Not maximizing your primary ability?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Veldan Rath wrote:
Spellcasters with touch of idiocy ruin my day when I dump CHR.

I tend to go after every stat also, but most GM's dont alter monsters like that in my experience. In that case I would say to not go below a 9 or 10.


Veldan Rath wrote:
Spellcasters with touch of idiocy ruin my day when I dump CHR.

Why?

Sure, your Charisma drops to 1 for a few hours. You're unlikeable, but you dumped Charisma anyway, so you're not relying on it for anything. Annoying, but how is your day ruined?


I imagine a buffing skillmonkey who doesn't need to peronally influence the field has no real need to maximise unless to make dispelling harder


wraithstrike wrote:
I think it is more like making a dex check to not fall on my face while I am walking(a mundane activity). {. . .}

Apparently, this is really necessary for some people.

wraithstrike wrote:

Some GM's try to make business owners charge you more for having a low charisma*, and while I realize Pathfinder is an abstraction that is poor service, and not really reasonable. {. . .}

Actually for basic NPC's it is 1/3. Treating 1/3 of the population badly is not exactly a good idea.

But wait . . . this happens on Earth all the time!


UnArcaneElection wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I think it is more like making a dex check to not fall on my face while I am walking(a mundane activity). {. . .}

Apparently, this is really necessary for some people.

wraithstrike wrote:

Some GM's try to make business owners charge you more for having a low charisma*, and while I realize Pathfinder is an abstraction that is poor service, and not really reasonable. {. . .}

Actually for basic NPC's it is 1/3. Treating 1/3 of the population badly is not exactly a good idea.

But wait . . . this happens on Earth all the time!

Most of us have tripped before, and I am sure there are businessmen with terrible customer service. I never denied that, but it should not be a constant thing. If you want to go that route we can start making ability checks for every thing a character does.

Is that what you are suggesting?

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

Why?

Sure, your Charisma drops to 1 for a few hours. You're unlikeable, but you dumped Charisma anyway, so you're not relying on it for anything. Annoying, but how is your day ruined?

If you're being realistic in your RP, it would be potentially fatal on account of the other party members murdering you :) Then again, I guess part of that comes down to "what aspect of social skills come from what stats". I'm imagining a CHA 1 person would be pretty much running around telling everyone what they *really* feel about them, using phrasing that could make a sailor blush, and chewing with their mouth open. But a lot of people would argue that they have enough WIS to avoid doing some of that stuff. What does CHA really dictate in social interactions in the game beyond stat checks, that isn't redundant with one of the other mental stats?


Your ability to lie to people, your ability to convince people of things, and your ability to scare people are the three major Cha skills. What connects these is how well you talk. That's what Cha controls, ultimately.

It does not control whether or not you have to talk; nothing does. Indeed, I would imagine a low-Cha person is fairly quiet, because he's made the connection that when he speaks, people like him less. You could play that either way, but that's entirely up to the player's discretion.


wraithstrike wrote:

Most of us have tripped before, and I am sure there are businessmen with terrible customer service. I never denied that, but it should not be a constant thing. If you want to go that route we can start making ability checks for every thing a character does.

Is that what you are suggesting?

With respect to having to check frequently for tripping: Ordinarily, just for those who dumped Dex (as apparently a certain past occupant of the highest office in the land did).

With respect to frequent bad customer service: I would certainly expect this in most non-utopian settings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Most of us have tripped before, and I am sure there are businessmen with terrible customer service. I never denied that, but it should not be a constant thing. If you want to go that route we can start making ability checks for every thing a character does.

Is that what you are suggesting?

With respect to having to check frequently for tripping: Ordinarily, just for those who dumped Dex (as apparently a certain past occupant of the highest office in the land did).

With respect to frequent bad customer service: I would certainly expect this in most non-utopian settings.

Even clumsy people don't risk falling down every day, which would only really happen if dex checks were constantly made just to walk. And I have not known a business to treat a customer worse than average just for coming off as unlikable* unless they actually did something. Many times they are given good service, just to make sure they don't come back to fix the problem.

*The person that comes in and has not done anything wrong, but might be annoying or you just want him to leave, and you cant' really explain why.

It clearly is not going to happen to 1/3 of the population, which is what trying to penalize charisma is suggesting for people who would have a shopowner be less than nice to someone.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a strong aversion to going below 10 on stats. You can see that in my PFS characters, most of whom have their stat block up on their individual profiles.


Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Why?

Sure, your Charisma drops to 1 for a few hours. You're unlikeable, but you dumped Charisma anyway, so you're not relying on it for anything. Annoying, but how is your day ruined?
If you're being realistic in your RP, it would be potentially fatal on account of the other party members murdering you :) Then again, I guess part of that comes down to "what aspect of social skills come from what stats". I'm imagining a CHA 1 person would be pretty much running around telling everyone what they *really* feel about them, using phrasing that could make a sailor blush, and chewing with their mouth open. But a lot of people would argue that they have enough WIS to avoid doing some of that stuff. What does CHA really dictate in social interactions in the game beyond stat checks, that isn't redundant with one of the other mental stats?

I dont think i Charisma of 1 would evoke strong feelings in any body.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:

Your ability to lie to people, your ability to convince people of things, and your ability to scare people are the three major Cha skills. What connects these is how well you talk. That's what Cha controls, ultimately.

It does not control whether or not you have to talk; nothing does. Indeed, I would imagine a low-Cha person is fairly quiet, because he's made the connection that when he speaks, people like him less. You could play that either way, but that's entirely up to the player's discretion.

Your charisma modifier is also likely to be well outweighed by skill ranks. Hell, even a Charisma 5 dwarf will entirely offset their -3 modifier to something like diplomacy by simply being trained in the skill and having 1 rank.

The impact of low scores is vastly overrated by some people on these boards.


andreww: Can't say that it's overrated at all. A difference of 3 points in a skill is even worth a feat. The fact that a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer will always be 6 points shorter than a 16 CHA gnome diplomancer is a big difference (so big that you shouldn't be a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer).
And skills are the least affected parts of ability scores.
The impact of a low caster stat is huge, as a spell caster can't cast spells then. The impact of a low CON is death.


Rub-Eta wrote:

andreww: Can't say that it's overrated at all. A difference of 3 points in a skill is even worth a feat. The fact that a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer will always be 6 points shorter than a 16 CHA gnome diplomancer is a big difference (so big that you shouldn't be a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer).

And skills are the least affected parts of ability scores.
The impact of a low caster stat is huge, as a spell caster can't cast spells then. The impact of a low CON is death.

It's only a caster stat for casters that use that stat. In the above example with touch of idiocy which is what this subtopic is about the character was intelligence based.


Rub-Eta wrote:

andreww: Can't say that it's overrated at all. A difference of 3 points in a skill is even worth a feat. The fact that a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer will always be 6 points shorter than a 16 CHA gnome diplomancer is a big difference (so big that you shouldn't be a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer).

And skills are the least affected parts of ability scores.
The impact of a low caster stat is huge, as a spell caster can't cast spells then. The impact of a low CON is death.

It isn't overrated if you are trying to specialize in something using that ability score. It is if you just need to get by.

An SoD specialist sorcerer needs a high charisma to do their job. Much lower than max and it begins to hurt their core competency.

A front-liner bard can be fine with 12 charisma until level 7. They don't need any more than what is necessary to cast their spells. A headband at level 7 and they don't need anything more until level 13. They get a little out of more charisma (an extra spell slot or two, and ), but many will find a physical stat more useful to boost.

Likewise, you might want to max out charisma if you plan on turning assassins there to murder you into best friends for life with a single sentence. If you just want to be able to ask someone for directions without them hating you forever a few ranks in diplomacy to offset the cha penalty are good enough.


wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
ryric wrote:
I find it interesting that many people play with Charisma having no intrinsic effects. Other ability scores have times where you are just making an ability check - bashing down a door, holding your breath, working on a riddle. Symmetry says to me that there are times when a Charisma check is called for, when none of the Cha-based skills apply. In those times all the traits and skill ranks won't help you, any more than 7 Str person gets any better at door bashing by having ranks in Climb and Swim.

Symmetry might say so but the game doesn't.

Quote:
An example of such a check in my game is a first impression made before anyone talks, especially if the person being evaluated isn't aware they are being observed. Also NPCs who have just met the party tend to assume the highest Cha person is the leader - generally no mechanical consequences there, just roleplaying stuff.

I've always questioned the logistics behind this sort of house rule. It's like setting the DC for a Swim check higher or a person with low Strength, or making an Acrobatics DC higher for someone with low Dex, or making a Knowledge DC harder for someone with low Int.

The game is already accounting for these things.

I think it is more like making a dex check to not fall on my face while I am walking(a mundane activity). If I am not engaging anyone I should not need a charisma check, just like I should not need a dex check unless I am doing something that requires dex. Some GM's try to make business owners charge you more for having a low charisma*, and while I realize Pathfinder is an abstraction that is poor service, and not really reasonable. Word of mouth still spreads around, and 1/6(assuming an even stat spread) of the population is likely to have a negative charisma check, and that is before you get into dwarves or other creatures with an inherent penalty.

*just an example

Actually for basic NPC's it is 1/3. Treating 1/3 of the population badly is not exactly a good...

I would say having the person wit the lower charisma not be noticed as much as the one with a higher charisma is not remotely the same as making dex checks to walk. It's a passive roll unless someone is specifically making an effort to be noticed in which case a skill check takes over. If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.


RDM42 wrote:
I would say having the person wit the lower charisma not be noticed as much as the one with a higher charisma is not remotely the same as making dex checks to walk.

That is not what I compared it to.

I brought up how GM's would have an NPC go out of their way, such as a shopkeeper or bartender, to treat an PC worse, when the PC had done nothing to warrant a cha check. By the same token walking does not require a dex check.

You don't need an feat(not game term) of athletic ability to walk, and it should not take effort just to buy something from someone when it is a straight forward deal.

You give give them 5 copper, and you get your drink. That is all it should be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of creeps get served in bars, that's why there's bars.

As for not maximizing primary stats to me it's a matter of game style. Consider at 1st level that, if the GM is going completely RAW and not modifying their creatures at all, the avg AC for CR 1 creatures is a 12. If your fighter has a +1 BAB at level 1 this means they only need a Str 12 to have a 50/50 shot at hitting such creatures and a Str 14 gets the PC Power Attack while maintaining that 50/50 shot.

So, if the GM is going completely RAW you might have a fighter with a 14 Str and a 16 Cha after racials. He's a charmer, one everyone wants to hang with, but in a fight he's brutal and powerful enough to put a man down with one hit (2h greatsword from this guy at level 1 including Power Attack deals 2d6+6, Avg 13 damage).

Then again if your GM routinely hands you a CR 2 fight with 4 gear-and-stat-optimized kobold warrior 1 in the dark, underground, in conditions favorable to the kobolds, building the villains as snipers with alternate racial traits and giving them a kobold Adept 3 leader optimized to use their familiar with an archetype to actually lend aid in battle in a significant way... you better pray to the god of skinny punks your PCs are optimized. 2 rounds in (Surprise round and round 1) the kobolds have put 5 shortbow arrows into your cleric who's now taken 12 damage and is unconscious, plus the rogue has been Sickened by a Surprise touch attack from the adept's familiar which led to him getting Fatigued. Soon enough it'll be time for the Adept to pull off that Sleep spell and suddenly the PC wizard is alone save for their familiar, running for their life through trap-infested tunnels and hoping the sniper kobolds don't catch up to them again!

Not that anything like that's ever happened in my game...


8 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)


wraithstrike wrote:
Even clumsy people don't risk falling down every day, which would only really happen if dex checks were constantly made just to walk.

Well, we should probably go in between: Dex check is not needed every day for somebody who semi-dumped Dex down to 8, but full-dumping Dex down to 7 or less gets you a Gerald Ford award.

wraithstrike wrote:

And I have not known a business to treat a customer worse than average just for coming off as unlikable* unless they actually did something. Many times they are given good service, just to make sure they don't come back to fix the problem.

*The person that comes in and has not done anything wrong, but might be annoying or you just want him to leave, and you cant' really explain why.

It clearly is not going to happen to 1/3 of the population, which is what trying to penalize charisma is suggesting for people who would have a shopowner be less than nice to someone.

Some business get away with giving lousy service to more than 1/3 of the population, although often this is influenced only to a modest degree by the charisma of the customers.

* * * * * * * *

Admittedly, this thread was originally about not maximizing your primary ability score, not about not dumping your other ability scores.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Even clumsy people don't risk falling down every day, which would only really happen if dex checks were constantly made just to walk.

Well, we should probably go in between: Dex check is not needed every day for somebody who semi-dumped Dex down to 8, but full-dumping Dex down to 7 or less gets you a Gerald Ford award.

wraithstrike wrote:

And I have not known a business to treat a customer worse than average just for coming off as unlikable* unless they actually did something. Many times they are given good service, just to make sure they don't come back to fix the problem.

*The person that comes in and has not done anything wrong, but might be annoying or you just want him to leave, and you cant' really explain why.

It clearly is not going to happen to 1/3 of the population, which is what trying to penalize charisma is suggesting for people who would have a shopowner be less than nice to someone.

Some business get away with giving lousy service to more than 1/3 of the population, although often this is influenced only to a small degree by the charisma of the customers.

Actually there there is no rule or proof that a 7 would be a terrible stat that makes you a lot less functional, as in "You must deal with random nonsense that nobody else has to deal with".

Basically what happens is GM's feel like the game does not do enough to penalize low charisma so they go make things up and try to justify it.

Back on the topics of 7's or lower.
In races with inherent penalties a stat of 6 is happening in 1/6 of the society so 1/3 of some entire races have 6's or 7's. Do they all go around getting bad service, and struggling to walk.

Also I realize some businesses owners have more leeway, but on average it is likely a bad idea to be a jerk to 1/6 to 1/3 of your customers.

edit: Gerald Ford award according to google--> The award honors an individual who has provided significant leadership as an advocate for college sports over the course of his or her career.
How does not match up with a low dex


Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

According to some in this thread, your skills don't matter. Only the stat.


Well, I am not one of those people. I did say "all other things being equal. 'All other things' includes skills.

Scarab Sages

There is a tradeoff and depreciating returns the more you maximize some things over others. Especially with a set group (not PFS random groups) it's much easier to take it easy (though by the same token it could also be worth more to min/max because someone else will take care of your weakness).

I just started a campaign where I warned players that I will use Will save spells, and some still dumped the mental stats. But they were warned.

But at the same time I don't like targeting people and ruining their fun, that feels more like revenge or pettiness. Usually whoever among us is GMing will have bad guys target randomly, or target whoever is doing the most damage to them, to make sure not to be biased, and we roll in the open.

Even low CHA, i would do interactions based on race more than charisma, and even then it's just extra 25% cost or something, no need to roleplay jerks. That is no fun for anyone, including me.


As to the janitor description I would assume that the disguise skill includes disguising body language and adopting appropriate body language for someone in the position you are trying to imitate. I have my "in situations where a social skill applies, it's social skill plus stat that holds sway".


RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?

Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?

Disguise?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah there's a big difference between "there are some situations that skills don't cover where an ability check is warranted" and "skills don't matter just the ability score." I haven't seen anyone actually espouse the second view.

I played a 5 Cha dwarf in a Rise of the Runelords campaign. I roleplayed him as being offensive, inconsiderate, and with foul personal habits. NPCs would ignore me in conversations and occasionally talk over me as if I weren't there. All of this was fine because the GM and I are both mature individuals who understand what we want from a game.

It's really no different than deciding your 7 Dex character is clumsy, and occasionally trips or knocks over drinks despite having maxed Acrobatics.

I sometimes forget that some groups play a much more adversarial game than I do - in my games, nothing about how our characters are played happens without the consent of both player and GM. In our games you are expected to roleplay your stats whether they are good or bad. And yes, we consider a 14 just as good as a 7 is bad. In fact, from our point of view a 14-16 high stat is perfectly acceptable. It's certainly enough to see you through an AP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Disguise?

When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.


wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Disguise?
When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.

If you are disguising yourself to imitate another person it is by default changing at least the expression of your charisma.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would assume a high-Cha person can tone down their personal magnetism much as a high-Str character can choose not to use full force, or a high-Int person can choose not to give a problem much thought.


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Disguise?
When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.
If you are disguising yourself to imitate another person it is by default changing at least the expression of your charisma.

You never said you were imitating another person, and "changing the impression of your charisma" might just make people wonder why they never noticed you(the fake you) before. It might not actually draw any less attention. It would really depend on what the NPC thought of the person you were imitating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. Which is why this whole thing is stupid. :|


wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Disguise?
When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.
If you are disguising yourself to imitate another person it is by default changing at least the expression of your charisma.
You never said you were imitating another person, and "changing the impression of your charisma" might just make people wonder why they never noticed you(the fake you) before. It might...

But if you use disguise you are IMPLICITLY imitating another person, or its a pointleas skill. Bluff also applies. There are many skills which are very plausibly useful for the situation which you reference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So you can use Disguise to implicitly imitate someone with a MASSIVE CHARISMA and thus immediately become a pop idol.


@RDM42: Disguise does not default to "imitating someone else". The default is "not look like me".

edit: There is even a section for modifiers for when you go out of your way to look like a certain person.


Also how are you bluffing and not drawing attention to yourself? By the rules it takes 1 round to bluff. A GM can allow bluff to work this way, but by the rules it does not work like you want it to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
So you can use Disguise to implicitly imitate someone with a MASSIVE CHARISMA and thus immediately become a pop idol.

No. Using less of something you have is also rather different from using something you don't have.


wraithstrike wrote:

@RDM42: Disguise does not default to "imitating someone else". The default is "not look like me".

edit: There is even a section for modifiers for when you go out of your way to look like a certain person.

Which implies that it's something disguise can do right?


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

@RDM42: Disguise does not default to "imitating someone else". The default is "not look like me".

edit: There is even a section for modifiers for when you go out of your way to look like a certain person.

Which implies that it's something disguise can do right?

Obviously if I am saying it can then I think it can, but that is not the same as "default use".


The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.


wraithstrike wrote:
The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.

And part of looking Like you is your personal magnetism.


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.
And part of looking Like you is your personal magnetism.

I was stating that to clear up how disguise actually works.

With regard to the idea of charisma drawing attention you only said charisma determines that. I am sure the game does not change your charisma when you put a disguise on.

Basically you came up with a non-rule, and it has been pointed out that it does not really work well in a game. If you are a spy it would get you noticed, and if you use disguise your charisma is still on so whether you are disguised or not it would get you attention you did not ask for, if your "auto-attention" was a real rule, but it isn't.

Now some GM's may use it to see who gets noticed first, and that is not a problem, but that does not mean people with low charismas get ignored or those with high charisma bring attention without trying.


wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.
And part of looking Like you is your personal magnetism.

I was stating that to clear up how disguise actually works.

With regard to the idea of charisma drawing attention you only said charisma determines that. I am sure the game does not change your charisma when you put a disguise on.

Basically you came up with a non-rule, and it has been pointed out that it does not really work well in a game. If you are a spy it would get you noticed, and if you use disguise your charisma is still on so whether you are disguised or not it would get you attention you did not ask for, if your "auto-attention" was a real rule, but it isn't.

Now some GM's may use it to see who gets noticed first, and that is not a problem, but that does not mean people with low charismas get ignored or those with high charisma bring attention without trying.

No. I explicitly said 'all other things being equal'


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.
And part of looking Like you is your personal magnetism.

I was stating that to clear up how disguise actually works.

With regard to the idea of charisma drawing attention you only said charisma determines that. I am sure the game does not change your charisma when you put a disguise on.

Basically you came up with a non-rule, and it has been pointed out that it does not really work well in a game. If you are a spy it would get you noticed, and if you use disguise your charisma is still on so whether you are disguised or not it would get you attention you did not ask for, if your "auto-attention" was a real rule, but it isn't.

Now some GM's may use it to see who gets noticed first, and that is not a problem, but that does not mean people with low charismas get ignored or those with high charisma bring attention without trying.

No. I explicitly said 'all other things being equal'

Maybe if they have a reason to interact with them yes, but my post that was replied had nothing to do with that which is likely why I overlooked it.

I was speaking about a situation where someone is already engaged, and not treated well because people want to add houserules.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
So you can use Disguise to implicitly imitate someone with a MASSIVE CHARISMA and thus immediately become a pop idol.
No. Using less of something you have is also rather different from using something you don't have.

However, what you're talking about doesn't exist at all. On one hand you're saying it's innately a feature of Charisma, but that you can turn it off if you want, but there's no turning anything off because there's nothing to turn on in the first place.

You have your modifier. End of story.


Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
So you can use Disguise to implicitly imitate someone with a MASSIVE CHARISMA and thus immediately become a pop idol.
No. Using less of something you have is also rather different from using something you don't have.

However, what you're talking about doesn't exist at all. On one hand you're saying it's innately a feature of Charisma, but that you can turn it off if you want, but there's no turning anything off because there's nothing to turn on in the first place.

You have your modifier. End of story.

I assume you dont allow anybody to lift less then there max load?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To further illustrate...

Quote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

This means that if you have a spy with +1 Charisma and a spy with -1 Charisma with equal ranks in disguise, the spy with the +1 has more likely to be a bad spy because he naturally has people gravitate towards paying him extra attention as long as all things are equal. So while the one with the lower Charisma is 10% likely for the disguise to fail, the one with the +1 Charisma is going to get more chances for the disguise to fail in the first place.

Now let's look at Disguise.

Disguise wrote:
Check: Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others' Perception check results. If you don't draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Perception checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.

Which means that the guy who is actually worse at being disguised from the Charisma penalty is actually less likely to be exposed because nobody gives a rat's rear-end about him. Since "all things being equal", people will gravitate away from the low-Cha guy and towards the high-Cha guy, thus prompting more chances for the high Charisma guy to get outed while no checks are even being made against the low-Charisma guy.

For Those At Home: If this sounds asinine, it's because it is. Welcome to the "Charisma means more than it says it does" camp. Long name, crappy results.

Quote:
If you are disguising yourself to imitate another person it is by default changing at least the expression of your charisma.

So again, as long as the Sense Motive isn't right, you can totally have an entourage of people fawning over your pretend Charisma, because you're changing the expression of your Charisma (whatever the hell that means) with your successful Disguise check!

Quote:
No. Using less of something you have is also rather different from using something you don't have.

Oh? That's not covered under Disguise or anything else. Not even Charisma in fact. You just said Disguise erases the apparent effect of Charisma based on what you're trying to Disguise yourself as, but now you're back peddling pretty hard.

I'm just asking you to remain consistent with stuff you're pulling out of your hat.

Yeah, this whole thing is stupid. >_>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
So you can use Disguise to implicitly imitate someone with a MASSIVE CHARISMA and thus immediately become a pop idol.
No. Using less of something you have is also rather different from using something you don't have.

However, what you're talking about doesn't exist at all. On one hand you're saying it's innately a feature of Charisma, but that you can turn it off if you want, but there's no turning anything off because there's nothing to turn on in the first place.

You have your modifier. End of story.

I assume you dont allow anybody to lift less then there max load?

I think you answered your own question when you said "Maximum Load".

51 to 100 of 639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Not maximizing your primary ability? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.