can somebody lock this thread? i think it had run it's course.
|
We win
Let me deal with your skill check argument, once again going to RAW.
1. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
No mention of appearance here. I again use my Madeline Albright analogy of not very pretty but very diplomatic.
"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier."
But what defined the initial attitude? When you walk into the room, do people like/respect you? What is that based off of? Charisma perhaps...
2. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/disguise
"You are skilled at changing your appearance."
Here we see appearance, but not really anything about beauty I can see.
3. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/handle-animal
Even animals like you, but as this is a trained skill it is a bit different from the rest.
4. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/intimidate
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."
Again, a reactionary skill that changed initial attitude. Also, it takes a minute of conversation to do so.
5. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perform
RAW you can make money. I would assume other effects are used in different games, but nothing about appearance here.
6. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/use-magic-device
Kind of like Handle animal, it is a trained skill and a bit different.
In short, the skill checks aren't about the initial impression a character makes. It is a skill check a character can use to overcome initial impressions.
And if you have a low Charisma, people's initial impression of you isn't going to be as positive as someone with a high Charisma.
Not complicated.
|
And if you have a low Charisma, people's initial impression of you isn't going to be as positive as someone with a high Charisma.
Not complicated.
If we're going by RAW, nowhere in the rulebook does it say that Charisma effects an NPC's initial impression of a character. So basically, that's a house rule of yours that you for some reason want to pass off as Rules As Written.
|
|
If we're going by RAW, nowhere in the rulebook does it say that Charisma effects an NPC's initial impression of a character. So basically, that's a house rule of yours that you for some reason want to pass off as Rules As Written.And if you have a low Charisma, people's initial impression of you isn't going to be as positive as someone with a high Charisma.
Not complicated.
So what effects the initial impression of a character, other than circumstance.
|
|
So what effects the initial impression of a character, other than circumstance.If we're going by RAW, nowhere in the rulebook does it say that Charisma effects an NPC's initial impression of a character. So basically, that's a house rule of yours that you for some reason want to pass off as Rules As Written.And if you have a low Charisma, people's initial impression of you isn't going to be as positive as someone with a high Charisma.
Not complicated.
Honestly, I would say circumstances are entirely that lol.
You see somebody without any circumstances, it's neutral.
Based on other circumstances (such as how they feel about your race, if what you're wearing means anything to them, etc etc etc) their initial impression changes.
Yes. And if your character has a low Charisma score, you don't think that would effect how people view them?
People want a dump stat without consequences.
People want a dump stat without consequences.
Which is exactly how Charisma is written in the core rules, far more than any other stat -- which, in my opinion, is very poor design. People dumping it without consequences are doing so because that's precisely how the game rules are written. I don't think those rules are good, in that respect, but that's how they are.
|
|
This is the second time you've made that assumption of me ciretose. I've already stated this is not true. That's how I run my games, as GM, and it's got nothing to do with wanting to make a dumpstat out of charisma. (As a matter of fact, I'm one of those players who HATES having any score below ten, but that's another matter.)So what effects the initial impression of a character, other than circumstance.If we're going by RAW, nowhere in the rulebook does it say that Charisma effects an NPC's initial impression of a character. So basically, that's a house rule of yours that you for some reason want to pass off as Rules As Written.And if you have a low Charisma, people's initial impression of you isn't going to be as positive as someone with a high Charisma.
Not complicated.
Honestly, I would say circumstances are entirely that lol.
You see somebody without any circumstances, it's neutral.
Based on other circumstances (such as how they feel about your race, if what you're wearing means anything to them, etc etc etc) their initial impression changes.
Yes. And if your character has a low Charisma score, you don't think that would effect how people view them?
People want a dump stat without consequences.
When you argue against consequences for negative scores, it isn't an assumption.
I'm more pointing toward others than you, actually, as I think you would agree that negative charisma has some effect beyond low skill points.
|
|
People want a dump stat without consequences.Which is exactly how Charisma is written in the core rules, far more than any other stat -- which, in my opinion, is very poor design. People dumping it without consequences are doing so because that's precisely how the game rules are written. I don't think those rules are good, in that respect, but that's how they are.
Again
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores
"Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
* Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
* Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
* Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes."
It effects a lot if you role play as much as you roll play.
|
It's pitiful, it's pathetic, and honestly it's pissing me off... You sir have no right. Either put up, shut up, and don't tell me what I do and do not want.It might be an idea to tone back the language. If you are getting agitated, take a break from this thread. Everyone else here, as far as I have read, has managed to moderate the language in their posts.She's not the first, or the worst.
This goddamn thread.
Sorry, I did not see "goddamn" as that big of a thing.
|
When you argue against consequences for negative scores, it isn't an assumption.
I'm more pointing toward others than you, actually, as I think you would agree that negative charisma has some effect beyond low skill points.
You have not been reading the thread carefully.
The argument is whether someone can have a below average charisma score and still be "handsome" by lowering other aspects of the constituent parts of the character that make up the charisma score, i.e. personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead.
Some people take the stand that if a player's character's charisma is low, said player is not allowed to say their character is "handsome" under any circumstances. In fact, they went farther and said that each and every one of the facets that make up that character's charisma score must by definition be equal. Thus any character with a low charisma score has a bad personality, poor personal magnetism, a poor ability to lead, and is unattractive. Any character with a high charisma score has a good personality, good personal magnetism, an ability to lead, and is attractive.
In other words all unpleasant, unremarkable or unispiring people are ugly, all ugly people are unpleasant, unremarkable and uninspiring, all pleasant, remarkable and inspiring people are attractive and all attractive people are pleasant, remarkable and inspiring by definition.
The other side of the argument says that while a character's charisma score may be low, the separate facets of the character that make up the character's charisma score may differ - and the charisma score is more of an average of these aspects of the character. Thus if a character had a below average Charisma score but a slightly above average appearance, the character's other aspects of charisma (personality, personal magnetism, leadership ability) would be even lower than the averaged charisma score.
In this scenario, a character with a charisma of 7 who wanted to be at least of average attractiveness (10) would then have a personality, personal magnetism and leadership ability equivalent to a score of 6 (6x3 + 10 = 28, which is equal to 4x7). Or a character with a charisma of 7 who wanted to be a little above average in attractiveness (12) might have no ability to lead (4), and poor personality and personal magnetism (6).
This character, with no other training, makes a rather poor impression in his day to day interactions - a slightly worse than average impression (-2 modifier). Through training and effort, the character can, when trying to be charming, make a better impression when interacting with people by taking skill ranks in Diplomacy. Thus this gruff and uninspiring guy can, when he's making an effort (trying to be diplomatic) make the same sort of impression as a normal person who isn't putting forth any particular effort. After many levels of skill points being invested, the fighter might be able to pull off the confident and debonair air of a low level bard, when he's really working on being charming.
|
|
(As a matter of fact, I'm one of those players who HATES having any score below ten, but that's another matter.)*highfive*
When you argue against consequences for negative scores, it isn't an assumption.
I'm more pointing toward others than you, actually, as I think you would agree that negative charisma has some effect beyond low skill points.
You have not been reading the thread carefully.
The argument is whether someone can have a below average charisma score and still be "handsome" by lowering other aspects of the constituent parts of the character that make up the charisma score, i.e. personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead.
Some people take the stand that if a player's character's charisma is low, said player is not allowed to say their character is "handsome" under any circumstances. In fact, they went farther and said that each and every one of the facets that make up that character's charisma score must by definition be equal. Thus any character with a low charisma score has a bad personality, poor personal magnetism, a poor ability to lead, and is unattractive. Any character with a high charisma score has a good personality, good personal magnetism, an ability to lead, and is attractive.
In other words all unpleasant, unremarkable or unispiring people are ugly, all ugly people are unpleasant, unremarkable and uninspiring, all pleasant, remarkable and inspiring people are attractive and all attractive people are pleasant, remarkable and inspiring by definition.
The other side of the argument says that while a character's charisma score may be low, the separate facets of the character that make up the character's charisma score may differ - and the charisma score is more of an average of these aspects of the character. Thus if a character had a below average Charisma score but a slightly above average appearance, the character's other aspects of charisma (personality, personal magnetism, leadership ability) would be even lower than the averaged charisma score.
In this scenario, a character with a charisma of 7 who wanted to...
#$%!ING THIS.
|
|
You have not been reading the thread carefully.
The argument is whether someone can have a below average charisma score and still be "handsome" by lowering other aspects of the constituent parts of the character that make up the charisma score, i.e. personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead.
Some people take the stand that if a player's character's charisma is low, said player is not allowed to say their character is "handsome" under any circumstances. In fact, they went farther and said that each and every one of the facets that make up that character's charisma score must by definition be equal. Thus any character with a low charisma score has a bad personality, poor personal magnetism, a poor ability to lead, and is unattractive. Any character with a high charisma score has a good personality, good personal magnetism, an ability to lead, and is attractive.
In other words all unpleasant, unremarkable or unispiring people are ugly, all ugly people are unpleasant, unremarkable and uninspiring, all pleasant, remarkable and inspiring people are attractive and all attractive people are pleasant, remarkable and inspiring by definition.
The other side of the argument says that while a character's charisma score may be low, the separate facets of the character that make up the character's charisma score may differ - and the charisma score is more of an average of these aspects of the character. Thus if a character had a below average Charisma score but a slightly above average appearance, the character's other aspects of charisma (personality, personal magnetism, leadership ability) would be even lower than the averaged charisma score.
In this scenario, a character with a charisma of 7 who wanted to be at least of average attractiveness (10) would then have a personality, personal magnetism and leadership ability equivalent to a score of 6 (6x3 + 10 = 28, which is equal to 4x7). Or a character with a charisma of 7 who wanted to be a little above average in attractiveness (12) might have no ability to lead (4), and poor personality and personal magnetism (6).
This character, with no other training, makes a rather poor impression in his day to day interactions - a slightly worse than average impression (-2 modifier). Through training and effort, the character can, when trying to be charming, make a better impression when interacting with people by taking skill ranks in Diplomacy. Thus this gruff and uninspiring guy can, when he's making an effort (trying to be diplomatic) make the same sort of impression as a normal person who isn't putting forth any particular effort. After many levels of skill points being invested, the fighter might be able to pull off the confident and debonair air of a low level bard, when he's really working on being charming.
To quote myself from earlier in this thread
"Second, your percentage allocation of values to each aspect followed to logical conclusion would allow me to argue my low intelligence character as an idiot savant who can reason but not learn, or can learn but not reason.
And even worse usage of your logic falls under wisdom, which "describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition." By your logic I should be able to tell my DM that I am allocating all of my wisdom to awareness, so now I don't take penalties to awareness anymore, but I will have even less common sense...in ways I determine."
As I pointed out above, Diplomacy is used to change initial impression, not to create initial impression. The skills you learn are "You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
I don't disagree about not having to be "ugly". But you do have to be unattractive.
The example given before was the unsettling but cute follower of Zon-Kuthon from CoCT. I think this is a perfect example of a 8 Charisma character, specifically, someone who is naturally unsettling to those around them. Someone who has a negative charisma. Someone people don't like.
I've said this before. Others have cited me saying this before. I don't even think we disagree that much.
My point of emphasis is that playing a character with low charisma should have an in game effect. If you want to be gorgeous and annoying, fine. But, all other things being equal, people won't like you, relative to others who have higher charisma scores.
I'm just amazed by all the NPCs in the APs that are described as "beautiful" "Cute" "pretty" "Handsome" and the like -- but have sub 10 charismas.
But hey -- I guess that doesn't matter.
It's a shame I can't as a player decide what my "initial attitude" is to NPCs based solely off their Charisma scores.
I guess that would be metagaming though uh?
Good thing the GM doesn't have that problem though right?
|
|
I don't think anyone has said a low Cha character should be likable.
But several have said it would be unfair for the DM to penalize them for a low score beyond the penalty already imposed by skill checks.
And others have argued any low charisma should be able to be completely mitigated by skill point allocation.
This is where I disagree.
|
|
I'm just amazed by all the NPCs in the APs that are described as "beautiful" "Cute" "pretty" "Handsome" and the like -- but have sub 10 charismas.
But hey -- I guess that doesn't matter.
It's a shame I can't as a player decide what my "initial attitude" is to NPCs based solely off their Charisma scores.
I guess that would be metagaming though uh?
Good thing the GM doesn't have that problem though right?
As a player, I really wouldn't want my initial attitude towards NPCs defined solely by numbers.
My paladin is still going to feel instinctively protective of that 7 CHA beggar even if he does have an annoying verbal tic, Asperger's, halitosis. and low self-confidence.
I wouldn't want NPCs' initial reactions towards my PCs to work solely on numbers either. My tiefling paladin might have 18 CHA, but I don't expect everyone to immediately be accepting of the guy with horns, hooves, and pronounced canines.
|
|
I'm just amazed by all the NPCs in the APs that are described as "beautiful" "Cute" "pretty" "Handsome" and the like -- but have sub 10 charismas.
But hey -- I guess that doesn't matter.
It's a shame I can't as a player decide what my "initial attitude" is to NPCs based solely off their Charisma scores.
I guess that would be metagaming though uh?
Good thing the GM doesn't have that problem though right?
When I DM, I try to play the charisma as written. If they have a low charisma, I describe them as gruff, off-putting, etc...if they have a high charisma I describe them as charming, witty, etc...
I almost never use the pictures in the AP, as they tend to give to much away. I mean all the bad guys look like bad guys. Plus, that is just an artists impression anyway.
|
Even though there seems to be little rules in the pathfinder core book regarding first impressions, one use of the diplomacy skill is improving initial attitudes so they obviously exist.
Charisma score and circumstance modifiers could perhaps give an inkling?
The character is already at a disadvantage of -2 to improve that initial attitude. Are you suggesting penalizing him twice for it?
Edit: I think the best way to go about it and satisfy all involved is to have a DC 10 Cha check for first impressions. That way the DM isn't unfairly penalizing the same person over and over again, because the chance of an NPC finding the character uncouth or offputting is determined by the dice and that -2 from his ability score.
|
|
It's not completely mitigated. They will always and forever have that penalty to charisma checks. They will never be as good at those checks as one who has done equal training in the task. They lack the natural affinity for it.I don't think anyone has said a low Cha character should be likable.But several have said it would be unfair for the DM to penalize them for a low score beyond the penalty already imposed by skill checks.
And others have argued any low charisma should be able to be completely mitigated by skill point allocation.
This is where I disagree.
But the skill checks are just specific applications of the ability, not the entire ability.
You can't just mitigate the effects of low charisma with skill points anymore than you can make yourself stronger or more agile with skill points.
Skill points indicate learning skills that help you complete tasks to an ability beyond what your natural abilities would be otherwise. Knowing proper etiquette does not make you more charismatic, it just means you have learned manners which will effect peoples attitudes towards you in specific situations.
Just as you can learn to swim even if you aren't physically strong, you can learn to be polite, even if you are the smelly kid. But despite your skills, you are still not strong, and you still aren't charismatic.
|
|
Even though there seems to be little rules in the pathfinder core book regarding first impressions, one use of the diplomacy skill is improving initial attitudes so they obviously exist.
Charisma score and circumstance modifiers could perhaps give an inkling?
The character is already at a disadvantage of -2 to improve that initial attitude. Are you suggesting penalizing him twice for it?
Edit: I think the best way to go about it and satisfy all involved is to have a DC 10 Cha check for first impressions. That way the DM isn't unfairly penalizing the same person over and over again, because the chance of an NPC finding the character uncouth or offputting is determined by the dice and that -2 from his ability score.
I think this is a reasonable suggestion, although a bit dice heavy for my personal style of play.
A party walks into a room, hopefully the high charisma is the face and the low charisma lays low and doesn't piss anyone off.
Kind of like when you take an jerk friend out to a bar, and you tell him to shut up so he doesn't get into a fight you have to back him up on.
.
..
...
....
.....
*useful general thread summary*
*for a given value of 'try', 'effort' 'active' 'passive' 'less'and... aaah the intrawebz!
::
Oh, and some deficient citizen branded our humble, all powerful leader as a member of a fish-based collective.
Now, a asociated sponsership deal we can approve - after all, the blanket was warm and smelled of ham.
::
RIGHT, EVERYONE, TO THE PUB! LET'S ALL DRINK OURSELVES TO CHARISMA 20! DRINKS ARE ON THE FISH!
I'm just amazed by all the NPCs in the APs that are described as "beautiful" "Cute" "pretty" "Handsome" and the like -- but have sub 10 charismas.
But hey -- I guess that doesn't matter.
It's a shame I can't as a player decide what my "initial attitude" is to NPCs based solely off their Charisma scores.
I guess that would be metagaming though uh?
Good thing the GM doesn't have that problem though right?
As a player, I really wouldn't want my initial attitude towards NPCs defined solely by numbers.
My paladin is still going to feel instinctively protective of that 7 CHA beggar even if he does have an annoying verbal tic, Asperger's, halitosis. and low self-confidence.
I wouldn't want NPCs' initial reactions towards my PCs to work solely on numbers either. My tiefling paladin might have 18 CHA, but I don't expect everyone to immediately be accepting of the guy with horns, hooves, and pronounced canines.
"Asmodeus be praised! The Dark Lord Himself has sent one of His spawn to accept our annual tithe of sacrificial babies and virgins! How may we serve thee, most vile and unholy fiend?"
You can't just mitigate the effects of low charisma with skill points anymore than you can make yourself stronger or more agile with skill points.
Why not? Every stat in the game can be mitigated with skill points, feats, and items.
No one has suggested that "just skill points" should mitigate the low charisma completely -- in fact no one has suggested skill points mitigate it at all -- they have said that skill points can help make up for the penalty -- but the penalty is still there -- it hasn't gone away, you've just trained hard enough to keep it from having as bad of an effect as it could.
This is no different than a wizard using Ant haul and bull's strength along with ranks in climb (and other strength based skills) to overcome a low strength.
Or a rogue using weapon finesse and piranha strike to overcome a low strength.
Or a cleric using spells and heavier armor (as well as energy resistance) to over come a low dex (possibly with lightning reflexes too).
Con can be overcome with spells/feats/magic items as well.
Every stat in the game can be mitigated with application of skills/feats/magic/traits/etc -- it's not just a matter of if you invest-- but what you invest -- for those points you get for "dumping" charisma you can instead spend a few feats, 2+ skill points a level and some gp to "overcome" the penalties of a low Charisma -- just like the rogue that overcomes his low strength with a few, some skill points, and some gp (for a handy haversack) to "overcome" the penalties for a low strength.
|
|
You can't just mitigate the effects of low charisma with skill points anymore than you can make yourself stronger or more agile with skill points.
Why not? Every stat in the game can be mitigated with skill points, feats, and items.
Hell, it's a sure thing someone somewhere has played out a My Fair Lady situation doing exactly that.
Another thought:
The concept of "dump stats" is based on two things:
1. Class -- Wizards have less reason to dump Cha than fighters do (enchantment school uses charisma checks, calling spells use charisma checks, commanding undead uses charisma checks... etc). Wizards have good reason to dump Strength, fighters don't. Paladins have good reason to dump Wisdom. What is and is not a dump stat is based on what class you are playing -- as such players that want to dump a stat will natural migrate to the class that has the dump stat that they want to dump.
2. The only way you can "dump" a stat is by point buy. When you roll stats you are stuck with what you rolled. You might choose to place the scores where you want to but you can not be blamed for what the scores are since you had no practical control over what they would be.
As such "dump stats" themselves are subjective, and biased by class and method of character creation.
If you don't want "dump stats" then roll the dice instead of point buy character creation.
|
|
The character is already at a disadvantage of -2 to improve that initial attitude. Are you suggesting penalizing him twice for it?Even though there seems to be little rules in the pathfinder core book regarding first impressions, one use of the diplomacy skill is improving initial attitudes so they obviously exist.
Charisma score and circumstance modifiers could perhaps give an inkling?
Perhaps I am, although your phrase "penalizing him twice" is a little argumentative.
I think there's a saying that says "You only get one chance to make a good first impression". First impressions are often very important in our world and, perhaps, more often than we should we discount someone or something based on that first impression. Actually, people have done that for a long time. Just tink of the tale of the rabbit and the hare. The expression "Don't judge a book by its cover".
It is this first impression that makes the initial attitude you can use diplomacy to improve. Whether it comes from your looks, hair colour, royal tabbard, wearing an enemy's uniform, word of mouth or a combination.
You may see it as being penalized twice, I see it as a natural use of the charisma ability. If you have a low strength, you don't think about your lowered damage dealing, lowered to hit rating and lowered carrying capacity as being penalized thrice? It is just the natural conclusion that comes from being weak. Having a low charisma makes you worse than others at dealing with people. That's just the way it is.
However, more factors than just CHA could come into play in the evolution of someone's perception, fairly or unfairly, be it alignment, goals, personality, allegiences, race, religion, politics, deeds, etc.
|
|
You can't just mitigate the effects of low charisma with skill points anymore than you can make yourself stronger or more agile with skill points.
Why not? Every stat in the game can be mitigated with skill points, feats, and items.
No one has suggested that "just skill points" should mitigate the low charisma completely -- in fact no one has suggested skill points mitigate it at all -- they have said that skill points can help make up for the penalty -- but the penalty is still there -- it hasn't gone away, you've just trained hard enough to keep it from having as bad of an effect as it could.
This is no different than a wizard using Ant haul and bull's strength along with ranks in climb (and other strength based skills) to overcome a low strength.
Or a rogue using weapon finesse and piranha strike to overcome a low strength.
Or a cleric using spells and heavier armor (as well as energy resistance) to over come a low dex (possibly with lightning reflexes too).
Con can be overcome with spells/feats/magic items as well.
Every stat in the game can be mitigated with application of skills/feats/magic/traits/etc -- it's not just a matter of if you invest-- but what you invest -- for those points you get for "dumping" charisma you can instead spend a few feats, 2+ skill points a level and some gp to "overcome" the penalties of a low Charisma -- just like the rogue that overcomes his low strength with a few, some skill points, and some gp (for a handy haversack) to "overcome" the penalties for a low strength.
So can Charisma. I'm not following your point.
Some have argued that you should be able to overcome all aspects of negative charisma through skill points. If this isn't your stand, we don't disagree.
Casting a spell to increase your strength isn't the same as overcoming low strength with skill points. You can cast a spell to increase your charisma.
If you want to buy the charisma booster, that is fine. But you can't just up your charisma based skills and viola, you are treated as a high charisma character.
Mikaze:
Yes, yes! :)
That's what I tried to convey. First impressions can be made by the uniform you wear(White hat/black hat), your allegiance to something(Guilds like their members better than non-members), your holy symbol will endear you to fellow members of the same or allied faiths, Your looks("Look at that sexy mama, I'd hit that thang"), reputation or/and a combination.
Multiple factors will come into play, but charisma should come into play as well, in my opinion.
I would argue that the person making the first impression should have his wisdom score play into it as well. After all he's going with his gut trying to figure out if you are good or bad news for him based on little information. Sounds very much like an "intuition" thing to you.
|
|
I would argue that the person making the first impression should have his wisdom score play into it as well. After all he's going with his gut trying to figure out if you are good or bad news for him based on little information. Sounds very much like an "intuition" thing to you.Mikaze:
Yes, yes! :)
That's what I tried to convey. First impressions can be made by the uniform you wear(White hat/black hat), your allegiance to something(Guilds like their members better than non-members), your holy symbol will endear you to fellow members of the same or allied faiths, Your looks("Look at that sexy mama, I'd hit that thang"), reputation or/and a combination.
Multiple factors will come into play, but charisma should come into play as well, in my opinion.
Absolutely. It is very important I think that everyone understand that the person playing the PC and the PC aren't the same.
Sense motive is the skill check, but I have players who actually get that low wisdom means you aren't exactly streetwise and will miss things, and play it like that. Often at the table someone will say "well, I have a low wisdom, so I'll do it anyway..."
|
|
I would argue that the person making the first impression should have his wisdom score play into it as well. After all he's going with his gut trying to figure out if you are good or bad news for him based on little information. Sounds very much like an "intuition" thing to you.Mikaze:
Yes, yes! :)
That's what I tried to convey. First impressions can be made by the uniform you wear(White hat/black hat), your allegiance to something(Guilds like their members better than non-members), your holy symbol will endear you to fellow members of the same or allied faiths, Your looks("Look at that sexy mama, I'd hit that thang"), reputation or/and a combination.
Multiple factors will come into play, but charisma should come into play as well, in my opinion.
Not a bad idea. I don't have the skinny on the neuro science behind how we form first impressions, but you obviously make some sort of split second judgement based on the factors you consider relevant to the equation in your mind. You apply your judgement to the clues you gather.
Rambling:
Those with high wisdom(Sense motive & perception) will not as easily be taken in by the traveling con man(even though he makes a great first impression)?
His intelligence should come into it as well. That will represent his knowledge of other cultures, so he knows he's not doing something that offends.
His constitution should come into it as well. Everyone knows it's bad manners to be out of breath when you're introducing yourself to someone.
His dexterity should come into it as well. What's that, you go over to shake hands with the guy and your clumsy character trips over a chair leg and goes flying? That guy is not that into you.
His strength should come into it as well. Everyone is more impressed by the physically fit. Let's give a positive modifier to people with big shiny muscles, and a negative modifier to little weaklings with toothpick arms.
One suggestion was to use action points and base the total on Cha.
Me personally, I do my best to never have a single digit score. I will play all tens if I have to just to avoid that penalty.
Have you ever used that in a game, or is that just a suggestion? I'm just curious if it's been tested.
|
|
Excuse me, I was just continuing the train of thought. If charisma is to be used for first impressions, then so should wisdom be. If wisdom, why not intelligence? If intelligence, why not the physical stats too, what the heck?
OR we could go with what the situation dictates.
PCs walk into a bar, seems like the bartender could be indifferent or friendly depending on how his business is, or what kind of guy he is.
PCs walk into a bar, having just rid the city of an evil sorcerer who killed the bartender's brother, I'm guessing he's pretty friendly.
PCs walk into a bar and set the place on fire, you can bet the bartender is worse than indifferent.
My point is that stats are not a good baseline for something like this, and circumstances are. So no, I don't think charisma is a good way to get first impressions.
There's nothing wrong with using Knowledge and Intelligence rather than Diplomacy and Charisma in some situations.
Think of your standard business of going to visit some noble to beg a favor. Automatic Diplomacy roll? Not so fast. It would be completely reasonable to make a Knowledge Nobility check to know the proper formal address for a margrave as well as his wife, to know any particular brave deeds of his ancestors of which he'd be proud and which you should praise, and assorted minutia which grease the running of any formal court.
This doesn't mean that you still wouldn't have to use Diplomacy to beg the favor, but honoring all the proper protocols should lower the difficulty as you've proven that you're a civilized petitioner rather than just some uncouth if somewhat amusing barbarian.
Is this thread seriously still going on.
If you believe beauty is something that is objective then you are objectively wrong. You are factually incorrect. It is not.
Strength is objective. How much I can bench press? That isn't subjective. If I bench press a thousand pounds and someone wlaked up and said "Ok, so now that you've done 20..." and they actually believe it then they are certifiably insane.
Constitution is objective. It governs your hit points. It is literally the number of hits you can take. That's objective. I've yet to see a DM tell me "No you actually have 20 HP, not 24, because I find your constitution to be subjective."
But beauty? Beauty is not objective. Someone you know has wildly different views on what is and isn't attractive then what you have. To all the men out there with female friends or companions, ask them what kind of men they find attractive, then think about what kind of men you find attractive. Ladies, do the same with men that you know. Ask a teenager if they think whatever his name is from Twilight is hot, and then ask yourself if you agree. I mean jesus, we're on the internet here, land of the most bizarre sexual kinks and fetishes that have ever existed. In fact, hell, the fact that human fetishes exist is proof that beauty is not objective.
So yeah, if you disagree with me, you are objectively incorrect.
In before the thread goes on for another fifty pages. Goddamn.
Another thought:
The concept of "dump stats" is based on two things:
1. Class -- Wizards have less reason to dump Cha than fighters do (enchantment school uses charisma checks, calling spells use charisma checks, commanding undead uses charisma checks... etc). Wizards have good reason to dump Strength, fighters don't. Paladins have good reason to dump Wisdom. What is and is not a dump stat is based on what class you are playing -- as such players that want to dump a stat will natural migrate to the class that has the dump stat that they want to dump.
2. The only way you can "dump" a stat is by point buy. When you roll stats you are stuck with what you rolled. You might choose to place the scores where you want to but you can not be blamed for what the scores are since you had no practical control over what they would be.
As such "dump stats" themselves are subjective, and biased by class and method of character creation.
If you don't want "dump stats" then roll the dice instead of point buy character creation.
I roll 16,18,14,10,8, and 4. I'm a barbarian.
Guess what stat that 4 is going into?
You can dump stats even when you roll them. The only way to kill dump stats is to make stats universally useful or to disallow players from even choosing what stats their numbers go into.
By that logic way can a wizard with a 7 strength have a strong hand? Or a 7 wisdom Thief insightful? Charisma is a weak stat so lets invent a house rule that says your character is as charming as you want because the RAW doesn't say you can't.
This wasn’t even my argument, it was yours. It's your logic, Fish.
Descriptions are fluff, Cha mods are RAW. Which was shown with half orcs that receive no modifier to Cha and are described as monsterous but dwarves are described as gruff do have a penalty. Both have a charisma based description but only one is modified. Which means descriptions aren't RAW because RAW effects the game [numbers]... That is logical reason.
You are welcome to keep trying, but I am fairly certain you can't recover from bombing your own argument, not to mention your own team, this badly.