Ah, yes, a player trying to RP his 20+ INT caster. At what point do you just say it's ridiculous? I agree, any good DM, and group of players, realizes that an INT score that high is beyond most folks. Yeah, you give 'em help. The same goes for a super-high CHA as well. At some point, the stat is so high the player simply can't speak for the character.
Ash the only change I might make, would be in lowering INT and raising CHA. Either way, Sig is fine. Personally, I see his low CHA as being a product of his "I'm a Perfect Specimen" attitude. He has a hard time relating to the masses, they're just not like him. :)
good stuff
I do the same thing, but I have seen many one way arguments on the issue which is why I asked the question. It seems shifty punishes low stats beyond what the mechanics do, so I wondered if he gave benefits for high stats.
... 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.
I don't see much point in penalizing players because of their characters. In a game like D&D/Pathfinder, a low intelligence is its own drawback. I showed with Sigfried how much power and adaptability an intelligence can grant, whereas a low intelligence will generally mean less options for even athletic endeavors.
It's too difficult to really gauge what ability scores mean, even with the in-game statistics. No one can really say a certain score means the same thing all the time, nor should they. The absolute worst thing that a GM could do is tell a player "that's not what your character would do".
Lower ability scores always have their own weaknesses. Charisma is just one of those scores that - unless your class is based on it - has neither large benefits nor large drawbacks for high or low scores.
It's too difficult to really gauge what ability scores mean, even with the in-game statistics. No one can really say a certain score means the same thing all the time, nor should they. The absolute worst thing that a GM could do is tell a player "that's not what your character would do".
Agree
Our group works things out together, gives each other suggestions when its plausible to do so. If one player is floundering, where their character would not be, help is given.
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so when I take up my 18 INT Wizard, I will get some consideration. I like teamwork, 'cause its fun and mental!
Lower ability scores always have their own weaknesses. Charisma is just one of those scores that - unless your class is based on it - has neither large benefits nor large drawbacks for high or low scores.
I've seen that asserted before, that CHA is kind of the weakest attribute.
Ash the only change I might make, would be in lowering INT and raising CHA. Either way, Sig is fine. Personally, I see his low CHA as being a product of his "I'm a Perfect Specimen" attitude. He has a hard time relating to the masses, they're just not like him. :)
It'd be doable, but it'd cost 2 virtual points to raise it from 7 to 8. I could see dropping Int to 12 and making Wis 14 instead (but you'll lose out of 20 skill points in the long run that way, and I'm not entirely certain all that potential is worth the +5% chance to make a will save).
It was supposed to be an example of building a character with the mechanical consideration for success while also meeting the requirement of being a charismatic fighter (charismatic in sense of the word, not sense of the statistic), which he is. ^_^
Someone could customize him as desired. =)
Ash the only change I might make, would be in lowering INT and raising CHA. Either way, Sig is fine. Personally, I see his low CHA as being a product of his "I'm a Perfect Specimen" attitude. He has a hard time relating to the masses, they're just not like him. :)
I have the same problem. I don't think I'm perfect by any means (I try to keep working on my own imperfections to try and be a better person day by day), but I do know I'm very smart. I know this because I've had a lot of people tell me this, and I think and reason on a different level than most of the people I know. I do have a lot of trouble relating to people sometimes, and often notice inconsistencies or logic loops in passing conversation. I have a terrible tendency to accidentally make people feel foolish in conversations, and one friend of mine says that he gets into arguments with me just to try and win.
A dear friend of mine recently noted that I should learn how to socialize as being average, and be intelligent when it mattered, citing Benjamin Franklin as a great example. So, my own social skills are something I'm trying to work on now, because I'd like to be able to talk to people better.
I guess the "tl;dr" version is, sometimes being good at some things does handicap you in others; so the high Int / low Cha makes perfect sense.
... 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.
Indeed, you'd throw them a bone.
At 3am sometimes even the most switched on player is succumbing to the drain of Tim-Tams and Coke wearing off and makes a silly move the character would never make.
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.
I agree that people will think most of us optimize because of all the threads on the board. But like pointed out earlier, the reason is that Role Playing issues rarely need rule checking help.
Another issue is that lets say I play a Str 20 Cha 8 Wis 8 fighter. Great build for melee damage and doable in PFS. Lets say the GM doesn’t make people use Diplomacy right away and lets the real people at the table talk it out. Then using the players Real Cha instead of the game one, there is no penalty (assuming you don’t put your foot in your mouth). The fact that stats and feats and skills mean little to nothing in the talking portion of the game means that you can build an awesome char and still do the role playing. Sure the DM could call for an Intimidation/Diplomacy but whoever in the party actually has the skill and stats will roll it. Not necessarily the person doing the talking. Same for inelegance in the game.
I would definitely make the player roll the diplomacy even if they made all the words pretty and everything, just because the "player" isn't inflecting pure venom into his words, or rolling his eyes, or even absent-mindedly picking his nose, doesn't mean the "CHARACTER" might not flub that roll.
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.
It doesn't have to be social retardation, it could be pure arrogance, talking down to every single person because they KNOW they're better than you even if they aren't...come on, everyone has met someone like that...
I'm still trying to figure out how using the skill system literally how and why it was designed is also somehow cheating it at the same time.
Also 7 charisma isn't social retardation. Otherwise, 14 charisma makes you the most charismatic person alive! My god I can't imagine what people who have over 14 charisma are like in your games.
Also, how the hell is the player entitled by making a character? Seriously "player fiat" doesn't exist. Your entertainment as a DM is not lessened because Billy got to make a character he wanted. And if it is, stop DMing, please.
So a low strength has to be played a low intelligence lowers skill point but your characters ability to reason is fine, you dump your Charisma and you need to spend three skills points to be a statesmen that the problem Mr. Fishy has.
Play the stat. ALL of them. Shifty Mr. Fishy is sorry he left you alone with these people.
@ Ashiel You do know you come off a little nasty right? Mr. Fishy is asking because Mr. Fishy reserves vemon for people who are being rude on purpose, not just lost in print.
It doesn't have to be social retardation, it could be pure arrogance, talking down to every single person because they KNOW they're better than you even if they aren't...come on, everyone has met someone like that...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.
I'd say more a Charisma of 3-5 would be borderline retardation.
|
I'm still trying to figure out how using the skill system literally how and why it was designed is also somehow cheating it at the same time.
Also 7 charisma isn't social retardation. Otherwise, 14 charisma makes you the most charismatic person alive! My god I can't imagine what people who have over 14 charisma are like in your games.
Pretty people get advantages. I look at it this way.
Madeline Albright probably has a ridiculously high diplomacy skill, being a former secretary of state and all. But she isn't the hot chick everyone is asking to prom.
You can raise your skills, but your still an ugly jerk. And NPC's will not ask you out to the sock hop.
My DM plays this way all the time. The Sorcerers and Bards are the ones everyone wants to talk to first, and start off "friendly" toward. Then skill checks come into play.
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.
...
You proved absolutely no such thing. I said you cant have an optimal fighter with very high charisma. You presented a character with -2 to charisma checks and +3 to charisma skills at lvl 5, who was un optimal at fighting.
You did prove yourself a troll though, so Id appreciate you never refer to me or my posts again. Ill certainly return the favor.
You proved absolutely no such thing. I said you cant have an optimal fighter with very high charisma. You presented a character with -2 to charisma checks and +3 to charisma skills at lvl 5, who was un optimal at fighting.
What's unoptimal about the build she presented? Are you saying, for a Fighter, optimal means 16 STR? What's your example?
As for high CHA, literally speaking, no this example has a low score. Be that as it may, she still showed that the character didn't have to be completely gimped.
I'm still trying to figure out how using the skill system literally how and why it was designed is also somehow cheating it at the same time.
Also 7 charisma isn't social retardation. Otherwise, 14 charisma makes you the most charismatic person alive! My god I can't imagine what people who have over 14 charisma are like in your games.
Pretty people get advantages. I look at it this way.
Madeline Albright probably has a ridiculously high diplomacy skill, being a former secretary of state and all. But she isn't the hot chick everyone is asking to prom.
You can raise your skills, but your still an ugly jerk. And NPC's will not ask you out to the sock hop.
My DM plays this way all the time. The Sorcerers and Bards are the ones everyone wants to talk to first, and start off "friendly" toward. Then skill checks come into play.
Pretty people do get advantages, but not to the exclusion of all other circumstances. It really is circumstantial, but if your PC's don't initiate conversation and your NPC's are going to approach the group I guess trying to get the attention of the attractive people makes sense.
I don't know if your group tries to initiate conversation or not. I was just using an example.
You did prove yourself a troll though, so Id appreciate you never refer to me or my posts again. Ill certainly return the favor.
No offense, but I'm genuinely floored that you think someone else is the one trolling in this thread.
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.
...You proved absolutely no such thing. I said you cant have an optimal fighter with very high charisma. You presented a character with -2 to charisma checks and +3 to charisma skills at lvl 5, who was un optimal at fighting.
You did prove yourself a troll though, so Id appreciate you never refer to me or my posts again. Ill certainly return the favor.
A high cha score alone proves nothing if you don't put ranks into social skills. She can put a 14 into strength, con, and charisma and still be a decent fighter.
STR 14(5)
DEX 10(0)
CON 14(5)
INT 8(-2)
WIS 10(0)
CHA 15(7)
LEVEL 4 Push you cha to 16, for the rest of your career boost strength.
At later levels you get the headband that boost charisma or a rod of splendor.
Unless you need combat expertise that int wont be missed. If the DM is going to try to make you RP low int then drop the dex.
Pretty people do get advantages, but not to the exclusion of all other circumstances. It really is circumstantial, but if your PC's don't initiate conversation and your NPC's are going to approach the group I guess trying to get the attention of the attractive people makes sense.
I don't know if your group tries to initiate conversation or not. I was just using an example.
I agree, there are so many examples of PC-to-NPC interaction, where do you even begin?
I think you have to first consider, who initiates contact first and go from there. My CHA 10 Ranger (no Diplomacy) starts out neutral, but it can easily go down-hill from there (depending on who he's talking to, what I say, how I roll etc.)
If the DM is going to try to make you RP low int then drop the dex.
What, so he can force you to be klutze instead? How's than any better than never being able to have a good idea, because an 8 INT says you're dumb?
If the DM is going to try to make you RP low int then drop the dex.What, so he can force you to be klutze instead? How's than any better than never being able to have a good idea, because an 8 INT says you're dumb?
I have heard of DM enforcing the low mental stats by saying your character could not think of "that", but they feel like the game takes care of the physical ones enough so they don't bother you on that aspect.
I don't really bother with it unless I drop you down to a 2 or 3 with a spell. At that point complex planning is out the window.edit:spelling correction.
I have heard of DM enforcing the low mental stats by saying your character could not think of "that", but they feel like the game takes care of the physical ones enough so they don't bother you on that aspect.
We had an 8 INT Monk in our Second Darkness Campaign, but he did have a good WIS. Basically, the player used his WIS, as long as another PC was there to provide input, to mitigate that low INT a bit. It was great RPing and no one got any unfair advantages...
I don't really bother with it unless I drop you down to a 2 or 3 with a spell. At that point compl3ex planning is out the window.
Sure, because that represents a drastic change in ability.
G#&%&%MIT MY POST GOT EATEN!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to agree with Mr. Fishy and Shifty (damn, I love your guys posts)
The thing is and has always been as I understood them writing: Play by the stats!
I am 5 int Barbarian : I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 7 int Barbarian : I am thinking how strong it is, but I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 10 int Barbarian : Wizard, Give me my snuff-snuff and I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 15 int Barbarian : Okey guys, there is Giant Purple Worm.... Throw Nodwick at it and while the Giant Purple Worm eats Nodwick, we attack from behind and sneak attack that worm
Of course, There is Wisdom. There is Dexterity. There is Strenght. These should affect your way of playing and somehow control it (I am roleplaying person and I admit it 100%)
I see Ashiel covering it up with his character with high int score = Ok, I don´t know what she/he is speaking, so I trust him.
Leveling up and getting skills point (getting those diplomacy & sense motive) = You have spent time with your Mr.Rogue and learned something of him, so of course reflecting the world... charisma here makes it more efficient ? Of course, you can make it up with intelligence and "think" as in character 'able to think and see, what might be the truth'. Spreading your points all around are not recommended, when you could focus to something you can do
Thats why we play in GROUPS, We have party! We are covering each other!
I am 5 int/xx others Barbarian: I charge that Giant Purple Worm.
I am 18 int/xx others Wizard: Oh damn that fool.. "Summon ally/Cast lighting bolt/ do something?
I am 14 int/xx others Fighter:: Guess I will be flanking with Bob. Need to save his ass
etc etc...
I think, for me anyway, I've distilled optimization down to one basic tenet that says; if you focus on Attribute Y, making it one of, if not your highest, high stats, in order to fully drive Class Ability X, then you're optimizing.
I don't think that's wrong. I think that's making a good use of your resources, so as to realize the fullest potential of your chosen Class.
I also think that, if you go for a sub-optimal attribute, for your chosen Class, that's not automatically bad.
G!*%+*MIT MY POST GOT EATEN!!!!!!!!!!!
Use firefix and Lazarus(firefox plugin). Lazarus can bring the post back even if firefox freezes up.
I am 5 int Barbarian : I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 7 int Barbarian : I am thinking how strong it is, but I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 10 int Barbarian : Wizard, Give me my snuff-snuff and I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 15 int Barbarian : Okey guys, there is Giant Purple Worm.... Throw Nodwick at it and while the Giant Purple Worm eats Nodwick, we attack from behind and sneak attack that worm
Of course, There is Wisdom. There is Dexterity. There is Strenght. These should affect your way of playing and somehow control it (I am roleplaying person and I admit it 100%)
I see Ashiel covering it up with his character with high int score = Ok, I don´t know what she/he is speaking, so I trust him.
Leveling up and getting skills point (getting those diplomacy & sense motive) = You have spent time with your Mr.Rogue and learned something of him, so of course reflecting the world... charisma here makes it more efficient ? Of course, you can make it up with intelligence and "think" as in character 'able to think and see, what might be the truth'. Spreading your points all around are not recommended, when you could focus to something you can do
Thats why we play in GROUPS, We have party! We are covering each other!
I am 5 int/xx others Barbarian: I charge that Giant Purple Worm.
I am 18 int/xx others Wizard: Oh damn that fool.. "Summon ally/Cast lighting bolt/ do something?
I am 14 int/xx others Fighter:: Guess I will be flanking with Bob. Need to save his assetc etc...
There is nothing here that I necessarily disagree with. Having said that, I see where you're letting the game take care of itself. That's a very important distinction, to me anyway.
G~@@&!MIT MY POST GOT EATEN!!!!!!!!!!!Use firefix and Lazarus(firefox plugin). Lazarus can bring the post back even if firefox freezes up.
I'd love to, but I'm at work. IE only here. Still, I will consider this for when I'm posting from home.
So a low strength has to be played a low intelligence lowers skill point but your characters ability to reason is fine, you dump your Charisma and you need to spend three skills points to be a statesmen that the problem Mr. Fishy has.Play the stat. ALL of them. Shifty Mr. Fishy is sorry he left you alone with these people.
Sir Fishy, this is what's bugging me. Both sides are out for roleplaying it would seem, and both sides seem to be vehement that the other side is some sort of metagaming monster.
I'm not playing stats. I'm playing a character. A character in the game is defined by what she can do. The ability scores have their own limitations on what you can do because of the bonuses or penalties that they come with. However, ability scores are not the sum of a character, nor is it a sum of their personality, their looks, their abilities, it is merely a baseline for what they can do - but it is by far not the whole of what they can do.
Mr. Sigfried is a man of war, who's learned to fight, and learned to fight hard. What he can do is where he is defined. At 1st level, he has a -1 or even a -2 to his social interactions. He might come off as gruff, overbearing, or rude. By 2nd level he's kicked that bad habit and now average with people, and by 3rd level and beyond he's got above average social skills.
Mr. Sigfried is not, however, 14 14 14 14 12 7. Mr Sigfried is the sum of what he can do, and who he is, not a few points limited by a number for game balance or randomly generated.
I'm focusing on the character and how they actually interact with the world, while others are focusing on vague numbers that have no definite meaning, and then they're trying to arbitrarily assign extra meaning to them in-game that aren't there. I call that metagaming. It's the same thing as trying treating someone differently in-game because you saw their alignment was "lawful evil" when you're "neutral good", even if the character hasn't actually done anything questionable to you yet.
@ Ashiel You do know you come off a little nasty right? Mr. Fishy is asking because Mr. Fishy reserves vemon for people who are being rude on purpose, not just lost in print.
I've been told I can. I try very hard not to, and it's something I don't entirely understand. The only thing that I can look and see that I've done is - admittedly - got baited and told another poster to stop insulting me and making assumptions about me, and get back to the debate - which he still hasn't done. But, I'm still trying, and I appreciate your consideration Sir. Fishy. Also, your posts are hilarious, and I generally love reading them.
A high cha score alone proves nothing if you don't put ranks into social skills. She can put a 14 into strength, con, and charisma and still be a decent fighter.
STR 14(5)
DEX 10(0)
CON 14(5)
INT 8(-2)
WIS 10(0)
CHA 15(7)LEVEL 4 Push you cha to 16, for the rest of your career boost strength.
At later levels you get the headband that boost charisma or a rod of splendor.
Unless you need combat expertise that int wont be missed. If the DM is going to try to make you RP low int then drop the dex.
This is an example, Mr. Fishy (and anyone else), to what I meant above. Wraithstrike's build to appease the other side is based not on what Sigfried can do, but on what the other side thinks these numbers mean. What these numbers mean is he relative. His charisma means he has a +2 to charisma checks - no more, no less. His intelligence means he's going to lack versatility because even with his human skill point, he's not even going to be good at athletic skills like climbing, jumping, swimming, and riding - let alone anything not considered Fighter-y.
He's decidedly worse at being a fighter than Sigfried, and by 3rd level no better at interacting with people than Sigfried, and by 4th level Sigfried has already surpassed this guy in both fighting, hunting, riding, swimming, climbing, knowledges, and social interaction (including diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive).
He doesn't do what the other camp is saying he's supposed to do the way they say he's supposed to do it. Sigfried does what he's supposed to do. He actually is good in social situations, and he actually has more option for his growth as a person because he can learn to do a few things here or there. Likewise he's good in the combat portions of the game, so he can pull his weight instead of trying (and failing) to be a bard.
I am 5 int Barbarian : I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 7 int Barbarian : I am thinking how strong it is, but I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 10 int Barbarian : Wizard, Give me my snuff-snuff and I rush against that Giant Purple Worm
I am 15 int Barbarian : Okey guys, there is Giant Purple Worm.... Throw Nodwick at it and while the Giant Purple Worm eats Nodwick, we attack from behind and sneak attack that worm
I'm not sure I can believe this. You're intelligent enough to know up to 2 languages and choose the difference between good and evil with a 3 intelligence. I don't really think the barbarian's player is roleplaying very well. My little brother, when he was eight, was capable of understanding basic strategy and would have probably been a good gauge of Int 5 (he loves playing wargames). He was capable of going "That thing is how big? I don't want to get eaten".
Do you really think that someone needs a 15 intelligence to use basic strategy? We're not talking about a laundry list of complicated contingencies, we're talking about basic no-brainer stuff.
These should affect your way of playing and somehow control it (I am roleplaying person and I admit it 100%)
I'm a roleplaying person and I admit it 100% too. Welcome, brother. ^_^
This is an example, Mr. Fishy (and anyone else), to what I meant above. Wraithstrike's build to appease the other side is based not on what Sigfried can do, but on what the other side thinks these numbers mean. What these numbers mean is he relative. His charisma means he has a +2 to charisma checks - no more, no less. His intelligence means he's going to lack versatility because even with his human skill point, he's not even going to be good at athletic skills like climbing, jumping, swimming, and riding - let alone anything not considered Fighter-y.
He's decidedly worse at being a fighter than Sigfried, and by 3rd level no better at interacting with people than Sigfried, and by 4th level Sigfried has already surpassed this guy in both fighting, hunting, riding, swimming, climbing, knowledges, and social interaction (including diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive).
An excellent explanation on the point I was trying to get across. :)
Sigfried is not naturally as likeable(due to a lower Charisma) as my fighter, but since he puts effort(skill points) into being social he eventually becomes better at social events.
With all the feats a fighter has throwing a feat at skill focus(pick a social skill) won't really hurt his fighting in the long run.
Sigfried is not naturally as likeable(due to a lower Charisma) as my fighter, but since he puts effort(skill points) into being social he eventually becomes better at social events.
A certain kind of DM might say, "But, but... You're cheating! You're not playing the stat! Siggy has a 7 CHA, no one will ever like him. I'm the DM, I get to say that!"
In all seriousness, wraithstrike, you're absolutely right. Sig has taken steps, through skill points, to mitigate some of his inherent charismatic deficiency. I'm just not seeing a problem with it. Also, in his attempt to better his social skills, he hasn't negatively impacted his primary role of combat specialist.
With all the feats a fighter has throwing a feat at skill focus(pick a social skill) won't really hurt his fighting in the long run.
Which is something I've maintained all along. It's not 100% optimal, but it sure does make for a well-rounded character.
I think this thread has more or less run its course. Locked.