|
Just a comment, but if a player has used Skill ranks to make up for a poor Charisma that is all cool, and yes by RAW a Charisma 6 Rogue with 2 ranks in each of Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate will have a +3 bonus, the same as a Charisma 16 character with no ranks in any of those skills.
However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.
So when that Charisma 6 Rogue and the Charisma 16 character both enter the ball at the same time, you can bet that those admiring glances, envious looks (and suspicious glares) will be on the Charisma 16 character not the Rogue (which might actually suit the Rogue!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.
Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
Hey, man - I am perfectly happy with CHA and skill points exactly as they are! heh
Hey, man - I am perfectly happy with CHA and skill points exactly as they are! heh
That's the beauty of this game -- whatever works for each group is another "ideal" solution. Like I said, I'm all in favor of keeping the rules, if they work for you, or houseruling them, if not. What I'm against is people pretending that their houserules are actually the core rules, just because they haven't written them down and adjuducate them arbitrarily rather than consistently according to some clear guideline -- I think that scenario can be annoying for players, who are left never knowing how anything really works.
Re: Charisma has no vital function attached to it -
Respectfully disagree. I think talking to people is a much more important ability than strength.
What you're talking about is combat. Out of combat, a bad diplomacy or bluff roll can doom a party as surely as a failed will save. And this is no rare or unusual circumstance in my RP experience, though your mileage may vary.
Contrast the Cha-dumping brute with a Str-dumping wizard. A clever wizard has any number of ways to insure that he never has to worry about his carrying capacity, never has to make a melee attack roll, and almost never has to worry about being grappled. He's probably a pretty interesting character. The Brute that NEVER has to make a diplomacy roll? So, what he's just off in the corner for every social encounter? Certainly the potential for RP magic is there, but to me, the smart money says he's probably going to be less interesting than his wizzy pal.
However you don't need a high Charisma in order to be an effective face. It can help, but it isn't really needed. Social rolls are almost exclusively skill rolls and are easily surmounted.
I've yet to see a wizard that never gets grappled, or encumbered at some point.
Encumbrance is really that much of an issue with every wizard you've seen?
Grappling seems like an issue at low levels. At higher levels you have Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement (either a spell or an item), and you likely have summoned critters to hide behind. Even at low levels things like Grease as a preventative measure when you see that you're up against a Grapple King who has it out for you.
Encumbrance is really that much of an issue with every wizard you've seen? Grappling seems like an issue at low levels. At higher levels you have Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement (either a spell or an item), and you likely have summoned critters to hide behind.
I agree that Strength is an obvious sump stat for wizards, and there's really not much of a down side for doing so. But that's one class out of 11 (core rules) or more. Charisma can be safely dumped by everyone except bards, paladins, and sorcerers (core rules) -- or 8 classes out of 11. To me, a 9% corner-case problem is less concerning than a 73% majority one.
What I'm against is people pretending that their houserules are actually the core rules, just because they haven't written them down and adjuducate them arbitrarily rather than consistently according to some clear guideline -- I think that scenario can be annoying for players, who are left never knowing how anything really works.
This is exactly how I feel about people who tout their house-rules as the only "right" way to play the game.
My group houserules Vital Strike and I love it. You all should totally play my way, you'll reap lots of damage benefits!
Or not.
What works for me may not work for you and I am cool with that. I have come to terms with the fact that every table is different and plays in a way that works for them.
/ unless you're at RD's table...
// sorry, RD, simply couldn't resist.
Back on the CHA is the weakest link boat... Like I said, I'm okay with that. If you're the DM and you're not cool with CHA being dumped, check with your players and then set up a system that you all like. Don't just hand-wave some kind of generic "I hate that you dumped CHA" CHA check. That's just sucky.
However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
Not sure what your point is. You mean that if a DM has you roll an ability check, you'd call shenanigans? Isn't that, like, their original function?
Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities.
It says rarely; it doesn't say never. A DM who calls for a Strength check for a Barbarian lifting a huge iron gate isn't "hand-waving"; why wouldn't this apply to a DM who calls for a Charisma check to determine something like "presence" for a Diplomatic, glib tongued, and yet somehow Uncharismatic fighter?
Encumbrance is really that much of an issue with every wizard you've seen? Grappling seems like an issue at low levels. At higher levels you have Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement (either a spell or an item), and you likely have summoned critters to hide behind.I agree that Strength is an obvious sump stat for wizards, and there's really not much of a down side for doing so. But that's one class out of 11 (core rules) or more. Charisma can be safely dumped by everyone except bards, paladins, and sorcerers (core rules) -- or 8 classes out of 11. To me, a 9% corner-case problem is less concerning than a 73% majority one.
STR has one, err universal strength, and that is carry capacity. The Wizard who dumps STR is gonna need a non-magical way to carry his junk at lower levels. Admittedly, this can be overcome a number of ways (friends, mule, whatever).
1. This is exactly how I feel about people who tout their house-rules as the only "right" way to play the game.
2. Back on the CHA is the weakest link boat... Like I said, I'm okay with that. If you're the DM and you're not cool with CHA being dumped, check with your players and then set up a system that you all like. Don't just hand-wave some kind of generic "I hate that you dumped CHA" CHA check. That's just sucky.
1. Hopefully I've been clear that I view my own housrules as being appropriate only for a small minority of gamers who share my admittedly skewed tastes. I have no problem admitting that the core rules are better for most people!
2. Amen, brother. This is beautifully put.
Not sure what your point is. You mean that if a DM has you roll an ability check, you'd call shenanigans?
Not at all -- but unlike lifting a gate with Strength (which has clear guidelines for what happens), the results of the Charisma check you're calling for are totally 100% arbitrary, decided by you on the spot, with no rules or guidelines of any kind attached. And that's where I call shenanigans.
You like the player? "Roll a Charisma check. OK, the chicks don't immediately offer to bear your children, so you're kind of sad about that." You're mad at the player for dumping Cha? "Roll a Charisma check. OK, the guards immediately arrest you for being so gauche and you're put to death with no trial." I'd feel better about the whole thing, as a player, if you at least compared the results to a table or rubric or something, so that I would know up-front, while rolling up the character, what the consequences really are, instead of you deciding them each time based on pure whim.
It says rarely; it doesn't say never. A DM who calls for a Strength check for a Barbarian lifting a huge iron gate isn't "hand-waving"; why wouldn't this apply to a DM who calls for a Charisma check to determine something like "presence" for a Diplomatic, glib tongued, and yet somehow Uncharismatic fighter?
Why? Why is a generic CHA check ever needed? I mean do you roleplay the pretty serving wench and the ugly fighter? I don't, at least not until the fighter starts trying to get into her pants. And then, I pull out they ol' Diplomacy dice... 'Cause that's what they're for.
Encumbrance is really that much of an issue with every wizard you've seen? Grappling seems like an issue at low levels. At higher levels you have Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement (either a spell or an item), and you likely have summoned critters to hide behind.I agree that Strength is an obvious sump stat for wizards, and there's really not much of a down side for doing so. But that's one class out of 11 (core rules) or more. Charisma can be safely dumped by everyone except bards, paladins, and sorcerers (core rules) -- or 8 classes out of 11. To me, a 9% corner-case problem is less concerning than a 73% majority one.
I would say that Strength can safely be dumped, or at least left at 10 for Wizards, Sorcerers, Summoners, non-melee (or finessey) bards, non-melee (or finessey) Rangers, finesse rogues, non-melee Clerics, non-melee Oracles, most witches, Dex-based Magi, Gunslingers, Dex-based Inquisitors (admittedly probably more rare), ranged Paladins, most Alchemists (bombs aren't melee), ranged Fighters, battlefield control Druids. Strength can safely be dropped into the basement for Synthesists (but since their Eidelons use it, this is cheating).
I've never heard of a Ranged Cavalier (could this work?), and for sure Barbarians aren't built to dump strength. Apart from these, I can post a build that CAN work for pretty much every other class with a strength of 10, though some will be less optimal than others. (Synthesist and Summoners will admittedly focus a lot on the strength of their Eidelons) I can't say the same for all those classes with regards to Charisma.
|
|
However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
I disagree with you, there are situations where a skill is not appropriate and a straight Ability check is a good choice for a GM to use as a fall back.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
Ability checks, though perhaps rare, are a mechanic presented within the game and as such the scenario I present definately does have mechanical support in the rules - it is not hand waved at all (hand waving it would be for the GM to simply state arbitrarily that one character or the other garners the most attention).
If any player did start complaining that I wasn't using the rules as written just because I asked for an Ability check rather than a Skill check I would simply announce "Okay its a Performance (Acting) check to see how much of a grand entrance you make. What? No one has ranks in Performance (Acting)? Then everyone defaults to their Charisma!" :)
|
However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
I disagree with you, there are situations where a skill is not appropriate and a straight Ability check is a good choice for a GM to use as a fall back.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
Ability checks, though perhaps rare, are a mechanic presented within the game and as such the scenario I present definately does have mechanical support in the rules - it is not hand waved at all (hand waving it would be for the GM to simply state arbitrarily that one character or the other garners the most attention).
If any player did start complaining that I wasn't using the rules as written just because I asked for an Ability check rather than a Skill check I would simply announce "Okay its a Performance (Acting) check to see how much of a grand entrance you make. What? No one has ranks in Performance (Acting)? Then everyone defaults to their Charisma!" :)
And I would call you a reasonable GM if a player said "I don't have a very good Charisma score, but I have 10 ranks in Perform (Act), can I use that instead?" and you allowed them.
Ability checks are okay, as long as you are willing to allow for the possibility that someone may have an item/skill/ability that can replace it.
I would say that Strength can safely be dumped, or at least left at 10 for Wizards, Sorcerers, Summoners, non-melee (or finessey) bards, non-melee (or finessey) Rangers, finesse rogues, non-melee Clerics, non-melee Oracles, most witches, Dex-based Magi, Gunslingers, Dex-based Inquisitors (admittedly probably more rare), ranged Paladins, most Alchemists (bombs aren't melee), ranged Fighters, battlefield control Druids. Strength can safely be dropped into the basement for Synthesists (but since their Eidelons use it, this is cheating).
I haven't personally playtested summoners or oracles or witches or magi or gunslingers, so I don't know what they can dump, or not. That's why I kept specifying "in the core rules" (meaning the Core Rulebook, not including the Advanced Players Guide) repeatedly.
Coming back to the core rulebook classes, archery rangers and paladins still can't afford to dump Str, because bows are so much better than crossbows. Also, dumping leaving at 10 =/= dumping to 6 with no down side.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
Why would you roll a check for that? If I wanted peoples attention I would be loud and boisterous. It doesn't take much to be the initial center of attention.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
...but unlike lifting a gate with Strength (which has clear guidelines for what happens), the results of the Charisma check you're calling for are totally 100% arbitrary, decided by you on the spot, with no rules or guidelines of any kind attached. And that's where I call shenanigans.
You like the player? "Roll a Charisma check. OK, the chicks don't immediately offer to bear your children, so you're kind of sad about that." You're mad at the player for dumping Cha? "Roll a Charisma check. OK, the guards immediately arrest you for being so gauche and you're put to death with no trial." I'd feel better about the whole thing, as a player, if you at least compared the results to a table or rubric or something, so that I would know up-front, while rolling up the character, what the consequences really are, instead of you deciding them each time based on pure whim.
Already been addressed.
I would say that Strength can safely be dumped, or at least left at 10 for Wizards, Sorcerers, Summoners, non-melee (or finessey) bards, non-melee (or finessey) Rangers, finesse rogues, non-melee Clerics, non-melee Oracles, most witches, Dex-based Magi, Gunslingers, Dex-based Inquisitors (admittedly probably more rare), ranged Paladins, most Alchemists (bombs aren't melee), ranged Fighters, battlefield control Druids. Strength can safely be dropped into the basement for Synthesists (but since their Eidelons use it, this is cheating).I haven't personally playtested summoners or oracles or witches or magi or gunslingers, so I don't know what they can dump, or not. That's why I kept specifying "in the core rules" (meaning the Core Rulebook, not including the Advanced Players Guide) repeatedly.
Coming back to the core rulebook classes, archery rangers and paladins still can't afford to dump Str, because bows are so much better than crossbows. Also, dumping leaving at 10 =/= dumping to 6 with no down side.
Pretty much all of those classes are allowed in Society Play. (Gunslingers?) Thinking back, I can honestly say that, having played PF since fall of 2010, I have never sat down and played at a Pathfinder game, be it Society, AP, or homebrew campaign, that didn't use at least 1 class that wasn't in the CRB.
In other words, the game is a lot bigger than the Core Rulebook.
|
|
Not at all -- but unlike lifting a gate with Strength (which has clear guidelines for what happens), the results of the Charisma check you're calling for are totally 100% arbitrary, decided by you on the spot, with no rules or guidelines of any kind attached. And that's where I call shenanigans.
You like the player? "Roll a Charisma check. OK, the chicks don't immediately offer to bear your children, so you're kind of sad about that." You're mad at the player for dumping Cha? "Roll a Charisma check. OK, the guards immediately arrest you for being so gauche and you're put to death with no trial."
Your suggestions of results are way beyond what I suggested in my example, of course what you are suggesting is ridiculous.
However, just asking for a check to see if your very presence captures the attention of some of the nobles at a ball is much more of a conservative result.
Maybe you want to speak with one of the nobles and a high Charisma roll indicates you have captured their attention and they actually approach you to talk - its at that point that Diplomacy comes in and the PC may still end up insulting the noble and having that noble walk away in disgust.
But if the PC had rolled appallingly in the Charisma check maybe that noble didn't even notice the PC's presence and when the PC approaches, as a matter of course the noble's bodyguard moves to intercept the PC. Its at this point maybe a Bluff skill would come in handy! "I am the count of Monsa Kan, I wish to speak to the Earl and you shall allow me to do so!"
Interestingly as I hinted in my initial post actually garnering attention due to a high Charisma check may not actually be beneficial - maybe a tipsy noblewoman throws herself at the PC causing a scene?
|
|
Why would you roll a check for that? If I wanted peoples attention I would be loud and boisterous. It doesn't take much to be the initial center of attention.
That would definately get people's attention, but it might not be the attention you were hoping for (disapproving looks at the "uncouth interloper" rather than the admiring gazes of the nobles). :)
Why would you roll a check for that? If I wanted peoples attention I would be loud and boisterous. It doesn't take much to be the initial center of attention.That would definately get people's attention, but it might not be the attention you were hoping for (disapproving looks at the "uncouth interloper" rather than the admiring gazes of the nobles). :)
And I think those determinations can easily be made after rolling some Diplomacy dice or Performance dice. See how this works?
The generic CHA check does hurt the 8 CHA; that's not to say that the generic CHA check is only way to play it.
|
|
And I would call you a reasonable GM if a player said "I don't have a very good Charisma score, but I have 10 ranks in Perform (Act), can I use that instead?" and you allowed them.
Ability checks are okay, as long as you are willing to allow for the possibility that someone may have an item/skill/ability that can replace it.
Oh yeah, if a player brought up that skill and made a point of indicating how they can use it - although they may not natually draw attention, they can deliberately call upon their theatrical training on how to make a grand entrance.
maybe a tipsy noblewoman throws herself at the PC causing a scene?
A tipsy noblewoman could conceivably throw herself at anyone. And she's probably not as particular as she might have been sober. The 8 CHA Diplomancer was practically made to get in her pants.
maybe a tipsy noblewoman throws herself at the PC causing a scene?A tipsy noblewoman could conceivably throw herself at anyone. And she's probably not as particular as she might have been sober. The 8 CHA Diplomancer was practically made to get in her pants.
A noblewoman that wears pants?
|
|
Why would you roll a check for that? If I wanted peoples attention I would be loud and boisterous. It doesn't take much to be the initial center of attention.That would definately get people's attention, but it might not be the attention you were hoping for (disapproving looks at the "uncouth interloper" rather than the admiring gazes of the nobles). :)And I think those determinations can easily be made after rolling some Diplomacy dice or Performance dice. See how this works?
The generic CHA check does hurt the 8 CHA; that's not to say that the generic CHA check is only way to play it.
I agree that my example isn't the one and only way to run that scene - but I believe it is one that doesn't draw on houserules.
For you, you would base the initial reactions purely upon the players' descriptions of how their characters act, and then let them use skills to determine if individuals consider them an "uncouth interloper" or someone to be admired.
For me, I would take into account the players' descriptions of how their character act, but may also call for a Charisma check to see the initial impression they make on the crowd (if any). If I did judge their actions and / or poor roll resulted in some of the party goers considering them "uncouth interlopers" then a Diplomacy check could perhaps persuade a few of those people to change their mind (as could a really bad Diplomacy roll turn initial admiration into displeasure).
A noblewoman that wears pants?
Do I really need to say panties, 'cause I'm thinking that was implied...
Besides even the 'generic check' is helped with a circlet of persuasion (putting the wearer with Cha 8 from a -1 to a +2).
Now I'm not saying there are specific situations where a low charisma can hurt you -- but those situations are rarer, less sever, and generally easier to improve your chances on with items/feats/etc than the situations that having a low str/dex/con/wis/int will hurt.
|
|
...but unlike lifting a gate with Strength (which has clear guidelines for what happens), the results of the Charisma check you're calling for are totally 100% arbitrary, decided by you on the spot, with no rules or guidelines of any kind attached.
This does actually raise a good point - and its something I think I have discussed previously (maybe even in this very thread when it originally started for all I know) - Pathfinder lacks rules or even advice for determining an NPC's initial attitude.
It can be assumed that the initial attitude should be determined by the GM based upon how the PCs have acted toward the NPC and whether the motivations of the NPC coinside with those of the PCs or conflict (and whether the NPC knows this).
Initial Attitude is a pretty fundamental factor in determining the success or failure of a Diplomacy check (changing the DC by up to 25!!!!).
And yet as I stated there are no rules, guidelines or advice,the rules don't even suggest a default attitude - it is all effectively "hand waved" in much the same way as you Kirth feel I would be handwaving how much attention a PC gets based upon an Charisma check.
I am curious - do all you NPCs have a starting attitude of Indifferent to the PCs? If not would you agree you are hand waving it? That you are effectively houseruling?
Also are there any situations / scenarios where you feel a straight Charisma check would be applicable? Or do you believe that unless specifically spelt out in the rules Ability checks should never by used?
In general PF seems to lack guidelines on handling situations that aren't spelt out in the rules. Maybe its addressed in the GM Guide but the PF core book could have done with taking a note from 4e in giving advise and some rules guidelines for actions not covered by the rules (e.g. 4e's Page 42).
I am curious - do all you NPCs have a starting attitude of Indifferent to the PCs? If not would you agree you are hand waving it? That you are effectively houseruling?
Also are there any situations / scenarios where you feel a straight Charisma check would be applicable? Or do you believe that unless specifically spelt out in the rules Ability checks should never by used?
In general PF seems to lack guidelines on handling situations that aren't spelt out in the rules. Maybe its addressed in the GM Guide but the PF core book could have done with taking a note from 4e in giving advise and some rules guidelines for actions not covered by the rules (e.g. 4e's Page 42).
Personally, I try to assign the NPCs starting attitudes, in advance, based on their personalities and on the situation -- I write them into the adventure, so there's no chance of me arbitrarily skewing them one way or the other for or against a particular PC during play -- because I know that neither I nor anyone else is 100% objective in our snap judgments. Barring that (random bartender in a tavern with nothing much going on), "indifferent" serves as a default. That system is not RAW, I'm perfectly aware, but at least it provides a starting point.
I would love to see the rules for social interaction be a LOT better fleshed out. Doing so might involve a two-stage process, where a raw Charisma check would modify starting attitude, and then you'd go from there with skill checks. There's a lot of room for such a system and a lot of benefit to be had from it, in my opinion, and I'd love to see someone with plenty of time and plenty math savvy tackle that particular house rule! But I'd want to see it done properly, not written up as "roll a Charisma check and the DM will pick any starting attitude he wants, but he might change his mind based on your check, and he might not."
|
|
The thing is, from your example, I as a player would have no way in the world of knowing what you consider ridiculous and what you don't, because you have nothing resembling guidelines for the results of your Charisma check.
Okay, so your issue seems to be that as a player you need to know the possible outcomes ahead of time and be assured that those possible outcomes and the DCs to achieve them will remain the same no matter what in future - is that about right?
So what if the GM said...
"Okay everyone make a Charisma check to see if any of you naturally draw the attention of the crowd.
"If you hit DC 10 then a few party goers nearby glance in your direction and seem momentarily intrigued - you can approach them freely in the next three rounds and they will be willing to talk, after that they continue to mingle and talk with others.
"If you hit DC 15 then a lot of people on the main ballroom floor cast you appreciative stares, many nodding at you with a smile. You can approach any of these people in the next 15 minutes of the ball (or until you make them Indifferent to you) and actually use Diplomacy on several of them at the same time if you want as they gather round you to see what you have to say.
"If you hit DC 20 you capture the attention of everyone in the ballroom, including on the balconies above. You can approach anyone easily for the duration of the ball (or until you make them Indifferent to you) and address several of them together. Servants will actually make an effort to make sure your glass is never empty for the entire night.
"If you hit DC 25 as for DC 20 but the Princess herself is so intrigued by you she sends a footman to invite you up to meet her."
Would that be more acceptable? Would you then feel that is no longer just hand waving things?
|
|
Personally, I try to assign the NPCs starting attitudes, in advance, based on their personalities and on the situation
So you use a method that (to quote you) "has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules", correct?
So going back to my original post, if you did create a low Charisma character with high Diplomacy, Bluff etc you wouldn't complain if your GM asked for a Charisma check to see if you make an impression when your enter the Princess's ball? Or would you complain?
I would love to see the rules for social interaction be a LOT better fleshed out. Doing so might involve a two-stage process, where a raw Charisma check would modify starting attitude, and then you'd go from there with skill checks.
I completely agree and in the past have even suggested using a very high (e.g. 16+) or very low Charisma score (e.g. 6 or less) to modify initial attitude by one step up or down but that got a lot of hate on these forums which was why I made sure my example in this thread was purely about getting attention that may ease or hinder the path to get to the point of using Diplomacy, but wouldn't actually change the starting attitude.
Would that be more acceptable? Would you then feel that is no longer just hand waving things?
Yes! I would totally dig that. It provides a clear, consistent rubric, and attaches actual mechanics to the results (e.g., "you may attempt a Diplomacy check within X rounds/minutes").
Nicely done.
So you use a method that (to quote you) "has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules", correct?
Not quite -- I'm relying on written house rules, set in advance -- not on a snap decision made on the spot, which is too subject to unintentional bias. I have nothing at all against house rules (obviously! I'm the guy who rewrote most of the game!); what I'm against is arbitrary GM fiat being passed off as a "rule."
|
|
Would that be more acceptable? Would you then feel that is no longer just hand waving things?
Yes! I would totally dig that. It provides a clear, consistent rubric, and attaches actual mechanics to the results (e.g., "you may attempt a Diplomacy check within X rounds/minutes").
Nicely done.
Thanks. I guess its just a difference in playstyles. Often I as GM ask for a check with a rough idea of what benefits certain check results will provide, but I don't explain that up front, rather wait until I see what the results are and then explain the results that are actually going to happen.
To use the above example, if no one even beat a DC 10, I would simply say "as you enter the ballroom and look around you see a whole host of nobles, merchants, politicians and wealthy elite mingling, drinking and chatting. Your entrance goes largely unnoticed and ignored".
I like the basics being in the book so a player has a guideline to go off of to tell if he's going to be in the right numbers range.
I hate having to explain to someone why having a +7 to hit at level 12 is a bad thing -- or how a +5~10 on a ride/climb/swim check is generally well within the 'good enough' range.
|
|
Not quite -- I'm relying on written house rules, set in advance -- not on a snap decision made on the spot, which is too subject to unintentional bias. I have nothing at all against house rules (obviously! I'm the guy who rewrote most of the game!); what I'm against is arbitrary GM fiat being passed off as a "rule."
Presumably you don't publish to the players in advance of running the scenario the list of NPCs and what their starting attitude will be, correct?
So the difference between your "house rule" and my "house rule" (personally I think neither are house rules, just use of the tools of the system to adjudicate situations that aren't already covered by the rules) is that your decision is made ahead of time, and not changed by how the scene plays out so that there is "no chance of [you] arbitrarily skewing them one way or the other for or against a particular PC during play", whereas my housrule gets decided on the fly during play and would take into account each situation as it arose.
It does seem a playstyle difference and may mean that you wouldn't like to play in one of my games (and possibly vice versa) as I do minimal prep beforehand (mainly NPC stats) and improvise during the game.
|
|
I like the basics being in the book so a player has a guideline to go off of to tell if he's going to be in the right numbers range.
I agree and was just trying to find an Example DCs table in the PF core book and failed (I am sure there was one in D&D 3.5 PHB) so PF seems to really lack in the guidelines to help GMs adjudicate situations not explicitly covered by the rules (it was never as good as 4e with its Page 42, but I am staggered that it doesn't even have a sample DC table like 3.5 had).
I hate having to explain to someone why having a +7 to hit at level 12 is a bad thing -- or how a +5~10 on a ride/climb/swim check is generally well within the 'good enough' range.
Yes, unfortunately not all modifiers are on the same scale; a +6 on a Strength check is great at even at 8th level, but a +6 on an attack, or +6 on a skill check starts being weak even once you hit 3rd or 4th level.
It also means DCs don't scale what would be an Easy DC for a Skill check by a person with basic training could be a Hard DC for a straight Ability check. For the DCs to have the same meaning you have to assume the descriptors of Easy, Hard, Almost Impossible refer to someone completely untrained.
This is why I like systems like FATE where everything is rated on the same scale, or even Savage Worlds where Attributes and Skill are on the same scale (as you don't add one to the other).
However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
I disagree with you, there are situations where a skill is not appropriate and a straight Ability check is a good choice for a GM to use as a fall back.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
Ability checks, though perhaps rare, are a mechanic presented within the game and as such the scenario I present definately does have mechanical support in the rules - it is not hand waved at all (hand waving it would be for the GM to simply state arbitrarily that one character or the other garners the most attention).
If any player did start complaining that I wasn't using the rules as written just because I asked for an Ability check rather than a Skill check I would simply announce "Okay its a Performance (Acting) check to see how much of a grand entrance you make. What? No one has ranks in Performance (Acting)? Then everyone defaults to their Charisma!" :)
If the players are trying to draw attention sure. Another way is to have the players make a knowledge local check to saw what impresses the locals so they know how to dress and what to buy before they even show up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite -- I'm relying on written house rules, set in advance -- not on a snap decision made on the spot, which is too subject to unintentional bias. I have nothing at all against house rules (obviously! I'm the guy who rewrote most of the game!); what I'm against is arbitrary GM fiat being passed off as a "rule."Presumably you don't publish to the players in advance of running the scenario the list of NPCs and what their starting attitude will be, correct?
So the difference between your "house rule" and my "house rule" (personally I think neither are house rules, just use of the tools of the system to adjudicate situations that aren't already covered by the rules) is that your decision is made ahead of time, and not changed by how the scene plays out so that there is "no chance of [you] arbitrarily skewing them one way or the other for or against a particular PC during play", whereas my housrule gets decided on the fly during play and would take into account each situation as it arose.
It does seem a playstyle difference and may mean that you wouldn't like to play in one of my games (and possibly vice versa) as I do minimal prep beforehand (mainly NPC stats) and improvise during the game.
On the fly house rules generally equal GM fiat. There's enough horror stories roaming about online to suggest this is generally a bad idea. It's also a jerk move when you call for ability checks just because you know the PC has a low-ish score in that thing.
Ability checks, incidentally, are poor as far as a mechanical thing. There is only a 10% difference in capability between a guy with 8 Charisma and a guy with 12 Charisma. In fact, the guy with a 12 Charisma is almost as likely to fail a check as the guy with a 8 Charisma, if you're just doing a flat Charisma check.
Yet at the same time, what the hell does Charisma have to do with anyone walking into a room and having people notice you? Charisma doesn't create some sort of magic aura. Your equipment or clothing, or the big scar on your face, and similar things are more likely to get you noticed than your force of personality because nobody has experienced your force of personality; and don't argue it determines how you look because I will counter with hat of disguise changing your looks as desired.
Even in the core rulebook, under equipment, where it discusses social situations and such in outfits, your garb may provide bonuses or penalties to social skill checks. Charisma influences social stuff, it does not determine it. The game simply doesn't work like that.
If you have a +30 in Swim, your GM shouldn't call for a Strength check to see if you can try to use your Swim skill. Anyone here think that's a particularly good idea? Ok, Bard, you need to make a DC 10 Charisma check to see if anyone will even give you the time of day to impress them with your +30 Diplomacy.
Bard: "Awesome!" *rolls and gets a 3+4=7*
GM: "Yeah, sorry, nobody cares because they all decided they hated you too much to even acknowledge your existence the moment you walked into sight."
Bard: Q.Q
Low-Charisma Dude: "Er, well..." *rolls 17-2 = 15*
GM: "Grr, there's a -2 circumstance penalty 'cause you're ugly."
Low-Charisma Dude: "Why? I'm currently in disguise, and using disguise self to look like a young handsome nobleman."
GM: "You meta gaming power gaming bastard, stop dumping Charisma and actually playing the game!!!" *ragequits like a five year old who didn't win cops & robbers*
If the players are trying to draw attention sure. Another way is to have the players make a knowledge local check to saw what impresses the locals so they know how to dress and what to buy before they even show up.However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
I disagree with you, there are situations where a skill is not appropriate and a straight Ability check is a good choice for a GM to use as a fall back.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
Ability checks, though perhaps rare, are a mechanic presented within the game and as such the scenario I present definately does have mechanical support in the rules - it is not hand waved at all (hand waving it would be for the GM to simply state arbitrarily that one character or the other garners the most attention).
If any player did start complaining that I wasn't using the rules as written just because I asked for an Ability check rather than a Skill check I would simply announce "Okay its a Performance (Acting) check to see how much of a grand entrance you make. What? No one has ranks in Performance (Acting)? Then everyone defaults to their Charisma!" :)
Behold the infinite wisdom if Wraithstrike. :D
First of all, a cha 8 would be the kind of person that avoid social situation: putting ranks in a skill imho requires a constant use of the skill and/or an active effort to improve one's ability in it.
I can imagine the cha 8 son of a noble that is pressured into tanking ranks in diplomacy: it makes sense, his father does not care if his son is not naturally inclined toward being a leader, he will make sure that his son will learn how to properly behave and how to be persuasive. However, a cha 8 commoner with high strength that earns his gold with a sword will not spend his time taking lessons on how to position his body to give weight to his words or on how to effectively introduce an argument, discuss it and clearly expose his conclusions. He will have no ranks in diplomacy.Think about a cha 8, cha 12 and cha 16 in real life.
No, you do not get to tell other people how to play their characters. If they want to be the 8 cha who avoids social situations, that's their business. If they want to be someone who had trouble but with training and practise became a confident conversationalist, that is also their business.
You have no right to tell someone what their character's personality is.
I think that, unless you live in Iran, pretty much everyone have this exact right, provided that no offense is given. As far I can tell no offense was involved, so why all the hate?
We are on a public board (the advice one nevertheless): I tell you what I think you should do with your character, you tell me what you think I should do with mine. Then both of us can simply choose to ignore each other.Never in my post I said that the rules prevent your nerd and asocial fighter to put all of his ranks in diplomacy, taking skill focus in it and be born with every trait that improve this skill. I said what common sense suggest, based on what can be observed in the real world. You can disagree or not (and you didn't say you do) but you can hardly saying that I'm imposing you how to do something "because the rules say so".
By the way, my whole post boils down to the point that when I'm the GM I require one player with a PC with CHA 7 and full ranks in diplomacy to motivate his choice. Which by RAW I'm free to do (or not? is rule 0 written somewhere? well, in my copy of the book it will be there next time someone looks for it).
When I say that the said character will have no ranks in diplomacy I'm saying what such character would be like in a realistic context, not what a player is allowed to do (because I honestly couldn't care less about what a gamer the other side of the ocean will decide to do with his fighter): if you don't want to read this kind of post there is a rules board in which you can start a thread discussing whether or not the rules prevent a psychopathic fighter from getting a +20 to his diplomacy check at level 10.
Gee, I'm looking in the game mastery section and noticing a distinct lack of, "How to play your player's characters for them" or "How to tell the player how to play his character."
Maybe that section didn't come in my core rulebook let me check my game mastery guide... hm... not there either.
Behold the infinite wisdom if Wraithstrike. :DIf the players are trying to draw attention sure. Another way is to have the players make a knowledge local check to saw what impresses the locals so they know how to dress and what to buy before they even show up.However such a player should not complain when the GM calls for a Charisma check for an action when none of those skills quite fit - for example to see how dashing and attention grabbing they are when they stride forth into the Princess's ball; which all comes down to how striking they appear and how confidently they move, stand and act.Which has exactly zero mechanical support in the rules -- it's all being hand-waved by you. In other words, you're relying on unwritten house rules.
Which is fine, but again, don't confuse what the rules actually say with what we want them to say.
I disagree with you, there are situations where a skill is not appropriate and a straight Ability check is a good choice for a GM to use as a fall back.
So if a GM asked "Everyone roll a Charisma check to see how much attention you draw as you enter the ballroom" - that is completely within the remit of the rules.
Ability checks, though perhaps rare, are a mechanic presented within the game and as such the scenario I present definately does have mechanical support in the rules - it is not hand waved at all (hand waving it would be for the GM to simply state arbitrarily that one character or the other garners the most attention).
If any player did start complaining that I wasn't using the rules as written just because I asked for an Ability check rather than a Skill check I would simply announce "Okay its a Performance (Acting) check to see how much of a grand entrance you make. What? No one has ranks in Performance (Acting)? Then everyone defaults to their Charisma!" :)
I am just saying, all of this talk of charisma checks being a rule is get old. :)
Yeah it is weaker than the other abilities, but calling for a charisma check at random just because it can be somewhat replaced with skill ranks, and skill focus is basically houseruling, which is not a bad thing by the way.If the GM is going to artificially boost it then the player should get a list of situations detailing when and how it will work in the game so he is not blind-sided.
Calling for the check when you would not do so otherwise(if you were not annoyed at someone dumping it) is also bad form. I never see a requirement for a low dex characters need to make a dex check before they have to use disable device check. Why does a low cha character need one before to be allowed to speak. The defense I have seen used is that you must get the person to listen to you. Well why not a dex check to make you sure you get the tools in place to disable the device, or pick a lock before you actually start?
PS:I am not saying Digital Mage said it was a rule or said anything that is above in this post.
Edit:I am not disagreeing with Ashiel. I just replied to the post, and it ended up being longer than I expected for it to be.
That depends on how you define face. The fact covers all the social skills to include sense motive to me. That wizard can ignore carrying heavy things with certain magic items.
PS:Did someone really say stats were meaningless?