness/beauty tied to Charisma though I would allow that one with low Charisma could be attractive and those with high Charisma... yet at the same time I would only allow this so far. A 5 Charisma would at best be plain and I would not see sense in allowing a character to dump the stat and then say their character is beautiful/attractive.

For me, while it is only a part of what makes up Charisma, attractiveness/beauty would be connected to the stat in question I feel. That and I also have a rule in my campaign that a player can't have any stat lower then 8 except on a case to case basis and I only if I know the player can properly roleplay such low stats. I would make sure the player understands there will be additional challenges involving whatever stat is so low.

Why? What purpose does that actually serve?

Taking things on a 'case by case' basis is just a nice way of saying 'arbitrary'. No one likes things to be arbitrary.

Ability scores will affect mechanical aspects of the game, skill and ability checks. If the player wants them to affect their ability to roleplay that is on them. If a character has a substantial dump stat I will just ask them how that will effect their roleplay, and they will determine the nature of the impact. I'm not interested in policing my players.

Dark Archive

Detoxifier wrote:

Why? What purpose does that actually serve?

Taking things on a 'case by case' basis is just a nice way of saying 'arbitrary'. No one likes things to be arbitrary.

Ability scores will affect mechanical aspects of the game, skill and ability checks. If the player wants them to affect their ability to roleplay that is on them. If a character has a substantial dump stat I will just ask them how that will effect their roleplay, and they will determine the nature of the impact. I'm not interested in policing my players.

Because it is my campaign, I can decide how I want it to work, and because I give fair warning of any house rules before starting. Now it is up to the players if they want to follow my rules or not, and if they don't like something they can either discuss such or leave.

Also I allow them to tell me how they would like to play their character, but as the DM I reserve the right to say No if I don't think such will work in my campaign. This goes for any aspect of character building, and I am actually generous since unlike a many DMs I allow 3rd party material. I am more then willing to help a player with a character build, but I pay attention to whether or not it is for roleplaying or mechanics.

Seriously, there should be no reason to dump any stat below 8 in my campaigns anyway since I would either allow players start with 25 point buy or have them roll 4d6 reroll 1s and 2 once. That should be more then enough for any player to get what they need out of their character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:
Detoxifier wrote:

Why? What purpose does that actually serve?

Taking things on a 'case by case' basis is just a nice way of saying 'arbitrary'. No one likes things to be arbitrary.

Ability scores will affect mechanical aspects of the game, skill and ability checks. If the player wants them to affect their ability to roleplay that is on them. If a character has a substantial dump stat I will just ask them how that will effect their roleplay, and they will determine the nature of the impact. I'm not interested in policing my players.

Because it is my campaign, I can decide how I want it to work, and because I give fair warning of any house rules before starting. Now it is up to the players if they want to follow my rules or not, and if they don't like something they can either discuss such or leave.

Also I allow them to tell me how they would like to play their character, but as the DM I reserve the right to say No if I don't think such will work in my campaign. This goes for any aspect of character building, and I am actually generous since unlike a many DMs I allow 3rd party material. I am more then willing to help a player with a character build, but I pay attention to whether or not it is for roleplaying or mechanics.

Seriously, there should be no reason to dump any stat below 8 in my campaigns anyway since I would either allow players start with 25 point buy or have them roll 4d6 reroll 1s and 2 once. That should be more then enough for any starting character to get what they need out of their character.

Thank you for getting straight to the fundamental principle of the matter. It is YOUR CAMPAIGN. It does not belong to the players, you own it, you control it. Therefore the rules are set for your enjoyment, and admissions are made by arbitration in order for you to appear generous. So the fundamental issue is that, thats how you like, so thats how you will have it.

In the games that I DM for, the game belongs to the players as much as me, and we collaborate on all aspects of the design. The players come to the table knowing that they are as much an owner of the game as I am, and that the adventure is a collaborative one, not hierarchical. I don't get to tell the players no, if somebody doesn't like something, we negogiate until we come to an agreeable solution.

151 to 200 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Charisma is not Physical Beauty All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.