It partly depends on your GM. In my games, roleplay trumps rollplay, so a fighter can do social things, even if he doesn't have the skills. Although, if a particular player did that a lot, I would encourage him to put some points in those skills (usually don't have to encourage).
If your group's style is one of moving miniatures, rolling dice, min-maxing, and trying to come up with the best "builds" (which is unfortunately very prevalent in Pathfinder), then you may be largely out of luck. However, if you have a group that enjoys roleplaying and story more than mechanics and min-maxing, the only real limit is your imagination and willingness to stretch yourself.
It may be too late, but you can also mitigate this when you make your character. If you want to be able to roleplay more with the character, don't pump all your points into str dex and con. Put some in intelligence and charisma.
In my experience, more games are "won" or "lost" by good tactics and roleplay and just general player intelligence than they are by min-maxing. If you're a good player, you can be very successful with a fighter who doesn't have maxed physical abilities but has some intelligence and charisma. You might even find your GM is so grateful to see a unique character and not just another "optimized" character that he throws you a bone every now and then.
A big problem a fighter might have for rp, is if a dm forces a lot of diplomacy checks just to talk to people. To ask questions, to get their opinions, all diplomacy all the time.
I've seen it, it really bogs down play, and if you aren't great at diplomacy the npcs may refuse to go along with anything. This was rollplay not roleplay and the dm was newish, but you must be this high on diplomacy to do anything socially can crop up. I really hope it doesn't happen for you players though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry 3.5 not meaning to poke fun but when I read "must be this high in diplomacy" all I could think was "do you smoke it, freebase it, or does it come in drinkable form"
I think the dm was high on diplomacy.
After a while, I refused to make the checks saying
"I am just asking them questions related to the plot. What do they say? I am not trying to change their opinions."
"Make a diplomacy check."
:O
The npcs clammed up, and like robots, refused to operate without the diplomacy power source.
It was very weird, surreal but also verisimilitude shattering.
RP killed by the excessive mechanics for RP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry 3.5 not meaning to poke fun but when I read "must be this high in diplomacy" all I could think was "do you smoke it, freebase it, or does it come in drinkable form"
Really?
All I could see was a sign like you see in amusement parks by every important NPC.
"Okay kid stand over here and hand me your character sheet, you need to have a +10 Diplomacy to interact with me."
"Sorry kid, +9 ain't enough. Come back when you level up."
*NPC stares waiting for a high enough check.*
|
ah, but the Bbn runs out of rage, and you can't smite CN, and they aren't all magical beasts. The fighter only fails when martials fail...period.If the Barbarian runs out of Rage after about level 4, you're probably all f+##ed anyway because you've been put through the wringer and your spellcasters are probably dry too.
I'm quite aware you can't Smite CN. I'm not sure what the point of that statement is.
And yeah, things aren't all Magical Beasts. Thankfully Rangers aren't limited to picking only Magical Beasts for FE (unless they are in your game?), they're quite free to pick the most common monster likely to show up in your game, and then pick the 2nd and 3rd most likely by level 10.
The point is that the fighter is always effective, unless you build him to not be. If all that it is a slight edge, that's ok, because it's always there, while the others can have their times...I'm not claiming that the fighter is 'better' because of that, just that he's not worse. He's always viable, if well built.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It partly depends on your GM. In my games, roleplay trumps rollplay, so a fighter can do social things, even if he doesn't have the skills. Although, if a particular player did that a lot, I would encourage him to put some points in those skills (usually don't have to encourage).
If your group's style is one of moving miniatures, rolling dice, min-maxing, and trying to come up with the best "builds" (which is unfortunately very prevalent in Pathfinder), then you may be largely out of luck. However, if you have a group that enjoys roleplaying and story more than mechanics and min-maxing, the only real limit is your imagination and willingness to stretch yourself.
It may be too late, but you can also mitigate this when you make your character. If you want to be able to roleplay more with the character, don't pump all your points into str dex and con. Put some in intelligence and charisma.
In my experience, more games are "won" or "lost" by good tactics and roleplay and just general player intelligence than they are by min-maxing. If you're a good player, you can be very successful with a fighter who doesn't have maxed physical abilities but has some intelligence and charisma. You might even find your GM is so grateful to see a unique character and not just another "optimized" character that he throws you a bone every now and then.
A big problem a fighter might have for rp, is if a dm forces a lot of diplomacy checks just to talk to people. To ask questions, to get their opinions, all diplomacy all the time.
I've seen it, it really bogs down play, and if you aren't great at diplomacy the npcs may refuse to go along with anything. This was rollplay not roleplay and the dm was newish, but you must be this high on diplomacy to do anything socially can crop up. I really hope it doesn't happen for you players though.
That's terrible DMing. People talk...especially if it's in their interest to do so. I mean, if it's known that orcs are raiding a town, and the townsfolk are concerned, I want to know why they won't give me every detail they can think of about it, with no roll needed.
If there's some sort of mystery to be solved, it's a poorly set up scenario if everybody knows something and they ALL require diplomacy to get ANY info.
What I've noticed about martial high strength combatants is that they can really work their strength score in ways a spell caster wouldn't want to spend resources for.
They kick down doors. They break things. They add a pointy edge to the party faces intimidate.
The always 'on' factor of a fighter can be thrilling. I could compare it to a 3.5 warlock. Oh sure they can't do a lot. But they do what they do all the time.
I feel like a fighter could play like Superman or Conan. Out of combat they don't have flowery words they just act badass. You can be the unapologetic moral backbone of the party like Superman. Or you could just try to exude tough guy like Conan or any other 80s action hero.
As a DM a fighter could influence others because of his reputation and the deeds he has accomplished whether good or evil.
The only problem with all of this is that every other high strength class can do that too.
Regardless there is something about role playing a guy who relies on skill of sword alone to win the day. No nature powers, No primal rage, No divine powers. Just shear sword swinging fun.
Now mechanically I take traits to give me two better skills and play as a human. My fighter skill choices are normally perception, survival, and Use magic device. I would then use the Focused Study option to get skill focus in all three of these. Between survival, UMD, and perception you should be able to find something to do out of combat.
Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
One such high powered game wasn't so fun when I made my character's main shtick intimidate. The only problem was that the character couldn't intimidate anyone or anything. The other players were also really heavy on the sarcasm and racism. All of that pretty much killed any enjoyment I could have for that game.
Recently, I played in another high powered game where the dm emphasized optimization as it was going to be a high power curve sort o campaign. Everyone made really optimized characters but they also roleplayed their character's persinalities. Average encounters wer about APL+3. Boss encounters were APL+6 to APL+8. Had alot of fun in this game since no one was just playing the the mechanical aspects of their character. Even with optimized characters, the party still can't plough through everything. Good teamwork and some tactics really even the playing field when raw power isn't sufficient on its own.
I'm just as disturbed by the implication of several posts here that skill checks are pretty much the alpha and omega of roleplaying...a view that's sadly common since the game became skill-based in 3e. Roleplaying is much more than rolling dice.
I've always hated this attitude about stats.
Stats aren't meant to show you what you can do - they're meant to show you what you CAN'T do.You can "roleplay" away anything your mind can come up with, but your stats tell you whether your character is capable of actually pulling it off.
ie: If you want to roleplay your fighter as a very suave, very cunning, con man, you absolutely can. But he won't be very good at it unless you've got the Bluff to back it up.
(It's the exact same reason you can't just "roleplay" that, "I hit the monster, and I hit it really good so I do max damage." No, sorry, roll for it.)
Well the mechanics fail sometimes. I'll use an example, some fools threaten to kill mr fighter. Mr fighter tries intimidate, telling them that they will be cut to pieces in short order and that they don't stand a chance. He fails the intimidate because he isn't great at it. Combat starts, he is true to his word.
If this happens again, even if the next lot of chopping wood know this fighter's capabilities, they don't start intimidated and intimidate may truly fail upon them (if the fighter didn't specialise into being damn good at this, because the system rewards specialisation).
So you may create a char that is a monster in combat, a total killer, but which cannot scare people or monsters, only kill them.
I've seen this with combat monks with low charisma and no intimidate. Ah, you can break multiple people apart at the same time, but are not scary at all. Okaaay.
Rogues get intimidate too, and have more skill points to throw into it, so they can end up more scary than the fighter, regardless of how dangerous a character actually is--a non-combatant rogue may have a higher intimidate than a total killer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If said fighter doesn't get a hefty situational bonus to intimidate (if not an outright success, whether the character wanted to or not) from the GM, then that's the GM's fault, not the game's lack of anything.
(Although you're not wrong. The game can't cover everything, and doesn't really try to - As you point out, there is no "reputation" value either.)
Well, being good at something is not the same as being good at convincing people of your prowess.
So yeah, being a great swordsman is not the same as being able to convince the world that you're a great swordsman.
Sure, if people heard about you, you get a nice bonus to skill check about it, but there's nothing broken with the situation you described, Loyalist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, being good at something is not the same as being good at convincing people of your prowess.
This.
Take an egghead climate scientist (high int) and a charming TV weatherman w/ teeth that literally sparkle (high cha). Have them fiercely debate climate issues. See who the viewing public finds to be "smarter."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master the sword-chucks. After you invent them!
Nice stream, ha ha.
Great swordsman cries, for he is not scary. Damn. Samurai can nicely combine both though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always hesitant to play a fighter, because even in Pathfinder I find that I don't have any abilities that allow me to perform out of combat. Anyone have any solutions to shore up a fighter's usefulness out of combat? Any feats that might allow some utility?
Ask gm to create something like martial schools, orders, etc.
All classes that have 2 skills points / level should have 4.Add knowledge: martial to your game and give monks and fighters a bonus = level/2, or try to expand profession: soldier.
Also check my comment here http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2poge?The-high-level-martial-PC is the last one or one of the last :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If said fighter doesn't get a hefty situational bonus to intimidate (if not an outright success, whether the character wanted to or not) from the GM, then that's the GM's fault, not the game's lack of anything.
(Although you're not wrong. The game can't cover everything, and doesn't really try to - As you point out, there is no "reputation" value either.)
"Before you force me to kill you, I'd like to show you something." *whips sword out, neatly cleaving the signpost almost outside of his peripheral vision in two* "Take a look...that's neck level."
"You sure about this, now?"
If that isn't worth +10, what is?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actions speak louder than words. Extremely true for the fighter. Remember, the DM sets the initial attitude of Npcs. Something many DMs forget. With time, gear, pure size and bad assery, a fighter can be very effective out of combat. His reputation for slaughtering everything thrown at him in mere seconds can change the attitude of the people facing him without even a roll. It's all up to the DM.
Of course this is true of all classes, but in terms of pure intimidating prowess, the fighting types are scary.
Of course, fighters are also feat intensive. This means they can easily take feats to help compensate for lack of skill choices in things out of combat. Skill focus and the intimidate feats are good for this.
When I take up the DMing role again, I'm thinking of introducing a house rule where fighters get to choose two knowledge skills as class skills. This represents the idea that they can come from all walks of life and back grounds. I doubt I'd allow arcana, but nearly all th others could easily get explained by backgrounds of how the fighters came to be skilled warriors. They still only get two skill points per level, but it allows them to be more flexible in the application of those skills.
Cheers
|
I've always hated this attitude about stats.
Stats aren't meant to show you what you can do - they're meant to show you what you CAN'T do.You can "roleplay" away anything your mind can come up with, but your stats tell you whether your character is capable of actually pulling it off.
ie: If you want to roleplay your fighter as a very suave, very cunning, con man, you absolutely can. But he won't be very good at it unless you've got the Bluff to back it up.
(It's the exact same reason you can't just "roleplay" that, "I hit the monster, and I hit it really good so I do max damage." No, sorry, roll for it.)
Again, Im talking about more than just actions that have to be resolved as success/failure.
I don't think your stats matter at all in regards to having a simple conversation with an NPC that isn't about you trying to drag information out of them.
The fighter from what I see use a lot of skill out of combat. They are not the skill monkey but they use Aid another with skills. So the sorcerer might be the Diplomacy face with Diplomacy of 15 the fighter with diplomacy of 3 aids the sorcerer. Then the role playing occurs the rolls are made the results are given.
I've seen fighter hang with rogues. The fighter climbs the wall and lower rope and they allow the rogue with lower climb skill to get up easier. They fighter with a little stealth hangs back to support the rogue. In this case the fighter is in lighter armor.
|
|
I've always hated this attitude about stats.
Stats aren't meant to show you what you can do - they're meant to show you what you CAN'T do.You can "roleplay" away anything your mind can come up with, but your stats tell you whether your character is capable of actually pulling it off.
ie: If you want to roleplay your fighter as a very suave, very cunning, con man, you absolutely can. But he won't be very good at it unless you've got the Bluff to back it up.
(It's the exact same reason you can't just "roleplay" that, "I hit the monster, and I hit it really good so I do max damage." No, sorry, roll for it.)Again, Im talking about more than just actions that have to be resolved as success/failure.
I don't think your stats matter at all in regards to having a simple conversation with an NPC that isn't about you trying to drag information out of them.
Absolutely.
The way I treat this is...what, I need to do anything? I respond as the NPC would. Why make it difficult?
In my opinion, in a system where skills and abilities are determined by the stats on the sheet and not the capabilities of the player, roleplay should not be used to determine the outcome of anything that is in any way opposed, whether by an NPC or the environment or another player.
In the case 3.5 Loyalist mentions, where the DM was requiring continuous Diplomacy checks just to talk to townspeople, depending on circumstances that may or may not have been reasonable. If the PC (fighter or otherwise) walks into the inn and asks about local gossip that's one thing. If they ask about local gossip in a town where the sheriff is a nasty sort who has the entire populace under the threat of violence, then yes, they may need that Diplomacy roll or risk the townie clamming up.
Does that seem dry or excessive? Too much rollplay and not enough roleplay? Could be. The problem is that I am not my PC. I am potentially not as strong, nor as dexterous. I am also potentially not as intelligent nor as glib. My inability to come up with the right things to say or attitude to take in order to wheedle information out of a skittish informant should not be held against my PC with the 22 Charisma. For that matter, the fact that my DM just broke up with his girlfriend should not make it more difficult for my PC to make friends with the informant.
In a way this is a form of avoiding metagaming. Just as my PC should not be helped nor hindered by my own personal reading of the Bestiary and knowledge of creatures and weaknesses, so too my PC should not be helped nor hindered by my own personal ability scores. At least no more than can be helped. If I happen to be more or less creative or smart about using system rules in general, there's not much that can be done. The playing field can only be leveled so much.
But the skill rules exist for good reason.
|
|
In my opinion, in a system where skills and abilities are determined by the stats on the sheet and not the capabilities of the player, roleplay should not be used to determine the outcome of anything that is in any way opposed, whether by an NPC or the environment or another player.
In the case 3.5 Loyalist mentions, where the DM was requiring continuous Diplomacy checks just to talk to townspeople, depending on circumstances that may or may not have been reasonable. If the PC (fighter or otherwise) walks into the inn and asks about local gossip that's one thing. If they ask about local gossip in a town where the sheriff is a nasty sort who has the entire populace under the threat of violence, then yes, they may need that Diplomacy roll or risk the townie clamming up.
Does that seem dry or excessive? Too much rollplay and not enough roleplay? Could be. The problem is that I am not my PC. I am potentially not as strong, nor as dexterous. I am also potentially not as intelligent nor as glib. My inability to come up with the right things to say or attitude to take in order to wheedle information out of a skittish informant should not be held against my PC with the 22 Charisma. For that matter, the fact that my DM just broke up with his girlfriend should not make it more difficult for my PC to make friends with the informant.
In a way this is a form of avoiding metagaming. Just as my PC should not be helped nor hindered by my own personal reading of the Bestiary and knowledge of creatures and weaknesses, so too my PC should not be helped nor hindered by my own personal ability scores. At least no more than can be helped. If I happen to be more or less creative or smart about using system rules in general, there's not much that can be done. The playing field can only be leveled so much.
But the skill rules exist for good reason.
In that specific sort of case, I agree...I also agree with this:
I don't think your stats matter at all in regards to having a simple conversation with an NPC that isn't about you trying to drag information out of them.
...within reason. It depends on who you're talking to...and it could mean that the stats matter. The 7 Cha Bbn talking to one of the highborn of a city? "Guards! This man is bothering me..."
...but that's not the usual case, either.
|
|
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
(Please note, I deliberately didn't say rolled a 1, since that could be used to say that despite the correct actions, his hand slips and he accidentally sets it off, etc.)
A) Does he find and disarm it, depite the roll, because he performed actions that would have done this?
or
B) Does he set it off and suffer it's effects?
If B, what do you do if he then examines the trap and realizes that by all rights, he should have neutralized the trap?
|
|
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
(Please note, I deliberately didn't say rolled a 1, since that could be used to say that despite the correct actions, his hand slips and he accidentally sets it off, etc.)
A) Does he find and disarm it, depite the roll, because he performed actions that would have done this?
or
B) Does he set it off and suffer it's effects?
If B, what do you do if he then examines the trap and realizes that by all rights, he should have neutralized the trap?
My forte has always been to find ways around things that the designer didn't think of...and it irritates me to no end when I'm told that my 14 Int character is limited by his skills, and cannot think outside of the box, when I can clearly describe something that is well within the purview of any non-handicapped adult human.
If I was running a character with a 7 Int, I'd be fine with it. I've done both.
|
|
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
(Please note, I deliberately didn't say rolled a 1, since that could be used to say that despite the correct actions, his hand slips and he accidentally sets it off, etc.)
A) Does he find and disarm it, depite the roll, because he performed actions that would have done this?
or
B) Does he set it off and suffer it's effects?
If B, what do you do if he then examines the trap and realizes that by all rights, he should have neutralized the trap?
It means you attempted to do what you stated and slipped up doing it.
Its like saying "I hit the target" as opposed to "I attack the target." You may be intending about going about something a given way, but that doesn't mean your hand can't slip doing it. You can describe how you protect yourself from falling by sticking your arms out and trying to balance it won't stop you from accidentally stepping on a slippery patch and falling off the beam.
When a player tells you his action he's telling you his intended action. There's no reasonable way to fail at saying something (though you can screw up intonation), but physical things like looking for a trap? Those you can totally slip up.
Ah, I see...so when you go to cut the tripwire, you're such an idiot that you fail and fall into it, instead.
|
|
Ones don't auto-fail skills.
There's no way I'll penalize for someone actually bothering to come up with a workable plan that a third-grader should be able to carry out by making him roll. Sorry, no, that's worth more, in my book.
Who said anything about penalizing them? They'd have to make the check if they roleplayed or not. All I'm saying is just because you roleplay it doesn't mean you auto succeed. Otherwise...
** spoiler omitted **
Which is completely different from "I cut the tripwire".
|
|
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
(Please note, I deliberately didn't say rolled a 1, since that could be used to say that despite the correct actions, his hand slips and he accidentally sets it off, etc.)
A) Does he find and disarm it, depite the roll, because he performed actions that would have done this?
or
B) Does he set it off and suffer it's effects?
If B, what do you do if he then examines the trap and realizes that by all rights, he should have neutralized the trap?
As an old school gamer, before skill checks came in, then yes this would be fine.
As a player and DM who now better understands the need to separate player knowledge and character knowledge, then I'd make you roll. I might add bonuses.
This scenario is no different than asking if its ok that the 8 intelligence fighter specifically mentions details of astrophysics in his discussion with the high magus in order to get him to warm up. Just because a player knows certain approaches to situations, doesn't mean his character does. That's what skills represent, the characters knowledge in such a situation.
Cheers
|
|
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
(Please note, I deliberately didn't say rolled a 1, since that could be used to say that despite the correct actions, his hand slips and he accidentally sets it off, etc.)
A) Does he find and disarm it, depite the roll, because he performed actions that would have done this?
or
B) Does he set it off and suffer it's effects?
If B, what do you do if he then examines the trap and realizes that by all rights, he should have neutralized the trap?
As an old school gamer, before skill checks came in, then yes this would be fine.
As a player and DM who now better understands the need to separate player knowledge and character knowledge, then I'd make you roll. I might add bonuses.
This scenario is no different than asking if its ok that the 8 intelligence fighter specifically mentions details of astrophysics in his discussion with the high magus in order to get him to warm up. Just because a player knows certain approaches to situations, doesn't mean his character does. That's what skills represent, the characters knowledge in such a situation.
Cheers
Character knowledge: In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
As an old school gamer, before skill checks came in, then yes this would be fine.
As a player and DM who now better understands the need to separate player knowledge and character knowledge, then I'd make you roll. I might add bonuses.
This scenario is no different than asking if its ok that the 8 intelligence fighter specifically mentions details of astrophysics in his discussion with the high magus in order to get him to warm up. Just because a player knows certain approaches to situations, doesn't mean his character does. That's what skills represent, the characters knowledge in such a situation.
Cheers
+1 to this.
You can't be successful just because you describe it well. Otherwise, all challenges would be moot.
"I do a perfect back flip at the last moment and avoid the dragon's flames! Then, I cut off his head with my magic sword!" will not happen just because the player said so, no matter how well he described it. He has to roll that reflex save, attack roll and damage roll, then hope he deals enough damage to kill the beast.
So why would it be different for skill checks?
You can't describe a perfect solution for the trap and say that's enough to bypass it. Why the hell would I bother with Disable Device or Diplomacy if the skill ranks don't matter anyway? Charisma is already the weakest attribute score, why nerf it to uselessness?
I do think skill in general should be more useful, to make mundane characters truly capable of extraordinary feats.
Now, I don't make any of my players describe any of their actions, but we all think it's boring if someone simply says "I use Diplomacy" and roll some dice. So we describe skill checks (and attacks, and spell casting, and pretty much any action we feel like describing) anyway.
If the description is smart, creative and/or interesting, I grant a nice bonus to skill checks, +2 are pretty easy to get, but that bonus can go up to +6. I never penalize players for not giving me descriptions of their actions, though, some people simply have no interest/ability to do it, so they get no bonus, but no penalties either. Even I, who really like describing actions, have occasionally felt like simply saying "I attack" or "I check for traps" because I wasn't in the mood to elaborate.
Besides, it's fun to role-play the results, instead of the means. Let's say I ask a big favor from some influential NPC and I roll a 20 in Diplomacy, I try to make a really convincing speech. If I roll 2, I'll say something like "Oh, come on, bro! Please?"
If you describe an amazing way to disarm a trap, you get a bonus. If you roll a 3 and doesn't succeed even if with said bonus, then what you described didn't happen, it's simply what your character tried to do, but somehow failed. Maybe she miscalculated, maybe it was bad luck, maybe she couldn't do it in time.
If someone tells me deciding outcomes by character abilities (e.g.: skills) instead of player's narration is "rollplaying", then I will tell that someone that deciding what happens without rolling the necessary checks is cheating.
Summon Monster burns a resource.
Jumping requires Acrobatics.
Looking at something IS searching a specific area (i.e. taking 20 on your Perception check).
Saying "I succeed because I'm a f*$$in' badass whatchu gonna do about it?" take no effort, burns no resource, and defeats the entire purpose of having rules in the first place.
|
|
You can't describe a perfect solution for the trap and say that's enough to bypass it. Why the hell would I bother with Disable Device or Diplomacy if the skill ranks don't matter anyway?so a wizard could not cast a summon monster to activate the trap cause that would make disable device usseles? A monk could not avoid a pit trap with a jump?
If the treasure is below a bed a player could not say "I look below the bed" cause that would make a high perception less useful?
A wizard still has to expend the quota. The monk still has to make a jump check. Yeah you still have to roll.
You don't get to roleplay your way past skills. Same as if you dumped a stat. You don't get to roleplay past things you kicked to the curb for other options. If you didn't pay for it you don't get it.
The point was that the trap was something that was obvious if you 'did the right thing' and easily disarmed, again, if you 'did the right thing'. The response I keep hearing is that unless you make rolls, you aren't allowed to do the right thing.
This isn't a matter of the skill. This is a matter of doing the right thing.
Summon monster is still not disable device. The player is using his intelelct so his character have not to roll the dice. What if apaladin have a 10 ft pole, could the paladin activate the pit trap with it or the player would be cheating cause he is not spending a resoruce?Summon Monster burns a resource.
Jumping requires Acrobatics.
Looking at something IS searching a specific area (i.e. taking 20 on your Perception check).
Saying "I succeed because I'm a f$+~in' badass whatchu gonna do about it?" take no effort, burns no resource, and defeats the entire purpose of having rules in the first place.
He did spend a resource. Time ( a lot of it if he's going around poking every part of every 5 ft. square in the dungeon in the hopes he triggers a trap) and money to buy the pole.
And besides Your last commentary have nothig to do with anything. Nobody is arguing something like that.
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
He is stating it as a challenge to "rollplayers". He is definitely saying something like that.
It's not a description. It's an action.
There's a large amount of difference between "I spend the next 4 hours sweeping the dungeon for traps (my buffs running down in the process)" and "I disarm the trap by thoroughly looking around and finding it and then I disarm it".
And the 10 foot pole trick wouldn't work with any of the more nuanced traps either. Sorry, roll Disable Device if you want to disarm this tripwire activated explosion trap or whatever.
You can't describe a perfect solution for the trap and say that's enough to bypass it. Why the hell would I bother with Disable Device or Diplomacy if the skill ranks don't matter anyway?so a wizard could not cast a summon monster to activate the trap cause that would make disable device usseles? A monk could not avoid a pit trap with a jump?
If the treasure is below a bed it woudl be bad for a player to say "I look below the bed" cause that would make a high perception less useful
I honestly don't see your point, Nicos. I'm not defending the honor of Disable Device checks, I'm defending the point that if you want your character to be able to do something, you better try and give him the ability to do it, because simply saying "I succeed" will not suffice.
When you try to do something, you use your character's abilities/resources. Whether those abilities involve rolling dice or not is irrelevant.
If you want to disarm a trap, you say "I try to disarm" the trap and roll your Disable Device check. Or do it in some other way. Summoning is also part of your character's abilities. So is jumping. All of that is part of a character's abilties! Auto-succeeding is not!
If you have a 10ft pole and describe me how you're using it to search for traps, I might give you a +2 bonus to the task. If even then you fail to notice the trap, you are 10ft away from the area of effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is having bad-wrong-fun with their style of play. But I particulary do not understand the rollplay style of game. It seems to me that that the only options of the players are at the character creation, afther that all seems to be decided by rolling the dice.
And I don't understand why some people bother using a rule system if all they're going to do is describe how they succeed.
But we both know that's going to ludicrous extremes to denigrate the opposing side, so let's stop that shall we?
You can RP, yes. Your RP cannot affect the outcome of something that should be determined by a die roll. That defeats the purpose of having a die roll.