I used a hyperbolic example in order to show a mirror to you, and indeed all with your peculiar mindset. You responded with scathing vitriol.
If he was using Hyperbole [Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.] then Mr. Fishy owes Meatrace an apology.
A fishy of his word Mr. Fishy was wrong to Respond to a perceived attack with such zeal. Mr. Fishy Apoligizes to Meatrace for Mr. Fishy's "scathing vitriol" it was undeserved.
Pass/fail on skills based on whether you impress the DM is no longer Pathfinder.
What was the DC?
You assumed that Mr. Fishy passes or fails on RP. Mr. Fishy didn't say that. He allowed some social rolls to be Role played instead of rolled, most are both. However if someone at the table is willing to play a scene with an NPC and the likey out come is a passed roll the roll will pass[DM Fiat to move the plot or to reward RP]. Logic and a reason applies to ALL auto pass rolls.
Example a PC in view of commoners defeats a dangerous monster or other threat. The witnessing NPCs are all treated as friendly or helpful, as a sucessful diplomacy roll.
Also if the NPCs are well treated they move from indifferent to friendly and possibly helpful if RP has given a reason.
So please refrain from grouping people into mind sets without making sure your point is valid. That the worst kind of prejudice.
|
What I meant was that if a player feels like statting out their character like the way you have done the ones in this thread, then that is fine. Good for them. However, when they dont excel in combat (Ie, as much as the barb with 18 str and con does), then they shouldnt complain.
Similarly, when the barb with 18 str and con, and 7 cha, who is being played by a player who is rather charismatic, that person has no room for complaint when, even if the player is the most elequent speaker in the party, his character is not, and therefore, has no room to complain.
So, basically, make the character that makes you happy, and then dont whine and moan when they arent as cool as you had imagined, lol.
I have been watching this thread and I have found Ashiels arguments rational and compelling.
Looks and charisma are 2 totally different things.
For me Charisma is the force of personality it is a mental and not a physical stat. Charisma is your ability to persuade and lead and intimidate, the ability to draw magic from within your self and make it manifest. In fact I would go as far to say that Charisma should replace wisdom for will saves.
Looks are decided by the player. Looks can not be decided by stat, they tried that in 1E (Unearthed Arcana)with the comeliness stat and it did not add much to the game.
Mr Fishy asked for examples of Beautiful people with ugly personalities.
Naomi Campbell (and a billion other diva's) spring immediately to mind.
For people that are not good looking but highly charismatic the world is full of them. Winston Churchill, Jack Black, Groucho Marx, Gough Whitlam.
Now to anecdotes, I have a friend who is very good looking but he used (still on occasion) stutter - he was very self conscious of this and he was very shy. He spent years in speech therapy and has come out of his shell and is quite the ladies man.
Alternatively somebody can be good-looking and socially ungraceful, maybe they were not taught any manners or how to handle them selves amongst others having to learn the skills rather being born with them.
Either of the above can be part of the background for Ashiels original fighter character.
Looks and charisma are 2 totally different things.
In the real world; po-te-toe, po-tah-toe.
In Pathfinder; "Charisma measures a character’s personality, personalmagnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So no.
Looks are decided by the player. Looks can not be decided by stat, they tried that in 1E (Unearthed Arcana)with the comeliness stat and it did not add much to the game.
How a character looks can pretty much be defined by a player. How well/poorly NPCs percieve her, is defined by charisma stat.
Now to anecdotes, I have a friend who is very good looking but he used (still on occasion) stutter - he was very self conscious of this and he was very shy. He spent years in speech therapy and has come out of his shell and is quite the ladies man.
I had a friend who was scrawny and couldn't carry his own groceries. He's been coing to the gym often for half a year with a planned diet. Now he could carry me and not break a sweat. However in Pathfinder a STR score can't be raised that way.
In the real world; po-te-toe, po-tah-toe.
In Pathfinder; "Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So no.
And yet:
"Let's look at some of the races that get bonuses/penalties to CHA as examples:
1) Dwarves get -2 to CHA. The fluff says it is because they are "gruff" not because they are ugly.
2) Elves do not get a bonus or penalty, and are described as a beautiful race. However, their evil cousins the Drow get a +2 modifier to CHA even while being, to most people, less attractive than a standard elf, and far more frightening. The fluff says it is their manipulative and regal natures that grant them a bonus to CHA.
3) Gnomes get a +2 bonus to CHA. Fluff says it is due to their attitudes which make them naturally agreeable. It certainly isn't because they are beautiful, if anything in PF their appearance is curious at best.
4) Half Elves, Half Orcs and Humans could potentially have a +2 to CHA, and none of them are considered to be exceedingly beautiful races. Half Orcs are considered to be monstrosities but suffer no negatives and could gain a positive CHA. Why? Not their looks, so it must be their force of personality.
5) Halflings get a +2 to CHA and fluff says they are merely strong-willed. Again a child sized hairy footed creature doesn't strike me as particularly attractive. But they might have a magnetic personality or, as the description says, be strong-willed.
6) Not a Player Race but Dragons are another good example. They are terrifying and intimidating. An ancient black dragon would be a horrifying sight to behold, certainly not a "beautiful" creature unless your slant on beautiful leans toward the morbid, nor are they described as such in the fluff. But they have an 18 CHA. I would call it their mighty presence and terrifying force of personality.
....
I agree that CHA isn't necessarily based on looks. A person with a 7 CHA could easily be an attractive individual as Ash described who simply has no filter between what he thinks and what he says. He is the dashing hero who tells the bar wench that dress makes her look like a heifer, then as she turns away in disgust but before she leaves earshot, he smiles and says to his buddies he would still take that heifer for a roll in the hay. Now, that guy is perfectly attractive to the woman he just gravely insulted and had he kept his mouth shut he just might have gotten that roll in the hay. But being completely inept at social interaction, 7 CHA, he will not be so lucky. Now with Diplomacy you can learn to make up for social ineptitude and the next time you meet that pretty young heifer you might tell her that as she walks from table to table serving drinks she appears as a diamond flowing through a room full of pebbles. Another explanation for low CHA might be that you are in fact a very charming individual and quite socially inclined, but you are ugly as sin. Now, in that case Disguise might be the proper way to go, with a few ranks in social skills just for good measure."
Yes, appearance is one of the things that CHA can represent, but a 7 CHA doesn't have to mean you are ugly as sin. It could just as easily mean you are a beautiful A-Hole.
How a character looks can pretty much be defined by a player. How well/poorly NPCs percieve her, is defined by charisma stat.
Looks are decided by the player. Looks can not be decided by stat, they tried that in 1E (Unearthed Arcana)with the comeliness stat and it did not add much to the game.
In most games I have played, it is generally determined by a combination of raw CHA, Social Skills, and Local Reputation.
I had a friend who was scrawny and couldn't carry his own groceries. He's been coing to the gym often for half a year with a planned diet. Now he could carry me and not break a sweat. However in Pathfinder a STR score can't be raised that way.
Now to anecdotes, I have a friend who is very good looking but he used (still on occasion) stutter - he was very self conscious of this and he was very shy. He spent years in speech therapy and has come out of his shell and is quite the ladies man.
Sure you can. That is basically what is being represented if you put your ability score bonuses in STR as you increase in level. The more you fight, swing your sword, and block heavy blows with your shield the stronger you become. As a soldier you are prone to value physical fitness so you do push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups every morning before breakfast and breaking camp. You also like to wake up early and run each morning. How do you represent an increase in stats due to these RP practices... putting your ability score increases in those stats when you level up.
Yes, appearance is one of the things that CHA can represent, but a 7 CHA doesn't have to mean you are ugly as sin. It could just as easily mean you are a beautiful A-Hole.
Doesn't mean ugly as sin, but it means that you're percieved negatively by your appearance. Separating different aspects of charisma to different levels from charisma is a house rule not in the PF books. I think it's an unbalancing house rule making CHA even weaker and encouraging dumping it, but to each his own.
In most games I have played, it is generally determined by a combination of raw CHA, Social Skills, and Local Reputation.
Ofcourse. I thought it clear from the context that I was referring to percieving by appearance alone. My bad.
Sure you can. That is basically what is being represented if you put your ability score bonuses in STR as you increase in level.
Well you get 5 points by level 20. My friend hardly went from level 1 to 20 there. In addition he gained constitution so the points are not enough. So no, the rules don't allow that.
On the cross species charisma. There is no real parallel to draw. I never had conversations with animals. However I'd find a kitten more endearing than a spider. I guess you could say a real world kitten has more charisma than a spider. I've never met Dragons, Elves or Demons so can't really comment on their charisma.
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance
So there are 4 aspects to charisma as per RAW... (Im not a big one for RAW - and I am happy with players being allowed to decide what they look like).
Think of it this way the player is concentrating the majority of his charisma score to the appearance aspect of the ability score.
Or alternatively appearance is what a person wears, their hair cut, even their personal hygiene.
So the the fighter from the OP may look like Hugh Jackman but have a mullet, bad-breath and wear dirty second hand clothes because that's all he can afford, that is his appearance, he is still handsome.
As he starts to go up levels his experience of the world teaches him to look after himself, he gets enough loot to get better clothing. Deep down he is still the country hick hence the 8 Cha but he has taught himself how to be more charming hence the + what ever on diplomacy.
- I suggest that you read Pygmalion or watch "My Fair Lady".
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearanceSo there are 4 aspects to charisma as per RAW... (Im not a big one for RAW - and I am happy with players being allowed to decide what they look like).
Think of it this way the player is concentrating the majority of his charisma score to the appearance aspect of the ability score.
Or alternatively appearance is what a person wears, their hair cut, even their personal hygiene.
So the the fighter from the OP may look like Hugh Jackman but have a mullet, bad-breath and wear dirty second hand clothes because that's all he can afford, that is his appearance, he is still handsome.
As he starts to go up levels his experience of the world teaches him to look after himself, he gets enough loot to get better clothing. Deep down he is still the country hick hence the 8 Cha but he has taught himself how to be more charming hence the + what ever on diplomacy.
- I suggest that you read Pygmalion or watch "My Fair Lady".
I also like to allow players to decide what their characters look like. It's just how it all comes together that makes the impression positive or negative (in varying degrees). I don't let them quantify that despite of charisma.
You could allow to concentrate on different aspects of charisma as a house rule, but I'm not a fan of that as it leads to unbalance. (I won't get in to that more, I've made several posts about it previously)
The problem with clothes, hair and hygiene is, that they can easily be modified and can't relate directly to a score.
Also diplomacy doesn't cover charisma as it only changes attitudes after atleast 1 min of verbal interaction. The country chick could spend her stat ups on the charisma though.
Doesn't mean ugly as sin, but it means that you're percieved negatively by your appearance.
Not at all, it means you are perceived negatively as a whole package, which includes aspects of: personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. As a package, it doesn't matter how attractive you are, if you have a pessimistic personality and your personal magnetism is comparable to that of a rat then you will still be perceived negatively as a whole package. Now you can make up for parts of that by employing social skills you have invested in, but that just means you know how to "turn on the charm" it doesn't mean that you aren't still a pessimistic person.
Separating different aspects of charisma to different levels from charisma is a house rule not in the PF books.
Except that I posted several quotes from several portions of RAW that back up my stance, so I wouldn't call it a house-rule, it is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW. You on the other hand have thrown a whole lot of opinion out there and only backed it up with one section of writing that says appearance is among the package of things that CHA effects.
I think it's an unbalancing house rule making CHA even weaker and encouraging dumping it, but to each his own.
Not really, either way they will still be perceived negatively. Again, they can be of average or even above average appearance and still be someone you wouldn't want to spend much time around. I have known plenty of people like this, pretty on the outside, but not so much on the inside.
Ofcourse. I thought it clear from the context that I was referring to percieving by appearance alone. My bad.
If that's the case then you are doing the exact opposite and instead of saying "Low CHA could mean you just have a bristly personality" you are saying "Low CHA must mean you are pretty ugly." You just seem to be singling out appearance for a different purpose. You have to take it as a whole package and you can do that without being physically hideous, you can also do it as a physically hideous person with a strongly magnetic personality. The fact is you rarely see people who are both ugly as sin and have horrible personalities, you also very rarely see people who are supermodel beautiful and also have wonderful personalities. Usually the ugly person is very charismatic and fun to be around and the beautiful person is stuck up and mean, or so ditsy and clueless that it is almost painful to talk to them.
Well you get 5 points by level 20. My friend hardly went from level 1 to 20 there. In addition he gained constitution so the points are not enough. So no, the rules don't allow that.
Fair enough, that level of growth is not possible after level 1. However, the 5 over 20 does reflect in general the idea that you are growing with experience. Also the level of growth you are describing in your friend is probably best described as the background of a hero before they achieve level 1. They go from an average person or child to at some point maturing with age and training, or whatever, into a level 1 character with above average scores and capabilities. Your friend started out as a normal guy, and then trained himself until he now has what might be considered a level 1 Fighter physique. At some point he will hit a plateau and slow down with his strength gain. He will still be able to gain strength with time and increased training but at some point your potential slows down, which is accurately represented by the 5 points over 20 levels model.
On the cross species charisma. There is no real parallel to draw. I never had conversations with animals. However I'd find a kitten more endearing than a spider. I guess you could say a real world kitten has more charisma than a spider. I've never met Dragons, Elves or Demons so can't really comment on their charisma.
I would say the kitten and spider could have an equal amount of CHA, based on the fact that the spider carries with it so much intimidation. It is like the Drow, it isn't beautiful, but it is scary and can have a forceful presence depending on the type of spider. That is perhaps part of the reason that the Spider was chosen as a symbol for the Drow, who have high CHA. As for you not being able to speak on Dragons, Elves, and Demons it really doesn't matter if you have met them or if you care to speak on them. The rules are quoted from the book, speak for themselves, and very much seem to be backing up what I and others have said.
I also like to allow players to decide what their characters look like. It's just how it all comes together that makes the impression positive or negative (in varying degrees).
If this is in fact the case, then how are you doing anything differently than what those you are arguing against are doing? Ash described a guy who is attractive but socially inept. Thus people will not generally react favorably to him. Now eventually he will gain enough ranks in Diplomacy that, when using Diplomacy, he can overcome his negative social abilities. That doesn't mean he will never stumble over words or insult someone by accident when he is not thinking (IE: not using Diplomacy) it just means he has learned how to turn on the charm and overcome his base self, and that is a common theme in a lot of writing. And the fact is, by numbers, Ash is right. By shear simple numbers and the way the rules work you absolutely CAN overcome a bad CHA with points in social skills. You may get a few bad first impressions but when you use your social skills you will by RAW be able to get others to pay attention to you regardless of a low CHA. So what difference does it really make if she chooses to play an attractive but RUDE individual rather than playing someone who is unattractive AND socially inept? Either way the numbers are saying the same thing, you are arguing over a difference of FLUFF and calling it RAW. The attractiveness and social ineptitude of her character is FLUFF and how she chooses to RP the fact that she has a low CHA. It doesn't actually change the numbers or mechanics, which is the actual RAW.
@ Lazzo: To further back up my point and the point of this thread, how about a look at the Eagle's Splendor spell. It grants a +4 to Charisma and look at the fluff in that spell: "creature becomes more poised, articulate, and personally forceful." Based on the fact that all items that increase your CHA are based on this spell I can assume similar things about the way those items work. It says absolutely nothing about appearance but does hit three of the other major points in the "package" of CHA. Now take a look at abilities and spells that affect ONLY your appearance, Disguise, Alter Self and such. You can make yourself as beautiful as you like with a good enough Disguise check or an Illusion spell, but that doesn't do anything for your Charisma does it?
Furthermore your interpretation of CHA always reflecting via your character's general appearance doesn't leave room for a vast number of possible PCs and NPCs. Take for instance a high CHA half-orc Sorcerer. Is the "half-orc" a beautiful creature because he starts out at level 1 with a 20 in CHA? My guess is no. My guess is that his high CHA comes from something else, like personality, while he is still quite ugly by most standards of judging appearance. I could go on but I think this one example displays my point effectively enough.
- I suggest that you read Pygmalion or watch "My Fair Lady".
Audrey Hepburn= low charisma...good call. My Fair Lady was a professor teaching a girl social skills, her charisma didn't change. Mr. Fishy understands your point, however he diagrees. You can't turn lead into gold. You may turn it to a useful purpose but thats not the same.
The Charisma 7 handsome is a Player Fiat. A 7 wisdom isn't weak willed but clever. The RAW list what the stat governs.
Mr Fishy asked for examples of Beautiful people with ugly personalities.
Naomi Campbell (and a billion other diva's) spring immediately to mind.
High Charisma plus Max ranks in Intimidate and a nongood alignment= a selfish cruel person that is beautiful and hated at the same time. Low charisma isn't the only way to be a unlikeable prig.
Mr. Fishy doesn't care what you character looks like but if your stat is 7 don't expect Mr. Fishy's NPCs to react to your low natural charisma the same as a high charisma character. Low stats effect the game mechanically but if they effect your character in a RP it's "DM Fiat."
News flash... EVERY RP is DM fiat. Diplomacy and bluff can change a NPCs attitude but the actual NPC action is DM Fiat. NPCs dialogue and actions aren't in the book. Mr Fishy looked. Twice.
If your going to "play the numbers" fine then play them all, high and low. A low stat has a high aspect ok then a high stat should have a low aspect.
Is the "half-orc" a beautiful creature because he starts out at level 1 with a 20 in CHA? My guess is no. My guess[b] is that his high CHA comes from something else, like personality, while he is still quite ugly [b]by most standards of judging appearance. I could go on but I think this one example displays my point effectively enough.
You just backed up your point with and opinion. The fighter you mentioned was described as "handsome and dashing hero,"[cha 7] she used skill ranks to cover a penalty and passed it off as Charisma and anyone who disagreed was a metagamer.
|
The fighter you mentioned was described as "handsome and dashing hero,"[cha 7] she used skill ranks to cover a penalty and passed it off as Charisma and anyone who disagreed was a metagamer.
No, she chose some of the component parts of Charisma to be especially low so that one could be a little above average. Then she took ranks in Diplomacy to indicate the character took time learning how to make up for his social deficiencies whenever he's going out of his way to be charming and friendly with someone.
Every character with the same charisma score doesn't have the exact same personality.
I submit as a character a scholar who is more interested in being in a tomb than in a library, and is more likely to punch out a villain than to discuss archeology with him. Might be vague, but do what you like with it.
Also, inb4 "LOL 8 CHA MEANS YOU CAN'T USE DIPLO"
Judging by the post right after yours, you made it by 3 minutes.
The tactic of making monstrous posts quoting stuff line by line out of context, argumenting with unrelated stuff and repeating things already covered is unfortunately all too common in the world of internets. I think the idea is to make it impossible to write up an answer. OK I'll bite. Just don't blame me.
Not at all, it means you are perceived negatively as a whole package, which includes aspects of: personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. As a package, it doesn't matter how attractive you are, if you have a pessimistic personality and your personal magnetism is comparable to that of a rat then you will still be perceived negatively as a whole package. Now you can make up for parts of that by employing social skills you have invested in, but that just means you know how to "turn on the charm" it doesn't mean that you aren't still a pessimistic person.
You are still trying to separate stuff. Yes, you are percieved negatively as a whole package. Yes, you are percieved negatively on each aspect separately.
Quote:
Separating different aspects of charisma to different levels from charisma is a house rule not in the PF books.
Except that I posted several quotes from several portions of RAW that back up my stance, so I wouldn't call it a house-rule, it is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW.
No you didn't. You posted stats from races and monsters and proceeded to speculate on those. Those things can be speculated all over forever. Nothing in raw says you can separate different aspects from charisma and up some and down some.
Quote:
I think it's an unbalancing house rule making CHA even weaker and encouraging dumping it, but to each his own.
Not really, either way they will still be perceived negatively. Again, they can be of average or even above average appearance and still be someone you wouldn't want to spend much time around. I have known plenty of people like this, pretty on the outside, but not so much on the inside.
No they won't. Most people you see and meet, you never get to see much from the inside. Also, if allowed to up the outside, you get the benefits from it and then argue your diplomacy covers the inside.
Quote:
Ofcourse. I thought it clear from the context that I was referring to percieving by appearance alone. My bad.
If that's the case then you are doing the exact opposite and instead of saying "Low CHA could mean you just have a bristly personality" you are saying "Low CHA must mean you are pretty ugly."
I'm saying both. Low is low. If you have low charisma, you have 'low' appearance and 'low' personality.
You just seem to be singling out appearance for a different purpose. You have to take it as a whole package and you can do that without being physically hideous, you can also do it as a physically hideous person with a strongly magnetic personality. The fact is you rarely see people who are both ugly as sin and have horrible personalities, you also very rarely see people who are supermodel beautiful and also have wonderful personalities. Usually the ugly person is very charismatic and fun to be around and the beautiful person is stuck up and mean, or so ditsy and clueless that it is almost painful to talk to them.
You can make all kinds of hypothetical situations. The fact remains, rules don't support separating those and doing so will lead to imbalance. Debating real life charisma and appearance and their definitions is an endless swamp anyway.
Also the level of growth you are describing in your friend is probably best described as the background of a hero before they achieve level 1. They go from an average person or child to at some point maturing with age and training, or whatever, into a level 1 character with above average scores and capabilities. Your friend started out as a normal guy, and then trained himself until he now has what might be considered a level 1 Fighter physique.
You could, but the same can then be said about the original example to which this was a reply. The guy did his therapy and whatnot in backround and then starts his career at CHA 15. Neither is possible during career, either can be written in the background.
I would say the kitten and spider could have an equal amount of CHA, based on the fact that the spider carries with it so much intimidation.
I don't see the intimidation, though I know arachnofobia is common. I could've chosen kitten and toad as easily.
It is like the Drow, it isn't beautiful, but it is scary and can have a forceful presence depending on the type of spider. That is perhaps part of the reason that the Spider was chosen as a symbol for the Drow, who have high CHA. As for you not being able to speak on Dragons, Elves, and Demons it really doesn't matter if you have met them or if you care to speak on them. The rules are quoted from the book, speak for themselves, and very much seem to be backing up what I and others have said.
You draw arbitrary conclusions from the stats to back up your case. The conclusions can be drawn any which way endlessly, because they have no parallel in real world. It's all a matter of what ifs and opinions and therefore no use in the discussion.
Quote:
I also like to allow players to decide what their characters look like. It's just how it all comes together that makes the impression positive or negative (in varying degrees).
If this is in fact the case, then how are you doing anything differently than what those you are arguing against are doing? Ash described a guy who is attractive but socially inept. Thus people will not generally react favorably to him. Now eventually he will gain enough ranks in Diplomacy that, when using Diplomacy, he can overcome his negative social abilities. That doesn't mean he will never stumble over words or insult someone by accident when he is not thinking (IE: not using Diplomacy) it just means he has learned how to turn on the charm and overcome his base self, and that is a common theme in a lot of writing.
Those that are arguing against me, argue that the impact of appearance can be positive despite the negative charisma. There are many cases where the personality will not have an impact and so in those cases the character would effectively have a positive charisma. The rules ofcourse do not allow this. Also it is impossible to totally compensate low charisma with skills as skills require active usage. Diplomacy requires time to apply, disguise requires tools and time, acting requires a conscious effort to portray something you are not.
And the fact is, by numbers, Ash is right. By shear simple numbers and the way the rules work you absolutely CAN overcome a bad CHA with points in social skills. You may get a few bad first impressions but when you use your social skills you will by RAW be able to get others to pay attention to you regardless of a low CHA.
You say can overcome and then admit you can't. Why only few bad first impressions? With everyone there is a first impression. More often than not, that's all one gets.
So what difference does it really make if she chooses to play an attractive but RUDE individual rather than playing someone who is unattractive AND socially inept? Either way the numbers are saying the same thing, you are arguing over a difference of FLUFF and calling it RAW. The attractiveness and social ineptitude of her character is FLUFF and how she chooses to RP the fact that she has a low CHA. It doesn't actually change the numbers or mechanics, which is the actual RAW.
The actual RAW states that CHA measures appearance. It's a world of difference if you appearance is positive and communication negative, because many times you don't get to the communication part. Giving abilities to your character is not FLUFF even though there is no roll always included. I can't fluff wings for my human character to be able to fly. I can't fluff good appearance to my character to have a positive impact on NPCs.
It grants a +4 to Charisma and look at the fluff in that spell: "creature becomes more poised, articulate, and personally forceful."
And what you conveniently omitted it proceeds to state: "adding the usual benefits to Charisma-based skill checks and other uses of the Charisma modifier" Which would include appearance as per definiton of PF charisma.
Now take a look at abilities and spells that affect ONLY your appearance, Disguise, Alter Self and such. You can make yourself as beautiful as you like with a good enough Disguise check or an Illusion spell, but that doesn't do anything for your Charisma does it
Reading through Alter Self and Disguise, they say nothing about making you appear better or worse to others. Just different.
Take for instance a high CHA half-orc Sorcerer. Is the "half-orc" a beautiful creature because he starts out at level 1 with a 20 in CHA? My guess is no.
Back to the inter species attractiveness then? A 20 cha half orc could be beautifu/hansome to other half orcs. He's appearance would impact positively upon other similar races. Ofcourse a gray ooze couldn't tell any difference between him and a CHA 5 Dwarf.
The Charisma 7 handsome is a Player Fiat.
Then by that model of logic an ugly character, say a half-orc, with a 20 CHA is also a Player Fiat. But who would really play it any other way, half-orc's are ugly that's just the way it is. Maybe this particular half-orc isn't AS grotesquely ugly as some others, but they are still quite unattractive. A high CHA can, and in that case does, express a character that is ugly but has a very powerful presence of personality. If that is true, which it most obviously is, then you can also turn it around and say a high CHA can represent a character who is attractive and brave but socially inept.
High Charisma plus Max ranks in Intimidate and a nongood alignment= a selfish cruel person that is beautiful and hated at the same time. Low charisma isn't the only way to be a unlikeable prig.
And again I must ask: what's your point?
Low CHA plus Max ranks in Intimidate, a non-good alignment, a high STR and the Intimidating Prowess feat can equal the same thing, and then I get to say a high CHA isn't the only way to be an intimidating prig. So what, you can effectively play it either way and it is still just fluff neither application effects what the RAW and numbers say.
Is the "half-orc" a beautiful creature because he starts out at level 1 with a 20 in CHA? My guess is no. My guess is that his high CHA comes from something else, like personality, while he is still quite ugly by most standards of judging appearance. I could go on but I think this one example displays my point effectively enough.
You just backed up your point with and opinion.
I believe the areas I bolded in your quote here are the parts you intended to bold. And out of all the stuff I wrote that IS backed up by quotes from the book you chose to pick out this one that I didn't provide a quote to back up and throw a few argumentative opinions of your own at. You aren't even presenting a counter point. At any rate you are wrong. I didn't back it up with pure opinion I backed it up with a sarcastic deliverance of my opinion which is in fact based on RAW:
Half-orcs are monstrosities... Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin. Their canines often grow long enough to protrude from their mouths, and these “tusks,” combined with heavy brows and slightly pointed ears, give them their notoriously bestial appearance. While half-orcs may be impressive, few ever describe them as beautiful.
So no, I didn't back up my point with opinion. I backed it up with what is written in the racial description, put into my own words, with just a hint of sarcasm. Orcs and half-orcs are NOT attractive, in fact quite the opposite. By most measures of physical attraction they are grotesque. Although I am sure to another half-orc or an orc they might be attractive, to almost any other race they are hideous. So are you really advocating that a half-orc Sorcerer with a 20 CHA is more physically beautiful than an Elf or even a Human of average beauty? Because if so, I would say you are the one using fiats since nowhere in the game are orcs or half-orcs described as attractive creatures.
The fighter you mentioned was described as "handsome and dashing hero,"[cha 7] she used skill ranks to cover a penalty and passed it off as Charisma and anyone who disagreed was a metagamer.
Dashing: 1. energetic and spirited. 2. elegant and gallant in appearance and manner. 3. showy; stylish.
Of those three definitions only 2 has anything at all to do with appearance and all it says is elegant and gallant in appearance, which can be used to describe a guy in shining full plate charging across a battle field to smash some orc. The others have little if anything to do with appearance.I don't think it is outside the limits of RAW to have a handsome and dashing hero who is also incredibly socially inept but makes an attempt at overcoming that through his skills.
Can I ask why Ashiel's very interesting discussion topic (which included the generation of characters - a very kind act) has degenerated into a squabble over the Charisma attribute?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on how to interpret Charisma as it does not appear to be as cut and dry as the other attrinutes (especially the physical ones)
But why is that debate in this post? It is not what the topic is supposed to be about.
I found the thread very interesting until it was ruined by the off topic arguments. Can they not be moved into another topic (I swear I saw one over this issue started up recently). Or is it possible to re start this topic with no bickering.
I can't help but wonder if Ashiel's reduced posting is partly to due with all the off topic arguments (i may be wrong of course)
I assume that these boards are not moderated in the same way as other internet boards (i'm relatively new here).
I hope I don't come across insulting. The charisma debate is very interesting. But so was the original topic and I would like it to carry on how it was if possible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I ask why Ashiel's very interesting discussion topic (which included the generation of characters - a very kind act) has degenerated into a squabble over the Charisma attribute?
Because some players and DMs have sand in their craw over dump stats and therefore must point out how horrible they are and the additional penalties players should receive for having them.
But why is that debate in this post? It is not what the topic is supposed to be about.
You're absolutely right. This discussion should be in the other thread. (for which I made it consequently :-)
If you have a 9 CHA the penalty is -1, a 7 CHA its -2, etc.
There needs to be more?
If you have a 9 CHA the penalty is -1, a 7 CHA its -2, etc.
There needs to be more?
No. Just that some claim that if you don't talk you can have it +2.
Now off to the Dumping Charisma thread with these. :-)
It happens a lot. We get locked onto a point and won't let go. Then of course there is trolling. At any rate, I apologize for the thread-jack. Oh, and Ash not posting for a while could also be a product of starting up a PBP game, which by the way demonstrates very well the RP that she intended with the Fighter character.
@Lanathar Ashriel was running a play by post, so if you leave a character description Ashriel is likey watch the thread still or you could start a chacter builder thread and ask for post of characters based on a description, with multiable post working the same build. You weren't rude and we are discussing the numbers as played.
|
|
Ashiel, if your still taking concepts, then Ive got one for you. The Barbarian example I used earlier in this thread is based off a character I ran not to long ago, and Id like to see what you would do with him, just out of curiosity.
Race: Half Orc
Class: Barbarian
While still being strong and hardy for his someone of his mixed race, (insert name) was unfortunately considered a runt by the majority of his pure-bread-orc village, and was cast out for it.
He takes to a life of living on the road, traveling, trying to better himself, to prove the tribal leader wrong. Maybe, one day, he will be strong enough, smart enough, and wise enough to go back to his village, challenge the chieftain to mortal combat, succeed, and lead the tribe himself.
So, please let me know! While I did dump most of his points into his str and con, and cha was a dump stat (which I played as being blunt, abrasive, and occasionally a little slow on the uptake for when someone was trying to bluff), I feel like he was fairly well optimized thT I could enjoy him trying to talk to those who would even stand to hear him speak, even if he didnt do it well at all.
I have been watching this thread and I have found Ashiels arguments rational and compelling.
Thank you Master Dwarf. ^-^
I really do try to approach things logically and with reason, and your comment makes me very happy. ^.^*many posts of rational and insightful points*
Thank you Shadowlord. I've much enjoyed reading your posts (and, admittedly, watching Lazzo squirm :P), and I appreciate your manner of debate (using facts, evidence, and logic rather than opinion, logical inconsistencies, and "because I say so").
It has been a great read, and I appreciate you defending the characters, and by proxy, myself and my posts in this thread from Lazzo and others.
Can I ask why Ashiel's very interesting discussion topic (which included the generation of characters - a very kind act) has degenerated into a squabble over the Charisma attribute?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on how to interpret Charisma as it does not appear to be as cut and dry as the other attrinutes (especially the physical ones)
But why is that debate in this post? It is not what the topic is supposed to be about.
I found the thread very interesting until it was ruined by the off topic arguments. Can they not be moved into another topic (I swear I saw one over this issue started up recently). Or is it possible to re start this topic with no bickering.
I can't help but wonder if Ashiel's reduced posting is partly to due with all the off topic arguments (i may be wrong of course)
Thank you Lathanar. I'm very glad you're enjoying the thread and its topic, and I'm happy to see your interest in it continues. I've been unable to post frequently the past couple of days due to being incredibly busy with real-life stuff; and likewise haven't been able to get on OpenRPG very much (I'm usually on Blackstar in a Heroes of Alvena room during the evenings around 6pm EST).
I will continue trying to keep up with the character requests. ^-^
Upon careful reconsideration, that request I have made seems unnecessarily specific. How about this instead:
A half-orc arcane battlefield control specialist who gets into brawls regularly over the nature of his ancestry. Sometimes he wins, sometimes he losses. Both his parents where half-orcs and he doesn't appreciate any implication otherwise. He is quick tempered, foul-mouthed, and cunning. In combat he tries to control the battlefield more than directly damage his opponents. He has a penchant for cigars and gambling.
Now firstly, this definitely sounds like a wizard, but it could also be a sorcerer or witch. Now with the wizard we have a wide variety of spells which can control a battlefield (fog/cloud spells, black tentacles, sleep, grease, colorspray, etc). The sorcerer and witch both have many of these (the witch gets most of the good battlefield control spells like black tentacles, solid fog, and so forth). The witch doesn't get spells like colorspray but receives Hexes which can be used to lower the saving throws of specific creatures and participate in fights even when not consuming her spells and such.
So let's try statting out your half-orc as both a wizard and a witch and see which you prefer, since honestly the play-styles are similar but you will definitely have different options.
We'll call him Rodge.
In both cases, our ability scores will look like this.
Rodge 15 Point Buy
1st Level Half-Orc Wizard
Init +2, darkvision 60ft, Perception +1
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+2 dex, +2 shield)
Hp 9 (1d6+3)
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3, Ferocity
Melee - Club +0 (1d6) or Quarterstaff +0 (1d6) or Dagger +0 (1d6)
Ranged - Light Crossbow +2 (1d8, 19-20) or Acid Dart +2 (1d6, touch) or Sling -2 (1d4)
Wizard Spells (CL 1, Con +4)
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +0, CMB +0, CMD 12
Feats - Spell Focus (Conjuration), Scribe Scroll
Abilities - Conjuration school, arcane bond (ring), scribe scroll, cantrips, forbidden schools (evocation, enchantment)
Skills (5/level) - Appraise +7, Linguistics +7, Spellcraft +7, Knowledge (Arcana) +7, Knowledge (Planes) +7
Overview: At 1st level, Rodge is a rough & tumble conjurer. We've chosen conjurer because they excel at battlefield control, are strong versus spell resistance, and they excel at summoning creatures which is an additional option for battlefield control (summoned creatures can make good walls, provide spells of their own, flank, aid-another, etc, etc, etc). Rodge is the first character we've made to make use of the +1 Hp/level instead of +1 skill point (to make our wizard a little less squishy, and the third reason he tends to out-brawl people in bars). He also sports a heavy wooden shield which he carries around when he's not casting spells (he will drop it as a free action when he needs to cast a spell). He lacks proficiency with the sling he carries but it's entirely for lobbing touch-attack splash weapons at great distances, so the penalty is usually offset against enemies with a low touch-AC.
Spells Known:
1st - Mage Armor, Colorspray, Enlarge Person, Silent Image, Summon Monster I, Grease
His tactics are fairly simple at 1st level. Mage armor and the heavy shield help keep him safe. If he doesn't need to act then he'll typically use the total defense standard action to hit a 20 AC during the rounds he's not casting. If he needs to cast then he'll drop the shield as a free action and then cast. He casts colorspray if he can line up a group of enemies correctly. At this level he'll more likely prefer to cast Enlarge Person on the group's fighter types to allow the fighters to lock-down the battlefield (thanks to extra reach, especially with a pole-arm) since it lasts 1 minute per level (10 rounds / 1 spell = good deal). Silent Image allows him to provide a measure of battlefield control by disabling sight against archers and the like, by providing an illusion of a wall. Enemies have to interact with the illusion and make a successful will-save for it to become translucent to them. Meanwhile he can tell his party members its fake so they can see through it and thus shoot outward from the wall, benefiting from total concealment against their ranged enemies.
Arcane Mark (the cantrip) is used to make paths (so you don't get lost) or used to cheat at cards (using a combination of invisible arcane mark + detect magic or see invisibility).
In an emergency he will use his arcane bond to spontaneously cast whatever spell he needs at that moment.
2nd Level Half-Orc Wizard
Init +2, darkvision 60ft, Perception +1
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+2 dex, +2 shield)
Hp 15 (2d6+6)
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +4, Ferocity
Melee - Club +1 (1d6) or Quarterstaff +1 (1d6) or Dagger +1 (1d6)
Ranged - Light Crossbow +3 (1d8, 19-20) or Acid Dart +3 (1d6+1, touch) or Sling -1 (1d4)
Wizard Spells (CL 2, Con +5)
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +1, CMB +1, CMD 13
Feats - Spell Focus (Conjuration), Scribe Scroll
Abilities - Conjuration school, arcane bond (ring), scribe scroll, cantrips, forbidden schools (evocation, enchantment)
Skills (5/level) - Appraise +7, Linguistics +8, Spellcraft +8, Knowledge (Arcana) +7, Knowledge (Planes) +7, Knowledge (Nature) +7, Knowledge (Religion) +7, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +7
Overview: At 2nd level, Rodge has learned how to fight (+1 BAB) and can now draw a weapon as part of a move action. This allows him to cast a spell, move, and draw his shield (shields are weapons too), which is excellent for an opening spell followed by a tactical retreat. For simplicity, Rodge also ties a short rope to his belt or backpack so he doesn't lose his shield when he drops it before casting a spell.
His strategies at this level are pretty similar to before, and he adds two more spells to his spellbook. Featherfall (good when combined with arcane bond for emergencies) and Shield.
Spells Known:
1st - Mage Armor, Colorspray, Enlarge Person, Silent Image, Summon Monster I, Grease, Featherfall, Shield
3rd Level Half-Orc Wizard
Init +2, darkvision 60ft, Perception +1
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+2 dex, +2 shield)
Hp 22 (3d6+9)
Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +4, Ferocity
Melee - Club +1 (1d6) or Quarterstaff +1 (1d6) or Dagger +1 (1d6)
Ranged - Light Crossbow +3 (1d8, 19-20) or Acid Dart +3 (1d6+1, touch) or Sling -1 (1d4)
Wizard Spells (CL 3, Con +6)
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +1, CMB +1, CMD 13
Feats - Spell Focus (Conjuration), Scribe Scroll, Augment Summoning
Abilities - Conjuration school, arcane bond (ring), scribe scroll, cantrips, forbidden schools (evocation, enchantment)
Skills (5/level) - Appraise +7, Linguistics +9, Spellcraft +9, Knowledge (Arcana) +7, Knowledge (Planes) +7, Knowledge (Nature) +7, Knowledge (Religion) +7, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +7, Knowledge (Nobility) +7, Knowledge (History) +7, Knowledge (Local) +7
Overview: At 3rd level, Rodge has learned Summon Monster II and Web, both conjuration school spells. Due to his +1 bonus to the duration of summoning spells, Rodge likes using his Summon Monster II to summon 1d3 celestial or fiendish riding dogs who appear with +4 Strength and Constitution due to his Augment Summoning feat which he gained this level. This allows him to produce up to 3 extra creatures at different points within 30ft, who last 4 rounds, that have 17 Hp each, +5 to hit, and 1d6+6 to damage, in addition to celestial/fiendish qualities. This allows him to nearly double the size of an average party on a good roll.
Glitterdust provides a solid debuff and benefits from his Spell Focus (Conjuration), forcing a DC 16 saving throw against blindness, which against low will-save creatures can render them crippled for 3 rounds. It likewise has the benefit of revealing invisible and hiding creatures.
Spells Known:
2nd - Glitterdust, Summon Monster II
1st - Mage Armor, Colorspray, Enlarge Person, Silent Image, Summon Monster I, Grease, Featherfall, Shield
4th Level Half-Orc Wizard
Init +2, darkvision 60ft, Perception +1
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+2 dex, +2 shield)
Hp 28 (4d6+12)
Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +5, Ferocity
Melee - Club +2 (1d6) or Quarterstaff +2 (1d6) or Dagger +2 (1d6)
Ranged - Light Crossbow +4 (1d8, 19-20) or Acid Dart +4 (1d6+1, touch) or Sling +0 (1d4)
Wizard Spells (CL 4, Con +8)
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +2, CMB +2, CMD 14
Feats - Spell Focus (Conjuration), Scribe Scroll, Augment Summoning
Abilities - Conjuration school, arcane bond (ring), scribe scroll, cantrips, forbidden schools (evocation, enchantment)
Skills (5/level) - Appraise +7, Linguistics +11, Spellcraft +11, Knowledge (Arcana) +11, Knowledge (Planes) +8, Knowledge (Nature) +8, Knowledge (Religion) +8, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (Nobility) +8, Knowledge (History) +8, Knowledge (Local) +8
Overview: At 4th level, Rodge places his ability score increase into Intelligence, bringing him to a +4, upping all of his skills and save DCs. He also learns blur and web as his wizard spells. He takes a bit to scribe a few scrolls of blur for his friend the rogue, who uses them to gain concealment so he can use Stealth in the middle of combat (gaining concealment allows you to use Stealth, so a rogue with blur can strike, vanish, strike, vanish, as needed).
His summoning spells now last 6 rounds. Web and Grease make excellent spells for attacking and controlling low-reflex save enemies, or for granting a +10 bonus to escape grapples. Colorspray is still useful at this level against low Will opponents and is ideally used against warriors since it causes them to drop their weapons/shields, and stunning is always good.
5th Level Half-Orc Wizard
Init +2, darkvision 60ft, Perception +1
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+2 dex, +2 shield)
Hp 35 (5d6+15)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +6, Ferocity
Melee - Club +2 (1d6) or Quarterstaff +2 (1d6) or Dagger +2 (1d6)
Ranged - Light Crossbow +4 (1d8, 19-20) or Acid Dart +4 (1d6+1, touch) or Sling +0 (1d4)
Wizard Spells (CL 4, Con +8)
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int (20) 18, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +2, CMB +2, CMD 14
Feats - Spell Focus (Conjuration), Scribe Scroll, Augment Summoning, Greater Spell Focus (Conjuration), Craft Wondrous Item
Abilities - Conjuration school, arcane bond (ring), scribe scroll, cantrips, forbidden schools (evocation, enchantment)
Skills (5/level) - Appraise +11, Linguistics +13, Spellcraft +13, Knowledge (Arcana) +13, Knowledge (Planes) +9, Knowledge (Nature) +9, Knowledge (Religion) +9, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +9, Knowledge (Nobility) +9, Knowledge (History) +9, Knowledge (Local) +9, Stealth +4
Overview: At 5th level, Rodge has acquired (or crafted) a masterwork cloak (+2 stealth) of resistance (+1), a +2 headband of intellect (granting an extra +1 1st level spell per day, and +1 to his save DCs), and has taken Craft Wondrous Item. He can now craft himself pearls of power for extra spells. He will also consider adding x/day spells into his magic items via Craft Wondrous Item, favoring Summon Monster since command-word items only require a standard action, allowing him to craft an item that allows him to cast Summon Monster III 1/day for 5400 gp market value (2700 gp to craft it) for he really needs to get that summon off now. Likewise, he could use it during a surprise round or the first round of combat to buy time to summon other creatures. Since it's a command-word magic item, he could even craft one for other members of the party to use. Likewise, summoning a lantern archon will allow you to produce some 7 items with continual flame on them per casting, which you can then distribute to your party members for use as torches or whatever you desire. Excellent thing to put on a burnt out gray ioun stone (technically useless by themselves, and they were priced at 50 gp in 3.0 but the gp cost was removed in 3.5 and Pathfinder).
Summon Monster III gives us the option to summon things like celestial aurochs which are very strong when combined with Augment Summoning (28hp, +9 hit/1d8+12 damage, DC 19 trample for 2d6+12 damage, etc), or allow us to summon 1d4+1 riding dogs if we just need masses. Greater Spell Focus and the Intelligence boost provides a net +2 to saving throws against your Conjuration spells this level. This means that the base save DC against your conjuration spells at 5th level is 17 + spell level, making your Grease, Glitterdust, and Stinking Clouds devastating to your opponents. If you have a cleric in the party, Stinking Cloud + Animate Dead is devastation squared, since your cleric's undead are unaffected by the cloud and can rush into a cloud of enemies and begin slaughtering them with impunity.
You'll probably notice I've not been nearly as specific with equipment with Rodge as I have with others, and that's because there are way more options for using your wealth on with your half-orc wizard. For example, I've only listed the two spells you get per level during this progression, but you can use some of your wealth to line your spellbook (stuff like Command Undead is great when spontaneously summoned via your arcane bond). Likewise, you can learn and scribe scrolls of useful utility spells to carry around in case of emergencies.
As you progress, you could pick up Craft Wand so you can make spell-trigger items (which is great combined with Craft Wondrous Item), which would allow you to produce spell-trigger versions of your favorite spells, which works wonderfully on an enchanted vest, bracers, your arcane ring, and so forth.
Likewise, picking up Spell Focus (Transmutation) and Greater Spell Focus (Transmutation) can also allow you to preform solid save-or-die tactics at higher levels via spells like Baleful Polymorph and Flesh to Stone (at very high levels, a limited wish + quickened flesh to stone or baleful polymorph via a metamagic rod is a vicious finishing move).
As your level continues to rise, you will find more and more options for battlefield control. Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Sleet Storm, and so forth are great options. Haste is another excellent battlefield option because it can buff all your summons and allies at once, which makes it an ideal candidate for quickening later in your career or via a minor metamagic rod (a quickened haste on top of a standard-action summon spell via an item or in conjunction with slow can be devastating to your enemies while miraculous to your allies).
Really you have so many options, it's hard to pick just one.
Ok, hope you like the half-orc battlefield conjurer.
I'm a bit pressed for time still, so I'll try to get up the witch version at a later time. In the meantime, the witch works very similarly (same ability score allotment) but lacks colorspray and the bonus school spells. Otherwise plays similarly, and uses hexes like Evil Eye to bestow penalties on enemies after her initial control spells have been used, allowing him to keep one or two enemies in lockdown (by keeping a penalty on their saving throws, CMB, etc).
*many posts of rational and insightful points*Thank you Shadowlord. I've much enjoyed reading your posts (and, admittedly, watching Lazzo squirm :P), and I appreciate your manner of debate (using facts, evidence, and logic rather than opinion, logical inconsistencies, and "because I say so").
It has been a great read, and I appreciate you defending the characters, and by proxy, myself and my posts in this thread from Lazzo and others.
I appreciate the thanks and you are most welcome. For more rational and insightful points please see THIS POST and stay tuned for more entertainment should Lazzo ever decide to meaningfully address anything I wrote in there; maybe I should split this one up into smaller post and re-post them so he won't feel so overwhelmed. For a couple of good sarcastic remark please see THIS and THIS. Enjoy, and again, sorry for the thread jack, I am glad you didn't mind but I will try to contain my arguments to the other thread for a while.
Ashiel while I do enjoy checking what you do with the characters, might a suggest a bit more use of the spoiler tag?
The stat blocks and wall of text would be more managable and readable if all those stats were put into spoiler/statblocks.
Gotta add my pleasure that this thread has returned to it's origins :) in celebration of this fact i'd also like to throw my hat into the ring as the saying goes with an idea
A man who grew up working as a serf on the grounds of a country estate owned by wealthy merchant family with delusions of nobility. He mostly worked as a lumberjack/groundkeeper until the merchant's youngest son decided he was destined to become a great knight of the realm and convinced his father to provide him with a horse a sword and a faithful retainer. Our young, man being of similar age to the young knight wannabe, was selected to be his faithful squire and so the duo set off to a life of intrepid adventure...
... this lasted about a week when said knight was killed in a bar fight and our lumberjack friend unable to return home as delivering said news would probably be a death sentence.
|
Oh wow! This looks like a really fun thread, too bad I didn't see it before!
Getting in line after Bertious:
Ulrich Tallhoffer is the fourth son of a wealthy baron. As the fourth son, he's never going to inherit, and his parents didn't really know what to do with him. So instead of allowing him to socialize with the other nobles and learn the craft of a courtier, they strongly encouraged him to serve his country and fellow man as best as possible. If Ulrich can be kept busy far away, and does not learn to scheme like most nobles do, they believe this is for the best.
Baron Tallhoffer (Ulrich's father) fears that Ulrich will some day attempt to claim inheritance and fight with his older brothers for it. To keep this from happening, he does his best to keep Ulrich complacent. When Ulrich asks for money from his parents, he usually gets it. This allows him to purchase very fine equipment, even at first level. As he earns more money from adventuring, this will be less important.
Ulrich desires to prove his worth to his father. He accepts the money his parents offer because he believes it puts their minds at ease, not because he really wants money. He is quiet most of the time, and has little patience for books and book-learning. What he does have patience for is battle and warfare. Ulrich is a keen tactician and strategist, and many a brash noble has been humiliated by losing to this "dumb ox" at games of strategy such as chess. Ulrich is destined to be an excellent general, though he will lead with force of will, cunning, determination, and example. He will never give an inspiring speech. He might attempt to woo some noble lady, but he will be woefully under-equipped for the task. He has little appreciation for the finer things in life.
Ulrich may be any medium-sized race.
Really cool thread, Ashiel! And here's another character concept for you:
Tethis is herald to a great elvish lord; as such, he is expected to be competent in diplomacy, riding, archery, and hand-to-hand combat. He studied magic briefly in his youth, but didn't really have the talent for it; he only remembers how to cast one or two cantrips. Long hours practicing his swordplay have given him a strong sword arm. He is frequently sent abroad as an 'agent', gathering information about surrounding regions and working to protect his lord. He is accompanied on these missions by his loyal steed, Alliel.
I originally wrote him out as a cavalier with the lightbringer alternate racial trait, but wasn't quite happy with the outcome...cavalier is probably still the best fit (order of the lion due to his loyalty to his liege, plus a fine elvish horse), but if you think something works better, by all means go with it!
|
|
Story of the groundskeeper.
I'm going to try my hand at this. Ashiel might still come up with something different, but if you all like my work, then by all means let it stand.
I'm naming him Bert. For absolutely no reason at all. :-)
Abilities:
He'll have a 14 Str from all that hard work outdoors.
He'll have a 14 Dex to give him good options as far as missile/melee combat goes.
He'll have a 12 (+2 racial) Con because it's never wrong to have a decent constitution, especially for those outdoorsy types.
He'll have a 10 Int for his lack of education, balanced out only by a natural ability to learn new skills.
He'll have a 14 Wis to account for his well-honed instincts and independence as a lumberjack.
He'll have a 8 Cha because he really hasn't been around people all that much. He lacks the ability to relate to most people around him.
1st Level Human Ranger
Init +2, Perception +6
AC 17, touch 12, flat-footed 15 (+2 dex, +3 armor, +2 shield)
Hp 12 (1d10+2)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +2
Melee - Battleaxe (+3, 1d8 +2)
Ranged - Shortbow (+3, 1d6)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base Atk +1, CMB +3, CMD 14
Feats - Power Attack, Cleave
Abilities - Favored Enemy (Animal), Track, Wild Empathy
Skills (7/level) - Stealth +6, Knowledge (Nature) +4, Knowledge (Geography) +4, Perception +6, Heal +6, Survival +6, Profession (Woodsman) +6 ACP: -3
Overview: Bert is a well-rounded ranger. His AC isn't too bad, he is capable of stealth (though not excellent at it), and he's capable of dealing respectable damage both at range and close up. He is a mobile combatant in light armor, and can skirmish with the best of 'em. As a woodsman, he's used to swinging that axe around to great effect, so I made sure he had both Power Attack and Cleave to represent his affinity for singular, powerful blows. His saves are respectable for a first level character, and he has an excellent scattering of skills. As a woodsman, it is most probable that his first favored enemy will be animals.
He's equipped with fairly minimal gear (Studded Leather, Shortbow, Battleaxe, and Heavy Wooden Shield), so he should have plenty of money left over for other weapon options or for toys like acid flasks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread, I suddenly realize what bugs me:
Charisma is easy to make up for with a few skill points.
No other attribute can be replaced so easily, or so cheaply.
Never mind the fluff, or whether it's attractiveness or magnetism or only one or the other or both. Call it Stat Zeta instead. Stats Alpha through Epsilon are indispensible. For 99% of characters, they cannot be dumped without correspondingly dumping at least one of the character's overall areas of competence.
However,
Charisma is the ultimate "dump stat" -- not primarily because of vague fluff, but because of the mechanics of the game. Unless you're a sorcerer, bard, or oracle, there's no reason in the world not to dump Cha to 7. Practical optimization practically demands it.
And even then the fluff won't help, because it's so vague and so easy to rationalize.
Reading this thread, I suddenly realize what bugs me:
Charisma is easy to make up for with a few skill points.
No other attribute can be replaced so easily, or so cheaply.Never mind the fluff, or whether it's attractiveness or magnetism or only one or the other or both. Call it Stat Zeta instead. Stats Alpha through Epsilon are indispensible. For 99% of characters, they cannot be dumped without correspondingly dumping at least one of the character's overall areas of competence.
Try and dump Str and make up for it with Dex, and you're still dealing crap damage in melee.
Try and dump Dex -- you can make up with feats (Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes), but your ranged attacks and AC still suck.
Try and dump Con and make up for it with... What? Favored class hp bonuses, Toughness feat, Great Fortitude... the expenditure is too high for you to ever break even.
Try and dump Int and make up for it with Cha, and you lack the skill points to use your Cha effectively, after 1 or 2 levels. However,
Try and dump Cha and make up for it with Int, and, as this thread demonstrates, it's fairly easy to do. Charisma is the ultimate "dump stat" -- not primarily because of vague fluff, but because of the mechanics of the game. Unless you're a sorcerer, bard, or oracle, there's no reason in the world not to dump Cha to 7. Practical optimization practically demands it.
And even then the fluff won't help, because it's so vague and so easy to rationalize.
You do have a fairly good point--ignoring class abilities, Charisma is the only ability which only affects skills. Strength determines melee and carrying capacity, Dexterity range, AC, and Reflex, Constitution gives hit points and Fortitude, Intelligence gives skill points, Wisdom gives Will save; but Charisma does nothing but skill bonuses.
Looking to the past of the game, Charisma originally restricted how many hirelings you were allowed to have; that has been replaced entirely by the Leadership feat, leaving Charisma underused in the game mechanics.
Ashiel while I do enjoy checking what you do with the characters, might a suggest a bit more use of the spoiler tag?
The stat blocks and wall of text would be more managable and readable if all those stats were put into spoiler/statblocks.
Thanks. I would do more of the spoiler tags deal, I noticed spoilers within spoilers weren't working very well in practice, and so I went with the currently used format to keep the posts less cluttered looking with some 5+ spoilers one right after another.
Oh wow! This looks like a really fun thread, too bad I didn't see it before!
Really cool thread, Ashiel! And here's another character concept for you:
Gotta add my pleasure that this thread has returned to it's origins :) in celebration of this fact i'd also like to throw my hat into the ring as the saying goes with an idea
Thanks guys. I'll try to get more of your concepts wrote up soon. Haven't had a whole lot of time the past couple of days and most of these write-ups take a fair amount of time, so I'm a bit behind on it.
Also Bertious, I love your character's background/concept. Also, Lyrax, I like what you did with it. Good job all around. While probably not incredibly optimal, it looks like a well thought out package, and quite playable.
Reading this thread, I suddenly realize what bugs me: Charisma is easy to make up for with a few skill points. No other attribute can be replaced so easily, or so cheaply.
Well is that really a bad thing? Charisma represents something that is probably both one of the least "solid" things in the game. It's like the "soft ability". It's not terrible to have a low one, and it's not critical to have a high one. There's nothing wrong with that really. Lots of people from day to day have better or worse innate social skill, but many of them function just fine. A person with a 7 charisma is only 10% less likely to succeed compared to an average character. Incidentally having a low charisma means you're more likely to be a follower or more easily approached than a haughty high-charisma character (see DC X + Charisma Modifier, Diplomacy).
Is it really so bad that there is an ability score that's only particularly useful for certain classes? Personally, I think not. It has the fewest benefits and fewest drawbacks of all the ability scores, and it adequately functions as a modifier and key ability for certain innate mystical powers (spell-like abilities, bard spells and abilities, sorcerer spells, paladin spells and abilities, etc). That's good enough for me.
There's really no reason that players should have to feel obligated to rock at every stat. The fact there is less difference between a 7 charisma and a 14 charisma than there is a 8 strength and a 12 strength isn't bad. It just means that it's a softer transition.
Sorry to pile on more ideas, but I will throw out a character idea that's been plaguing my mind. I would love to see your take on making it work:
An improvised weapon specialist.
The character, from the vague notions I have in my head (which is steeped in that Campaign Setting lore stuff), was a rather poor kid who learned to fight by watching the Brevoy fighter colleges training from over a fence, and learned by mimicking them using whatever was lying around, hence his becoming comfortable with beating gnolls over the head with a chair. He's something of a stubborn man who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit,' and would go to any length to save his friends--which he doesn't have many of due to his incredible talent for saying exactly the wrong thing at any given moment.
Summon Monster is garbage at most levels, especially at low levels. It takes a full round to cast (so it tends to attract attention and get the spellcaster killed), it summons weak monsters that most level-appropriate foes will OHKO, and at this level the duration is pathetically short. Even throwing feats down the Augment Summoning hole, you get a mediocre waste of a turn, especially early on when all of your spell slots are competing with Mass f@@* You.
It's worth using at high levels when you can use SM4 or SM5 as a middle-card utility spell, summoning creatures with various special abilities, and it's worth using as a druid because even after the nerfs SNA is better than SM. But as a wizard? Forget it, it's bad advice for an optimization thread.
Also, Sleet Storm is almost always better than Stinking Cloud. It's huge, it bypasses saves, and it's immune to a bunch of the ways you can bypass/dispel/remove SC.
As someone who has played a summoner and used summoner NPCs regularly, I will agree with most of what you're saying. I will also agree that the full-round summoning is a very large drawback, but I also noted that there are ways to get around that (such as summoning via items such as spell-trigger, command-word, or use-activated). By 5th level Summon Monster III provides a solid amount of benefit for 7 rounds for the conjurer, either in the form of a very strong celestial bison or 1d4+1 celestial riding dogs. All of these are capable of slowing down opponents or clogging the battlefield in your favor. Likewise they can be a versatile method for controlling the battlefield (making it harder for enemies to move and tumble, for example, flanking, aid-another, and so forth). 1d4+1 riding dogs using aid another to give bonuses to combat maneuvers is pretty nice, for example. Then there's also trap-springing and stuff like that.
I agree that Sleet Storm is amazingly awesome, and I do agree that it's a solid option. Stinking Cloud was mentioned because our saving throw DC is actually quite impressive for the level we're talking about, and it literally takes enemies out of the fight. Sleet Storm can slow enemies down and block sight, but stinking cloud inflicts the nauseated status while in the cloud (preventing standard actions) and persists for 1d4+1 rounds after you leave the cloud, and it is ideal to use against enemy spellcasters. I also mentioned that if you have a cleric in the party, stinking cloud + animate dead is a wicked good combo, since undead are immune to the stinking cloud.
However, Sleet Storm is effective against a wider number of enemies, and a very good option as well. With a lesser metamagic rod of quicken, I could see the two of them being used simultaneously to great effect.
In Summary, I agree, mostly.
I, too, like Sleet Storm but I don't think it obviates stinking cloud in any way shape or form. Stinking Cloud provides a stiff penalty even once outside of the effect, and neuters casters. But whatev they're both really solid spells.
Personally I find SM III to be the first good one. Mainly because of Lantern Archons and being able to single-handedly deal with golems or anything without a ranged attack pretty handily. Also, just summoning 1d4+1 level 1 nothings is often worthwhile to set up flanks and aid another opportunities even if they themselves are virtually incapable of doing meaningful damage.
Personally I find SM III to be the first good one. Mainly because of Lantern Archons and being able to single-handedly deal with golems or anything without a ranged attack pretty handily. Also, just summoning 1d4+1 level 1 nothings is often worthwhile to set up flanks and aid another opportunities even if they themselves are virtually incapable of doing meaningful damage.
I wanted to chime in and note that at 5th level, 1d4+1 riding dogs is surprisingly far from "nothings" (:P). Celestial riding dogs have low-light vision, scent, and darkvision, and acid, cold, and fire resistance 5 and a 40ft movement speed. With Augment Summoning, they also sport a 17 Hp each, +5 to hit (before buffs), deal 1d6+6 damage (before buffs), a built in tripping ability with a +5 CMB (before buffs), and smite evil 1/day (for +2 damage).
And you're getting 2-5 of these when you cast. And when I say "before buffs", I mean things like bless, inspire courage, and haste. You're basically summoning a mob of warriors to come help you, which is pretty awesome. Against singular evil enemies, you can have them use smite-evil to get a +2 damage bonus against the creature, setting their damage to 9-14 per hit. Likewise, you can freely move through ally spaces, but you can clog the battlefield for enemies quickly.
Also, summoning them on the other side of enemies to harass enemy spellcasters are actually pretty funny, since literally dogpiling an evil spellcaster with celestial dogs is great. :P
On the flip side, the same spell can summon the Celestial Auroch, who likewise has the same darkvision, low-light vision, scent, and resistances, except this singular brute is built to kill. With augment summoning the auroch sports 28 Hp, and a gore attack at +9 to hit (before buffs) and 1d8+12 damage (before buffs), possesses the same smite evil except it's for +3 damage, and also sports Trample at 2d6+12 with a DC 19 reflex for half-damage. Before buffs.
This monster will last you 7 rounds, or few if your enemies turn their attention to killing the expendable auroch before you and your party members, which means you're still controlling the battlefield because you're forcing enemies to have to choose between actually attacking your fighters, or attacking the auroch that's trampling everything every turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well is that really a bad thing? Charisma represents something that is probably both one of the least "solid" things in the game. It's like the "soft ability". It's not terrible to have a low one, and it's not critical to have a high one.
Yes, it is a bad thing -- it's exceptionally poor design. If it has no effect on game play, DO NOT QUANTIFY IT. Certainly don't pretend it's equal to the other stats. Imagine if I gave fighters a choice at 5th level that read as follows:
"At 5th level, the fighter must choose whether to receive weapon training or cool sunglasses, as described below."
You can pick "cool sunglasses" as your class ability, but you're trading mechanical game benefit for meaningless fluff -- and you can just take the weapon training and buy the sunglasses anyway, for a much cheaper expenditure and better overall benefits. Basically, you're stupid if you pick the sunglasses. Just as anyone other than a bard, oracle, or sorcerer is stupid for not dumping Charisma.
Which just means we need to homebrew more uses for Charisma. Doesn't change the fact that it is a mechanically inferior ability by RAW, though.
Correct on both counts. Charisma desperately needs to have some use, if it's going to pull its own weight as a stat. Just as Perform (keyboards) is in no way equal to Perception -- which is also phenomenally poor design, given that the cost is the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which just means we need to homebrew more uses for Charisma. Doesn't change the fact that it is a mechanically inferior ability by RAW, though.Correct on both counts. Charisma desperately needs to have some use, if it's going to pull its own weight as a stat. Just as Perform (keyboards) is in no way equal to Perception -- which is also phenomenally poor design, given that the cost is the same.
Charisma does have benefits. It just has benefits for specific classes and abilities. For example, could you imagine the outcry of a Paladin's Divine Grace was based on Strength or Constitution? Holy crap that would be pretty darn super wouldn't it?
What Charisma does apply to outside of skills is generally pretty awesome. It's just that most classes don't have things that are based on Charisma, and therefor it's really only good for them as far as skills and leadership goes; but compare that the only real drawback for a wizard with a 7 strength is carrying capacity and skill points (which can be overcome with a masterwork backpack, haversacks, and so forth).
Notice the Paladin and Bards I wrote up in this very thread have high charismas (14) and most of them have it as their primary stat (we'll be buffing this stat as we level). The majority of characters don't need it, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. Laerithe's paladin has the highest saving throws out of the party, the highest diplomacy modifier (actually, I think she's rivaled by the bards), she fights similarly to Sigfried, and she sports spells keyed to that charisma. Her smite evil gives an extra +2 to hit and armor class against evil creatures, and by 20th level it will translate to a +10 to saves, +10 to hit and AC (when using smite evil), allow her to use all of her spells, and allow her to use her lay on hands more often (which also translates into more HP since she'll be able to swift action heal every round for 60 hp up to some 20 rounds without even touching feats like Extra Lay on Hands).
Now imagine, if you will, that it was all keyed to Strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, could you imagine the outcry of a Paladin's Divine Grace was based on Strength or Constitution? Holy crap that would be pretty darn super wouldn't it?
It would certainly lower the paladin's MAD, which is a Very Good Thing. Because as you pointed out, ALL of the wizard's class features work off of a single stat: Int. Is it so unreasonable that all of the paladin's should work off a single stat (Str) as well? If not, then wouldn't it be better if wizards needed multiple high stats -- for example, if their spell save DCs were Charisma-based instead of Intelligence-based?
For example, could you imagine the outcry of a Paladin's Divine Grace was based on Strength or Constitution? Holy crap that would be pretty darn super wouldn't it?It would certainly lower the paladin's MAD, which is a Very Good Thing. Because as you pointed out, ALL of the wizard's class features work off of a single stat: Int. Is it so unreasonable that all of the paladin's should work off a single stat (Str) as well? If not, then wouldn't it be better if wizards needed multiple high stats -- for example, if their spell save DCs were Charisma-based instead of Intelligence-based?
Exactly, when two abilities/stats/feats/class features have unequal relevance to the game and cost the same in terms of build resources then that is a poor functional design. I won't say a bad design because one of the core design goals for 3.x was that system mastery is a good thing. Suboptimal build strategies are abandoned in favor of build strategies that optimize combat and noncombat effectiveness.
If increasing class/ability score/skill balance is a desirable design goal, and there is by no means consensus on whether it's desirable, then the relative costs and benefits of pumping or dumping a stat should be equalized.
Charisma has less of a mechanical effect than any other ability score. Further for the vast majority of characters dumping it to the basement is a superior build strategy because it allows you to optimize relevant stats.
The practical result is that outside of spontaneous casters, paladins and clerics the majority of "optimized" builds are going to have a charisma score lower than the statistical average. I don't really like this as phenomenon (although I typically fix it by altering the point buy schedule to exclude extreme dump stats) and think it reflects poorly on the design of the game overall.
Streamlining the MAD classes particularly ones that have Charisma a primary build point is probably a desirable goal but it doesn't really change the fact that outside of a limited number of characters Charisma is of lower value than any other stat.
Streamlining the MAD classes particularly ones that have Charisma a primary build point is probably a desirable goal but it doesn't really change the fact that outside of a limited number of characters Charisma is of lower value than any other stat.
Agreed, which is why I'm to some extent inclined to go the other direction: adding MAD to single-stat classes, weighted heavily towards Charisma. I proposed in another thread to make all spell save DCs Cha-based, which both adds value to the Cha stat and forces Wizards into a MAD situation (someone pointed out that druids and, to a lesser extent, clerics, already have some degree of MAD, but honestly they're powerful enough out of the box that I'm not really crying).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my thing is I've never experienced a game - ever - that forced you to be good at everything to avoid sucking. Old school D&D had dump stats, new school D&D has dump stats. Even most video-games have stats certain classes and characters use more than others. It's part of the variation.
You could go with forcing charisma checks for social interactions instead of actually having skills, but gutting the skill system seems like a very backwards idea.
Meanwhile, Charisma does cost the same as everything else but any way you shake it you're still starting a 0 points spent in charisma, so really what you're complaining about is either A) the fact you're spending the same amount for a high charisma as you are for a high strength, even though you're a fighter, or B) you're complaining that you get the same number of points for dumping your charisma as if you dumped your strength.
Well, that's like complaining because a wizard can dump strength and still be a great wizard, but a cleric that dumps strength is probably a poor cleric (since you need strength to benefit from your cleric's armor proficiencies), or complaining that your wizard really buffed strength but doesn't get much benefit out of it compared to the Fighter, and could have gotten similar swim checks by using skill points.
I guess I just don't see it as a design issue. I see it more as a design feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really is quite sad this beautiful thread was jacked by a pointless argument over charisma. I really have to thank you for this, Ashiel. I think I may start trying to get my next game to be a 15 point buy. I really like the look of these character. Also, somehow my group's current "4d6 drop the lowest" turns out higher than the average 25 point buy quite often....