Chunkylover's page

The latest episode of Workaholics may ofer some ideas.

Hamlet Alabaster, Gus Greenbottle, Gordon Willowsnapper, Buck Bubbles,

Halflings

I think it boils down to "what works for you may not work for other, and vice versa", but I'm not 100% sure.

I know I can arrange them somewhat like the spell lists I linked to. I'm being spoiled. I was hoping there was some Pathfinder around more or less the exactly like those from D&D 3.5.

Are any spell lists for Pathfinder similar to the ones here?
Spell lists.

Bumpity...

Is it possible to get some sort of official ruling on this?
...Or at least the creators intention?

If I'm using a rapier and allowed to apply the feat "Dervish Dance" to it, is it better to just buy the "Agile" weapon enhancement or is the feat better?

FYI: I'm a fighter/rogue on my way to duellist.

I like this conversation from "Clerks".

This is one of my favourite tables from that study:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF

I see a lot of socialists there. I don't see how the statement I made above is ridiculous.

I think the table you are refering to has an error in it, it doesn't say socialist in the ideology coloumn in any of those guys...

... What I'm poorly trying to convey here is that in order to call those guys evil socialist mass murderers, socialism ought to have been the driving force behind their murdering. I'm not sure this is the case. If any of them were socialists, were that the reason for their actions?

Chunkylover wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Could you perhaps argue for your position with something other than snide ad homs and insults?

Your

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Right, But by your postmodernist perspective proof is impossible. Anything you like is a given, anything you don't like can't be proven.

was a snide ad hominem and insult. The fact that you can't take what you feebly try to dish out is your problem. If you stop trying to dish it out, you won't end up getting it in return.

That doesn't sound very christian of you. What about turning the other cheek?

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not a Christian.

Oh, sorry. My bad.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Could you perhaps argue for your position with something other than snide ad homs and insults?

Your

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Right, But by your postmodernist perspective proof is impossible. Anything you like is a given, anything you don't like can't be proven.

was a snide ad hominem and insult. The fact that you can't take what you feebly try to dish out is your problem. If you stop trying to dish it out, you won't end up getting it in return.

That doesn't sound very christian of you. What about turning the other cheek?

From "That Mitchell and Webb Look"

I like this one... :)

1:1 teacher/administrator ratios

Could you please refer to some sources for this claim?

...if we're going to spend the same amount per student as Austria spends, I want Austrian results for that money.

Perhaps a little less money to the athletics department might make a difference..?(Different allocation of funds in Austrian schools, I imagine...)

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

If the GM has asked you to be a gadfly, that's one thing, but if you've just decided to play this sort of character, there's nothing wrong with the other character IC pushing him off a cliff or just ditching him at the earliest convenience.

Oh no you misunderstand, I was never supposed to join the party in the first place and have no intention to now. I am just to be part of the orc's that work for the dragon.

Ok....?

You're not a part of the party. Why is that something to do? Splitting up the party usually sucks. Playing someone who isn't even in said party seems even worse.

Are you a part of the campaign or do you and the GM meet when the other guys are not around and plan dastardly deeds?

His intelligence should come into it as well. That will represent his knowledge of other cultures, so he knows he's not doing something that offends.

His constitution should come into it as well. Everyone knows it's bad manners to be out of breath when you're introducing yourself to someone.

His dexterity should come into it as well. What's that, you go over to shake hands with the guy and your clumsy character trips over a chair leg and goes flying? That guy is not that into you.

His strength should come into it as well. Everyone is more impressed by the physically fit. Let's give a positive modifier to people with big shiny muscles, and a negative modifier to little weaklings with toothpick arms.

[Snarky]

[/Snarky]

Chunkylover wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Chunkylover wrote:

Mikaze:

Yes, yes! :)

That's what I tried to convey. First impressions can be made by the uniform you wear(White hat/black hat), your allegiance to something(Guilds like their members better than non-members), your holy symbol will endear you to fellow members of the same or allied faiths, Your looks("Look at that sexy mama, I'd hit that thang"), reputation or/and a combination.

Multiple factors will come into play, but charisma should come into play as well, in my opinion.

I would argue that the person making the first impression should have his wisdom score play into it as well. After all he's going with his gut trying to figure out if you are good or bad news for him based on little information. Sounds very much like an "intuition" thing to you.

Not a bad idea. I don't have the skinny on the neuro science behind how we form first impressions, but you obviously make some sort of split second judgement based on the factors you consider relevant to the equation in your mind. You apply your judgement to the clues you gather.

Rambling:
Those with high wisdom(Sense motive & perception) will not as easily be taken in by the traveling con man(even though he makes a great first impression)?

His intelligence should come into it as well. That will represent his knowledge of other cultures, so he knows he's not doing something that offends.

His constitution should come into it as well. Everyone knows it's bad manners to be out of breath when you're introducing yourself to someone.

His dexterity should come into it as well. What's that, you go over to shake hands with the guy and your clumsy character trips over a chair leg and goes flying? That guy is not that into you.

His strength should come into it as well. Everyone is more impressed by the physically fit. Let's give a positive modifier to people with big shiny muscles, and a negative modifier to little weaklings with...

I gather that you disagree.

What do you disagree with?

That charisma should be a part of how well you present to others?

I think it is a good idea to have your physical atributes as well as your charisma in your mind when you make a decision about how your character looks.

Regarding Intelligence: Avoiding or not avoiding cultural faux pas' when first meeting someone from a significantly different culture is a valid point.

Chunkylover wrote:

Mikaze:

Yes, yes! :)

That's what I tried to convey. First impressions can be made by the uniform you wear(White hat/black hat), your allegiance to something(Guilds like their members better than non-members), your holy symbol will endear you to fellow members of the same or allied faiths, Your looks("Look at that sexy mama, I'd hit that thang"), reputation or/and a combination.

Multiple factors will come into play, but charisma should come into play as well, in my opinion.

I would argue that the person making the first impression should have his wisdom score play into it as well. After all he's going with his gut trying to figure out if you are good or bad news for him based on little information. Sounds very much like an "intuition" thing to you.

Not a bad idea. I don't have the skinny on the neuro science behind how we form first impressions, but you obviously make some sort of split second judgement based on the factors you consider relevant to the equation in your mind. You apply your judgement to the clues you gather.

Rambling:
Those with high wisdom(Sense motive & perception) will not as easily be taken in by the traveling con man(even though he makes a great first impression)?

Mikaze:

Yes, yes! :)

That's what I tried to convey. First impressions can be made by the uniform you wear(White hat/black hat), your allegiance to something(Guilds like their members better than non-members), your holy symbol will endear you to fellow members of the same or allied faiths, Your looks("Look at that sexy mama, I'd hit that thang"), reputation or/and a combination.

Multiple factors will come into play, but charisma should come into play as well, in my opinion.

Chunkylover wrote:

Even though there seems to be little rules in the pathfinder core book regarding first impressions, one use of the diplomacy skill is improving initial attitudes so they obviously exist.

Charisma score and circumstance modifiers could perhaps give an inkling?

The character is already at a disadvantage of -2 to improve that initial attitude. Are you suggesting penalizing him twice for it?

Perhaps I am, although your phrase "penalizing him twice" is a little argumentative.

I think there's a saying that says "You only get one chance to make a good first impression". First impressions are often very important in our world and, perhaps, more often than we should we discount someone or something based on that first impression. Actually, people have done that for a long time. Just tink of the tale of the rabbit and the hare. The expression "Don't judge a book by its cover".

It is this first impression that makes the initial attitude you can use diplomacy to improve. Whether it comes from your looks, hair colour, royal tabbard, wearing an enemy's uniform, word of mouth or a combination.

You may see it as being penalized twice, I see it as a natural use of the charisma ability. If you have a low strength, you don't think about your lowered damage dealing, lowered to hit rating and lowered carrying capacity as being penalized thrice? It is just the natural conclusion that comes from being weak. Having a low charisma makes you worse than others at dealing with people. That's just the way it is.

Even though there seems to be little rules in the pathfinder core book regarding first impressions, one use of the diplomacy skill is improving initial attitudes so they obviously exist.

Charisma score and circumstance modifiers could perhaps give an inkling?

Somewhat off topic.

regarding Kyrt-Ryders example of the beautiful maiden with the horrible personality. She may actually have a very high charisma, but people don't like her because her values are very different from theirs?

Think about all those b*%@*y ice-queens on tv. They are not lacking in charisma, but their values and priorities are so alien to most off us that they come off as "evil" or having horrible personalities.

Just wondering...

Oh, you definitely should. You don't play a fugly egg-bearin' scaly bastard unless you want a little bit of resistance... ;)

And there you have it. :)

When we explain to each other our point of view and where it comes from we can agree to disagree.

in Kyrt ryder's, and I presume Ashiel's, games appearance has no need to involve game mechanics as it isn't a part of the game. In other games, where appearance matters, like other Pathfinder groups or oWod groups, charisma(or appearance, in the case of oWoD) is used.

And it is higher I imagine... ;)

Kyrt Ruder:
Fair enough. no need to discuss when the way whe handle charisma and appearance in our games are so different.

A couple of points, though.

Out of couriosity, does appearance,in your game, influence your pcs or npc in any way?

I refer to the description of charisma in the core book when I write that charisma covers, among other things, apperance. Those demons you refer to may be pretty hot to others of their kind, but their high charisma score may also represent personality, ability to lead and personal magnetism.

I have no problem with ugly people having an astounding charisma score due to personality, ability to lead and personal magnetism.

The reason I associate high or medium charisma with positive character descriptors is because those descriptors means something in my games. If your characters appearance has no bearing in your game, then it is meaningless and should of course not be related to the charisma stat.

Kyrt-ryder:
Firstly, I thought the discreppancy in your examples, or should I say one of your examples makes it to unrealistic and therefore it does not persuade me to agree with you.

An extremely ugly con artist may have an incredibly high bluff score and con you into drinking mercury, although the -20 penalty may hinder him some.

Your example with the awful, but beautiful woman: What is that an example of? You can have a low charisma(personality), but describe your character as beautiful?("fluff") if not, of what? If it is an example of this type of use of the charisma stat, then i think it is taken to far. There must be some connection with the numer on the paper. I don't think you can just disregard your charisma score by running to these extremes.

By the way, are there not this commonly held belief that men often are "blinded by beauty" and follow a beautiful woman's every whim? It is used often in entertainment, I believe, in everything from revenge of the nerds to sex and the city? I don't hold the storytelling device used in media to be the truth, but I do think we are influenced by looks.

I think I see a difference of what we percieve "fluff", or the non-numeric aspects of the game as.

I see it as as true and as important as those as all the things handled with numbers. My character's relationship with his familiy, perhaps written on a sheet with background info, influences his actions and motivations and are of course a good tool for the gm to use. If I make my character ugly or handsome(usually by having a low or medium/high charisma score) it should have an effect in the environment.

Attractiveness should not only be a word on a piece of paper, it should have an effect in our imaginary world like it has an effect in our real life.

For me, the "fluff" part of roleplaying, the how's and why's is what makes is worth doing.

I have to disagree.

Kyrt-Ryder:
Unless all you run are dungeon-crawls, appearance is much more than a player preference. It is a major factor in the real world social dynamic and ought therefore to matter in our simulated world as well.

Ashiel:
I was thinking more about your use of handsome and dashing. I can imagine how you can learn to become dashing, but I can also see dashing as a property you either have or not so I'll let that lie for now.

Handsome is, however, something I gather that you either are or aren't. The tools' for becoming handsome in PF is putting some points into charisma. If not only you don't do that, but actually takes points away from it. Is it then cool to have a handsome character?

I'm just saying I can't see it really benefiting anything, other than giving gamers something for gamers and their GMs to argue over, or groan because now they have to sacrifice their survival-scores to avoid looking like they were born and raised in a dumpster full of sharp glass and flesh-eating maggots. :P

So you just want to have your cake and eat it too?

My opinions presuppose that the word "appearance" in the description of charisma in the PF book covers, among other things, physical attractiveness.

I guess my problem with low charisma characters being handsome and dashing is about my interpretation of the basic consept of the ability scores, my sense sense of fairness, the realism of a character and my caution regarding optimization.

Having a negative ability score is generally a bad thing. Sure, you can roleplay it to the hilt and take full advantage of it, but as I see it, it is supposed to represent a weakness. Therefore I am sceptical to presenting a character as handsome and dashing without making some effort into actually making him handsome and dashing using the tools given to me by the game's mechanics, e.g. stat allocation.