Either numbers mean something or they don't. If you're going to let an 8 Cha character be an effective "face", let the 8 Str wizard be an expert at lifting gates. Maybe the wizard took mad ranks in Knowledge (Archimedes). I mean, why not? The stat is meaningless, right?
That's just it, the 8 CHA character isn't a Face, but he also isn't a doormat either. A +5 Diplomacy doesn't mean that the world is your oyster or that you can get away with selling snake oil. It means you have a chance, albeit small, of making a 25 DC.
If the 20 CHA guy puts 6 ranks in Diplomacy, he is the Face. Because he has a +11!
PS:Did someone really say stats were meaningless?
Not I - stats are paramount.
|
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...
I think there's a big difference between suggesting an action for someone else's character and telling someone else what their character's personality is based on their stats. In my opinion, your previous statement was for the latter, and that's not appropriate in my opinion.
The GM sets up the world, but he doesn't tell the players what their character's are like. That's for the players to decide, and it can be independent of stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...the stat is meaningless. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.
You can see why I put non-trivial effort into balancing the stats, because the core rules are sort of intentionally written to strongly encourage exactly that sort of "cheese."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...the stat is meaningless. Only two ways to get an 8 Cha. Dump it, or do nothing and take a racial hit. Which means, the player is looking for a mechanical edge somewhere else. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.
If by 'min/max cheese' you mean taking the abilities and stats that benefit your character and covering your weaknesses with other abilities, then yeah!
I suppose fighters having a high wisdom and taking Iron Will is also cheese, and if a wizard with 8 strength ever casts ant haul, kick that powergamer to the curb!
So...the stat is meaningless. Only two ways to get an 8 Cha. Dump it, or do nothing and take a racial hit. Which means, the player is looking for a mechanical edge somewhere else. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.
Every class has a dump stat, you just have to have the conviction to roll/role with it. Take a -1 stat into the game, it won't kill you. I promise, really.
Either numbers mean something or they don't. If you're going to let an 8 Cha character be an effective "face", let the 8 Str wizard be an expert at lifting gates. Maybe the wizard took mad ranks in Knowledge (Archimedes). I mean, why not? The stat is meaningless, right?
The charisma means exactly what it means: a minor bonus or penalty against the skill ranks. There is no rank for lifting things, there are skills for interacting with people and those ranks enable the 8 cha character to be an effective face.
|
|
So...the stat is meaningless. Only two ways to get an 8 Cha. Dump it, or do nothing and take a racial hit. Which means, the player is looking for a mechanical edge somewhere else. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.Every class has a dump stat, you just have to have the conviction to roll/role with it. Take a -1 stat into the game, it won't kill you. I promise, really.
Agreed. There is a good reason that the Elite Array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
|
So...the stat is meaningless. Only two ways to get an 8 Cha. Dump it, or do nothing and take a racial hit. Which means, the player is looking for a mechanical edge somewhere else. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.If by 'min/max cheese' you mean taking the abilities and stats that benefit your character and covering your weaknesses with other abilities, then yeah!
I suppose fighters having a high wisdom and taking Iron Will is also cheese, and if a wizard with 8 strength ever casts ant haul, kick that powergamer to the curb!
In a point buy game, that fighter had to give up something to get that high wisdom. The wizard doesn't need strength.
But someone who wants to be social should need Charisma. But, as there are no real disadvantages to dumping Charisma, it's simply the "go to" dump stat for just about everyone. That wizard? He's taking a negative to his CMD. He has to waste a spell slot (which coul dbe put to much better use) to carry his stuff around. A true weighing of benefits against disadvantages. The fighter? He isn't going to have boffo Dex or Con if he pushes wisdom to the max (and he probably dumped Cha as low as possible to get that Wis score, so, yeah, cheese).
I suppose fighters having a high wisdom and taking Iron Will is also cheese,
When I dump CHA, you can bet WIS is either a 10 or 12. I just have a hard time justifying spending 5pts on WIS. I need those points for my 17 STR.
But, as there are no real disadvantages to dumping Charisma, it's simply the "go to" dump stat for just about everyone.
Yep. Isn't it great?
But, as there are no real disadvantages to dumping Charisma, it's simply the "go to" dump stat for just about everyone.Yep. Isn't it great?
I personally don't care, I optimize pretty well and can min/max with the best of them. I just don't pretend I'm doing it for some noble "roleplaying" reasons.
Edit: Plus, I play in a game that mechanically screws people who dump stats, and we roll, 4d6 drop.
Look at my Fiachra character on here (though he isn't up to date wit the new rules changes) in my aliases (actually, I'll just post this as him). I rolled the 6 and the 8 and had to do something with them. So he's a crippled, evil, scheming, hard to be around social black hole. Lots of real in game disadvantages. If I were doing point buy I doubt he'd be that character, because I wouldn't have dumped.
|
|
So...the stat is meaningless. Only two ways to get an 8 Cha. Dump it, or do nothing and take a racial hit. Which means, the player is looking for a mechanical edge somewhere else. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.If by 'min/max cheese' you mean taking the abilities and stats that benefit your character and covering your weaknesses with other abilities, then yeah!
I suppose fighters having a high wisdom and taking Iron Will is also cheese, and if a wizard with 8 strength ever casts ant haul, kick that powergamer to the curb!
In a point buy game, that fighter had to give up something to get that high wisdom. The wizard doesn't need strength.
But someone who wants to be social should need Charisma. But, as there are no real disadvantages to dumping Charisma, it's simply the "go to" dump stat for just about everyone. That wizard? He's taking a negative to his CMD. He has to waste a spell slot (which coul dbe put to much better use) to carry his stuff around. A true weighing of benefits against disadvantages. The fighter? He isn't going to have boffo Dex or Con if he pushes wisdom to the max (and he probably dumped Cha as low as possible to get that Wis score, so, yeah, cheese).
Your definition of 'cheese' is ridiculous. If you don't like the way the stats are represented, you should consider playing a different game.
|
|
You can tell everyone that you're not roleplaying with those stats, but you cannot accuse other people of powergaming simply because they make stat choices: a character who has some difficulty with social interaction but makes up for it by practising in front of the mirror is a fine example of a character who started with an 8 but made up for it with diplomacy ranks.
It's not cheese, it's playing by the rules.
As long as you are spending resources to get good at it I don't see the issue. Now if you find a way to be the face without any investment(very minor) then that might be an issue.
If someone were to boost charisma and hold back on skill ranks I don't think that would be cheese. They are just using the charisma modifier to allow them to put skill ranks somewhere else.
|
|
Agreed. It's not cheesy to use that 16 charisma to just be naturally good at talking to someone, so why should it be cheesy to spend 4-5 points in Diplomacy to be just as good at getting people to like you?
Houstonderek, don't make this about planar binding. You seem to think spending skill points to make up for stat deficiencies is cheesy. Give me a reason that isn't knee-jerk "I hate dump stats".
Now if you find a way to be the face without any investment(very minor) then that might be an issue.
I dunno; +5 skill-boost items are ridiculously cheap in Pathfinder. In my house rules they cost 10x as much as listed.
|
|
Now if you find a way to be the face without any investment(very minor) then that might be an issue.I dunno; +5 skill-boost items are ridiculously cheap in Pathfinder. In my house rules they cost 10x as much as listed.
I've read your houserules and I like them. That doesn't mean that anyone who plays by the rules in core Pathfinder is being cheesy, however.
Why do people hate stat dumping so much? Why is it only okay to play with a negative stat that was rolled randomly?
Here's a question - when I play a Magus I fully intend to take a 8 or 9 in WIS. Is that stat dumping? WIS simply isn't all that important to Magus. STR, DEX, CON, INT - these are the abilities that mean something.
note - CHA will get dumped too, of course. Now it's principle and all...
Now if you find a way to be the face without any investment(very minor) then that might be an issue.I dunno; +5 skill-boost items are ridiculously cheap in Pathfinder. In my house rules they cost 10x as much as listed.
RAW there is no +5 bonus to any of the social skills that I know of though. I think there is a reason that only certain skills had such items made.
That doesn't mean that anyone who plays by the rules in core Pathfinder is being cheesy, however.
I agree; in a straight Pathfinder game I'd have no problem with people stocking up on cheap skill-boost items. The core rules are written with several assumptions: Charisma is a "lesser" stat; skills are near-worthless; rogues are totally replaceable; casters are supposed to be better than their companions at higher levels; etc. If those assumptions match a given group's preferred game, I see no issue in playing to them, and wouldn't consider it "cheesy" at all.
Why do people hate stat dumping so much?
I have no problem with the dumping. I sort of have an issue with the fact that, in the Core Rulebook, Cha is less useful than the other stats, but is presented as if it's of equal value to them. That always seemed slightly dishonest to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people hate stat dumping so much?I have no problem with the dumping. I sort of have an issue with the fact that, in the Core Rulebook, Cha is less useful than the other stats, but is presented as if it's of equal value to them. That always seemed slightly dishonest to me.
I agree. I also think charisma should have been tied to will saves. People with strong personalities should be harder to influence, IMHO.
|
|
I agree. I also think charisma should have been tied to will saves. People with strong personalities should be harder to influence, IMHO.Why do people hate stat dumping so much?I have no problem with the dumping. I sort of have an issue with the fact that, in the Core Rulebook, Cha is less useful than the other stats, but is presented as if it's of equal value to them. That always seemed slightly dishonest to me.
That alone would solve all of my issues, actually.
|
Charisma 7 super model example? Please name an example.
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.The SRD says "and" not "or". So that would be a combination of all right?
So Siegfried is Handsome[appearance]and dashing [personal magetism?] and his personality and leadership ability is lacking?Ok so if Mr. Fishy makes a character with a 7 dex and give him ranks in acrobatics and call him acrobatic does his character becomes more agile better balanced?
Mr. Fishy isn't telling you what Charisma is the SRD seems to have an opinion though.
I haven't gotten off the first page yet, but I felt I had to respond to this.
Naomi Campbell immediately comes to mind as a supermodel with a Cha of 7. Pretty woman, major anger management issues. She actually beat an assistant with a BlackBerry. She was described by one Italian model and actress (whom Campbell punched in the face) as 'being like Mike Tyson.'
Good discussion so far. Looking forward to catching up.
|
|
Dude, if you wanted to be good at social stuff, don't dump Cha.
I'll tell this to Churchill, "stutterer" and "brillant orator" ; or to medal-of-honor'd Roosevelt, "sickly and asthmatic child" and "one of the greatest US presidents of all times".
You may like to play characters crippled and proud to suck at some things for their whole lives, but some of us like to optimize roleplay too.Edit : also, not wanting to look rude, even if the snarky tone may have given this impression.
I agree. I also think charisma should have been tied to will saves. People with strong personalities should be harder to influence, IMHO.Why do people hate stat dumping so much?I have no problem with the dumping. I sort of have an issue with the fact that, in the Core Rulebook, Cha is less useful than the other stats, but is presented as if it's of equal value to them. That always seemed slightly dishonest to me.
In your opinion(s), would Perception be enough to keep WIS from sliding into CHA's current seat?
I think it would. Wisdom also governs sense motive.
Going back to perception. I don't think that is a skill that is ever going to be ignored.
Honestly, Dex is kind of a super-stat as is; it would be nice to steal some stuff from it to give to Wisdom. Alice Margatroid uses Wis for initiative, but I personally feel that initiative is so good that, along with Perception, that makes Wisdom almost too good. I prefer just shifting ranged attacks from Dex to Wis -- as weird as that may sound, it makes Wis a lot handier for rangers (synergizing with their casting stat and all).
So...the stat is meaningless. Only two ways to get an 8 Cha. Dump it, or do nothing and take a racial hit. Which means, the player is looking for a mechanical edge somewhere else. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's for "roleplaying" reasons. It's just min/max cheese.
Not sure that is entirely fair.
There are reasons to take a cha of 7 or 8, other than getting a mechanical advantage. I mean characters with profound weaknesses can be very interesting, I mean just look at Elric.
That said, I think a lot of people here are trying to 'justify' choice made for optimisation purposes, and then minimise the impact of said choice, rather than starting out from a position of this is core to my concept, what does it mean for the character.
Charisma 7 super model example? Please name an example.
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.The SRD says "and" not "or". So that would be a combination of all right?
So Siegfried is Handsome[appearance]and dashing [personal magetism?] and his personality and leadership ability is lacking?Ok so if Mr. Fishy makes a character with a 7 dex and give him ranks in acrobatics and call him acrobatic does his character becomes more agile better balanced?
Mr. Fishy isn't telling you what Charisma is the SRD seems to have an opinion though.
I haven't gotten off the first page yet, but I felt I had to respond to this.
Naomi Campbell immediately comes to mind as a supermodel with a Cha of 7. Pretty woman, major anger management issues. She actually beat an assistant with a BlackBerry. She was described by one Italian model and actress (whom Campbell punched in the face) as 'being like Mike Tyson.'
Good discussion so far. Looking forward to catching up.
Charisma can mean all kinds of things. It CAN mean physical beauty, but I think it's restrictive to say that that's mainly what it represents.
Despite being swallowed up in a plastic shell with creepy scuba gear breathing sounds and almost never showing any of his skin (and creeping out his underlings when he does), I would not say that Darth Vader has a Charisma of 7. His Diplomacy isn't great, and he doesn't seem to do much bluffing, but his Intimidate is Epic. In fact, if we were to call his droid parts "magical", I think we might even label him a Synthesist, with good mental scores, good Con, and dumped Strength and Dexterity (without his gear).
Alignment issue asied, Antipaladin 2/Synthesist X might also be a good fit, with ginormous saves due to his Unholy Resilience.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either numbers mean something or they don't. If you're going to let an 8 Cha character be an effective "face", let the 8 Str wizard be an expert at lifting gates. Maybe the wizard took mad ranks in Knowledge (Archimedes). I mean, why not? The stat is meaningless, right?Of course the numbers mean something.
All else being equal, an 8 CHA character will not be as good as a 16 CHA character at social interaction. That assumes skill ranks and feats are equal.
The thing is, nobody's suggesting that things are equal. When someone says that 8 CHA + 6 ranks + class > 16 CHA + 0 ranks, they're right. That character has invested non-trivial effort in becoming better at the singular social task involved in the skill in question (diplomacy, bluff, whatever). They didn't start from the same rarified heights that Mr or Mrs 16CHA started from, but they've made up for that through hard work and training. If and when Mr or Mrs 16CHA decides to spend the time and non-trivial character advancement options in matching the effort that Mr or Mrs Social-Climber did, then they'll be better at it...but unless and until they do, they're just gifted and possibly likable.
Nail on the head. Vilvar2k11 gets it and gets it in gold. It's not about competing with the best, it's just about being proficient in what you're doing. The world extends beyond the immediate party. Sure, the guy with a 7 Wisdom didn't used to be all that perceptive, but he's learned enough that he's comfortable taking care of himself (+2 Survival, class skill), and has become more Perceptive than most people (+2 Perception, class skill), and isn't as gullible as he once was (+0 Sense Motive). He still doesn't know a scalpel from a toothpick (-2 Heal) and he's still pretty vulnerable to mind-enchantments.
So what does that mean? It means he's pretty believable. He's very human. I think dump stats make for more believable characters. People with flaws, and personalities. The country boy or military man with 7 Charisma who went into the world and eventually became a socialite or a great speaker and a confidence he didn't have before.
It also took an investment, I might add. Every bit of himself invested in his weakness to fill out his concept was a bit of himself not invested in something else. Like Zilvar has noted, a guy with a +3 Charisma wouldn't have had to invest as much of himself to get where he is, and may have invested himself elsewhere. The guy with the low wisdom might have naturally been a great survivalist who notices fine details and is hard to deceive, and put his points somewhere else.
But here's something I really hope everyone will note: Sigfried in the original post does exactly what he is intended to do. It's not just about what he can do but also what he can't do.
You see, Sigfried has many of the more human elements of Charisma covered. He has the modifiers that let him be comfortable in social situations, maybe win the heart of the girl, and not get hornswaggled by your average con-man. Exactly what we wanted him to be good at. But there's more to this story.
Sigfried is not good at lying, and he is won't ever have the knack for getting a wand to suddenly produce magic, where even your average person can usually get a wand to function 1/20 tries, but Sigfried never will. Sigfried is not good at acting, or playing instruments, and he can't carry a tune in a bucket. He's not good at Disguising himself and passing himself off as someone or something he's not. All of these things that he's not good at help to define who Sigfried is as much or more than his evolution from a guy who was used to hanging around other low-Charisma soldierly types to a charming speaker.
To me, that makes Sigfried way, way more human and believable. Sigfried gives an accurate depiction of the whole character. One day, given enough investment, he might be able to hum a little dandy, or be really good at dancing, or finally figure out how to get that cursed happy stick to finally heal the bruise on his arm. But today is not that day, my friends. Today is not that day.
Which brings me back to the entire purpose of this thread way back in the day. It's about understanding the system so that you can build the character that you want through the system that you love. It's about speaking the language of mechanics to tell a story that you can have and share with your friends.
I personally like characters with dumpstats as a player and as a GM. Topher Brink on Dollhouse said it best, I think. Those who excel are overcompensating. I like that characters have flaws, weaknesses, and aspects of themselves that aren't perfect. Show me a character who has 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, and 7, and I see someone who has excelled but has that one thing that they never were good at. The runner with the chiseled abs and winning smile who bores people to tears when all he wants to talk about is what Coach Rindback was saying to him about pacing his heartrate. Or that geeky scholar with asthma who sweats really bad when he sees a pretty girl because while he has all the answers on the textbooks he never can find the right words when he's trying to talk to her.
I actually get a little tired of PCs who have stats that look like 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10. "I was never below average at anything, just above average at most things" is what I see when I look at those stats. While also seeing that he was never that much above average in his good stuff either (+10% is above average but not significantly so). Give me a character who has 16, 15, 15, 10, 10, 7, arranged as desired, and I see a guy (or gal) who really excels at something enough to get noticed for that, but has some things they kind of suck at. Maybe they aren't athletic, or maybe they have the grace and poise of a bull in a china shop. Maybe they grew up without a formal education and it shows when they can't answer DC 10 knowledge checks by taking 10.
You get a group of about 4 of these individuals who all excel at their own things, and make a team out of them, and you have an adventuring party. You have your Ocean's 4. Everyone helps pick up where the other guy has troubles. Boris the Strong helps Willis the Weak carry his stuff, while Willis plans the fastest route to their next geographic location while forging some passports, and Samgee the quick is showing Jeffrey some slight of hand card tricks and how to have a good poker face so he won't get duped by the gambling dens when they're next in town, while Jeffrey notes down the party's activities for his next fanfare filled epic.
========================================================================
Also, I thought I'd toss out a bit of information as to my opinion of the "Charisma: Worth it or Not" argument. Personally, I think Charisma is fine. I think it's intended to be the 6th wheel so to speak. The classes that benefit from it generally benefit from it in spades, while those that don't do not care. A Paladin who based his abilities off Strength would be considered overpowered. I mean really, could you imagine +Strength to all saving throws? Bards are already super skill monkies, so do they need MORE Intelligence-based abilities? Sorcerers? Well designers have been over-estimating them for ages...
I don't think how many classes use Charisma as a primary or secondary statistic is really relevant for what it's worth. Adding alchemist and witch doesn't somehow devalue Strength just because they can largely ignore the statistic much like wizards. Adding Oracles and Summoners doesn't increase the value of Charisma.
I don't think that the innate benefits of Charisma should have the raw physical benefits that something like Strength and Constitution have. It already provides a bonus or penalty to a wide variety of skills, and is used to powerful effect with certain classes like Paladin/Antipaladin, Bards, etc. I don't think it's a matter of what Charisma is worth, but what Charisma is worth to the individual. It's a much broader statistic that represents something intangible. I do think allowing it to add to Will saves would be a good idea though. One thing that 4E did that was cool was dual-save statistics (Str or Con for Fortitude, Dex or Int for Reflex, Wis or Cha for Willpower). It would definitely mean that Charisma loses out to Wisdom far less often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's this thread about?
Oh, yeah, creating a character.
As a new DM, I really like Ashiel's method and so I'm gonna steal it: above all, it forces the player to actually think about what those stats mean. I also think it puts their character's skill in whatever into perspective: "My +6 in diplomacy (however obtained) is *this* good meaning I've got a good chance of doing X, Y is a little harder and to do Z will be tough."
What's this thread about?
Oh, yeah, creating a character.
As a new DM, I really like Ashiel's method and so I'm gonna steal it: above all, it forces the player to actually think about what those stats mean. I also think it puts their character's skill in whatever into perspective: "My +6 in diplomacy (however obtained) is *this* good meaning I've got a good chance of doing X, Y is a little harder and to do Z will be tough."
Thank you MacFetus. I'm glad you like it. Please steal it all you like. It's useful when coming up with NPCs as well. It helps to get a good idea as to where the character stands on certain things, I think. I realize not everyone likes to note which things their NPCs are good at if it doesn't matter, but I'm kinda anal about it; so my NPCs might have a rank or two dropped into stuff like Preform, even if they aren't bards or anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think you can solve the whole thing with a social combat system.
And no, I don't mean a diplomacy check. That's as much fun as making fight checks would be to see if you win a combat. I'm talking about something like the Duel of Wits system from Burning Wheel, or <insert favorite indie RPG here>.
If we rewarded people for roleplaying, we would see more of it. Just like the innumerable rewards for people who overcome all of the other sorts of challenges.
Personally, I think you can solve the whole thing with a social combat system.
And no, I don't mean a diplomacy check. That's as much fun as making fight checks would be to see if you win a combat. I'm talking about something like the Duel of Wits system from Burning Wheel, or <insert favorite indie RPG here>.
If we rewarded people for roleplaying, we would see more of it. Just like the innumerable rewards for people who overcome all of the other sorts of challenges.
Deadlands had a very cool social combat system that revolved around Overraw (Intimidate), Scrutinize (Sense Motive/Insults), Bluff (lying), Persuasion (Diplomacy), etc. It offered rewards for doing well, including bonus experience points (or in this case Fate Chips) for doing particularly well. An example the book uses is this cowboy using his Intimidation-skills to get the leader of a lynch mob (and the mob) to back down and not hang an innocent guy. Failing the check horribly would mean they might try to lynch him too, while failing by a marginal amount means they might just ignore him, while succeeding might buy time to defuse the situation further, while rocking the check like a boss means the mob backs up and stops their attempt entirely and he might earn a fate chip for it (which can be used to save his bacon later, or cashed in for XP).
A "social combat" system can be challenging to write, but could have a really cool impact on scenes, courtly affairs, and so forth. The problem would be writing it in such a way as to support roleplaying rather than giving people a feeling that it was replaced.
A "social combat" system can be challenging to write, but could have a really cool impact on scenes, courtly affairs, and so forth. The problem would be writing it in such a way as to support roleplaying rather than giving people a feeling that it was replaced.
Not really, you just ensure that their is a reward mechanism specifically tied to people attempting to play their character. The more awesome they bring the better the reward.
Such a reward can run from a push(small static bonus to a dice roll), bonus die, drama points, resource renewal, bonus exp or any combination of the above(like stunt die in exalted).
Better roleplaying through operant conditioning!!!