stemfish's page

Most modules have at least one point where the party needs to talk their way into something, out of trouble, get information, bluff, or some other social related skill. More often than not, the character at the table with the highest charisma modifier is expected to fit that role and be the talker for the party. This can be fine, if you play a bard, you're creating a character who is designed around talking, but what about people who take charisma based characters, whom don't want to be the face?

I had a new player join with us for his first session of PFS, and he came to the table with a blaster sorc. We got through the first part of the adventure, and got to a town where the party had to find out where the next clue was. The sorc didn't put any ranks into diplomacy, and two of the other three players began to question his decisions. When he said that he simply didn't like being the leader of the party, they continued to question why he would play a charisma based character, if he didn't plan on being the 'face' of the party. One went as far as to say, 'Any character with a high charisma will be the leader of the party. If you don't think you can do that, then you shouldn't be playing a charisma based character.' As DM I was able to get the party to roleplay it out in character without needing an actual diplomacy roll for gather information and move past the issue as best I could (skipping one scene entirely as it was nothing but a set of social rolls in a row), but it left a sour taste in everyone's mouth for the rest of the session.

Afterward, my friend asked me if it was too late to change up his character. We talked it over, and he decided that if he was going to go through this every time he wanted to play, then he just didn't want to be a charisma sorc, instead he'd turn the sorc into a wizard. But I don't like this decision, as he's pretty much off of charisma based classes. I also talked to the other players and went over how they were getting on his case for no reason - similar to people who get angry at clerics who do anything besides healing - as it wasn't what he wanted to do. If he needed to make a skill check he would, but that they shouldn't tell him what to do as either a person or character.

So, any advice on how to help out players who want to play charisma based characters, but not be forced to roleplay for the group?

In 3.5, an Artificer can disenchant a magic item to regain its XP cost. Now, in the PF setting there are no artificers and there are no XP costs, but it's not unreasonable to say there's some magical craftsman that can disenchant an item and use its magic towards enchanting a different item.

I've been using this idea for years. It isn't the item you're selling, but the magic added onto it. Some wizard will reuse the magic, and a butcher will take the hook to be used as a very durable hook. In the same way that you can 'upgrade' your own magic items from +1 to +2, it only makes sense that you can 'downgrade' as well and get back the magic or coins somehow. I only let players do this in large cities or metropolises, nowhere else would have the funds or magic to make this work.

I prefer to keep a running table of the PC's health, just like monsters, and make sure that the dice add up in a way appropriate for the party. At low levels, such as in Society, this can mean keeping damage rolls under 15 as to not accidentally one shot anyone who doesn't deserve it. That way even a lucky crit with a longbow won't force a death, but you can instead knock someone down. In longer combat, as the party gets worn down, slightly reduce the incoming damage, but knock out players left and right. If enough go down, then the party needs to surrender or have the baddies retreat, as at low level death is permanent.

However at mid levels, especially if the party has spells like 'Breath of Life' then it's more reasonable to dish out damage and watch a player go down. At the high levels, true resurrection or rings of regeneration should be something players need to buy or remember to save up for.

Most of the time I simply don't kill under 5th level characters, but have no regrets for killing anyone over 12th. If a player really doesn't want to die, then it's time for GM fiat, and possibly you miss rolled that confirmed crit, or they forgot about a party buff that gave them +1 on a fort save, so they stabilized. This is supposed to be a fun game, and losing a character can be fun, but it can also really suck depending on the player.

On a side note, once a GM wouldn't let a player res his character through fiat as the body had floated downstream. Proving that players have more free time than GMs do... He simply rolled up an 8th level cleric, put all of his money into a scroll of true resurrection, and then revived his character. I don't think he even made a character sheet for that cleric...

As a DM I actually tend to roll onto most roleplaying rolls myself. If I feel that they party is making good decisions and playing out trying to get past the door guards, I'll simply let them get in, and use the screen to roll their diplomacy for them. This way roleplaying means something, because it sucks to have a 5 minute conversation end in failure solely because the dice roll was low. Same with hidden poison checks, disease, and illusions, because if a player is asked to randomly role a fort save, gets a 8, and nothing happens, the next line of conversation is 'Can somebody detect poison on me, I think I somebody spiked my drink?' While if it's hidden, then it becomes, 'You wake up unable to move your arms more than a few inches, as if the air were replaced by molasses'

For Sense Motive, I tend to make a DC out of the party by assuming they take 10, aid if applicable, and tell them the results in the dialog. If a player wants to make an active sense motive, I do it for them, and let them know more about body language and speech patterns. Admittedly, I am a behavioralist in my day job, and finding liars is a big part of my job. So my players know that when I describe a person, I give out clues as to how truthful the target is.

To answer the original question, as written you can role yourself (unless the RAW explicitly says not to, such as with secret messages), but your DM may ask that you not role, or not give you exactly what you expect.

copied from d20pfsrd

Seeking
The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.

Grappling creatures do not share the same square, thus the -4 penalty for shooting into melee will still apply, but nothing special beyond that. I personally believe that seeking does negate the -4, as it is effectively your opponent using your ally as a form of concealment, and the -4 comes from you trying to avoid your ally. So while the -4 is closer to cover (partial cover gives you bonus AC while concealment is miss chance) I feel that seeking helps out and negates this.

To sum it up, I believe that seeking negates the -4 penalty, just as if you had precise shot.

I have to say that it's a house rule. A few years ago as a player we ran into a tavern brawl, and without missing a beat, our raging barbarian picked up the parties gnome and used him as an improvised club. After laughing, the barb pointed out that he swung around heavier objects, and the gnome agreed that it would be hilarious. So he sat out that combat and roleplayed a club. Strangely this became a staple in the group, with the gnome willingly being held (and immobilized) and focusing on channeling.

Eventually, the Barbarian asked to take feats regarding Improvised Weapon (Gnome) and as a party we voted it in, as the only weapon he used was the Gnome.

RAW I would say no.

As a GM, I would ask to specialize it, similar to (gnome), but instead go for Improvised Weapon(glass) or (wooden beam) or (cards). This lets the player get around RAW, but at a cost that they must seek out their weapon. Ex - It may be free to get a mug from a table, but a standard or full to break a bar stool into a set of four steaks and a makeshift bludgeoning throwing star. Then the weapon is both improvised, but still standard enough for someone to train with it.