Lazzo's page

1. Win initiative.
2. TWF sneak attack.
3. ...
4. profit?

My take on this is that all the prices listed in the book are suggested median prices for said goods in the campaign world. The prices are set there by supply and demand. Full plate costs so much, because they are rare (because they are difficult, time consuming and expensive to make) and wanted.

Lets say the only requirement for a diamond useable as a component for a Raise Dead spell, is sufficient size. Now, we can assume that the bigger the diamond is, the rarer it is. So, the diamonds of sufficient size for a Raise Dead, are of certain rarity. Now in the rulebook the suggested mid price is set by assumed rarity (supply) and the assumed demand for it. If you try to sell your diamond for 6000gp, it's propably worth for the customer to go elsewhere, because he'll find it for 5000gp (supply). If you offer your diamond for 4000gp, you'll propably sell it quicker than average, but take a loss, since you propably could have sold it for 5000gp on the longer run.

So this assumes the supply/demand ratio that the rulebook makers decided. If in some remote city would exist only one big enough diamond for a raise dead, the asking price for it could be a whole lot more.

In this scenario I think an interesting point is that there propably wouldn't even exist a '4999gp diamond'. A diamond could be sold for 4999gp sure, but then it would propably be a '5000gp diamond' that is usable for a Raise Dead. A diamond even a tiny bit smaller than the size required for raise dead, would be worth considerably less, because even though the rarity might be about equal (supply), the demand would be just fractions.

I've found that some people are more interested in playing a game and some people telling a story.

Both can present problems to the overall experience. A 'game' character may deviate from the story because all it is and does will be primarily for the mechanics. A 'story' character may be written so that it simply will not fit in to any cooperative story. (The OP:s loner example)

"10 It is the GM’s obligation to work the stories of the players into the world, if at all possible."

Here I tend to disagree. I think it's more the players' obligation to work their stories in to the world. It's much more easier to change a character than a world. Let alone to change a world to fit 5 arbitrary characters.

The unusual situation in an RPG compared to books and movies stems from the fact that all the players' characters must be present and involved in every part of the story. If every player tells whatever story for their character, how can this hapen? How will they stick together?

My philosophy as a GM is to create the setting and let the players be responsible for creating their stories intertwining in it. It's easier done if they all go in the general direction I pointed but they're free to find their own way. At the end of every session I tend to ask: where will you be going from here? Then plan the details of the next session based on that. If a player writes her character so that it has no option but to go separate ways from the others, I see no other solution than to say goodbye to the character and amke a new one. (Well maybe run two parallel games but I don't feel like it)

Then again, if most the players are interested mostly in the 'game' part, I think a railroad string of encounters with a couple of branches is the most mutually satisfying option.

Personally, I never seen the point in more than one roll for a single event with a random factor. The average stays around the same even if you reduce it to a single suitable roll. Ofcourse there is some propability sifts in different parts of the difficulty spectrum.

The system proposed would have the same results if you raise every AC by 10 and then just use 2d20 for attack. So it just promotes variance.

On the other hand if players like to roll dice, why not? If you as GM don't want to roll those, just have NPCs 'take 10' on all defence rolls or have players roll 2 different color dice when they attack.

One thing I guess would be a bad idea is to use a single defense roll for several attacks (for a round or turn for example). That could end up in some pretty ugly deaths when a big baddie with multiple attacks opens up on a char who hapens to roll a 1 for the turns defence. Or a swarm of foot-soldiers for that matter.

Shield bonus does not count because if you touch the shield, you are regarded as touching the holder. In effect, you are.

Well yah I know that's by the rules. I just don't get it why I'm burned when someone shoots scorching rays on my shield. Well meh, it's magic. :-p

I have the same beef with it. Doesn't make sense. Atleast you can use finesse with touch attack (?)

Also, why the heck doesn't shield bonus apply to touch attacks? :-p

Having balance available to those that desire it, doesn't necessarily detract from those who don't care about it.

That being said, balancing through making similar should be avoided.
I mean:

Fighter sword swing: roll 10+ on d20 to deal d8 damage to adjacent foe.
Fighter shoots arrow: roll 10+ on d20 to deal d6 damage to a distant foe.

Would be balanced with

Wizard staff swing: roll 10+ on d20 to deal d8 damage to adjacent foe.
Wizard magic missile: roll 10+ on d20 to deal d6 damage to a distant foe.

However it'd be quite boring. (and just a few steps down from 4e imho :-p)

So diversity first, balance a close second! :-)

Lazzo wrote:

Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

I am not going to get back into this argument. It was ended, several pages ago. Perhaps you should go back and read what happened in the thread since you have been gone.

Can't be bothered. Facts remain facts.

Lazzo wrote:

Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?

Shadowlord wrote:

No. Some people are going to hate you and try to kill you no matter what. Otherwise there would be no point to the game for high CHA, high social skill characters because they wouldn’t have any enemies.

Lazzo wrote:

Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

By the same token neither does a high CHA because no matter how high your CHA is you will always have enemies. That doesn't prove anything... and, What Jess said.

Well I said neither charisma or diplomacy determine friendships. That's what it proves.

Lazzo wrote:

Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

Again with this. So the fact that appearance is part of what determines your charisma score means that all unattractive people by defninition have an unpleasant personality and an inability to lead. All people with an unpleasant personality and an inability to lead are by definition unattractive. All people that can lead others also have a pleasant personality and and are attractive. All people that are attractive are defined to have a pleasant personality and are good leaders.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And people who carry the same always hit the same power and wizards who can throw the same amount of spells always have the same amount of skills ect. ect. Nothing new here.

Lazzo wrote:

Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

NO. Diplomacy isn't FORCED by the rules to dictate friendship. Diplomacy CAN by the rules be used to represent forming a friendship.

So there some particular rules you use to do it, or just wing it?

Lazzo wrote:

But they are not interchangeable. In the first case, we don't know, if she flew. What if it was a Dodo or a baby bird? It flapped it's wings to fly, but still didn't. In the second case we know.

In your example they aren’t interchangeable. That neither proves or disproves the same about the skill.

They are never interchangeable. "I do A to make B happen", you never know if B happens, regardless if you succeed in A. "I do A and B happens" B always happens if I succeed in A. (unless it's a lie) That is the case with the skill also.

Quote:

2) The context can't be real world seduction, because you can seduce openly without any romantic intentions and even with a succesfull seduction you don't necessarily get any favors, except for sex. If you propose that the 'favor' in the skill is specifically only sex, then I might agree.

Well based on the context (IE: Seduction) I would assume those favors would certainly be sexual in nature. Or related in some way to an intimate encounter.

Then I think the rest of the skill description is poor. True romantic intentions and favor don't come in to it. However if you think it's only 'favors' of that nature, fine by me, no need to discuss it further then.

Quote:

I'm not saying a CHA check is required though. Depends on what the target is interested in. Money, company, looks...? I could use high CHA as a basis for the target to want to become romantically involved.

I could see this. However, a GM could just as easily put similar requirements on ANY social skill. And while that can be balanced nicely and add to the game, it is not dictated in RAW. The mechanic is Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor. Anything beyond that is to be decided on a case by case basis by the GM at his table, it is not specified in the rules.

Quote:

And that indeed could be the case. Depends on what the mercenaries want. Maybe they want the bounty on you (= girl likes you), maybe they like to kill people (= girl is not interested). First case, they go along with your plan (convinced of sincerity), second case, your diplomacy never had a chance in that context, regardless of roll.

But that isn’t dictated in RAW. It is left up to individual GMs at individual tables. RAW doesn’t say “this will work IF” it gives a mechanic.

Hmmm... This is really interesting. Here our views seem to differ totally. I would never see a skill check do diddly, unless there is some reason for it to apply. You seem to first roll the check and then arrange the circumstances to match the result? I wouldn't go flaunting that your approach is somehow more RAW though. There are often modifiers given by RAW and those are applied before the roll based on circumstances. An impossible circumstance could simply be seen as an insurmountable roll penalty. Also different circumstances give different DCs. Those circumstances are always set by DM.

Lazzo wrote:

The Core Rulebook starting from page 16 describes what each stat represents in addition to where the bonuses apply.

It's been shown several times a character’s looks and CHA don't share a 1 to 1 ratio. I have also shown rules stating a character’s physical appearance is decided separately from Ability scores, HERE and HERE.

Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

Quote:

I don't think there are rules in the product for roleplaying, I just told you what roleplaying generally means and why you need it.

No there aren’t. But there are rules and examples that say physical appearance is decided by the player separately from ability scores and other factors. And what you told me was your opinion of what role playing means.

And like I said, if you disagree, I won't get in to it. That's just your opinion

Quote:

in the first link the girl wouldn't really be pretty with a cha 7

This has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate statement several times up-thread.

And then again demonstrated by me to be a fact up-post.

Quote:

and the second link seems house ruley because RAW doesn't state any of the things listed there.

What is outside RAW? She wanted to flirt, she rolled the dice, and she didn’t meet DC. He told her to move along.

Not that one, the second one, where you list things shifting above and below cha.

Shadowlord wrote:

Diplomacy shifts people’s attitudes toward you. If you are consistently going to the same bar and hanging out with the same guy/girl, you spend a good deal of time in RP with that NPC and using Diplomacy to help the meetings go positively. You don’t think that could be a valid representation of the beginnings and cultivation of a friend/love interest relationship? Do you think those consistent positive meetings can’t represent opening the door to RP scenarios where that NPC becomes a friend or love interest?

Lazzo wrote:

It could be. Ofcourse.

Then you and I agree on this point.

Quote:

But it won't guarantee it and lack thereof wouldn't prevent it.

I never said it was the only way or that it was a guarantee. I merely said it reasonably COULD happen. Those types of interactions COULD be handled under existing skill checks.

But correlation doesn't mean causality. So if the skill checks and friendship correlate, doesn't mean that the skill checks made the friendship. Especially since we agree that friendships could hapen without the checks.

Quote:

Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?

No. Some people are going to hate you and try to kill you no matter what. Otherwise there would be no point to the game for high CHA, high social skill characters because they wouldn’t have any enemies.

Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

I see your point and I see what you are saying. I don’t agree.

Quote:

Like "I flap my arms in order to fly away" vs "I flap my arms and fly away". In the first case, the statement can be true; I succeed at flapping my arms, wanting to fly away, but I still don't fly, which is clear by context. The latter case would obviously be a lie.

The two sentences you wrote CAN be interchangeable. Yes, they CAN mean different things and given context COULD be proven to mean different things. It is possible that with context the first sentence only shows intent whereas the second shows completion. However, if a writer did not have such a difference in mind then the two could in fact be interchangeable and mean the same thing: “I flapped my wings to fly away from that place” vs. “I flapped my wings and flew away from that place.” You could read them interchangeably. It all depends on context.

But they are not interchangeable. In the first case, we don't know, if she flew. What if it was a Dodo or a baby bird? It flapped it's wings to fly, but still didn't. In the second case we know.

1)--snip--

2) That said, the context is: The skill is called Seduction, it is an opposed roll that makes no mention of how much the person likes you based on a separate CHA check. The parent skill also is not reliant on any prerequisite CHA check to see if a person will react well to you. The check is for the purpose of “get/persuading someone to grant you a favor.” That is the goal; there is nothing that says a passed check doesn’t automatically reach that goal. It does say that convincing someone you are sincere is the path to reach that goal. But the goal of the check is to get/persuade a favor out of someone.

1) agreed.

2) The context can't be real world seduction, because you can seduce openly without any romantic intentions and even with a succesfull seduction you don't necessarily get any favors, except for sex. If you propose that the 'favor' in the skill is specifically only sex, then I might agree.

Otherwise, the context is convincing her of real romantic intentions. If she cares not of those, she's not incented to carry any favor based on that. Same as a succesfull flapping of arms won't make me fly, if they lack sufficiant aerodynamic properties.

So why then are you advocating a CHA check for this skill where none is called for?

I'm not saying a CHA check is required though. Depends on what the target is interested in. Money, company, looks...? I could use high CHA as a basis for the target to want to become romantically involved.

Recall my original response was due:

According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.

There is no logical way to get to that conclusion from the skill description.

Quote:

The skill you quoted really has nothing to do with that, by the description. You only convince someone of your romantic intentions. You plan to use that to gain something. But if the target cares not of you romantically, the skill can't apply.

And that same pattern of thought can be used to say: Well you succeeded on the Diplomacy check with the mercenaries who want to kill you. They heard out your plan to fake your own death and they think it could work. Like I said you succeeded in your check, but they just don’t seem to care and they want to kill you anyway.

And that indeed could be the case. Depends on what the mercenaries want. Maybe they want the bounty on you (= girl likes you), maybe they like to kill people (= girl is not interested). First case, they go along with your plan (convinced of sincerity), second case, your diplomacy never had a chance in that context, regardless of roll.

Quote:

But other NPCs will react to the low charisma character as someone with low charisma.You want to use skill checks to circumvent this, but the checks have very specific uses and purposes.You can use a magic item if you want to raise your charisma, or put and ability point in it when you level.

The Diplomacy skill presents a mechanic. The mechanic is, you can make people friendly or helpful with a successful roll. The mechanic also describes typical actions that people who view you as such can be expected to take. It doesn’t include or exclude the potential relationship types that those attitude levels and common actions could potentially represent.

And the mechanic needs 1 minute of interaction to be applicable, attitude change lasts generally 1d4 hours and can't be applied again for 24 hours.

Very specific uses, which can't override your normal persona. (here, charisma)

Lazzo wrote:

Rules actually do describe what the stats entail beyond skill modifiers.

What section of RAW are you referring to?

The Core Rulebook starting from page 16 describes what each stat represents in addition to where the bonuses apply.

Quote:

Roleplaying itself means playing a role. Stats define that role. If you enact despite your stats, you're just improvising. If you enact despite you're stats, the enactment and the actual events in the game world have no correlation. However if you define roleplaying to be something different in that respect, I'll not bother debate that and leave it at that.

Then show me in the rules where what I wrote HERE or HERE is wrong.

I don't think there are rules in the product for roleplaying, I just told you what roleplaying generally means and why you need it.

The links seem a bit not connected to this, but in the first link the girl wouldn't really be pretty with a cha 7 and the second link seems house ruley because RAW doesn't state any of the things listed there. Basically: "Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." (page 17) It doesn't say you can have some of those above and some of those below. Ofcourse if someone thinks on a scale of 3 to 20, appearance of 7 is pretty, it's a matter of opinion.

Quote:

Situation ofcourse should determine the reaction of the npc. You'll welcome the Rangers help and be thankfull, but you'll still think he's dirty and rude. And if he does nothing to change that, once you feel you paid your debt of gratitude, you'll propably want nothing to do with him.

This is one possible reaction yes. I am not saying it isn’t. I am saying it’s not the only possible outcome.

But you'll still think the ranger is dirty and rude, despite the rescue, right?

Quote:

I have to say I disagree on the friends and relations part though. Charisma will help you meet people. Diplomacy (in PF sense) will help the meeting to go on a positive note. Friendship and love however are impossible to achieve with skills or active trying. Active trying as in actively trying with a certain individual. Ofcourse if you actively try as many people as possible your chances increase.

Diplomacy shifts people’s attitudes toward you. If you are consistently going to the same bar and hanging out with the same guy/girl, you spend a good deal of time in RP with that NPC and using Diplomacy to help the meetings go positively. You don’t think that could be a valid representation of the beginnings and cultivation of a friend/love interest relationship? Do you think those consistent positive meetings can’t represent opening the door to RP scenarios where that NPC becomes a friend or love interest?

It could be. Ofcourse. But it won't guarantee it and lack thereof wouldn't prevent it. So there's very little causality. With charisma and diplomacy you get better chance to get to know eachother. The rest is up to something else. Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?

Quote:

Now whos twisting words? Infact that's not even twisting thats inventing out of thin air...

I am following the pattern. You are saying that using this skill in the way it was intended to be used requires a further CHA check to see if they are actually interested in you. The skill is: Bluff vs. Sense Motive = The result, according to the wording in the skill description, is the target believes you are sincere and you persuaded them to grant a favor. The skill does not include any prerequisite of the NPC needing to like you based on a separate CHA roll. If the skill doesn’t call for any other prerequisite I don’t understand why you are advocating one.

Ah, I think this actually is a case of reading comprehention. (And I don't mean that as insult, perhaps english is not your first language?) It says "in order to" as in "with the intention of". So you convince someone with the intention of getting a favor. What you propose would read as "you convince someone and get a favor". So even though you convince her that your intentions are real, she may not be affected because she has no that sort of interest.

Like "I flap my arms in order to fly away" vs "I flap my arms and fly away". In the first case, the statement can be true; I succeed at flapping my arms, wanting to fly away, but I still don't fly, which is clear by context. The latter case would obviously be a lie.

Hence, my question: If you successfully bring someone to the “friendly” state with Diplomacy, do you also require them to roll a prerequisite CHA check to see if that person will actually hold to what the skill says they will hold to?

Nope. If the situation allowed the PC to roll a diplomacy check, I'll use the check to determine the result.

Quote:

Well: "Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you". Right there. Where does it say, that the target becomes interested on success?

I understand your point. I just don’t agree with it. The skill says that if you are successful, then you have convinced them you are sincere and get a favor.

Indeed there's the difference :-)

Quote:

I'm holding the skill you quoted and your conclusion from it to a logic standard. Making someone believe something to do something, is useless, if the belief itself gives no incentive to that someone to do that something.

So you, like ciretose, are arguing that the Seduction skill doesn’t actually seduce.

Well I'm not getting in to a debate over what seduction means in the real world. But I'm guessing that's what threw you off track in the first place; yes, seduction means generally making someone want you despite the initial reaction. However even then it usually means trying for a very specific kind of 'favor'.

The skill you quoted really has nothing to do with that, by the description. You only convince someone of your romantic intentions. You plan to use that to gain something. But if the target cares not of you romantically, the skill can't apply.

Lazzo wrote:

Oh I didn't mean to accuse. It was a question. Because several people have been saying player made fluff trumps charisma, so that was an offered example.

I was hit with this already up-thread. What I have said is that a low ability score gives you a -X modifier to the things associated with it. But there are no rules defining how that must be represented by your character in game. It could be any number of things. There were a few exchanges, after that post about how those things might be used to circumvent your -X mod, eventually culminating in me giving an example of how I would address it if a player attempted to do such. I responded with this scenario to show how I might address the situation.

Rules actually do describe what the stats entail beyond skill modifiers. That is why they can't be subsumed by skill points.

Roleplaying itself means playing a role. Stats define that role. If you enact despite your stats, you're just improvising. If you enact despite you're stats, the enactment and the actual events in the game world have no correlation. However if you define roleplaying to be something different in that respect, I'll not bother debate that and leave it at that.

Quote:

So what should determine NPC reactions outside of social skills and fluff?

I think starting attitudes should, in most situations, be based on the RP scenario in game more than your CHA: Are you going to turn away the dirty, rude Ranger who happens by while you are being attacked by Orcs? No, he saves your life and has earned your gratitude and perhaps friendship based on the RP scenario, his CHA should not come into play in that kind of scenario. I think most exchanges between and NPC and a PC can be handled through RP and/or rolled under the existing Social Skills. However, I have already stated that IF a PC wants something that isn't appropriate for the RP scenario and IF it can't be rolled under social skills then a CHA check would be appropriate. I have never said that I think it's unfair or against RAW to use CHA checks to see how an NPC reacts if the situation calls for it. What I am currently arguing with ciretose is whether or not making friends and pursuing love interests COULD POSSIBLY be rolled under skill...

Situation ofcourse should determine the reaction of the npc. You'll welcome the Rangers help and be thankfull, but you'll still think he's dirty and rude. And if he does nothing to change that, once you feel you paid your debt of gratitude, you'll propably want nothing to do with him.

Most run ins with people however have no such situtation going on. If no skill is applied, then I agree that Charisma should determine how they see you.

I have to say I disagree on the friends and relations part though. Charisma will help you meet people. Diplomacy (in PF sense) will help the meeting to go on a positive note. Friendship and love however are impossible to achieve with skills or active trying. Active trying as in actively trying with a certain individual. Ofcourse if you actively try as many people as possible your chances increase.

In my experience it not the spellcasters doing the most damage, but rather the Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians etc. So no, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good one.

Are you taking in to account that AoE spells damage multiple targets simultaneously thus multiplying the amount of damage, or do you mean damage inflicted on a single creature?

Lazzo wrote:

I don't understand is; if someone convinces me that her romantic intentions are real, how does that make me interested in her. Which is exactly what you are saying.

So then by your standard, if I successfully use Diplomacy to bring someone to the "friendly" state do I now need to roll and additional CHA check to see if they can really stand being around me long enough to be "friendly?"

Now whos twisting words? Infact that's not even twisting thats inventing out of thin air...

Quote:

She can convince me of her real intentions in order to get favor from me, but if I have no interest in her, that won't carry any special favor.

Where does the skill say that?

Well: "Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you". Right there. Where does it say, that the target becomes interested on success?

Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor if successful.

Wrong. Bluff vs. Sense Motive = believed if succesfull.

Just like:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Believable lie if successful.
Diplomacy vs. Attitude + CHA mod = Improved Attitude if successful.
Intimidate vs. 10 + HD + WIS mod = Intimidated if successful.

Correct but irreelvant.

Do you seriously not comprehend that, or is this just a case of never admit?

I comprehend that you seem to be arguing for holding Seduction to a double standard which no other social skill is held to.

I'm holding the skill you quoted and your conclusion from it to a logic standard. Making someone believe something to do something, is useless, if the belief itself gives no incentive to that someone to do that something.

Lazzo wrote:

Shadowlord wrote:

DigitalMage wrote:

It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account.

"In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills."

So what do you say is the "right" way then. To use player made fluff to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills? Is there a RAW to that?

That's a fine accusation, based on twisting my words and taking them out of context. What I wrote was:

Shadowlord wrote:

stuff

Oh I didn't mean to accuse. It was a question. Because several people have been saying player made fluff trumps charisma, so that was an offered example.

So what should determine NPC reactions outside of social skills and fluff?

Lazzo wrote:

Shadowlord wrote:

Quote:

"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."

--snip--

According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.

Huh?

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."

(Emphasis mine)

Put those two halves of the same sentence together and you get:

Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor on success.

I'm not sure what you don't understand.

I don't understand is; if someone convinces me that her romantic intentions are real, how does that make me interested in her. Which is exactly what you are saying.

She can convince me of her real intentions in order to get favor from me, but if I have no interest in her, that won't carry any special favor.

Do you seriously not comprehend that, or is this just a case of never admit?

DigitalMage wrote:

It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account.

"In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills."

So what do you say is the "right" way then. To use player made fluff to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills? Is there a RAW to that?

Quote:

"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."

--snip--

According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.

Huh?

(emphasis mine)

It's particularily funny, when 2 combatants with multiple attacks stare down eachother at 10ft apart. If you close in, the worst case is you receive a readied attack, make one attack and then the other guy gets a full attack at you.

I think 2wep fighting is so inferior to 2hander that getting a full attack with a standard might balance it. Utill weapon magical bonuses begin to dominate. But still 2wep fighting burns feats just to keep up.

However it would have some implications in protecting the party 'clothies'. When a big baddie with multiple attacks can just fly up to any party member and tear in with a full attack...

You could have him be like peppy and energetic but careless and clumsy. Low strength could be easily roleplayed with small size.

I got the image of a cheerful gnome hobbling around in a study.
-Now where's that book I need.
*hobbles over to the bookshelf*
-There it is, third shelf.
*reaches up with his cane and wiggles the book out*
The big book comes down on his head bringing with it some other books and papers flying around.
-Ouch. *rubs his head, then wraps his belt around the book to get a good grip*
The gnome drags the book to the table and wrestles it up on it with hands and shoulders, some other stuff falls off the other side of the table clattering.
-There. *climbs on the chair to notice that the table is too high for him to read from the normal sized chair*
The gnome gives a quiet sigh and hobbles off to find a cart to move over a taller chair. Stack of books, a lamp and a pot flower topple over as the gnome pulls a cart out from the closet and heads off to find a taller chair.

So basically he is always on the move, energetic. Doesn't mind little setbacks but rolls up his sleeves and gets going.

Lazzo wrote:

I've made no assumptions, I only read what it says. Stats always do give same benefits in PF. Assumption is yours that it is a net result.

There is nothing wrong in describing with a little variance. Describing contrary to the stats is what brings the problems. You can't tell by description weather it would be 6,7 or 8. You can pretty well tell weather its around 7 or 14. Then the story in game start to hapen contrary to description. If you are cool with that, I'm not the one to judge. Everyone answered -2 to my question, that's about good enough for me really. I can't see a nice looking guy receiving the -2, others seem to. Maybe they do, maybe they want to 'win' an argumet. I don't really care.

If you're talking about different characters all having a Charisma of 14 having the same net effect on Charisma-based checks, then we're in agreement. But that really doesn't entail making sure that all characters with a 14 charisma are equally good looking, rather that all of the things charisma measures, taken as a whole, produce the same modifier to checks.

But even you yourself indicated that you apply the normal charisma modifier even when all the things that charisma measures don't and cannot factor in. That unavoidably implies that each aspect ranks equal to charisma individually.

The problem you think you're encountering that the rest of us aren't is that you want to pull out a single element of what makes up charisma and try to generate a modifier off that. Appearance. But, being abstract, Charisma really doesn't give us enough information to do that.

In real world propably not. But appearance can be an asset so it can't be decided arbitrarily by players. Charisma is all we have to go on.

Seriously this thing is just repeating same things now over and over. (not directed at you specifically Bill) I think I'm about done. People can read all my previous posts to get the answers to their arguments.

Lazzo wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

Jess Door wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

What the hell are we arguing again?

My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.

Or something.

O.o

IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.

Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.

Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.

Quote:

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence

Please pay attention. Reductum ad absurdum is a basic logical fallacy. You can really look it up anywhere.

Reductum ad absurdum is not an actual Latin phrase. "Look it up anywhere." In the process, learn humility.

Reductio ad absurdum can be used as a strawman. It wasn't used that way.

I'm afraid the humiliation is yours. Both exist. They mean different things.

Gargantuan chainquote wall

:-D No way I'm replying to that. Seriously.

Lazzo wrote:

Jess Door wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

What the hell are we arguing again?

My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.

Or something.

O.o

IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.

Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.

Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.

Quote:

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence

Please pay attention. Reductum ad absurdum is a basic logical fallacy. You can really look it up anywhere.

Lazzo wrote:

All the stats are abstracts and represent the same exact components. Same STR always gives the same damage bonus, the same carrying capacity, the same skill bonuses. The same CHA always gives the same ability to lead, the same amount of magnetism and the same level of appearance.(emphasis mine)

And that is where your assumptions drift off into different territory. The charisma stat mandates no such thing - that a character's Charisma means they are absolutely as magnetic as they are able to lead or look good. What Charisma refers to is how all of those things work together to generate a net result - a modifier or stat level we can use for game purposes. If, in their descriptive text, a PC happens to be described as more magnetic than they are pretty, that's fine and can still be reflected in a high charisma. The same works in the other direction (historical example: Cleopatra--not that much of a looker, yet very charming).

I've made no assumptions, I only read what it says. Stats always do give same benefits in PF. Assumption is yours that it is a net result.

There is nothing wrong in describing with a little variance. Describing contrary to the stats is what brings the problems. You can't tell by description weather it would be 6,7 or 8. You can pretty well tell weather its around 7 or 14. Then the story in game start to hapen contrary to description. If you are cool with that, I'm not the one to judge. Everyone answered -2 to my question, that's about good enough for me really. I can't see a nice looking guy receiving the -2, others seem to. Maybe they do, maybe they want to 'win' an argumet. I don't really care.

Lazzo wrote:

Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.

I'd prefer you make your own refutation argument explaining why her post was such, instead of dodging the question by telling her to look elsewhere.

She didn't ask a question. She reduced the opposing side to absurdities with the supposition that that would prove it wrong. It's a known real fallacy. (real as opposed to invented 'stormwind fallacy' or 'Godwins law')

TriOmegaZero wrote:

What the hell are we arguing again?

My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.

Or something.

O.o

IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.

Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.

Lazzo wrote:

Lyingbastard wrote:

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

This is not the same things as Charisma measures a character's appearance.

So, if a character as a great personality, strong magnetism, and is a natural leader, but they're ugly, they'd still have a high charisma. If a character has no personality, little magnetism, and no innate amount of leadership, but are a veritable Adonis, they'd still have a low charisma.

You're asking if a character with a low CHA score can be written to have good looks. Yes, yes they can. This is because CHA is not just appearance. Page 17 of the core rulebook.

I see what it says. You do not. You invent that it is "a combination of" or "an average of". It doesn't say that. Simply that it measures those things.

In the same way that Strength measures peak exertion, force of impact, and carrying capacity, and that Constitution measures muscle tone, endurance, health, and toughness. ALL the stats are averages and abstracts of their component qualities.

All the stats are abstracts and represent the same exact components. Same STR always gives the same damage bonus, the same carrying capacity, the same skill bonuses. The same CHA always gives the same ability to lead, the same amount of magnetism and the same level of appearance.

Lazzo wrote:

Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.

I disagree.

You may. But I maintain that ability to lead and personality can't be seen by sight.

The way the PC holds himself, his presence, incorporates more than simple beauty and would derive from personal magnetism.

These all affect a characters appearance and therefore how she is seen to be by sight.

The fact of the matter is charisma is an abstraction. It covers appearance, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and personality all at once just like Dexterity, for example, includes hand-eye coordination, agility, balance, and reaction speed. You use it for any and all of the characteristics it professes to measure.

Agreed. You use it for any and all of the characteristics the stat encompasses.

The inherent assumption in the abstraction is that two characters with a 14 Charisma (or a 7 Charisma) have the same net effect on the people they interact with even if one looks better but is less magnetic and the other is more magnetic but doesn't look as pretty or well-groomed.

Yes. And neither of the characters is allowed to have more effect that the other in specific circumstances.

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

This is not the same things as Charisma measures a character's appearance.

So, if a character as a great personality, strong magnetism, and is a natural leader, but they're ugly, they'd still have a high charisma. If a character has no personality, little magnetism, and no innate amount of leadership, but are a veritable Adonis, they'd still have a low charisma.

You're asking if a character with a low CHA score can be written to have good looks. Yes, yes they can. This is because CHA is not just appearance. Page 17 of the core rulebook.

I see what it says. You do not. You invent that it is "a combination of" or "an average of". It doesn't say that. Simply that it measures those things.

Lazzo wrote:

Bill Dunn wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?

I'd use -2. But I'd also have to ask why I would do this in the first place. Why would I ever try to limit a reaction to just a person's appearance without also including their general magnetism and everything else charisma includes? Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to do so. Is the NPC looking at portraits of the PC and assessing whether or not he found the PC a decent person?

Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.

You'd still use the -2 modifier. It's not situational. It's part of who the character IS.

Agreed.

Lazzo wrote:

Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?

I'd use -2. But I'd also have to ask why I would do this in the first place. Why would I ever try to limit a reaction to just a person's appearance without also including their general magnetism and everything else charisma includes? Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to do so. Is the NPC looking at portraits of the PC and assessing whether or not he found the PC a decent person?

Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.

Lazzo wrote:

Lyingbastard wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.

-2

The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.

Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.

End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.

Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.

Okay, you're not frelling getting this. Despite the fact that the character is pleasant in appearance, they are slightly off-putting. Something about them rubs people the wrong way. That's why they have a negative charisma modifier.

Have you ever looked at someone and thought, "You know, there's just something I don't like about them?" Yes, you have. Everyone has. That's represented by a low CHA in the game system.

Okay? Sorted? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

Well if you want to be like that, charisma measures appearance. Do you understand english? Good. Sorted.

Except it measures much MORE than appearance. It encompasses the entire impression you make on people. There are plenty of pretty-but-forgettable people. Would they have a low CHA or high? On appearance alone, a high one. On total impression, which is RAW, a low one. Thus, Charisma is not just appearance.

But you know, you play the game however the hell you want.

It doen't say "a combination of", it doesn't say "an average of" it says: measures. How hard is that to understand. Noooo. Lets start inventing some stuff and insulting people. Lets drag in endless highly debateable subjective wiews of real life people.

I'll sure play how I wan't. Why do you keep posting?

Lazzo wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.

-2

The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.

Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.

End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.

Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.

Okay, you're not frelling getting this. Despite the fact that the character is pleasant in appearance, they are slightly off-putting. Something about them rubs people the wrong way. That's why they have a negative charisma modifier.

Have you ever looked at someone and thought, "You know, there's just something I don't like about them?" Yes, you have. Everyone has. That's represented by a low CHA in the game system.

Okay? Sorted? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

Well if you want to be like that, charisma measures appearance. Do you understand english? Good. Sorted.

Lazzo wrote:

So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.

-2

The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.

Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.

End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.

Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.

Lazzo wrote:

Dobneygrum wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?

Hmm... Not that I have noticed.

Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.

See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.

Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?

-2. The NPC finds the way he's standing to be arrogant or rude, or saw him pick his nose, or make a rude gesture. Maybe it's something they can't even define, but there's just SOMETHING they don't like about him.

A good for instance would be Chris O'Donnell. His appearance is not his problem, but while your mileage may vary, I find him to be annoying the moment he steps on screen. Emotionally flat voice and a gamut of emotions ranging from dull surprise to slight constipation. That's a classic "good looks, negative charisma" combination.

So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.

Lazzo wrote:

Dobneygrum wrote:

Lazzo wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?

Hmm... Not that I have noticed.

Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.

See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.

Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?

It doesn't matter if the NPC thinks he is nice or not. "Niceness" isn't a in-game concept and is just fluff, thus if any NPC doesn't think he is nice solely based on his Charisma stat, then it should have ZERO in-game effect. The only reason for that would be to punish the player for not creating a character the way you think it should be done and at that point, why not just create the characters yourself then?

Ofcourse it matters what others think. People tend to act based on what they think.

You didn't answer the question.

I didn't even ask you.

Lazzo wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?

Hmm... Not that I have noticed.

Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.

See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.

Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?

If you have a 9 CHA the penalty is -1, a 7 CHA its -2, etc.

There needs to be more?

No. Just that some claim that if you don't talk you can have it +2.

Now off to the Dumping Charisma thread with these. :-)

But why is that debate in this post? It is not what the topic is supposed to be about.

You're absolutely right. This discussion should be in the other thread. (for which I made it consequently :-)

The tactic of making monstrous posts quoting stuff line by line out of context, argumenting with unrelated stuff and repeating things already covered is unfortunately all too common in the world of internets. I think the idea is to make it impossible to write up an answer. OK I'll bite. Just don't blame me.

Not at all, it means you are perceived negatively as a whole package, which includes aspects of: personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. As a package, it doesn't matter how attractive you are, if you have a pessimistic personality and your personal magnetism is comparable to that of a rat then you will still be perceived negatively as a whole package. Now you can make up for parts of that by employing social skills you have invested in, but that just means you know how to "turn on the charm" it doesn't mean that you aren't still a pessimistic person.

You are still trying to separate stuff. Yes, you are percieved negatively as a whole package. Yes, you are percieved negatively on each aspect separately.

Quote:

Separating different aspects of charisma to different levels from charisma is a house rule not in the PF books.

Except that I posted several quotes from several portions of RAW that back up my stance, so I wouldn't call it a house-rule, it is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW.

No you didn't. You posted stats from races and monsters and proceeded to speculate on those. Those things can be speculated all over forever. Nothing in raw says you can separate different aspects from charisma and up some and down some.

Quote:

I think it's an unbalancing house rule making CHA even weaker and encouraging dumping it, but to each his own.

Not really, either way they will still be perceived negatively. Again, they can be of average or even above average appearance and still be someone you wouldn't want to spend much time around. I have known plenty of people like this, pretty on the outside, but not so much on the inside.

No they won't. Most people you see and meet, you never get to see much from the inside. Also, if allowed to up the outside, you get the benefits from it and then argue your diplomacy covers the inside.

Quote:

Ofcourse. I thought it clear from the context that I was referring to percieving by appearance alone. My bad.

If that's the case then you are doing the exact opposite and instead of saying "Low CHA could mean you just have a bristly personality" you are saying "Low CHA must mean you are pretty ugly."

I'm saying both. Low is low. If you have low charisma, you have 'low' appearance and 'low' personality.

You just seem to be singling out appearance for a different purpose. You have to take it as a whole package and you can do that without being physically hideous, you can also do it as a physically hideous person with a strongly magnetic personality. The fact is you rarely see people who are both ugly as sin and have horrible personalities, you also very rarely see people who are supermodel beautiful and also have wonderful personalities. Usually the ugly person is very charismatic and fun to be around and the beautiful person is stuck up and mean, or so ditsy and clueless that it is almost painful to talk to them.

You can make all kinds of hypothetical situations. The fact remains, rules don't support separating those and doing so will lead to imbalance. Debating real life charisma and appearance and their definitions is an endless swamp anyway.

Also the level of growth you are describing in your friend is probably best described as the background of a hero before they achieve level 1. They go from an average person or child to at some point maturing with age and training, or whatever, into a level 1 character with above average scores and capabilities. Your friend started out as a normal guy, and then trained himself until he now has what might be considered a level 1 Fighter physique.

You could, but the same can then be said about the original example to which this was a reply. The guy did his therapy and whatnot in backround and then starts his career at CHA 15. Neither is possible during career, either can be written in the background.

I would say the kitten and spider could have an equal amount of CHA, based on the fact that the spider carries with it so much intimidation.

I don't see the intimidation, though I know arachnofobia is common. I could've chosen kitten and toad as easily.

It is like the Drow, it isn't beautiful, but it is scary and can have a forceful presence depending on the type of spider. That is perhaps part of the reason that the Spider was chosen as a symbol for the Drow, who have high CHA. As for you not being able to speak on Dragons, Elves, and Demons it really doesn't matter if you have met them or if you care to speak on them. The rules are quoted from the book, speak for themselves, and very much seem to be backing up what I and others have said.

You draw arbitrary conclusions from the stats to back up your case. The conclusions can be drawn any which way endlessly, because they have no parallel in real world. It's all a matter of what ifs and opinions and therefore no use in the discussion.

Quote:

I also like to allow players to decide what their characters look like. It's just how it all comes together that makes the impression positive or negative (in varying degrees).

If this is in fact the case, then how are you doing anything differently than what those you are arguing against are doing? Ash described a guy who is attractive but socially inept. Thus people will not generally react favorably to him. Now eventually he will gain enough ranks in Diplomacy that, when using Diplomacy, he can overcome his negative social abilities. That doesn't mean he will never stumble over words or insult someone by accident when he is not thinking (IE: not using Diplomacy) it just means he has learned how to turn on the charm and overcome his base self, and that is a common theme in a lot of writing.

Those that are arguing against me, argue that the impact of appearance can be positive despite the negative charisma. There are many cases where the personality will not have an impact and so in those cases the character would effectively have a positive charisma. The rules ofcourse do not allow this. Also it is impossible to totally compensate low charisma with skills as skills require active usage. Diplomacy requires time to apply, disguise requires tools and time, acting requires a conscious effort to portray something you are not.

And the fact is, by numbers, Ash is right. By shear simple numbers and the way the rules work you absolutely CAN overcome a bad CHA with points in social skills. You may get a few bad first impressions but when you use your social skills you will by RAW be able to get others to pay attention to you regardless of a low CHA.

You say can overcome and then admit you can't. Why only few bad first impressions? With everyone there is a first impression. More often than not, that's all one gets.

So what difference does it really make if she chooses to play an attractive but RUDE individual rather than playing someone who is unattractive AND socially inept? Either way the numbers are saying the same thing, you are arguing over a difference of FLUFF and calling it RAW. The attractiveness and social ineptitude of her character is FLUFF and how she chooses to RP the fact that she has a low CHA. It doesn't actually change the numbers or mechanics, which is the actual RAW.

The actual RAW states that CHA measures appearance. It's a world of difference if you appearance is positive and communication negative, because many times you don't get to the communication part. Giving abilities to your character is not FLUFF even though there is no roll always included. I can't fluff wings for my human character to be able to fly. I can't fluff good appearance to my character to have a positive impact on NPCs.

It grants a +4 to Charisma and look at the fluff in that spell: "creature becomes more poised, articulate, and personally forceful."

And what you conveniently omitted it proceeds to state: "adding the usual benefits to Charisma-based skill checks and other uses of the Charisma modifier" Which would include appearance as per definiton of PF charisma.

Now take a look at abilities and spells that affect ONLY your appearance, Disguise, Alter Self and such. You can make yourself as beautiful as you like with a good enough Disguise check or an Illusion spell, but that doesn't do anything for your Charisma does it

Reading through Alter Self and Disguise, they say nothing about making you appear better or worse to others. Just different.

Take for instance a high CHA half-orc Sorcerer. Is the "half-orc" a beautiful creature because he starts out at level 1 with a 20 in CHA? My guess is no.

Back to the inter species attractiveness then? A 20 cha half orc could be beautifu/hansome to other half orcs. He's appearance would impact positively upon other similar races. Ofcourse a gray ooze couldn't tell any difference between him and a CHA 5 Dwarf.

I was wondering if people with experience could recommend the best PF RPG premade campaign. I usually make my own material but now I'm feeling lazy/busy. I've done some premades in my time and GMd for around 20 years so they need not be beginner friendly. My players like action but there needs to be a reason for it, not just some varying array of monsters thrown at them in a string of encounters.

Any suggestions?

Lazzo wrote:

Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal

magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance

So there are 4 aspects to charisma as per RAW... (Im not a big one for RAW - and I am happy with players being allowed to decide what they look like).

Think of it this way the player is concentrating the majority of his charisma score to the appearance aspect of the ability score.

Or alternatively appearance is what a person wears, their hair cut, even their personal hygiene.

So the the fighter from the OP may look like Hugh Jackman but have a mullet, bad-breath and wear dirty second hand clothes because that's all he can afford, that is his appearance, he is still handsome.

As he starts to go up levels his experience of the world teaches him to look after himself, he gets enough loot to get better clothing. Deep down he is still the country hick hence the 8 Cha but he has taught himself how to be more charming hence the + what ever on diplomacy.

- I suggest that you read Pygmalion or watch "My Fair Lady".

I also like to allow players to decide what their characters look like. It's just how it all comes together that makes the impression positive or negative (in varying degrees). I don't let them quantify that despite of charisma.

You could allow to concentrate on different aspects of charisma as a house rule, but I'm not a fan of that as it leads to unbalance. (I won't get in to that more, I've made several posts about it previously)

The problem with clothes, hair and hygiene is, that they can easily be modified and can't relate directly to a score.

Also diplomacy doesn't cover charisma as it only changes attitudes after atleast 1 min of verbal interaction. The country chick could spend her stat ups on the charisma though.

I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?

Hmm... Not that I have noticed.

.

..
...
....

Nicely expressed Mr D.Mage.

*shakes fist*

*shakes fist of total consensus*

*awaits the inevitable nonsensical line by line 'disproof'*

Yes, appearance is one of the things that CHA can represent, but a 7 CHA doesn't have to mean you are ugly as sin. It could just as easily mean you are a beautiful A-Hole.

Doesn't mean ugly as sin, but it means that you're percieved negatively by your appearance. Separating different aspects of charisma to different levels from charisma is a house rule not in the PF books. I think it's an unbalancing house rule making CHA even weaker and encouraging dumping it, but to each his own.

In most games I have played, it is generally determined by a combination of raw CHA, Social Skills, and Local Reputation.

Ofcourse. I thought it clear from the context that I was referring to percieving by appearance alone. My bad.

Sure you can. That is basically what is being represented if you put your ability score bonuses in STR as you increase in level.

Well you get 5 points by level 20. My friend hardly went from level 1 to 20 there. In addition he gained constitution so the points are not enough. So no, the rules don't allow that.

On the cross species charisma. There is no real parallel to draw. I never had conversations with animals. However I'd find a kitten more endearing than a spider. I guess you could say a real world kitten has more charisma than a spider. I've never met Dragons, Elves or Demons so can't really comment on their charisma.