|
I don't particularly want to get involved in this topic, but I do want to state that Wikipedia is actually a very decent source of information. It has a powerful self-correction mechanism that is part of the nature of epistemic communities involved in its creation and editing. The fact that many here seem to discount Wikipedia as a valid source is their own loss and prejudice against the open system that Wikipedia relies on. A study in the prestigious science magazine Nature found Wikipedia to be comparable to Britannica in terms of accuracy: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Umm and you do know that britannica isn't exactly considered a good source of information beyond the basic facts right? As the writers and editors of said volume aren't experts in the respective fields of the subject right? If you need a date or formula...yes both are perfectly fine. You need to know the finer points of what the discovery of sutton hoo means and your boned using either of those.
Meh, I don't care for making builds with 7's and 8's.
One may be appropriate, however its a rarity I'd take it.
If my players go that path I can't say they'd end up enjoying it either.
DM fiat, at it's finest, Shifty. Never mind that the PC is taking a hit, but has found a way to mitigate it (to an extent.) The Ugly DM says "you dared to take a 7, now I will make you pay!" Mwahahahah
Using Sig again, he can pretty easily smell a rat, low CHA and all. Because the player has sunk a point or two into Diplomacy, Sig can even (sometimes) manage to articulate his displeasure without being insulting. Now, he still has to deal with the 7 CHA, because it's not going away. But you still seem to want put the screws to the guy even more.
More like I'm selling my shotgun 'cause my rifle does fine and I have more ammo for it. .
Your dex is low you should stick with the scatter gun.
I haven't used my head-slot for anything yet.
Agreed
Sushi tastes good...
I love the double-standard that says low stats are good, take your lumps, but don't you dare place a low value in CHA.
A double standard is dumping a stat then playing like you didn't.
Dump a stat, you take a penalty. Str, Dex, Int, Wis the character reflects the stats. Low strength characters don't wear heavy armor and swing two handed weapons. Low intelligence characters aren't wizards.
You dump a stat and then try to cover it with skill points why? You aren't a people person? OK. You are a fighter so focus on combat. Good intellgence think tactics. High dex use a bow. Play your strengths and your weakness. Charisma is as useless as you make it.
>sushi?< Nice a lippy paper weight.
Really?
DM Fiat?
More like poor playing on behalf of the player involved - you have a 7 Int, yet plan on making sound tactical decisions on the battlefield? You want a 7 wis, yet are happy using your REAL common sense to sense the ambush?
Clerics with a 7 Int? WHAAAT? They would have kicked him out of the monastery.
One or two points in diplomacy with a 7 Cha means that AT BEST you are trying to roll a check with a minus one.
And you can spare me the sorry story for the poor player 'taking a hit', he has chosen to engineer those stats as low as possible to get a better ride elsewhere - all I'm saying is that sure you might get to enjoy that free ride, but don't feel there won't be equally unpleasant repercussions for your min/max goodness.
A double standard is dumping a stat then playing like you didn't.
I'm not following. Are you saying that a low-STR Wizard shouldn't take Swim, or that he shouldn't use Unseen Servant as a porter?
Low intelligence characters aren't wizards.
No they, aren't, because there is no Skill that can make up for that particular Class Ability.
You dump a stat and then try to cover it with skill points why?
Because even though you're taking an inherent -2 penalty, your Skill points eventually add up and you can overcome it then.
What's wrong with a martial type wanting to actually have something to add in non-combat situations? Why shouldn't Skills allow for i?
You aren't a people person? OK. You are a fighter so focus on combat. Good intellgence think tactics. High dex use a bow. Play your strengths and your weakness. Charisma is as useless as you make it.
Which is exactly the point I'm making. Just because you dump CHA, doesn't mean CHA-based Skills are now closed to you. They can be utilized quite well.
Really?
DM Fiat?
Yeah - DM fiat. The player dumps CHA, but puts Skill points in CHA-based skills and you're calling foul. Because you don't like it. Because you're the DM and they're not supposed to do that stuff! Oh the nerve!
other stuff meant to derail DM fiat assertion
I don't particularly want to get involved in this topic, but I do want to state that Wikipedia is actually a very decent source of information. It has a powerful self-correction mechanism that is part of the nature of epistemic communities involved in its creation and editing. The fact that many here seem to discount Wikipedia as a valid source is their own loss and prejudice against the open system that Wikipedia relies on. A study in the prestigious science magazine Nature found Wikipedia to be comparable to Britannica in terms of accuracy: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.htmlUmm and you do know that britannica isn't exactly considered a good source of information beyond the basic facts right? As the writers and editors of said volume aren't experts in the respective fields of the subject right? If you need a date or formula...yes both are perfectly fine. You need to know the finer points of what the discovery of sutton hoo means and your boned using either of those.
Both Britannica and Wikipedia are very decent sources of information. No, you wouldn't want to use either as a basis for doing cutting edge research in whatever field. But just to provide some general information or some definitions for an internet discussion (as was the case in this thread)? Seriously...
Really?
DM Fiat?
Yeah - DM fiat. The player dumps CHA, but puts Skill points in CHA-based skills and you're calling foul. Because you don't like it. Because you're the DM and they're not supposed to do that stuff! Oh the nerve!
other stuff meant to derail DM fiat assertion
So when they min/max out and expect few repercussions do we call that 'Player Fiat'?
Simply put, they are attempting to drop a baseline below the norm in order to get a free ride elsewhere to their advantage. This is fine if the game is a continuous string of dungeon crawls where actual RP is not involved, nor actual interaction with many/any NPCs in a 'social setting'.
Regrettably for them, however, a three dimensional campaign WILL see them out and about and doing things that may require ALL their statistics, and if they have engineered their Int and Cha to the level of the villiage idiot, then they can be expected to be dealt with as the local village idiot.
No point having a sook that you took all Supermans traits and decry FIAT! when the GM DARES using Cryptonite.
Low INT+WIS+CHA would and should lead to a short and messy life.
After a while, observant bad guys will realise you have the common sense of a goldfish and will play to your weakness and exploit it.
You missed a point about playing your strengths and weakness. Why would you dump a stat you plan on using in game. Selling your gun to by bullets? You lowered your cha then upped your Int for extra skills to compensate for your low stat.
If your wizard wants to swim then dumping his strength is not a good idea. Same for a fighter who whats to lead or use tactics don't dump the stat then try to bandaid it with skill points.
A low strength wizard? Mr. Fishy thought we were talking about double standards. Mr. Fishy is talking about dumping your charisma then acting like your a rock star. Or dumping your Int and then playing your character as a tactical genius.
So when they min/max out and expect few repercussions do we call that 'Player Fiat'?
Wait, you're losing me... Are you saying that if a player dumps CHA, but places points in CHA-based skills, that this is a bad thing? Are you saying that the player is abusing the system?
The system allows a player, regardless of attribute, to put Skill points wherever they like. This will sometimes have greater effect or a lesser effect, depending on multiple factors.
Low INT+WIS+CHA would and should lead to a short and messy life.
That's your opinion. ;)
Your dex is low you should stick with the scatter gun.
On the contrary, Sigfried's Dexterity is 14 and he's got a great Base Attack. Though I might go with the scattergun, just 'cause it can blow a hobgoblin clean outta his boots at ten paces. ^_^
Agreed.
I haven't used my head-slot for anything yet.
I'm a fighter and we don't really get a lot of coolness like the headband of intellect, but perhaps a circlet of wisdom. Either way, I'm enjoying the magic pants. So silky.
Really?
Yes really.
DM Fiat?
More like poor playing on behalf of the player involved - you have a 7 Int, yet plan on making sound tactical decisions on the battlefield? You want a 7 wis, yet are happy using your REAL common sense to sense the ambush?
Yeah. It hasn't been uncommon for the less scholarly types to pursue careers in warfare. The ones that are considered dumb can go out and become great war heroes. Tactics are something you can explain to an eight year old child, whereas an Intelligence of 3 is smart enough to know 2 languages and to choose between good and evil.
Also, yeah. If I have a -1 wisdom penalty, that's reflected in the fact I take a -1 hit to my Perceptions to notice said ambush. So, all that's already categorized, quantified, and cataloged my fried.
Clerics with a 7 Int? WHAAAT? They would have kicked him out of the monastery.
Good reason to be an adventuring cleric. Clerics are in fact very much designed after the templars and warpriests (including their oaths against bladed weapons in older editions). Then again, it doesn't take much to have Knowledge (Religion), and even with a -2, you're still more of an authority on religious matters than most people.
One or two points in diplomacy with a 7 Cha means that AT BEST you are trying to roll a check with a minus one.
Actually if it's a class skill, +2. If it's a cross-class skill, -1. However, that only applies to first level. You see, every level thereafter you can continue to grow in your ability with that skill. You can overcome the baseline. By 2nd level, you have a +0 in the cross-class skill, and it just goes up from there. By 5th level, Sigfried had a +4 to Diplomacy, Bluff, and a +6 Sense Motive. That's just as good as having an 18 in Charisma and no ranks.
Sigfried can go on to stir the hearts of his people.
And you can spare me the sorry story for the poor player 'taking a hit', he has chosen to engineer those stats as low as possible to get a better ride elsewhere - all I'm saying is that sure you might get to enjoy that free ride, but don't feel there won't be equally unpleasant repercussions for your min/max goodness.
You're very condescending sir. Sir Sigfried is in no way enjoying a free ride. He must be a competent fighter or else he puts the lives of himself and his allies in mortal danger on their adventures. He did not have the opportunity to be a fanciful bard.
But, you are insisting that there be extra repercussions for Mr. Sigfried because he has a 7 Charisma. The repercussions are already there, but you seem to be talking about targeting Mr. Sigfried to punish him for having a 7 Charisam, or to punish his player.
It's GM Fiat, and it's the ugliest kind.
You missed a point about playing your strengths and weakness. Why would you dump a stat you plan on using in game. Selling your gun to by bullets? You lowered your cha then upped your Int for extra skills to compensate for your low stat.
Sure you did, and now, in certain situations, that CHA dump doesn't hurt quite as bad. You'll never be the party face, but neither will be the party patsy (in the case of Sense Motive.)
Sure they can put a point or two into skills to offset their bad attributes, but it is going to be patchy - as they will be having to make checks with very low (possibly negative) modifiers. Then there is the obvious question about why someone who has inheirently low CHA is spending their time building CHA based skills.
I can understand a socially awkward person trying to better their lot by attending Toastmasters, or other such 'skills building' process, but it's pretty unlikely, especially if they have a 7 Int and can barely string a sentence together.
And she didnt even gimp her CHA stat - but you wouldn't follow her to battle even out of morbid curiosity.
So yeah, you turn up at the table with that, without a really good story, and you will be hit by my fiat just as sure as you are trying to hit me with yours.
You missed a point about playing your strengths and weakness. Why would you dump a stat you plan on using in game. Selling your gun to by bullets? You lowered your cha then upped your Int for extra skills to compensate for your low stat.
That's called optimization. Why? Because my 14 Int is more useful for building a well rounded character. I could use that 14 Int to make him an athlete (there's no less than 4 different skills governing jumping, climbing, swimming, and riding) or have him learn good social skills.
Likewise, the Intelligence serves to help qualify for combat feats like Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm, which could be very useful for Mr. Sigfried, since he might want to avoid getting hit or to use a ranseur + Imp. Disarm to disarm spellcasters of their wands, components, or foci.
I think we had a misunderstanding my Fishy friend.
If your wizard wants to swim then dumping his strength is not a good idea. Same for a fighter who whats to lead or use tactics don't dump the stat then try to bandaid it with skill points.
Why? Who are you to tell me that because my wizard has a 7 strength that the 18 skill points I invested in Swim are meaningless? Who are you to tell me that Sir Sigfried cannot swoon the barmaid, even though he's got above average social skills?
A low strength wizard? Mr. Fishy thought we were talking about double standards. Mr. Fishy is talking about dumping your charisma then acting like your a rock star. Or dumping your Int and then playing your character as a tactical genius.
I don't think we are.
So when they min/max out and expect few repercussions do we call that 'Player Fiat'?
Define repercussion. You make it sound like Lazzo, who would pull non-game BS like making NPCs ignore him before he opened his mouth, or ignore Mr. Sigfried's social skills because his baseline is a 7 Charisma. It sounds like you're cheating, and intentionally screwing with the player.
Likewise, if you're choosing an awful lot of poisons and attacks that deal charisma damage, specifically because Mr. Sigfried has a 7 Charisma, I'd question your GMing credit.
That doesn't rule out using them. Encountering shadows is something the wizard might have to fear with her 7 strength. Sigfried could be vulnerable to attacks against his charisma; but if they're showing up for no more reason than to screw with the player, then yeah, the GM's a douche.
Simply put, they are attempting to drop a baseline below the norm in order to get a free ride elsewhere to their advantage. This is fine if the game is a continuous string of dungeon crawls where actual RP is not involved, nor actual interaction with many/any NPCs in a 'social setting'.
What kind of BS is this? Mr. Sigfried, the example fighter, is actually designed so that he's not just a killing machine in some dungeon with no skills outside of the game. He actually invests a bit of himself into things like being a good speaker, a good bluffer, and recognizing when people aren't on the level.
You're telling me that he's being a bad player for trying to be able to do that without giving up the ability to contribute well in the aforementioned dungeon or combat environment? What kind of sick twisted double standard is this?
Regrettably for them, however, a three dimensional campaign WILL see them out and about and doing things that may require ALL their statistics, and if they have engineered their Int and Cha to the level of the villiage idiot, then they can be expected to be dealt with as the local village idiot.
Yeah, if they put their foot in their mouth. But NPCs don't see that PCs have a 7 Int, Wis, or Cha, just like players don't go "Hey, tell me what that monster's strength is, I'm trying to decide between using Ray of Enfeeblement or Grease". They would treat them like the village idiot if they were acting like it, and by 3rd level Sir Sigfried is a pretty charming fellow.
No point having a sook that you took all Supermans traits and decry FIAT! when the GM DARES using Cryptonite.
I question this. You really need to define what those repercussions are, because you really do sound like you're out to get poor Sigfried for no other reason than because he has a number on his sheet. Sigfried's not even really very powerful, but he's optimized to be a good party member and to try and be useful or at least well rounded for the exact kind of campaign you seem to be describing.
Low INT+WIS+CHA would and should lead to a short and messy life.
After a while, observant bad guys will realise you have the common sense of a goldfish and will play to your weakness and exploit it.
How exactly? When you're planting your axe in their skulls? Are you telling me your NPCs can look at someone and tell they're stupid? Is that it? I want the same right. Tell me how strong a monster is, I want numbers. Tell me what their Dexterity is, since that's far easier to surmise than just telling someone's intelligence by looking at them.
Also, dumping Int, Wis, and Cha (all three) would actually make you very un-optimized, and likely pretty useless outside of just dealing and taking HP damage. That's not optimization, or even min/maxing. That's minimizing your strengths and maximizing your weaknesses.
I'd like to point out that the 9 str fighter could slap on a pair of Gauntlets of OGre Power and wuss-slap around the 18/93 str fighter. Got even sillier with Girdles of Giant str. I think there were 3 different halflings in Forgotten Realms with Girdles of Storm Giant Str, because, you know, no real fighters wanted the things.
==Aelryinth
Sure they can put a point or two into skills to offset their bad attributes, but it is going to be patchy - as they will be having to make checks with very low (possibly negative) modifiers. Then there is the obvious question about why someone who has inheirently low CHA is spending their time building CHA based skills.
I can understand a socially awkward person trying to better their lot by attending Toastmasters, or other such 'skills building' process, but it's pretty unlikely, especially if they have a 7 Int and can barely string a sentence together.
I take offense to that. I'm of above average intellect (I'm not bragging, it has its downsides) but I have trouble relating and speaking to people sometimes. Sometimes I say things and it pushes people on the defensive because they think I'm somehow calling them stupid. I'm working on trying to be better at social graces, but it's a process. Meanwhile, a friend of mine is generally wrong about a lot of stuff but is naturally charismatic and makes people feel at ease; but he gets embarrassed sometimes when he lacks knowledge.
And she didnt even gimp her CHA stat - but you wouldn't follow her to battle even out of morbid curiosity.
Actually, seems like she's pretty low on Int and Cha to me. She's pretty, sure, but she's really bad at speaking (Diplomacy or Bluff). Even if she did know what she was saying, she sure as hell isn't conveying her thoughts very well. She doesn't seem to know the answer (maybe Int 10, with no ranks, if it's not common knowledge), and she's too busy tripping over her own words (no diplomatic skill).
So yeah, you turn up at the table with that, without a really good story, and you will be hit by my fiat just as sure as you are trying to hit me with yours.
Bullcrap. You tell me what's wrong with Sir Sigfried. I demand it.
Fine, Shifty, INT can be adjusted down to 12 and CHA can be brought up to 10... 1 less Skill point...
Why are you so frightened of a 7 CHA?
Edit:
STR 14
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 7
You know why CHA is that low? Because that array represents an individual who is smarter, stronger, faster and tougher than most other mortals. And he or she knows it. They have a hard time relating to others who aren't in their league.
No see your fighter is trying to do something other then straight melee so he has to be wrong.
No see your fighter is trying to do something other then straight melee so he has to be wrong.
Cheating, pure and simple. Abusing the system! It won't stand, I tell you!
Heh - nothing wrong with a smart Fighter. :)
Actually if you go back and have a look, I've already pointed out that the odd low stat is fine, and there may well be a legit reason for it.
Your build is by far and away not even close to a min/max, which is the root of the debate, as most min/maxers are running three stat scores in the 7-8 range.
Yes, it is pretty easy to 'read' people, and get a feel for their 'statistics'. Sure, sometimes you will get it wrong, however observance over time will allow you to get a very clear picture.
This is seen in the sporting arena every minute of every day - you size up the opposition and then adjust your strategy accordingly. I can usually tell what an opponent is going to do based on a whole pile of information they give away in the first few seconds.
Ashiel if you want to take offence then go right ahead, please fake all the moral outrage you want.
You do say one thing that I agree with, however, and that is that quite a few dumb people HAVE become lauded as great heroes in battle - there are LOADS of posthumous medals awarded every war!
Actually if you go back and have a look, I've already pointed out that the odd low stat is fine, and there may well be a legit reason for it.
You went on further to say that any player who tried to run a 7 CHA wouldn't enjoy the consequences.
Ugly DM Powers Activate!
Your build is by far and away not even close to a min/max, which is the root of the debate, as most min/maxers are running three stat scores in the 7-8 range.
Not the point of the current discussion.
Straw Man Deflection On!
Yes, it is pretty easy to 'read' people, and get a feel for their 'statistics'. Sure, sometimes you will get it wrong, however observance over time will allow you to get a very clear picture.
Not getting what you're saying or how it's relevant to our discussion.
This is seen in the sporting arena every minute of every day - you size up the opposition and then adjust your strategy accordingly. I can usually tell what an opponent is going to do based on a whole pile of information they give away in the first few seconds.
Again I have no idea where you're going with this... or why.
Ashiel if you want to take offence then go right ahead, please fake all the moral outrage you want.
You're saying that, by creating this build, with a CHA 7, and then putting skill points into CHA-based skills, she's somehow being dishonest or trying to game the system.
It's crap, really.
You do say one thing that I agree with, however, and that is that quite a few dumb people HAVE become lauded as great heroes in battle - there are LOADS of posthumous medals awarded every war!
Quality parting shot! Well done, sir!
Actually if you go back and have a look, I've already pointed out that the odd low stat is fine, and there may well be a legit reason for it.
Your build is by far and away not even close to a min/max, which is the root of the debate, as most min/maxers are running three stat scores in the 7-8 range.
Only if they're doing it really badly. The core concept of min/maxing, as described by the WotC endorsed D&D for dummies (how's that for a reference?) is minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths. Given the continual cost vs return of the point buy system, you are more rewarded for keeping your ability scores in the 12-16 range before applying racial modifiers. If you're intentionally taking heavy hits to your skill points, will saves, and charisma checks, in exchange for an 18 str, 18 dex, 18 Con, you're actually coming out weaker; because honestly you're crippling your character for what amounts to a +2 bonus (seriously, notice an 18 strength only a +2 higher bonus than Sigfried's 14).
In short, you're non min/maxing. Your max/minimizing. You're hardly optimizing, and you're going to suck even in combat situations (no really, eat glitterdust, sleep, dominate, colorspray, hideous laughter, lots of fear effects, suggestion, confusion, insanity). Watch as you drown because your +4 strength modifier doesn't means squate when you don't have enough skill points to keep you going in a mere DC 15. You're completely useless outside of combat and you're useless inside of it. Congrats - optimizers!
Yes, it is pretty easy to 'read' people, and get a feel for their 'statistics'. Sure, sometimes you will get it wrong, however observance over time will allow you to get a very clear picture.
Over time, sure. But how do you observe them? When they're speaking? Their talent for different things? The way they walk? Exactly how do you look at a guy on the street and say "Hmmm, I bet he has a 3rd rate education" except perhaps by making assumptions based on their clothing?
This is seen in the sporting arena every minute of every day - you size up the opposition and then adjust your strategy accordingly. I can usually tell what an opponent is going to do based on a whole pile of information they give away in the first few seconds.
What the heck are you talking about? Are you talking sport fighting, football, or some other piece of information? How do you look at a warrior and know "this guy reads books in his spare time" or "this guy speaks latin"?
Ashiel if you want to take offence then go right ahead, please fake all the moral outrage you want.
**** ***. I'm not fond of being called a liar, and being told you're faking something is pretty synonymous with that. I used a real life example, and you dismiss not only the example but you tell me that I am fake? Get a real point or stop debating.
You do say one thing that I agree with, however, and that is that quite a few dumb people HAVE become lauded as great heroes in battle - there are LOADS of posthumous medals awarded every war!
Yeah, 'cause sometimes during all that playing around out there on the battlefield they might get an idea that flanking their enemies is a good idea.
Here's the problem Ioaba, theres a three way conversation here, and you seem to be only looking at parts of it.
Yes a player with a 7 Cha has a place at the table, nothing above has indicated otherwise, and in fact all along its been stated that there might be a legit reason for someone to be socially inept. 7 Cha is really not a reflection of "I'm so awesome and I know it", its more a sign of straight social retardation. In the real world this has a real consequence.
As I have said all along, if yuo further compound this drawback with being dim witted or particularly naieve, then this will stand to be exploited - and thus you will not be having a lot of 'fun' when this gets manipulated.
Ashiel made the complaint that the 'enemy' wouldn't have a clue of poor lump heads stats, and that them targetting said 'cant be knowns' is somehow nasty metagaming and ridiculously unfair. Not every NPC/Monster is dumb as paint and attacks like you are playing an MMO.
Hence it was illustrated that not only CAN people do this, people DO do this.
Where's the strawman?
Next you will invoke Godwins.
if min/maxing 'optimisation' is where it's at for you then go right ahead, it's not my bag. I favour style over substance any day of the week. If I want to min/max I can play DDO (and I do it there with wild abandon).
I prefer roleplay, you prefer ruleplay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Wow Ash, you are right about that CHA stat.
I can understand a socially awkward person trying to better their lot by attending Toastmasters, or other such 'skills building' process, but it's pretty unlikely, especially if they have a 7 Int and can barely string a sentence together.
Uh, a 7 INT is not all that low.
I assure you that you meet and work with people with the equivalent of 7 INTs all the time in real life.
I prefer roleplay, you prefer ruleplay.
Stormwind fallacy.
Or some even goofier variant of it wherein you believe only characters with very balanced stats can be roleplayed.
Here's the problem Ioaba, theres a three way conversation here, and you seem to be only looking at parts of it.
Yes a player with a 7 Cha has a place at the table, nothing above has indicated otherwise, and in fact all along its been stated that there might be a legit reason for someone to be socially inept. 7 Cha is really not a reflection of "I'm so awesome and I know it", its more a sign of straight social retardation. In the real world this has a real consequence.
Citation needed.
As I have said all along, if yuo further compound this drawback with being dim witted or particularly naieve, then this will stand to be exploited - and thus you will not be having a lot of 'fun' when this gets manipulated.
Where's this naive dim-wit?
Ashiel made the complaint that the 'enemy' wouldn't have a clue of poor lump heads stats, and that them targetting said 'cant be knowns' is somehow nasty metagaming and ridiculously unfair. Not every NPC/Monster is dumb as paint and attacks like you are playing an MMO.
Hence it was illustrated that not only CAN people do this, people DO do this.
Clarification need. Define what you mean the NPC would do. You are being vague and serve no purpose. Are you saying that your NPCs act as though they are aware of the PC's ability scores? If so, then you either allow the players the same metagame knowledge or you admit defeat, and you admit to generally being an unfair metagamer.
Where's the strawman?
Next you will invoke Godwins.
Did someone mention a strawman? Guilty conscience?
if min/maxing 'optimisation' is where it's at for you then go right ahead, it's not my bag. I favour style over substance any day of the week. If I want to min/max I can play DDO (and I do it there with wild abandon).
I prefer roleplay, you prefer ruleplay.
Don't pretend to know me. The only thing I've done is say - and show - that you can have a character who is mechenically effective while still retaining skills and options to flesh out your character for good roleplaying. If understanding how to make the rules fit your character is "ruleplaying" then I'll happily accept that title, since at least I'm not metagaming against my players.
Wow Ash, you are right about that CHA stat.
Yes, I'm short tempered with certain types of people.
Shifty - you raised the DM fiat flag and I focused on that. You indicated that, at your table, a character like Sigfried wouldn't have a fun time, because of his attempt to mitigate certain aspects of a low CHA score. Now you're backpedaling.
I've made my point, I'll move on from here.
Did someone mention a strawman? Guilty conscience?
Ioaba did, if you had the nous to actually read that I was replying directly to him/her you would have picked up that minor detail. It would have only required a low WISDOM based perception check to spot taht detail... so along with your low (self confessed CHA) we can now add low Wis perhaps... meaning...
Where's this naive dim-wit?
Between your monitor and chair, apparently.
Told you that you wouldn't have fun at my table, and no fiat has been required.
So before you get all indignant again let me point out that you rapidly went on the offence when someone disagreed with you, rather than argue your point you simply tried to attack theirs - a great display of Diplomacy indeed - further your oversensitive 'calling me a liar' routine was a bit over the top resulting in your **** *** comment.
The shoe clearly fits.
Shifty - you raised the DM fiat flag and I focused on that. You indicated that, at your table, a character like Sigfried wouldn't have a fun time, because of his attempt to mitigate certain aspects of a low CHA score. Now you're backpedaling.
I've made my point, I'll move on from here.
My first post on the subject...
Meh, I don't care for making builds with 7's and 8's.
One may be appropriate, however its a rarity I'd take it.
If my players go that path I can't say they'd end up enjoying it either.
One may be appropriate
So Sig would probably be ok, as one might be appropriate, yet MORE THAN ONE 7 or 8 would likely be heading to bad places.
No backpedalling here.
Anyhow, nice chatting.
My first post on the subject...
Meh, I don't care for making builds with 7's and 8's.
One may be appropriate, however its a rarity I'd take it.
If my players go that path I can't say they'd end up enjoying it either.
Bolded line says it all, Shifty. That's a threat, and you know it. Now you're backpedaling, saying this build is okay. It's crap and I'm not going to let you off the hook. You'll DM fiat any player who you think is abusing the rules. In this case, there is no abuse accept that which you'd be dishing out.
It wasn't good chatting with you. You give DMs a bad name.
Yes a player with a 7 Cha has a place at the table, nothing above has indicated otherwise, and in fact all along its been stated that there might be a legit reason for someone to be socially inept. 7 Cha is really not a reflection of "I'm so awesome and I know it", its more a sign of straight social retardation. In the real world this has a real consequence.
Citation needed.
As I have said all along, if yuo further compound this drawback with being dim witted or particularly naieve, then this will stand to be exploited - and thus you will not be having a lot of 'fun' when this gets manipulated.
In-game example needed.
Ashiel if you want to take offence then go right ahead, please fake all the moral outrage you want.
I was insulted and I responded as such. You called me a liar. You didn't merely suggest that I was wrong, you declared I was fraudulent in my claim that what you said previously was offensive to me personally.
Told you that you wouldn't have fun at my table, and no fiat has been required.
What does this have to do with anything?
So before you get all indignant again let me point out that you rapidly went on the offence when someone disagreed with you, rather than argue your point you simply tried to attack theirs - a great display of Diplomacy indeed - further your oversensitive 'calling me a liar' routine was a bit over the top resulting in your **** *** comment.
I've backed up everything I've said with actual proof. I've asked for proof and examples, and I've been given nothing but meaningless statements about non-existing characters that have nothing to do with the game itself, nor Sigfried who was the result of an optimized character designed to be good at social graces as well as fighting, and I've been insulted, baited, and berated repeatedly instead of actually getting a solid piece of evidence for your claims.
I was angry not for your disagreements, but out of frustration from the sheer unfairness of trying to engage in a conversation or debate with someone like you. I've gathered evidence and shown a point, you have not, but you have repeatedly insulted me. It's not your disagreeing I have a problem with - it's you.
if min/maxing 'optimisation' is where it's at for you then go right ahead, it's not my bag. I favour style over substance any day of the week. If I want to min/max I can play DDO (and I do it there with wild abandon).
This is what people are objecting to. And they are objecting to it because it is not only rude, it is downright wrong.
There is no, nadda, zip, ZERO reason why a min maxed character cannot be a well role played one. YOUR charisma, creativity,imagination, drive and innovation: the players, not the characters, is what determines how well role played the character will be. There is nothing lesser, cheaper, cheap or cheesy about making your character effective at what they do.
I admit it *ahem* Hello, my name is Big Norse Wolf and i dump charismia
Why? Because I can adjust my play style and role playing around having a character with an average or worse charismia and still have fun. my dwarven fighter/monk is shy and looks at his boots a lot and stutters. My fighter is taciturn and hardly says a word except "ow" when he's critically hit, my dwarven druid was raised by mushrooms and thinks that tact is what you do to notices, and my elven alchemist is high as a kite on his own product and stares off into the distance at rand
What i cannot adjust is the rules of the game. By the rules of the game charismia is useless for most characters. Even Wizards get more out of strength nowadays (it adds to CMD)It only comes up when interacting with NPCs.. something i can let another member of the party do for me. In combat, everyone makes fort reflex and will saves, everyone takes hitpoint damage. In conversation.. only one person needs to talk. I can get around that.
What i can't get around is being dead. If my job is meatshield and i decided it would be fun to play a fighter with a pretty face and a glass jaw its going to detract from everyone's fun when the troll eviscerates me in round one and stars chewing on the cleric. What am i going to gain in return... playing a high charisma character over a low charisma one.. WHATS the difference? They can both be well rounded, three dimensional characters. You are not going to make your character any better by making them suck at what they're supposed to do. Requiring that a character have a high charisma or off model stats in order to be well role played isn't freeing yourself from your stats: its enslaving you to them.
|
|
Both Britannica and Wikipedia are very decent sources of information. No, you wouldn't want to use either as a basis for doing cutting edge research in whatever field. But just to provide some general information or some definitions for an internet discussion (as was the case in this thread)? Seriously...
Except of course that the defination given was at best incomplete and at worst just plain old wrong because the source was one magazine article. When somebody tried to change that with an additional source, it was quickly quashed via popularity contest with pretty much NO check done on the valdity of the source. And yes even britannica has such issues where the definations they give is incomplete and in some cases just plain wrong.
if a player had three attributes that had scores of 7, i expect them to give a pretty darn good reason. and those attributes better make sense and they must have a reason besides "i needed the points". which is a poor reason to justify 3 7s on a character sheet. a single 7 i might handle. much like shifty. but the wizard with 7 str wis and cha would not fly with me without good reason. if said wizard were a physical weakling who was naive and had a high functioning case of autism. and was actually roleplayed as such. it may work.
How about a half insane wizard? "Wizard" pretty much covers the 7 strength in a variety of story-telling reasons. Mild delusion covers the wisdom and charisma penalty (maybe he has an odd twitch, maybe he's too blunt, maybe he rambles).
Seems like an archtype to me.
if a player had three attributes that had scores of 7, i expect them to give a pretty darn good reason. and those attributes better make sense and they must have a reason besides "i needed the points". which is a poor reason to justify 3 7s on a character sheet. a single 7 i might handle. much like shifty. but the wizard with 7 str wis and cha would not fly with me without good reason. if said wizard were a physical weakling who was naive and had a high functioning case of autism. and was actually roleplayed as such. it may work.How about a half insane wizard? "Wizard" pretty much covers the 7 strength in a variety of story-telling reasons. Mild delusion covers the wisdom and charisma penalty (maybe he has an odd twitch, maybe he's too blunt, maybe he rambles).
Seems like an archtype to me.
that would work too. good explanation.
if players were really dumping stats that low just to get the extra points. i would just increase the allotment for the entire group accordingly. assuming the whole group did it.
Bolded line says it all, Shifty. That's a threat, and you know it.
Taking a build with a 7 or 8 might be appropriate, multiple is not. Thats exactly what I said.
I dont back away from that for a second, and haven't yet.
I don't want players at my table who are setting out to exploit a point buy system and expect it not to have any drawbacks in game. The games invariably WILL involve a range of activities that will probably test them on many many levels - their lack of ability to participate in significant portions of a game due to their very tightly focused one trick pony will lead to significant periods of boredom to which they cannot contribute.
A low stat is a weakness, several low stats are a failing.
Your parting comment is just typical of a petulant player with an entitlement mentality who seems to theink the GM is there for his amusement.
Your parting comment is just typical of a petulant player with an entitlement mentality who seems to theink the GM is there for his amusement.
psssst...
the dm IS there for his amusement. And everyone elses.
Ash, you have no 'evidence', what 'proof'?
All you do is misrepresent plainly stated English, and alternate with asking for citations and examples.
You chose to make what I said 'all about you' and your particularly poor illustration of a min/max build - its hardly 'optimised' in the meta sense of the word. From the outset I made the comment about MULTIPLE 7's and 8's. You only have one, which I said might be appropriate.
psssst...
the dm IS there for his amusement. And everyone elses.
Sure, but not his and his alone... but don't tell him, he might get upset and think its fiat.
Kindly notice that +2/+2 th/dmg is a MAJOR bonus, not a minor one. It's more then the penalty for TWF, and that penalty makes TWF worse then swinging a greatsword. It's a better bonus then any single feat in Pathfinder. It applies to every attack in an iterative, and that can add up to quite a lot of dmg over time.
The difference between a 14 and an 18 is quite significant. It becomes moreso because it is quite difficult to materially raise stat bonuses, compared to skill bonuses, especially for cost. A single stat can gain a maximum of +8 bonus by level (5 levels, 5 Inherent, 6 booster), while skills can get +20.
Thus, if you've any skill points at all, being able to make up for a low stat is far easier then trying to make up for a gimped high stat. Stat bonuses for skills are easy to sub. Stat bonuses for important things are almost impossible to.
===Aelryinth
Taking a build with a 7 or 8 might be appropriate, multiple is not. Thats exactly what I said.
You're holding on to it now, sure. Funny, but that little distinction didn't stop you from railing again Ash's build. It's only in recent posts that you've tried to gp back to it.
I don't want players at my table who are setting out to exploit a point buy system and expect it not to have any drawbacks in game.
That's an assumption made by you and no one else (in this thread, anyway.)
The games invariably WILL involve a range of activities that will probably test them on many many levels
Certainly, and their design, depending on how it's done, may or may not hurt them. The game will work it out, I assure you. But you're not willing to let the game work things out. They're not building characters they you want, so you punish.
A low stat is a weakness, several low stats are a failing.
And the player will figure that out over time, no special attention from you is required.
Your parting comment is just typical of a petulant player with an entitlement mentality who seems to theink the GM is there for his amusement.
No - it stands. If a player doesn't play the way Shifty wants, then Shifty punishes 'em. With that bolded line, you said as much.
Kindly notice that +2/+2 th/dmg is a MAJOR bonus, not a minor one. It's more then the penalty for TWF, and that penalty makes TWF worse then swinging a greatsword. It's a better bonus then any single feat in Pathfinder. It applies to every attack in an iterative, and that can add up to quite a lot of dmg over time.
The difference between a 14 and an 18 is quite significant. It becomes moreso because it is quite difficult to materially raise stat bonuses, compared to skill bonuses, especially for cost. A single stat can gain a maximum of +8 bonus by level (5 levels, 5 Inherent, 6 booster), while skills can get +20.
Thus, if you've any skill points at all, being able to make up for a low stat is far easier then trying to make up for a gimped high stat. Stat bonuses for skills are easy to sub. Stat bonuses for important things are almost impossible to.
===Aelryinth
also a good point. bonuses to melee damage are few and far between. outside of strength score and weapon enhancement bonus. well there is power attack. which does have fairly negligible penalties for the bonuses it provides. few campaigns go past 15th level. a penalty of -4 to hit there is fairly negligible for most martial classes. a swordsage may have a few problems here. in that they are a 3/4 bab martial class and most 9th level manuevers are basically 6th level evocation spells. but otherwise, bonuses to damage are pretty rare. lets look at how many cheap spell boosting items we have. lesser metamagic rods. low level peals of power, type 1 ring of wizardry, wands, staves, rods, potions and scrolls. all of these either enhance the effect of a caster's spells or bypass the limitations on his slots. and most of these items are custom tailored to wizards. outside of core, we have runestaves, eternal wands, and knowstones. clerics have nightsticks too
we all know the system favors spellcasters more than any other class. look at how much gear in every magic item splatbook is tailored towards spellcasters. look at how many more new spells are made in every book. every new splatbook always has new spells written inside. it takes paizo forever to create viable feats for martial classes, even ones that make certain concepts playable. but spellcasters always get awesome new spells. and new spells means new items too. casters only get better with every new book. martial classes remain fairly stagnant.
Bolded line says it all, Shifty. That's a threat, and you know it.Taking a build with a 7 or 8 might be appropriate, multiple is not. Thats exactly what I said.
I dont back away from that for a second, and haven't yet.
I don't want players at my table who are setting out to exploit a point buy system and expect it not to have any drawbacks in game. The games invariably WILL involve a range of activities that will probably test them on many many levels - their lack of ability to participate in significant portions of a game due to their very tightly focused one trick pony will lead to significant periods of boredom to which they cannot contribute.
A low stat is a weakness, several low stats are a failing.
Your parting comment is just typical of a petulant player with an entitlement mentality who seems to theink the GM is there for his amusement.
Two low stats does not mean you can't be heroic. You can be slow(low dex), and rude(low cha). This still leaves you open to being a good caster or melee type. Now if the person dumps int, but comes up with great plans then that might be an issue, but then again would the DM help the player if he had great mental stats, but was not smart enough to portray them as what they were.
Sure, but not his and his alone... but don't tell him, he might get upset and think its fiat.
psssst...
the dm IS there for his amusement. And everyone elses.
Shifty, if you've read any of my posts, you know I feel that every person at the table is important. You'd also know that I abhor the "I, God" DM complex. Believe it or not, if you let the rules do their thing, the game really does work out most problems all by itself.
|
... but then again would the DM help the player if he had great mental stats, but was not smart enough to portray them as what they were.
I would, and the good DM's I have generally have. We have a few guys who like to play wizards, but often have...well...poorly thought out plans for spell use. Our DM sometimes lets them make an intelligence check if they did something really dumb to take it back, assuming the character with the high 20's int is smarter than the player who made the bonehead move.
Nice for flavor.
Ash, you have no 'evidence', what 'proof'?
Lazzo said that you cannot have a fighter who is good at charismatic skills without having a high charisma and sacrificing combat ability. He said that you couldn't optimize and do that. I proved that wrong. I took 15 points and made Sigfried (who actually is better since I accidentally forgot a couple of skill points in the copy/pasta).
I proved, mathematically, that Sigfried who has the lowest starting charisma he could for an extra +4 points to put into his other stats could be made into a solid front-liner. For those wondering, the elite array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, and Sigfried is better than most of that and can hit a 30 strength by 20th level to effectively contribute as a fighter, while likewise having a natural +18 to charisma based skills by 20th level without adding in items or buffs.
All you do is misrepresent plainly stated English, and alternate with asking for citations and examples.
You stated something as fact. I requested citation.
Yes a player with a 7 Cha has a place at the table, nothing above has indicated otherwise, and in fact all along its been stated that there might be a legit reason for someone to be socially inept. 7 Cha is really not a reflection of "I'm so awesome and I know it", its more a sign of straight social retardation. In the real world this has a real consequence.
Citation needed.
You chose to make what I said 'all about you' and your particularly poor illustration of a min/max build - its hardly 'optimised' in the meta sense of the word. From the outset I made the comment about MULTIPLE 7's and 8's. You only have one, which I said might be appropriate.
It's a perfect illustration of a min/max build. I maximized my gains while minimizing my losses. I was able to capitalize on the 1.5 strength bonus (+2/+3), have a decent reflex save, initiative, and armor class, get a solid fortitude buff and +2hp/level, I have skill points to reduce my character's weaknesses (notice I can climb, jump, swim, ride, identify scary monsters, negotiate, bluff, catch people lying, tell when the party's rogue is mentally dominating us and leading us into a trap, survive in the wild, track enemies, train expendable war-beasts, and more), and I have a +1 bonus to will saves, which isn't impressive bit it's better than nothing.
Now I could have thrown all my points in strength and constitution, said to hell with intelligence, and shot for twin 18s, but that wouldn't really be maximizing my strengths, it would only be maximizing my melee attack & damage potential, but leaves me with a myriad of weaknesses.
Basic logic can see that by limiting your strengths to to +3 points more damage and some extra hit points (which would have been the result of shooting for an 18 or two with 15 point buy) and creating so many glaring weaknesses goes completely against the min/max mantra of "minimize weakness, maximize effectiveness".