MongoLikeCandy's page

How does the Undead Master feat interact with creating a Necrocraft monster? Does it increase the HD limit by 4? Necrocraft requires Make Whole. Do I need to increase the caster level for that as well to be able to boost Necrocrafting? Desecration work as well?

Or, is Necrocraft completely separate and simply has a hard limit of HD cannot exceed your caster level?

Jacob Saltband wrote:

I guess I'm just old school, but I dont think the Developers of 3.x and after meant for the whole atrribute to be ignored and only the bonuses or penalties to have meaning.

I could be wrong but dont believe so.

To me a 3 Int is 30 IQ. A 30 IQ probably isnt going to doing more then simple tasks no matter their Wis score.

I dont believe a 3 Str 10 Wis person should be able to put points in Profession Porter and make a living as a porter.

Yes the low numbers are extreme, there ment to be.

Well , i simple dislike double standards, and i understand people may not get anything under 7 , but they will want 18+ on their stats eventually.

The problem is simple , 3 in a stat is -4 , you are right , that is a major hit to something , but if you get +4 , that means you are equality strange , but to the other direction.

If i ask a player to roleplay INT 3 (nobody goes that low , but lets say) , and say it is totally extreme , i must say to the guy with INT 18 , he cant be normal either , even if it is a +4 , he must be "different".

Honestly , by the time he gets to INT 18 i would say he lost CHAR because his mind is so much further , he begins to lose when it comes to talking to normal people.

I dont like double standards , so i keep it low on both ends and decide upon each char during the char creation.

Problem with that is high attributes are suited for adventuring. Suited for doing anything really. It's not strange that an extremely gifted person is more capable at doing things. It is, however, strange that a person who was extremely unfortunate is just about as capable as the ultra gifted.

I mean, is there anyone who get a 20+ Str and says they should be able to lift more than the carrying capacity says they should? It certainly would be fair to point out that their freakish strength is not likely to put them under 5'2" and 70lbs unless it's from a magical source.

There's also a matter of comparison. There's no upper limit to ability scores that I'm aware of. However, if 8-13 is average, and 1 is the bottom limit, you can draw conclusions. Going above that there is no upper boundary to compare to. The best you can do is say that you are as strong as *blank*.

If you want an 18+ Int to lose Charisma, I think it would be understandable. I wouldn't do it, because I'm not entirely sure where your psyche would break due to being super intelligent. Even if you don't say it is due to madness, you could say all that study and mental practice impacted his social abilities and strength of character. Or his intelligence became alien. Hell, he may just piss of people who are dumber than him by acting all "superior".

Hi, is there a module for pathfinder or 3.5 in which PCs helps to overcome a cult who is conducting a ritual? Appreciate it!

Yes, there's a free one, in fact.

Here

Can't remember if there's a ritual to be overcome, but there's definitely a cult.

I won't be going back and forth on this.

Notice that I said weakness and not disability. Characters with low ability scores are not disabled. A character with Str, Dex, and Con of 1 (such as through aging penalties) still moves 30 ft. / round and can swim a marathon so calling him or her crippled would be dishonest. In the same regard, the normal range of human mental statistics range from 3-18 (with a floating +2).

He can move 30 ft in extreme situations if he's wearing little to no clothes and carrying nothing. The elderly live in nudist colonies?

He can swim in calm waters until he makes a 10 on his swim check. Hopefully in the nude to avoid encumbrance penalties to his checks. Then he sinks. After which he can hold his breath for 2 rounds. If he somehow makes it to an hour of swimming he's going to automatically take 1d6 nonlethal damage from fatigue. He can't make the DC20 swim check no matter how hard he tries.

On that note, if he becomes fatigued he becomes completely helpless.

NO ONE is disabled by old age unless they become completely helpless. There's no in between. What sense does that make?

To actually have a disability (such as brain damage, crippling body issue, and so forth) you would in most cases actually want a condition that represents that beyond ability scores (similar to how lame oracles suffer a 10 ft. speed reduction, or some mental illness inflict specialized penalties).

Mental illness can be brought on by damage/penalty to your mental scores. Being brought to 0 in any of your abilities is pretty generally disabling. How do you consider poisons and diseases?

Would saying "severely hampered" be better for you?

A character is defined by what they are capable of doing. What they are capable of doing is decided by the statistics on their sheet, and the ability scores are the raw starting point.

My 2 coppers.

Then why do you refuse to notice the difference in capability between scores of tremendous ability and those of limited potential?

Pathfinder and games like it use numbers as a framework for how the world works. It's not a perfect simulation. Trying to make it so would become cumbersome really quickly. However, if NPCs and PCs cannot tell the difference between raw ability and training, there's something wrong with the system. If differences in ability carry no meaning, then none of it does.

so even if my neutral evil dwarven druid has a chaotic evil talking dire jaguar companion? the dire jaguar follows the following guidelines

it has an intelligence of 3
it is combat trained
it has a chaotic evil alignment
it speaks and understands dwarven
it uses the stat block of the big cat animal companion
it wears masterwork studded leather barding with no feats spent on proficiency (no ACP)

this should be a viable feline combat pet

but appearantly, the middle 2 portions are impossible because of a FAQ

How so? Alignment I understand. Why can't he understand Dwarven if he still has Int 3?

*Edit - Scratch that. Too off topic already.

1) There is no official stat block for heavy horses

2) There are rules for figuring out the stats of heavy horses (much like dragons of different age categories)
3) d20pfsrd is a 3rd party site that does some of that legwork for you
4) That stat block was made by people following the rules for creating a heavy horse, not published by Paizo
5) That stat block was created before the blog post you referenced (and I daresay it's a good idea to ignore that blog post, since it results in a lot of problems as discussed in other posts)

Does that clear things up?

Okay, so, unless the Advanced Template rules I see are incorrect, the Heavy Warhorse you build yourself will still end up with 2 Int.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

This is true of animals. However, what about other creature types. I don't recall ever seeing rules stating that other creatures below 2 Int cannot speak or have an alignment. Does Grunty lose his speech if he drops below 2? Why?

Actually, yes.

CORE RULEBOOK - GETTING STARTED wrote:

Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Aha! Thank you for a definitive answer!

So yes, if your character gets Intelligence drained (not damaged) down to less than 3 Intelligence you can't speak/understand speech and are no longer of human Intelligence, you are of animal intelligence.

Agreed

Quote:

In any case, do you have to speak and have an alignment to be intelligent?

Yes, because having a 3+ Int means you can have an alignment other than Neutral and can have a language. Also the rules say nothing about what creatures can or cannot speak outside of polymorph effects which say that you must have some sort of anatomy or ability to speak to cast spells while in an appropriate form.

Okay, so would you mind finding the rules that say less than a 3 intelligence you have to default to neutral?

All I can find is that alignment states:

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.

It doesn't say creatures of animal intelligence. What makes you capable of moral action?

By RAW, if you come across a deer in the woods and its Intelligence is 3+ then the deer might be able to speak, and it might be a magical beast since the animal type says animals cannot have greater than 2 Int. It probably has more right to speak than elementals who don't even have mouths or the anatomy to speak at all but they can still converse in languages.

What sense does it make for it to completely change type due to an ability score increase? No other creature does this. This makes a particularly smart monkey end up in the same category as Hydras and somehow gets darkvision and higher HD.

On the other hand, you can have humans of double or triple the average Intelligence score (or any ability) and they are still human.

They do and this is an intentional change we are making. The rules leave no room for an animal to gain intelligence without somehow transforming into a magical beast, which comes with a whole host of changes. There has to be room here for corner cases and exceptions, which this absolute rule does not allow.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Quote:

Sorry, I'm only going off the SRD here. Help me out.

Simple Advanced Template
Heavy, Horse

That's because the d20pfsrd.com goes by the rules. The rules say an animal cannot have...

See post in reply to Aratok.

I'm not sure what you need help with.

Quote:

Heavy horses are larger and heartier, bred for labor such as pulling plows or carriages. These horses gain the following adjustments to the base horse statistics:

A heavy horse gains the Advanced Simple Template (already applied here). In addition, it also gains a bite attack that inflicts 1d4 damage, and its hoof damage increases to 1d6. As with a light horse, a heavy horse can be specifically trained for combat with the Handle Animal skill.

You take normal light horse statistics, and you stick the Advanced template on them. Part of the Advanced template is increasing all ability scores by 4, which in the context of that blog post would mean increasing Int from 2 to 6.

Let's try this again:

Str 20, Dex 18, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 17, Cha 11

A heavy horse gains the Advanced Simple Template (already applied here).

Rebuild Rules: AC increase natural armor by +2; Ability Scores +4 to all ability scores (except Int scores of 2 or less)

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Who said Urist McCraftySquirrel had an intelligence of 3? He's just as smart as other squirrels. Plus, you don't become a magical beast for having an intelligence higher than 2.

By allowing him to take ranks in Craft or Profession, you're implying Int 3:

Animal Companion Skills wrote:

Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.

Animal companions can have ranks in any of the following skills:

Acrobatics* (Dex), Climb* (Str), Escape Artist (Dex), Fly* (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Perception* (Wis), Stealth* (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim* (Str).

Though this rule specifically deals with animal companions, it strongly suggests that Int 3 is a pre-requisite for some skills, Craft included, so a normal squirrel can't lean it. An animal companion of a 4th level druid who increased their companion's intelligence could take Craft, but in that case as Ashiel pointed out you are talking about a supernaturally smart animal and so it's not a great comparison. Not to mention that many animals are much smarter than most people give them credit for. Corvids have excellent problem-solving skills - just google "crow tool use." And...

Suggests is not the same as rules, unfortunately. And why, if there's nothing wrong mechanically speaking, I should be able to create such a squirrel, correct? Ashiel would think so.

Personally, I don't think 3.X/PF handles animal intelligence well. There's a firm cut-off between "20% more likely to fail at remembering facts and solving puzzles" and "cannot speak or learn most skills or feats" and no real guidance for reconciling that cut-off.

Note that the Village Idiot, Int 4, is described as being able to represent any "simple commoner" given a Craft or Profession skill.

Creatures, aside from animals, can speak and learn most skills or feats. Irregardless of their Intelligence. It's not until they become mindless do you see mechanical effects, as far as I know.

The village idiot IS a simple commoner by definition. Otherwise, there is the Commoner class.

A Heavy Horse is a normal horse with the Advanced template. If the animal intelligence limit doesn't apply after creation, then the horse would have 2 + 4 = 6 Int. Which is the case if you alter the rules to function as that post suggests they do.

Sorry, I'm only going off the SRD here. Help me out.

Simple Advanced Template
Heavy, Horse

Oh I see. Well there's a big jump from 2 Int to 3 Int outside of the usual mechanics for Intelligence. 3 Int is the milestone into human Intelligence range, when you can speak languages and have an alignment. It's a separate mechanic from the standard 5% deviations.

This is true of animals. However, what about other creature types. I don't recall ever seeing rules stating that other creatures below 2 Int cannot speak or have an alignment. Does Grunty lose his speech if he drops below 2? Why?

In any case, do you have to speak and have an alignment to be intelligent?

Nope. He has the same modifier to those skills but he's smarter than a 2 Int animal because he has 3 Int which grants him human levels of Intelligence.

Yep, he's a 50% smarter than a normal animal. The average person is only over 200% more intelligent than he is.

I mean, why only define intelligence by modifier if the rules are supposedly calling for such a drastic change within the same modifier bracket?

Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.

Haha, that's amusing. That means every Heavy Warhorse is incredibly Intelligent, should have a language (such as the language of its owners), and an alignment. It also means that if I take this FAQ as RAW then my players would really hate dealing with animals. I wonder what they're going to think when some dude's horse comes up and writes them a message in the dirt with its hooves saying "Hey, you look like murderous hobos if I've ever seen them, so what say you and I go on an adventure. I know where this old treasure cache is because my former owner - the slaving bastard - died trying to get it. So I propose we be partners and split the treasure evenly".

Honestly this FAQ is bizarre....

Er, since when did Heavy Warhorse's have an Int higher than 2?

Once the animal companion's Intelligence rises to 3+ then it is the range of human Intelligence. Same with familiars. They're now as smart as humans and can moral and philosophical decisions, understand languages, etc.

To me you're saying "Here is an animal that is as smart as a human, so this human is only as smart as an animal". But he's only as smart as an animal that is as smart as a human. Ergo he's as smart as a human. No complaints here. And the reason I say that squirrel is really amazing and special is because of this:

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying he's only as smart as other barely intelligent creatures. How often do you see Animal Companions with Craft (alchemy) or Profession (architect) ranks?

Also, by your measure, he's only as smart as a 2 Intelligence creature. He earns the same number of skill points (aside from the racial bonus) and has the same penalty score.

PRD wrote:

Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

• Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

There's several other locations in the rules that say if an animal gains an Int score higher than 3 they become a magical beast.

Who said Urist McCraftySquirrel had an intelligence of 3? He's just as smart as other squirrels. Plus, you don't become a magical beast for having an intelligence higher than 2.

Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.

Source

Kazaan, what are the rules for gaining scars? As far as I know, no one gets any unless they want them or something specifically says so.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Anyway, 2 minus 4 skill points still hurts. Much more than say, any positive number. Why the insistence on 2 languages?

Because communication is useful? I guess you could just go with Common since most races are going to speak that anyway and just do something with your extra skill points. And it doesn't hurt that bad.

I'm guessing his conversations would be rather dull.

Quote:

How much better is a Commoner of 3 Int than a Commoner of animal Intelligence at Appraise or Craft? Or, better yet, how does he do against a squirrel Commoner?

Urist McCraftySquirrel the Squirrel, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0.

Urist McCantThinkNoGood the Human, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0 as well.

Declaration = No difference. Well, McCraftySquirrel is at least better at being a professional due to his 12 Wisdom, I guess.

An animal commoner? Well, I suppose that's fine. I've used the warrior NPC class to represent heartier war-trained dogs who have been taught to fight viciously, so I suppose that's fair.

And yeah, I suppose if you found a squirrel that had Craft as a class skill and for some bizarre reason the squirrel had a rank placed in the appropriate craft skill, you'd end up with a +0 modifier on the skill check. Maybe you have solved beaver dams.

That's a pretty special squirrel you have there. I'd love to speak with animals with that guy. >.>

The difference between a Commoner with 11 Intelligence and 3 Intelligence in terms of skill points gained per HD is 1 skill point. However, as the score drops lower, the character becomes less and less capable at Intelligence-based skills. That means things like Appraise, Craft, Knowledge skills, and Spellcraft are all 20% worse off than the guy who has an 11.

Animals, after all, are only 20% worse off than a guy who has an 11 Int.

I'll mess with your head a little more. Mindless creatures have a +0 to Craft and Profession checks. Yep. I guess it's because they are just like baseline robots or something.

Yep, they have more raw ability in Craft skills than McCantThinkNoGood.

But if MrCraftySquirrel gets to put ranks into Craft skills (every druid needs to find out what this squirrel is eating and feed it to their animal companions) then why is it that Urist McCan'tThinkNoGood decide he has no talent with creativity and instead do something that suits him better? He places that rank into Profession and wham, life is good, because he is doing something that suits him better.

Sure, he can do something else. I mean, he's got near animal level intelligence. A Druid's 4th lvl Animal Companion can be as intelligent as he is. I certainly hope he's got something else to fall back on. Poor fella.

Though I'll admit, the squirrel is definitely better 'cause I'd love to have a pet that made me 20 gold pieces a month making origami nuts or something. :P

That being said, I think you're giving Urist a bit of an unfair shake. He's one out of an average of 216 commoners who happened to roll a 3 and had it assigned to Intelligence. I've been intentionally modest with the ability score assumptions, but more than likely he has some high statistics as well, given that he is statistically probable to hit between the 9-12 with the most frequency and has about a 41% to roll a 14 or so.

Once again, I certainly hope he has something else going for him. Lest he be defeated by wet paper bags and the like. Not sure what it'd have to do with the discussion, though. I mean, what if he just really loves crafting Alchemical items? What if his life was ruined by not being able to do what he loves!?

Fact of the matter is, he is no better at thought than a Commoner squirrel. The squirrel is no more intelligent than his brethren. Just better trained.

If you'd like to rationalize your world as having 1 out of 216 people as dumb as a squirrel, go ahead.

So if he rolled particularly terrible on Intelligence (1/216 chance of rolling a 3, with 6 chances to try) then he's probably got some average and better rolls as well. So he could probably match or beat the squirrel in other statistics rightly enough. :)

Hopefully he puts his +2 Racial modifier into Intelligence. In any case,

Quote:

Yes, I would fully expect his handlers to help him find alternative ways to deal with his disability. Grunty might love crafting his toy horses, but he's not getting many sales these days.

That's pretty offensive man. He doesn't have a disability, he just sucks at a lot of stuff. Calling him grunty is messed up given that he can speak one or more languages, understand moral quandary and make moral decisions, etc, etc. Saying he needs a handler is silly.

Animal companions can understand one or more languages. Just a simple Int increase at lvl 4. Animals can understand moral quandary and make moral decisions as well. What makes him better than an Animal Companion? What makes him better than a familiar?

Do you characterize familiars as being animal-like? They are twice as intelligent as ol'Grunty.

I'm confused as to what you're arguing. I never told anyone they were doing it wrong but that fluff was mutable, and that I understood that there can be dissonance. I actually agree with Nicos about a tundra ranger who grabs favored terrain Jungle and a Panther pet. It's a dissonance. I understand how that could unwanted but asked if there was a reason for it (I don't think he ever answered, or I may have missed it).

I think you get the gist of my point. I'm not going to go back and show you where you disagreed with others when it came to how they believed attributes should affect roleplay. It's there. Your memory is a little selective.

Now that is settled, I'm kind of enjoying the experiment with the Commoner:

Actually you have a minimum of 1 skill point gained from hit dice (that's the 2 +/- mod), then you can acquire an additional +1 point for being human (who only begin with Common as a language, while other races who lack the +1 point begin speaking 2 languages), and then another +1 for your favored class bonus if desired.

Not sure on the rules when dealing with a net negative skill points. I know the minimum is one. Saw a ruling that Humans still get their +1 after the total.

Anyway, 2 minus 4 skill points still hurts. Much more than say, any positive number. Why the insistence on 2 languages?

The difference between a Commoner with 11 Intelligence and 3 Intelligence in terms of skill points gained per HD is 1 skill point. However, as the score drops lower, the character becomes less and less capable at Intelligence-based skills. That means things like Appraise, Craft, Knowledge skills, and Spellcraft are all 20% worse off than the guy who has an 11.

How much better is a Commoner of 3 Int than a Commoner of animal Intelligence at Appraise or Craft? Or, better yet, how does he do against a squirrel Commoner?

Urist McCraftySquirrel the Squirrel, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0.

Urist McCantThinkNoGood the Human, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0 as well.

Declaration = No difference. Well, McCraftySquirrel is at least better at being a professional due to his 12 Wisdom, I guess.

If the character is lacking in both Intelligence AND Wisdom then life is much harder but if his Charisma or other statistics are good then he might be able to make a life begging for simple handouts (DC 15 + Cha mod for give simple aid vs indifferent people, doesn't innately risk upsetting them) or as a Performer (1 rank, +1 Charisma, plus Skill Focus (Perform) nets you a +5) so you can take 10 and earn about 3.8 gold pieces per week or around 15.2 gold per month, enough to make an average living but not much more.

Yes, I would fully expect his handlers to help him find alternative ways to deal with his disability. Grunty might love crafting his toy horses, but he's not getting many sales these days.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.

Or perform.

It's unclear to me if this is an example of someone with low mental stats or an example of a performer. Either way, keep little girls out of this.

Mostly because I don't, and haven't?

Sorry, that was a line from Kazaan. He was speaking about how your position, specifically, was one of roleplaying freedom. Specifically the avoidance of limited roleplaying due to certain ability scores not matching how a character is fluffed.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

Ashiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.

The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.

Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?

I <3 you so much right now. You totally get it. :O

You're willing to concede your position about Charisma not being physical to allow my character concept, and that's great. (And by that I mean give into my unreasonable demands) However, why would you favor your position in the first place? Why does it bother you to use physical appearance for Charisma? Do you think others might feel the same disconnect with other scores?

This is all aside from my original point about being able to distinguish excellent charisma from bad charisma anyway. I'll refrain from point to point, because it would be a very long post. So, let me simplify it. I don't care how you quantify Charisma either. I do, however, find it funny that you are vehemently against limiting how one defines Intelligence at the same time as finding that some definitions of Charisma are dissonant. It's further interesting because Charisma defines itself with appearance (which I agree is not the main consideration) as one of the components of the stat. Intelligence explicitly states that it is a measure of how well your character learns and reasons. That by definition does not fit your character concept. No one cares, but it's true.

Let me fix a (or one of the) mistake(s) I made though:

A human commoner with a 3 Intelligence (this happens frequently enough with the 3d6 die rolling method common to NPCs) and a 10 Wisdom can earn a very good living (such as Profession [Barrister] or Profession [Accountant] or Profession [Farmer] or Profession [Banker], speak two languages, and have an extra skill handy for poops and giggles, maybe meaning he has training in two professions (maybe he was also a Sailor or a chef at some point).

Most people aren't going to call him stupid, because people don't get to see his character sheet. They have to interact with him and decide if he's stupid. He probably makes more money than they do (24 gp / month in fact). He doesn't know much about the world though. He can only answer easy (DC 5) questions by taking 10.

They are going to look on and see a man who is arguably under educated in general knowledge and/or appraisals, but who has a good head on his shoulders and very practical and valuable skills, and many may be impressed that he speaks a second language fluently.

Sorry, for some reason I had it in my mind that Profession was Int related. Silly mistake. Still, my point applies. Low Int commoner's are not going to make good craftsman. Low int commoners are going to have fewer skills and this DEFINITELY affects their lives. At 2 minus 4 skill points per level, it's going to hurt. Same difference for low Wisdom Professionals, but at least they get more skill points.

They'll have one language, Common, unless it's from their own race. But really, do you want to have a PC be unable to speak Common? Forced to not be able to speak their own Race language? (I mean forced to due to low Int. Not for interesting roleplay.) It's just a convenience rule and not really a determination of Intelligence. It will impress no one, unless it surprises them he's capable of being like everyone else.

Who does he make more money than? If forced to use his low score in Craft, would earn something like 5 gp a week. He rolls the same as someone untrained with average Intelligence. The low Int character invested a portion of his life to learning that Craft skill. He can easily be outperformed by someone of just slightly above average Intelligence. It gets better if he focuses feats on it, but not by much. I think that could be a serious impact on his life. You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.

My biggest issue with the idea of scar = low Charisma (and I would tell my player such as well to see if he didn't want to rethink it) is that Charisma affects a lot of stuff. It affects the music you play, the way you sing, how scary you can be, how socially gifted you are, how strong your force of will itself can be (which you see when you're basically mind-screwing people with charm effects or planar binding), it affects how good you are at acting or lying, and the power of your sorcery or spell-like abilities, and finally it's a MENTAL statistic.

I mean, what happens when your appearance changes, or you are reincarnated with an entirely new body, or you get a regenerate spell to restore your flesh, or a bard, paladin, or sorcerer are covered in scars from their experiences adventuring and/or getting to danger?

I could get over it, but all the players I know would probably consider something a bit more than a scar to represent their Charisma penalties, even if it was just something as simple as having their will somewhat diminished from their scar (such as becoming more self conscious than they would have otherwise been). But I probably wouldn't push the issue if they were really adamant about it.

Aside from spells, I would expect my appearance would have some kind of effect upon my social interactions. Whether that includes performing for a crowd or not. Spellcasting is a different beast. That's why Charisma can be defined in some ways as a sense of self. That, personality, etc are what make it a mental stat. However, it does say "appearance" in the ability description.

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

If my appearance changed, I imagine in your games nothing would happen. That's fine. That's RAW, but illogical. So, on the off chance that my character could possibly have his scar hidden for several rounds, I should scrap my concept or at least enjoy a nice little chat where you try to tell me that it doesn't fit mechanically. Even though, no where in the rules does it say that Charisma has to be defined purely by personality and mannerisms. Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet? Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you more freedom in roleplay? Because a character might temporarily change his appearance means that I shouldn't use a hideous scar to explain my characters Charisma dump in a flavorful way?

So how does Charisma add to Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc. exactly? Or I mean to the music you play, the way you sing, how scary you can be, how socially gifted you are, and so on? Is it in some sort of discernible way?

Personally, I'd be the same. A charisma low enough to warrant a negative penalty is probably more than a scar. In ye olden days before we had skills, I'd have probably deducted a single charisma point for gaining a permanent facial scar. Now even that much is questionable, and is probably more a case of giving that character a -1 or -2 CHA circumstance penalty whenever attempting something where the visual impact of that scar matters (and arguably +1 or +2 CHA when dealing with people for whom a scar is a positive badge of some kind.)

Of course, if we had a separate appearance stat, we'd have none of these problems ;) (Indeed, we'd have a whole slew of new problems with people arguing about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc!)

But you guys! I've got a character whose concept doesn't fit neatly into the Charisma attribute. IF only I dumped intelligence instead. I could say I'm poorly read to account for my Int score low enough to warrant a negative penalty. Why must I be judged so unfairly!?

No, actually that all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Though, as I pointed out, Paizo published permanent Charisma penalties due to scars. So, it's not like there isn't an precedent. Still, I agree.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Didn't you just tell me I can't play a low Charisma character who has low Charisma because of a disfiguring scar, but has no psychological problems with it?

I haven't said anything to you at all, actually. But if you want to wanted to fluff your lower Charisma being due to having a disfiguring scar that would be up to you.

Sorry, it certainly seemed like your posts were not just random musings:

Kazaan wrote:

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?

Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?

Charisma is a mental stat; it doesn't reflect appearance in regards to physical deformity but rather how you prominently you carry yourself. Plenty of hideous demons and abominations and undead have sky-high Charisma but have a lot worse than "a hairlip" going for them. Charisma doesn't deal with the quality of your appearance but rather the quantity; whether you're pretty or ugly is quality of your appearance and this is not measured by Charisma. A con-man with sufficient Wisdom may be able to Sense Motive and tell that a person is an easy mark or not, but he's not going to entirely discount the physical capabilities of his mark unless the benefit significantly outweighs the risks. You can't tell how smart someone is merely by looking at them and even if you figure that they're not the brightest crayon in the box, you can't really tell if they've pumped some knowledge or other skill as high as they can to compensate so your "easy mark" may turn out to be hustling you. Lastly, there's no mechanical process given in the rules as to exactly how Charisma would set starting impression of you so even if it's intended to, it doesn't demonstrate what you do to determine it. Ok, high Cha makes you more confident and someone will think more highly of you... but how much more likely? What Cha modifier do you require for them to start at Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful?

...

Time Out for A Sec

I'd like to point out that appearance rarely seems to mean anything in a mechanical sense beyond what is already assumed as part of the usual interactions. Being unremarkable in appearance, ugly, beautiful, or even frightening has no effect on your social rolls or even Charisma in any meaningful way.

We can prove this with things like the Disguise skill, disguise self, alter self, polymorph and so forth. If that was the case then a hat of disguise means that appearances are useless and we can forget about the non existent rules about Cha = Appearance = Starting NPC Attitudes which, again, doesn't exist.

In reality, when someone approaches me, I usually don't absorb their full appearance or make any judgments about them in a matter of a few seconds or instantly anyway. I can't imagine actually knowing someone who was so mentally off as to become instantly more hostile to someone purely at a glance without some very special consideration going on (if I saw a guy in a Klan uniform I'd probably be pretty unfriendly but that has nothing to do with the guy in the uniform but the uniform itself).
...

To support what Kazaan said, we have to remember that Charisma is a MENTAL statistic. Not a physical one. Mental. It's in your head. All of it. It has nothing to do with how you look directly.

None of that was directed to the post I made earlier? Not even your support of Kazaan who was replying to my post had anything to do with me? Okay, just making sure.

Anyway, onto the subject:

So why do scars and deformities cause Charisma penalties and/or damage?

Even if that weren't the case, how does Charisma interact with social skills? My original point was:

It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?

Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?

Surely it must be in some way perceptible, right? If it was not perceptible, how does it add to your interactions with NPCs? Or are you telling me that they just find the NPC with an 18 Charisma to be strangely more compelling than other NPCs for unknown reasons? It's not like the NPC is speaking in a more cunning fashion. That would be intelligence and there is a class feature and another for that. Same for Wisdom.

In any case, I just thought it was interesting. Having a low intelligence because of none of that thar book lernin, is fine. Oh no, he's not slow to learn and is actually quite sharp. He just earns skill points much more slowly than a normal person of his field on top of having penalties in all Int based skills. No biggie. Wouldn't affect someone's day to day life at all! Especially if they were in some kind of profession or craft field.

Having a scar on your face for low charisma, on the other hand, is dissonant with the mechanics. Who would've thought?

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

Ashiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.

The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.

Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?

I <3 you so much right now. You totally get it. :O

Didn't you just tell me I can't play a low Charisma character who has low Charisma because of a disfiguring scar, but has no psychological problems with it?

Weirdo wrote:

Several non-skill charisma checks made to influence people have been mentioned. Your failure to take those into account suggests either you are ignoring your opponents' position or intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way it is making it very difficult to engage in rational discussion with you.

Citation please. I've heard mention, but no citation. And I've asked for it.

What has been cited are diplomacy or intimidate checks doing exactly what the skill says it does, within the constraints and limitations of the skill.

I've never said they should have a harder time using the same skill with the same bonuses. I've said that the skill itself doesn't do anything more than the skill indicates, and that not factoring charisma in generic non-skill related NPC interactions makes no sense.

Do you disagree with that?

I believe they refer to the mention of Charisma in opposed contests when trying to command a beguiled person. It's true that the line you are defending could have been written with that in mind. However, it is worded in such a way that it covers ANY check dealing with social interaction.

Checks that represent attempts to influence others. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks this line definitely does NOT cover social interaction, but MUST cover contests of will in a few spell descriptions. It's the old religious debate. You can't prove this line covers initial NPC attitudes. They can't prove that it doesn't. Neither side understands why the other doesn't get it.

I'm of the mind to say it covers both.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Emphasis mine. If I say my character has low Cha because of a hairlip, what's to stop me? Physical appearance is a component of Charisma. It's not the sole deciding factor. You get to flavor how you want your Charisma to manifest as you see fit. Why do skill ranks make my low ability score essentially disappear? NPCs shouldn't be able to pick someone out of a line-up who appears to be the most confident?

No, you shouldn't have NPCs automatically attacking ugly PCs. Well, unless the NPCs in question are just that discriminatory. Do you normally only consider one aspect when determining initial NPC attitudes? Is it not possible to let Charisma modifiers be a component? Seems silly to say never, to me.

A physical deformity may be a focal point for low confidence, but it isn't the cause; a low-Cha person has low-Cha whether they have the deformity or not. The presence of the deformity merely provides a convenient target about which to be self-conscious; lacking this, you'd be self-conscious about something more mundane like your hair being straight rather than curly or curly rather than straight or some other arbitrary fault that you find in yourself. A person with high Cha will have high Cha also regardless of the deformity. He'll carry himself differently. Abraham Lincoln was, by all accounts, ugly. He was lanky and had warts. But he was highly charismatic; he had great confidence and force of personality. As I've said before, having high Charisma doesn't make you beautiful because that's a quality value and Charisma is a numeric quantifier. It isn't the quality of your appearance, but the quantity of it. How much appearance do you have; and higher doesn't equal beautiful any more than lower equals ugly. If someone would find you pretty, then having high charisma means they'll find you very pretty and would have a hard time looking away; you're a knockout. Having low charisma means they just find you a little bit pretty but hardly a show-stopper. If...

That's great and all. I'm fine with Charisma being a mental stat. It is. However, physical appearance can be a factor. Why else would physical afflictions cause Charisma damage?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/achievement-feats/history-of-scars-achievemen t

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/lamashtu-s-mark

ap·pear·ance

[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4. Law. the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition.

No matter how you define it. Appearance means something detectable, correct? For most intents and purposes, Charisma is a social stat. Modifiers in it do you no good if no one can notice your high or low Charisma. I don't care if you flavor your character as being mopey or surly or with a skeevy look. It just must be noticeable. More-so than just a dreery architecture of the soul.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?

Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?

Charisma is a mental stat; it doesn't reflect appearance in regards to physical deformity but rather how you prominently you carry yourself. Plenty of hideous demons and abominations and undead have sky-high Charisma but have a lot worse than "a hairlip" going for them. Charisma doesn't deal with the quality of your appearance but rather the quantity; whether you're pretty or ugly is quality of your appearance and this is not measured by Charisma. A con-man with sufficient Wisdom may be able to Sense Motive and tell that a person is an easy mark or not, but he's not going to entirely discount the physical capabilities of his mark unless the benefit significantly outweighs the risks. You can't tell how smart someone is merely by looking at them and even if you figure that they're not the brightest crayon in the box, you can't really tell if they've pumped some knowledge or other skill as high as they can to compensate so your "easy mark" may turn out to be hustling you. Lastly, there's no mechanical process given in the rules as to exactly how Charisma would set starting impression of you so even if it's intended to, it doesn't demonstrate what you do to determine it. Ok, high Cha makes you more confident and someone will think more highly of you... but how much more likely? What Cha modifier do you require for them to start at Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful? Is it really realistic to...

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

Emphasis mine. If I say my character has low Cha because of a hairlip, what's to stop me? Physical appearance is a component of Charisma. It's not the sole deciding factor. You get to flavor how you want your Charisma to manifest as you see fit. Why do skill ranks make my low ability score essentially disappear? NPCs shouldn't be able to pick someone out of a line-up who appears to be the most confident?

No, you shouldn't have NPCs automatically attacking ugly PCs. Well, unless the NPCs in question are just that discriminatory. Do you normally only consider one aspect when determining initial NPC attitudes? Is it not possible to let Charisma modifiers be a component? Seems silly to say never, to me.

That's another situation in which nobody is getting to make a Diplomacy check so the cha check is fair. It's not a situation in which the magician or rockstar is picking the most attractive people to make a one-minute attempt to impress them, they're just making a snap judgement. I have agreed that this is an appropriate use for a Cha check from my first post.

The problem I'm having is one in which a PC walks up to an NPC and says “I need to talk to you about X,” and whether the NPC is willing to talk to the PC for a minute is dependent on the PC's raw cha score.

I made this example to show a situation in which Cha score might allow or prevent further diplomacy checks. Once you get backstage you now have a minute of that NPC's time.

Most all situations are going to allow you the opportunity to bring the Diplomacy skill to use. Charisma should matter in situations where you can't. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a Cha check to see if you can get the mercenary fighting you to listen to your proposal. If the circumstances were correct.

Everyone seems to worry that there's a double penalty to having a low Charisma score. What they should really worry about is if there is any real benefit to having a high score if not one of three classes.

Regarding the idea that a GM needs to impose "extra" penalty beyond the low stats is also a fallacy; the low stats are already the penalty. There's no need for a shopkeeper to "try harder" to trick a low-Int character because their lower chance of success with appraise already covers that. Moreover, if they've put significant skill points into Appraise, they may even be better at it because hard work trumps natural talent; with sufficient hard work, you will give the shopkeeper a run for his money, because you focused on a particular skill. The Shopkeeper focused on different skills. An ace mathematician isn't necessarily highly knowledgeable about complex biology and an ace biologist isn't necessarily highly knowledgeable about high-end theoretical mathematics, but both would be considered "intelligent", just with a focus in their respective fields. But a janitor with 7 Int who just so happens to be highly interested in Math as a hobby can be nearly as smart in Math as the mathematician because of skill point allocation. He has fewer to spread around, but he can still put as many as he can into his "Knowledge(Mathematics)" and, while the Int penalty will lower the overall check, it still puts him not much farther behind the trained Mathematician who also had spare skill points to put into some other knowledge and maybe supplemental skills like Profession(Barista).

It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?

Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?

There should be no "talk to the hand" for low cha diplomats.

EDIT: That is to say, if the player says "I chat with the guy to make him friendly," the GM should say "roll Diplomacy," not "make a Cha check to see if he pays attention to you" or (without a roll) "he tells you he's not interested in talking to losers."

Well, I could see situations where it would make sense. Not that it necessarily makes it desirable.

What if the magician asks for a volunteer from the crowd and you really want it to be you? Unfortunately, everyone else in the crowd raises their hand too. Obviously, the magician isn't going to pick the person who raised their hand most politely, forcefully, or sincerely. He's just likely to pick someone who is most attractive (not necessarily physically) to him. How does the Rockstar Bard choose which groupies to have the roadies bring backstage? Diplomacy?

But in the end, I agree with you. I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point. Situations where Cha is the sole deciding factor of a social encounter are and should be nearly non-existent.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?

This was in response to mentioning ability checks with arbitrary DCs as being house rule territory.

Sure, but my point was:

1) Intelligence checks for hints are found within published modules.

2) Charisma checks used to determine initial attitude are absent from published modules that mention NPC attitudes.

3) Therefore, "charisma can mode initial attitude up or down a step" has less support in RAW than "intelligence checks can be used to get hints" and the latter, while common practice, is not generally seen as RAW.

Well, I only bring up modules since someone earlier was screaming for module examples as proof. At least Charisma affecting social situations outside of skill checks has an entry in the attribute description in the Pathfinder Handbook. Even if it is of dubious quality and up to interpretation. Do intelligence/wisdom checks have any mention of this sort?

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Really this comes down to if NPCs can make snap judgements. If they can't then you may as well just use Diplomacy and other skills. Charisma is useless and the attribute description is redundant for some reason. Mentioning that Charisma factors into the social skills twice on the same page, even.

Using a charisma check in a situation where an NPC must make a snap judgment and Diplomacy can't be used seems reasonable to me. Using a charisma check as a pre-requisite or gatekeeper for allowing a PC to make a diplomacy check does not seem reasonable to me because in a situation in which the RAW says diplomacy can be used (you have a minute to talk) Diplomacy should be used.

I'd agree with an exception. Charisma should be applied in situations in which social skills have not yet been applied. Not just in ones where they cannot be applied.

To bring this back to the real world (always a bad idea, but here we go): if I meet someone, and I consider them ugly, my starting attitude does not change from "friendly" to "indifferent" compared to meeting someone of average beauty. And I consider myself about as shallow as the next guy.

What about the other direction? Well, if I meet a beautiful woman, I may be more inclined to help her ("friendly"). I may feel intimidated (let's bump it up to "helpful"). Or I may be resentful ("unfriendly" or "hostile") due to my lack of success with the ladies. Or I may be gay.

That's a lot of ways it could go. Kind of seems like the starting attitude depends a whole lot more on me (the NPC, in this case) than her (the PC).

On the other hand, if someone is rude to me, through actions and words, my attitude will quite certainly change. This is someone failing their Diplomacy check.

All of these examples lead me to believe that the woman's physical beauty (to exemplify high charisma) is having a definite effect upon the NPC attitudes. You're just listing the different possible effects. No one said high Cha HAD to be a positive effect upon NPC attitude. Nor are they saying it is the only thing to affect NPC attitudes.

Besides, what if the PC was not only pretty, but had an approachable demeanor? Something I might translate as a higher Cha. Would that have an effect upon the happy, sappy, and grumpy NPCs?

I like how the people I disagree with in this thread fall neatly into two camps:
1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.
2) "Low ability scores is an excuse to be disruptive because I'm just roleplaying my character, you guys.

I like lumping people together into simplistic groups too! We should be friends.

ciretose wrote:

So I guess you would generally use a strength check for anything strength based not outline elsewhere in the rules, correct?

I would. But I would not claim that the Strength check and DC I had to make up on the spot were RAW, but rather my interpretation of how to apply the...

Really this comes down to if NPCs can make snap judgements. If they can't then you may as well just use Diplomacy and other skills. Charisma is useless and the attribute description is redundant for some reason. Mentioning that Charisma factors into the social skills twice on the same page, even.

Does a NPC's Charisma factor into how you would describe him to players? Why not the inverse? Can't a noble NPC look at Smeagol, see the skeevy look in his eye, his bedraggled appearance, smell his fishy breath, and decide by first impression that he isn't worth talking to? Can't a helpless peasant pick the most dashing and impressive party member to approach instead of Sulky McLonelyhero of Nocharismaland for justifiable reasons?

I don't think anyone's trying to negate your low charisma - high diplomacy character. I think what is being said is that Charisma matters in social situations and the Charisma attribute description seems to even mention it. The ignoring a character example if just an extreme example, I'd say.

But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?

But what is the check? Because you're claiming that one line is the RAW that allows you use Charisma to set initial reactions, but then you appear to be winging it on the actual implementation.

There's a rule for lifting the cup:
"Lifting and Dragging: A character can lift as much as his maximum load over his head. A character's maximum load is the highest amount of weight listed for a character's Strength in the heavy load column of Table: Carrying Capacity."

There's no such rule for meeting someone*.

Quote:

I'm assuming it's something akin to allowing a high intelligence character have hints for puzzles or the high wisdom character know he's making a bad decision. I don't believe there's specific rules for that, but it makes sense.

Quote:

Sure, but now we're talking house rules. Which is fine. But ciretose has been arguing that it's RAW, and I disagree with that interpretation.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

redward wrote:

ciretose wrote:

All of that depends on the circumstances. I personally don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC, in the same way I don't roll dice to see if you can pick up a cup.

But what is the check? Because you're claiming that one line is the RAW that allows you use Charisma to set initial reactions, but then you appear to be winging it on the actual implementation.

-snip-

I'm assuming it's something akin to allowing a high intelligence character have hints for puzzles or the high wisdom character know he's making a bad decision. I don't believe there's specific rules for that, but it makes sense.

Sure, but now we're talking house rules. Which is fine. But ciretose has been arguing that it's RAW, and I disagree with that interpretation.

Well to be fair, I have seen "Give the players an intelligence check" in modules.

ciretose wrote:

All of that depends on the circumstances. I personally don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC, in the same way I don't roll dice to see if you can pick up a cup.

But what is the check? Because you're claiming that one line is the RAW that allows you use Charisma to set initial reactions, but then you appear to be winging it on the actual implementation.

-snip-

I'm assuming it's something akin to allowing a high intelligence character have hints for puzzles or the high wisdom character know he's making a bad decision. I don't believe there's specific rules for that, but it makes sense.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?

It doesn't mean nothing, its usually including in the diplomacy check.

It means nothing to the NPC's initial attitude. I should clarify that I misspoke about NPC initial attitudes being affected by their Cha. It's clear that it just affects the Diplomacy DC to change their initial attitude during a check.

Still it could read: The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you*. The starting attitude is* adjusted by its Charisma modifier.

However, I doubt it greatly.

Can you clarify what you mean here? I failed my comprehension check. Is this an artifact of the reputation rules you're talking about prior? An NPC's inital attitude toward you (baseline) is set by the GM and is based on whatever factors he or she deems appropriate. I, personally, don't think Charisma should be one of them. Charisma is what comes into play after you start interacting with the other party. Both party's modifiers are very relevant at this point.

Sorry, misread on my part. Still Cha ties directly into Fame and Reputation. Fame and reputation, I think most would agree, have something to do with NPC initial reactions. Even if it's just determining whether an NPC knows of the PCs and changes his attitude accordingly.

Charisma has a direct influence on fame and reputation. Fame and reputation have a direct influence on NPC attitudes and reactions. (Or I suppose you could just say it's another form of currency flavored as NPC attitudes and reactions.)

"Reputation represents how the general public perceives you, whether positively or negatively. This perception precedes you, speaking on your behalf when you are absent and determining how you can expect to be treated by those who have heard of you. Reputation means different things to different types of characters, reflected in the social and cultural values of different regions. a character who embodies the qualities of a hero in one region may be perceived as villainous or disreputable in another."

"You begin play with a Fame equal to your character level + your Charisma modifier. Your Fame ranges from –100 to 100, with 0 representing a lack of any notoriety. Through the course of the campaign, your words and deeds help you build a reputation."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/reputation-an d-fame

That would be an example of Charisma directly affecting NPC interaction. I know this is separate from ciretose's argument, but I was seeing requests for an example. As well, quoted earlier were the rules for relationship scores. I could see this as being precedent for Charisma being used to determine the initial status of a PC in social interactions.

The rules are definitely not perfect and that should be taken into account. As such, if you NEED clarification, FAQ it. Otherwise, I could easily see the wording of "Checks that represent attempts to influence others" being extended to initial NPC reactions. It just seems like a logical extension and something most DMs do without much thought anyway. The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?

Maybe no dip at all? You could just take the prereqs since you seem to be doing so anyway. You'd just have to wait to hit +5 BAB.

Either take the master of many styles to take advantage of not needing the prereqs or to use more than one style at once. Otherwise, couldn't you just dip fighter?

lucky7, is hereby banned, for skipping Quiche Lisp. Quiche Lisp is forgiven of all sins including skipping hobbsdadolfin.

lung

Drat, I lose!

I win, right? Lock the thread.

Just fill the wooden alpaca with your old Moogle costumes and you'll be fine.

The next poster doesn't get the reference.

Can't be blamed if I don't read online comics.

The next poster likes to crush grapes between their toes.

Right, me bredah! Me cyar brek down. I an I jes lookin te mek a lickle coppa from te commun, seen? Ten, me bomboclot cyar brek down wit all me product jes sittin in teh cyar. Di hippies dem be most screw face if te cyar don be no fix. Kyaan let Babylon come down pon me cyar.

Moray eels have two sets of jaws. Similar to the creatures from Alien.

Peace, my bedren! Wha gwan? I an I be lookin te fine te commune. Be a wonderful ting if you could hep out a breder and show im te way, seen?

3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 4) = 9

I'm just starting in PFS in West Tulsa. I'm up for VTT or face to face.