Whats the problem?
Describtionsa are Fluff = Describtions aren´t RAW
Thats the same meaning or am I so bad in english now? As I read = They are still not RAW, they are still fluff!
Aren´t RAW = Are Fluff & are not Raw = Are fluff... well yah, you know what I say
.
..
...
....
.....
This thread has TEAMS!
That's.. awesome!
Every thread should have teams!
Can we all get pseudonym?
I call dibs on 'The Accreditor'.
::
BenignFacist is secretly...
Quote: ''I DID THAT!''
Special Attack: Benign Iron Fist Technique
Special Defense: Unconditional Love
Specialty: Enforced Freedom
Weakness: Sad movies
Assets: Our Glorious Nation, BIFTechnology, J.O.Y.
Known Associates: That Fish, That Drunken Tankard Wielding Bard, That FlamingSkull, That Dark Helm Wearing Dude, All citizens of Our Glorious Nation, You, Yo Momma and your little dog to..
Whats the problem?
Describtionsa are Fluff = Describtions aren´t RAW
Thats the same meaning or am I so bad in english now? As I read = They are still not RAW, they are still fluff!
Aren´t RAW = Are Fluff & are not Raw = Are fluff... well yah, you know what I say
Either you take into account all the descriptions/fluff with RAW, or you discount all the descriptions/fluff as non-RAW. People are saying that a 7 CHA character can't be "described" as handsome because it is against the RAW description of the CHA stat. But then faced with the descriptions of other races and creatures in relation to their CHA they say, oh no, that is just a fluff description it has no bearing on RAW. Well if that's the case they they should have no argument about the handsome "fluff" description of a PC. Furthermore as Ash pointed out the very "description" of the CHA stat they they are using to discount other descriptions is also fluff.
So you have a couple of options.
1) Take in all fluff and descriptions with number data to determine RAW. In this case the 7 CHA character who is "handsome" is perfectly valid.
2) Separate descriptions as FLUFF and numbers as RAW. In this case the 7 CHA character who is "handsome" is again perfectly valid.
Either way, argument = bombed.
This thread has TEAMS!
Of course there are teams. And if I am not among your associates I will be forced to attack you with movies like “Bridge to Terabithia” and “Road to Perdition” since I now know your weakness.
This thread has TEAMS!Of course there are teams. And if I am not among your associates I will be forced to attack you with movies like “Bridge to Terabithia” and “Road to Perdition” since I now know your weakness.
In that case, does Grave of the Fireflies count as a SOD?
!! What! Seriously?!
*Turns around*! GUYS! MOnk with 7 Charisma got TEH internezz! UGLIES WON! Wohoo
Holds out his laptop in simba-style!
<indignant>I'll have you know my charisma is firmly in the 8 range!
Which means I'm prettier than you.</indignant>
Actually, if you were prepared to share those cookies, your Charisma would immediately double to a 16 in my book. Of course, the act of sharing might be considered ranks in the Diplomacy skill rather than the raw stat. Whichever, it would be a powerful attack against someone like me. My stat box would definitely include vulnerability to cookies.
In that case, does Grave of the Fireflies count as a SOD?This thread has TEAMS!Of course there are teams. And if I am not among your associates I will be forced to attack you with movies like “Bridge to Terabithia” and “Road to Perdition” since I now know your weakness.
Unfortunately I have yet to see that one.
Sorry, I did not see "g*+~+%n" as that big of a thing.
Yet, “pissing me off,” was cause for concern? They are both swear-words are they not?
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.
Absolutely. In fact, I think, the majority of it should boil down to the RP scenario in which you meat a particular NPC.
I mean, when you are on the side of the road with a flat tire, do you turn ugly guy who stops to help you away? “I’m sorry, you must be at least *this beautiful * to change this tire.” Um… NO! You say “thank you” and count your lucky stars that someone actually cared enough to stop and help you rather than just keep driving.
When your car stalls in the middle of the street do you turn away the skinny kid who runs up to help you push it off the road? “Nope, sorry kid, you look weak. I really don’t need you, just get back in your own car and drive away please. Seriously, stop looking at me like you are stupid and go away shrimp.”
Sure, if you need someone to seduce the Emperor’s daughter you send the high CHA guy with high social skills. But, that is just a matter of mechanics and numbers, there is no RAW that lays out specific guidelines of how those numbers have to be addressed in RP. Then again, the high CHA guy might not be the guy with the highest social skill. He certainly may not be the one with the highest chance of seducing the princess. A 10 CHA Rogue might be a whole lot better at seduction than the 20 CHA Sorcerer (not accounting for Enchantment spells). And he is almost certainly more likely to seduce a princess than the 16 CHA LG Paladin. She might just not be into taking 20 CHA Half-Orc Bards into her bed, but she might like the 10 CHA Human Rogue. Who knows, people are weird like that sometimes.
Prude. :pSorry, I did not see "g@##*&n" as that big of a thing.Yet, “pissing me off,” was cause for concern? They are both swear-words are they not?
I'm just saying, if you're going to start calling people out, at least call everyone out equally.
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.
And do you have any actual rules or examples to back this up or is it just your opinion?
So what effects the initial impression of a character, other than circumstance.
Usually the RP scenario that is setting the stage, at least in most games I have played in. I have not often seen an adventurer who is judged heavily by their looks, if they are it is usually due to race not physical attractiveness.
Yes. And if your character has a low Charisma score, you don't think that would effect how people view them?
Sure, by affecting their social skills. Beyond that there is no RAW.
People want a dump stat without consequences.
I would be fully prepared to accept the consequences of negative modifiers, but what you are talking about goes way above and beyond that.
It effects a lot if you role play as much as you roll play.
* 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."
Actually it affects exactly what it says it affects, and nowhere in there is “first impressions” a part of CHA.
I don't disagree about not having to be "ugly". But you do have to be unattractive.
There is nothing in the books that indicate low CHA = unattractive, and actually there are many examples that directly oppose your assumption.
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.
So it’s ok to describe low CHA as “naturally unsettling” but it is wrong to describe it as “socially stupid,” that doesn’t make much sense to me. Unsettling doesn’t mean unattractive.
My point of emphasis is that playing a character with low charisma should have an in game effect.
You mean like the ones already associated with low CHA in RAW?
If you want to be gorgeous and annoying, fine.
Then what is your argument exactly? This is basically the same description as the character that started this whole thread. You are arguing against yourself, saying “you don’t have to be ugly. But you do have to be unattractive.” Now you are saying “If you want to be gorgeous and annoying, fine.” What exactly is your argument?
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'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?
eyeroll
The point was that NPCs in APs are given a flat 10 CHA and yet still “beautiful,” “cute,” “pretty,” and “handsome” in their descriptions which have nothing to do with artist rendered pictures. So even the writers employed by PF and the designers of PF don’t agree with you, how then can you claim that is how the game should be played?
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.
And yet, mechanically speaking, by RAW the smelly kid with high social skills could be more well liked than the pretty, polite guy with no social skills. The smelly kid will have to work a little harder to get there, but the numbers say he can do it.
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.
Interesting, do you also tell your high CHA, ugly friends with great personalities, not to chase the women away when you walk into a bar? Yes, usually the high CHA guy is the face of the party, that by no means that the low CHA guys have to be treated like pariahs everywhere they go in public. Not only does that sound like a dick-ish way to GM, but there is no RAW to back it up.
Some have argued that you should be able to overcome all aspects of negative charisma through skill points.
You mean -2 to CHA based skills and checks that represent trying to influence others? Well by numbers you can, to an extent. And with a 7 CHA, even a shear CHA check is still only at -2. Yes it is a penalty; yes you can partially overcome it, but never entirely. There is no need to start dictating how someone’s character must look according to your opinion. At the end of the encounter it’s still the numbers that matter. If you RP your character as a handsome person but your -2 CHA mod just isn’t doing it for the bar wench then guess what, “she just isn’t into you.” It happens. No need to say, “Sorry man, she doesn’t like fugly guys.”
Casting a spell to increase your strength isn't the same as overcoming low strength with skill points.
Maybe not but a character with a 7 STR who puts 10 ranks in Climb, Swim, and Acrobatics (yes I know this is DEX based but I mention it for Jump which used to be based on STR) can most certainly call himself “athletic;” or is he forever doomed to be frail due to his low STR? Social skills will not help in a situation where a straight CHA check is needed, but there is no reason that a low CHA person who has put numerous effort and ranks into Diplomacy, Perform, and maybe Bluff cannot call himself “dashing.” And Handsome is really just saying he is attractive to some degree, no one is calling him an Adonis. Also I reiterate there is no RAW that says low CHA = unattractive.
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. G&!+*#n.
Just to be argumentative, Prof, I've got to differ on some of your "facts".
I will concede that physical attractiveness is subjective within the human species to a point, but only to a point. While certainly almost everyone will differ somewhat in what they find attractive (I personally prefer tall, slender brunettes with long, dark hair, blue eyes and legs that run for miles), within any particular culture norms develop around what is considered physically attractive, and these norms track pretty consistently across the majority of respondents.
As for strength, that is not quite as objective as you represent. Weightlifting is a bad example, as that measures static strength, rather than dynamic strength. I view PF/D&D strength as far more akin to dynamic strength, which is harder, but not impossible, to quantify. That's why the guys with the best weightroom performance frequently can't translate that performance onto the field.
As for Constitution, while that is very objective and clear cut within the game, it is virtually impossible to define in real life. For example, ask any doctor and they will tell you it is impossible to predict how long any terminal cancer patient will last, whether they are a fit, toughened professional athlete or a 90-pound weakling computer geek who faints at the sight of blood.
There must be some connection with the numer on the paper.
You mean like the Night Hag who is repulsive but still has a 17 CHA, or a Half-Orc with a 20 CHA but, let’s face it, is still a Half-Orc.
I have no problem with ugly people having an astounding charisma score due to personality, ability to lead and personal magnetism.
Way to set a double standard. So it's ok for high CHA people to be really ugly with a winning personality, but if they want to be handsome and socially inept you put your foot down?
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.
Actually there are no rules regarding first impressions.
Charisma score and circumstance modifiers could perhaps give an inkling?
Sure maybe, to the tune of a mechanical –X modifier, not the NPC saying “Dear gods you are an ugly pathetic creature.”
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.
Okay, sure… if they’re looking at you as a potential fornication partner, but as a social acquaintance or a hired adventurer? I have heard that exact phrase used numerous times when even a moderately attractive female walks by who happens to have an amazing butt. I have heard it used in reference to girls I considered very unattractive but had a nice body. You don’t have to be amazingly beautiful for people to say that kind of stuff about you. In some cases you don’t need to be pretty at all. When someone says that, they aren’t looking at the whole person, they are generally looking at one or two specific areas of that person’s body. No one is saying the 7 CHA guy should look like a god of beauty; they said he should be able to be described as handsome. Are you really arguing that all 7 CHA people should look like Quasimodo and it should negatively impact their ability to function in society? Do all 7 CON people need to have leprosy also? Do all 7 DEX guys need to trip all over themselves every time they are in public? Do all 7 STR guys have to look like anorexic skeletons? Do all 7 INT guys need help tying their own shoes and have a wooden plaque with their name carved on it hung around their necks? And, you know, if all 20 INT / 7 WIS guys lacked the “will power” to accomplish anything our scientific advancement would be at a much lower level.
I gather that you disagree.
What do you disagree with?
That charisma should be a part of how well you present to others?
Not at all, CHA definitely comes into play, via the NUMBERS. I disagree that all low CHA characters must play ugly people that will never have companionship.
Also keep in mind that, while appearance is one aspect of CHA, the CHA stat in general is a “mental stat” not a “physical stat.” This is indicated by spells like Polymorph and Alter Self which completely change your physical appearance and can have some effects on your physical stats, but do not change your CHA, which so many people are claiming is directly tied to your looks, while other spells that do change your CHA do not change your looks. The fact that CHA is a “mental stat” is solidified in the aging rules where it says you will receive penalties to your physical stats and bonuses to your mental stats as you age, CHA is listed among the mental stats.
Actually wrong :D
Half-Orc with 20 CHA is damn sexy / handsome (female / male) = you just have to take a feat for it :P "APG = You are representing more human than orc or mix of these two race"
Lots of stuff, including reposting the Core Rulebook definition of Charisma
Just noticed something in the definition:
"* 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 strikes me that if the uses of Charisma were confined only to the skills listed in the first point, which are Charisma-based, then the second point would be entirely redundant and unnecessary. Seems clear to me that the designers at least envisioned the possibility of making "checks" using the raw ability score, rather than Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. If all social interactions can be captured by the skills listed in the first point, why even include the second point?
Sigfried will never on his own be capable of using Use Magic Device, and he has to use skill points to make up some of his differences with social skills, and he's not going to rival a bard, paladin, sorcerer, or even a cleric at those sorts of things. He will get good at social skills so he can be dashing and suave. Using the tools given by the game mechanics.
And, here is the problem - at least for me.
This whole debate about ugly vs. not is (to me) missing the point -- the point is the difference between something passive and active. Someone with a low charisma is going to be inherently unlikable, whether that's because they're ugly, shifty-looking or just have a manner about them that makes you want to slap them upside the head is irrelevant. What's relevant is that this unlikability is sensed by others (otherwise, he wouldn't have the negative modifier).
Seriously, he's got a 7 charisma with skill ranks. He's not suave and dashing any more than the guy with 7 strength with ranks in swim and climb has become toned or athletic. He's like the high-funcrioning autistic who's learned social skills - there's still something "off" about him, but he can, when he thinks about what he's doing, have useful social interaction.
If he's got ranks in Bluff, he's become a better liar.
If he's got ranks in Diplomacy, he has become *persuasive* and has *learned* the rules of etiqutette.
Neither of those learned skills have taught him to carry himself properly, or how to look less creepy, or whatever it is that penalized his charisma score (including, possibly, being ugly, but that's not the important bits). He doesn't suddently gain a sparkle in his eye, the ability to carry himself with a confident manner, etc... he's just learned how to either lie to or manipulate people. He's not warmer, or more glib, or any of these things. He's just a better liar and/or better at negotiating.
Two two are assuredly not the same, nor should they be. It's a false equivalency. As I said in my original post, the problem with this approach is that skills are *active* -- you need to actually *use* them in order to have an effect. [The fact that there's almost no mechanical difference is a flaw with the system that people are exploiting, nothing more.]
Initial impressions of NPCs are going to be based on a person's reputation and their (always on) charisma -- because they haven't yet spent a full minute in which you (actively) try to overcome your social awkwardness. [And yes, these rules used to exist - the fact that they seem to have fallen out of PF (and possibly 3e, I'd have to go look) is a bad thing..]
.
..
...
....
.....
*cruel abuse of weaknesses*
Lots of stuff, including reposting the Core Rulebook definition of CharismaJust noticed something in the definition:
"* 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 strikes me that if the uses of Charisma were confined only to the skills listed in the first point, which are Charisma-based, then the second point would be entirely redundant and unnecessary. Seems clear to me that the designers at least envisioned the possibility of making "checks" using the raw ability score, rather than Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. If all social interactions can be captured by the skills listed in the first point, why even include the second point?
I had noticed that as well. And I believe it is there for a purpose, not simply for redundancy. I think if you are trying to "influence" an NPC in a manner that falls outside Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Perform or any other social skills than a flat CHA check is possibly appropriate. However, nowhere in that point does it say "first impressions" nor give a system of DCs and CHA checks to see how well you are liked by random acquaintances in town, and it is specifically for “influencing” people.
Thank you, now I can retract my "cruel" use of sad movies.
Lots of stuff, including reposting the Core Rulebook definition of CharismaJust noticed something in the definition:
"* 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 strikes me that if the uses of Charisma were confined only to the skills listed in the first point, which are Charisma-based, then the second point would be entirely redundant and unnecessary. Seems clear to me that the designers at least envisioned the possibility of making "checks" using the raw ability score, rather than Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. If all social interactions can be captured by the skills listed in the first point, why even include the second point?
I had noticed that as well. And I believe it is there for a purpose, not simply for redundancy. I think if you are trying to "influence" an NPC in a manner that falls outside Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Perform or any other social skills than a flat CHA check is possibly appropriate. However, nowhere in that point does it say "first impressions" nor give a system of DCs and CHA checks to see how well you are liked by random acquaintances in town, and it is specifically for “influencing” people.
I see your point that it isn't specifically addressed. No examples are given as to what they were thinking with regard to that second point. Therefore, in my mind, at least, that leaves the door open to a lot of different things, including using the raw Charisma score for some sort of simulation of first impressions, such as setting the initial attitude of an NPC, as I and a couple of others have suggested as a legitimate use of the raw Charisma score. Saying "the rules don't say you can" is easily countered in situations like this by "the rules don't say you can't", leaving it clearly in the area of GM discretion, like a lot of things.
This whole debate about ugly vs. not is (to me) missing the point -- the point is the difference between something passive and active. Someone with a low charisma is going to be inherently unlikable, whether that's because they're ugly, shifty-looking or just have a manner about them that makes you want to slap them upside the head is irrelevant. What's relevant is that this unlikability is sensed by others (otherwise, he wouldn't have the negative modifier).
Actually, most aspects of your raw Abilities scores are not active either. Seriously, name something that you do with your abilities automatically without some sort of roll or employing some other modifiers.
1) STR: You roll to hit and deal damage with STR, so that's active. You roll for any random STR check, so that's active. About the only thing you do with STR that is passive is cary stuff.
2) DEX: The only passive thing here is AC modifier. DEX checks are rolled and Reflex saves include outside modifiers and are rolled, so they are both active.
3) CON: Nothing about CON is passive. You roll for HP, you roll for FORT saves.
4) INT: The only thing you do passively with INT is gain skill points and bonus spells.
5) WIS: The only thing passive here is gaining bonus spells.
6) CHA: Passive items include gaining bonus spells. Skills are rolled for and "checks to influence people" are rolled for. You sound like you are calling for a static "attitude" DC that simply by walking in you either meet it and they like you or don't meet it and no one wants to give you the time of day. That is simply not how it works by the rules and it's not how any of the other abilities work either. Even if you wanted a straight CHA check to "influence" someone, it is only at a -2, not a -10 OMG you are FUGLY and RUDE and STINK and I can't stand even being in the same room with you. Having a -2 to straight CHA checks doesn't mean all NPCs auto-hate you and go out of their way to walk on the opposite side of the road.
Seriously, he's got a 7 charisma with skill ranks. He's not suave and dashing any more than the guy with 7 strength with ranks in swim and climb has become toned or athletic. He's like the high-funcrioning autistic who's learned social skills - there's still something "off" about him, but he can, when he thinks about what he's doing, have useful social interaction.
Really? If a 7 STR guy puts 10 ranks in Climb and Swim and has an 18 CON goes up against an 18 STR guy who has no ranks in Climb or Swim and has a 7 CON, who is more "athletic?" My money would be on the low STR guy who invested time and effort into Climbing and Swimming and who can perform those things for longer periods of time because he has a high CON. And if it comes down to a test of combat it's a toss up who would win. Assuming they both had equal amounts of training and got into a fist-fight, the high STR guy would hit harder and more frequently, but the high CON guy can take the punishment. The guy with lower CON is more likely to fall down first. I would say the low STR high CON guy is more athletic.
If he's got ranks in Bluff, he's become a better liar.
If he's got ranks in Diplomacy, he has become *persuasive* and has *learned* the rules of etiqutette.
Neither of those learned skills have taught him to carry himself properly, or how to look less creepy, or whatever it is that penalized his charisma score (including, possibly, being ugly, but that's not the important bits). He doesn't suddently gain a sparkle in his eye, the ability to carry himself with a confident manner, etc... he's just learned how to either lie to or manipulate people. He's not warmer, or more glib, or any of these things. He's just a better liar and/or better at negotiating.
Two two are assuredly not the same, nor should they be. It's a false equivalency. As I said in my original post, the problem with this approach is that skills are *active* -- you need to actually *use* them in order to have an effect. [The fact that there's almost no mechanical difference is a flaw with the system that people are exploiting, nothing more.]
Initial impressions of NPCs are going to be based on a person's reputation and their (always on) charisma -- because they haven't yet spent a full minute in which you (actively) try to overcome your social awkwardness. [And yes, these rules used to exist - the fact that they seem to have fallen out of PF (and possibly 3e, I'd have to go look) is a bad thing..]
Which, should all be handled in game with RP and rolls, not by pre-determining based on non-existent RAW and opinion that all NPCs will auto-dislike this PC because he has a low CHA. And again, CHA is not active by RAW, even straight CHA checks to influence people have no RAW bearing on how people initially react to you as you first approach them. It is a ROLL and it is specifically to influence people, there is nothing passive about that.
Various arguments still going on but here goes.
Objective vs Subjective-Ability scores are composed of objective measures (how much can a PC lift) and subjective measures (how intuitive is the PC). Each and every one of the Ability scores has at least some elements to them that are purely subjective in nature. Many of those include factors that can't be objectively measured in real life (although social scientists like myself certainly try on occasion ;)).
However because Pathfinder and D&D are games they have gamist constructs that place Strength 12 as superior to Strength 10 or Wisdom 14 is superior to Wisdom 12. Inherent in that is an objective (albeit somewhat unrealistic) measure of an individual as a number. From a purely objective level someone with a score of 12 is better than someone with a score of 10 in anything that stat measures.
Charisma as a social and game construct- I think everyone agrees that Charisma includes various factors that contribute to this measurement. The contention is largely that about what factors are included. Some people indicate that appearance (including physical attractiveness) should be included and others feel that physical appearance is purely fluff and should not be represented via game mechanics. I think there are merits to either approach.
However it's pretty clear both from the fluff description of Charisma as a stat and various trait modifiers such as charming that attractiveness at least functions as a modifier to the base Charisma score.
Uneven factors contributing to an ability score- One of the suggestions put forth in this thread has been that an ability score is the average of a bunch of unlisted factors. Thus even a low charisma PC could be attractive but have other factors that average out that stat.
In truth this approach has a lot of merit. I venture that everyone of us knows someone who is very attractive or very unattractive yet once you get to know them your opinion of them changes dramatically.
However from a purely gamist approach this comes painful close to encouraging subheadings under stats. For instance:
Charisma might have Leadership, Manipulation, and Appearance Intelligence might have Logic, Education, Mechanical Aptitude.
If I argue that my low Charisma character has a great appearance why is that not reflected in my social interactions? Do I get freebie hookups at the general store? Do I have eligible men or women or both actively pursuing me for romantic liasons?
I'm not sure that operationalizing this stuff into game mechanics is the best solution however.
Possible explanation of high Charisma Ugly Monsters-One of the criticism is why are there high charisma creatures that are ugly according to human standards of beauty?
One possible rationalization is that these high charisma creatures are completely average for their racial standard of beauty. A 17 charisma Aboleth is perfectly average and unremarkable. A 15 Charisma Aboleth is deformed in some way displeasing to aboleths and a 19 charisma Aboleth is more attractive is some way (maybe a nice alien pattern on the skin?). In some cases racial standards of beauty are in synch (demihumans in particular) but in some cases they aren't. That isn't to say that those alternative races can't measure beauty in a subjective but still quantifiable manner.
Conclusion-This whole thread has been filled with a massive amount of wankery. Some people are tired with players always dumping charisma and want a theoretical reason to discourage this type of behavior. Others don't really like the prospect of double penalties even though it's been shown that the actual impact of a charisma penalty on most social skills is vanishingly small due to the mechanics of the skill system.
Honestly I see strengths and weaknesses in either approach. I don't really care for the sheer amount of "You're doing it wrong" or "That's Badwrongfun". The simple fact of the matter is that what is appropriate is highly dependent on each individual group. For some groups having the charisma score inform attractiveness if a valid approach, for others it's anathema to player control. Unless we are talking about organized play (which should have some general guidelines for adjudicating social encounters) then what happens in someone's else's group doesn't really matter unless you wish to borrow ideas from them in order to adjust gameplay to better fit a desired style of play.
So keep on throwing out ideas but seriously don't really expect the heathens to see the light. Experience pretty much shows that isn't happening :D
I see your point that it isn't specifically addressed. No examples are given as to what they were thinking with regard to that second point. Therefore, in my mind, at least, that leaves the door open to a lot of different things, including using the raw Charisma score for some sort of simulation of first impressions, such as setting the initial attitude of an NPC, as I and a couple of others have suggested as a legitimate use of the raw Charisma score. Saying "the rules don't say you can" is easily countered in situations like this by "the rules don't say you can't", leaving it clearly in the area of GM discretion, like a lot of things.
I agree that there is a lot in that one point that would be left to DM interpretation. I am not sure the point could be clearly or successfully argued either way. With that, I have two points:
1) It says you use the CHA check to influence people. Some first meetings should be considered influential encounters, others should not. I would not make every NPC in every town dislike a PC just because he had a 7 CHA any more than I would make every NPC in every town mock a 7 STR PC for being weak and puny.
2) How do two 7 CHA guys feel about each other? Do they both dislike each other equally as much as others dislike them? Or do they find dislikable things to like about each other?
:::EDIT:::
Some Enchantment spells (and planar bindings) have charisma checks to impose your will on the target creature
Good catch.
Some Enchantment spells (and planar bindings) have charisma checks to impose your will on the target creatureLots of stuff, including reposting the Core Rulebook definition of CharismaJust noticed something in the definition:
"* 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 strikes me that if the uses of Charisma were confined only to the skills listed in the first point, which are Charisma-based, then the second point would be entirely redundant and unnecessary. Seems clear to me that the designers at least envisioned the possibility of making "checks" using the raw ability score, rather than Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. If all social interactions can be captured by the skills listed in the first point, why even include the second point?
Good point and good example, but I kind of doubt that is the entiety of what could be covered by the second point.
Raw Ability checks are generally supposed to handle ad-hoc applications of the ability.
Functionally they are equivalent to an untrained skill check. Breaking stuff with a strength check has some additional rules but functionally it's an untrained [Breaking Stuff] skill check.
I guess it just depends on when you'd use an ad-hoc application of charisma. I think first impressions is a possibly valid ad-hoc application of charisma but others might disagree. They might prefer that to be a passive function of diplomacy.
Mind control or maybe thought reading might be another application where the raw charisma score is used against a set DC.
Honestly it's meant to handle all those areas where mechanics haven't been already operationalized which is admittedly pretty small in regards to 3.x ;)
I agree with Shadowlord on pretty much everything.
Likewise, with the 3.x/PF systems we have an amazingly effective core mechanic that you can default to if something isn't specifically written out. It's the whole point of having a unified mechanic. If someone decides that they want to do something not defined under the skill lists, such as run across a wall, then you could set it as an Acrobatics check, and then set the DC of the check based on the standards of the system (5 = Easy, 10 = Fair, 15 = Difficult, 20 = Hard, 25 = Extremely Hard, etc).
I had a player just recently who has a very high strength. His carrying capacity is quite amazing, but he wanted to ignore the DC to break through an old door because "I can drag this much, so I'm really strong, and I shouldn't have to roll against the door". I told him he was welcome to take 10, but taking 10 wasn't good enough, so he ended up rolling to break through the door (he could have also smashed it with his weapon).
If someone came into a bar and said "I'm going to woo that fair lady. I'm handsome so I don't have to roll", I'd give them the same option. Either take 10 on a Diplomacy check or roll it. Now, taking 10 (with no ranks) means that the best he's going to do is not piss her off, and that's assuming she too has a fairly low Charisma (to lower the DC), whereas taking 10 if she has an average Charisma will probably just make her angry (he would automatically fail by 5). So he has to roll it. Maybe he's handsome, but he rubbed her the wrong way in his approach. Maybe next time. (Somehow Zap Branigan comes to mind...)
Now, even if I were to make a house rule to determine an NPC's initial attitude towards a player character*, I would continue to follow this unified mechanic preset, so such an odd check wouldn't be a passive thing, especially for a mental stat.
*: I wouldn't make a house rule that used Charisma as a passive or active condition for setting initial NPC attitudes because it's counter intuitive. The #1 thing that seems logical in determining an NPC's initial attitude is circumstances, whereas this would have to trump circumstances to have any effect at all. The #2 thing that seems illogical is that things that already provide circumstantial benefits or drawbacks to social interactions provide bonuses an penalties to Diplomacy and other skill checks. We can view this precedent as with the case of items like Parade Armor (+2 Diplomacy) and Courtier's Clothing (you get a -2 penalty on Charisma-based skill when dealing with Nobility if you're not wearing such clothes).
Likewise, it would be very odd if two adventurers walked up to someone, and the guy was like "I don't want to talk to you, I want to talk to your friend here, because I like him more" prior to any interaction of the sort. Even if they were both disguised (with disguise self looks don't matter), this would be the case. That just seems stupid to me. Likewise, I would expect someone who makes such snap judgements of people to have a particularly bad Sense Motive, and likely no friends, since the people he does like probably dislike him due to his own low charisma - since he's probably got a dirt-poor charisma if he acts like this - and he won't associate with low charisma people so this NPC is a sad and lonely man. However, now ALL NPCs are like this.
Here's some examples of how I'd consider running a social encounter.
|
Uneven factors contributing to an ability score- One of the suggestions put forth in this thread has been that an ability score is the average of a bunch of unlisted factors. Thus even a low charisma PC could be attractive but have other factors that average out that stat.
In truth this approach has a lot of merit. I venture that everyone of us knows someone who is very attractive or very unattractive yet once you get to know them your opinion of them changes dramatically.
However from a purely gamist approach this comes painful close to encouraging subheadings under stats. For instance:
Charisma might have Leadership, Manipulation, and Appearance Intelligence might have Logic, Education, Mechanical Aptitude.
If I argue that my low Charisma character has a great appearance why is that not reflected in my social interactions? Do I get freebie hookups at the general store? Do I have eligible men or women or both actively pursuing me for romantic liasons?
I'm not sure that operationalizing this stuff into game mechanics is the best solution however.
The numbers are assigned in this thread as an example spelled out in numbers of what we are talking about.
One dude has a low charisma, and is actually quite nice looking and a good enough guy, but just so shy you never notice him. When he does talk he has a nervous stutter and frequently you are so impatient for him to get a thought out, conversation becomes a real chore.
Another guy is just gruff and impatient with "civilization". He hates everyday pleasantries and will go out of his way to be rude to make people he's uninterested in go away as soon as possible.
Yet another dude is hilariously funny, and great fun at parties - if you're not standing anywhere near him. His personal hygiene should be considered a crime against humanity. it's odd he's so clueless how offensive his presence is, becuase in so many other ways he's a sharp guy.
What we're arguing is that players should be able to choose how their character's low charisma manifests. This should not be imposed on the players by DM fiat. The only thing the players control is their character. Let them choose the way their high and low scores manifest.
As there are no rules interaction with these conceptual "sub scores", there's no reason to really quantify them - except to serve as a concrete example of what we're talking about conceptually. For all intents and purposes, when any check involving charisma is called for, the penalty to the character's charisma score will come into play.
|
Lots of stuff, including reposting the Core Rulebook definition of CharismaJust noticed something in the definition:
"* 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 strikes me that if the uses of Charisma were confined only to the skills listed in the first point, which are Charisma-based, then the second point would be entirely redundant and unnecessary. Seems clear to me that the designers at least envisioned the possibility of making "checks" using the raw ability score, rather than Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. If all social interactions can be captured by the skills listed in the first point, why even include the second point?
I had noticed that as well. And I believe it is there for a purpose, not simply for redundancy. I think if you are trying to "influence" an NPC in a manner that falls outside Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Perform or any other social skills than a flat CHA check is possibly appropriate. However, nowhere in that point does it say "first impressions" nor give a system of DCs and CHA checks to see how well you are liked by random acquaintances in town, and it is specifically for “influencing” people.
Wait, you are arguing that if it falls outside of the skills use a Cha check, except first impressions.
Because first impressions falls outside of the skill checks, since diplomacy specifically says to change initial impressions.
|
|
Lots of stuff
If you have a low Charisma score, your charisma is low.
Skills are things you learn to improve natural abilities. The strength examples you gave do not improve the characters strength. They allow them to do things well despite not being as naturally gifted at them.
Having a higher swim check doesn't make you stronger. It makes you a better swimmer for someone with your strength.
I have been clear that it isn't specifically pretty or ugly. It is attractive or unattractive.
Do you attract people to follow you (leadership)
Do you attract people to be for your cause.
Do you attract the energies around you to the point you can channel it (all of the charisma based casters)
High Charisma means you have a "personal magnetism", the "ability to lead, and your "appearance" and "personality" make people like you, or at least fear upsetting you. Your very will to make things happen, makes things happen. In a literal sense with casting and channeling.
If you have a low Charisma, you lack these things. I don't care how you describe yourself with the blues eyes or the grey eyes, or whatever. What matters is how people perceive you.
And negative Charisma means you don't have the above qualities. It means people aren't "attracted" to you, but are repelled by you UNLESS you are able to overcome it by some other means.
Kind of like being a weakling makes it hard to swim, and makes you take penalties to attack.
Why are people making this so complicated?
Here's a question for you Tilnar. Is strength always on? (With the exception of the seldom-used encumbrance rules.) How about dexterity, what's the constant effect of dexterity? Wisdom maybe? These things generally only take effect when you need to use a related check.
Well, being someone who makes use of those carrying rules, that would be a good first point -- But since noone plays with those pesky rules (do you get a lot of small races then, since the 75% thing doesn't matter??), then, I would point out that the STR bonus to damage is always on - every time you hit something, you inflict extra punishment for the hit.
Dex, I would point out that spiffy AC bonus that kicks in whenever you're mobile and aware.
*ALL* of the Con bonuses are always active (eg - the HP, the fort save) -- unless you think that you somehow "activate" these somehow every morning?
All of these things are things that kick in automatically - no skill roll required.
I really didn't think the use of the word "passive" to mean "something you don't need to activate" was such a poor way of explaining the difference... but since I've been asked about it like 3 times, I guess not?
But... if Charisma doesn't tell us how sexy someone (something) is, how will I know which wenches are worth wenching? C'mon people, let's not leave tradition behind!
600+ posts.
About Charisma. And ugly people.
Charisma gets more love on these forums than in the rules :)
Wait, you are arguing that if it falls outside of the skills use a Cha check, except first impressions.
Because first impressions falls outside of the skill checks, since diplomacy specifically says to change initial impressions.
I am arguing that, "Checks that represent attempts to influence others," says what it says, and nothing more. It is a check to "influence" people in a manner that somehow falls outside normal social skills. That said, the concept of "initial attitude" is never mentioned anywhere here. The only place it is mentioned is in the Diplomacy skill. Now, if you decide that you want "initial attitudes" of all your NPCs based on the CHA scores of your PCs that is your business, but it's a house-rule not spelled out by any rules in the book. If you wanted a mechanic for "initial impressions" a straight CHA check would probably be appropriate. However since there are no rules for it, I could just as correctly assume that most, if not all, "initial attitudes" are defined by situation and scenario (IE: Enemies are Hostile, certain individuals might be Unfriendly, most people are Indifferent, very few individuals would start off Friendly, and pretty much only family and close friends would be Helpful) and leave any basic CHA checks out of it.
I already stated my opinion of first impressions via CHA checks above:
It says you use the CHA check to influence people. Some first meetings should be considered influential encounters, others should not. I would not make every NPC in every town dislike a PC just because he had a 7 CHA any more than I would make every NPC in every town mock a 7 STR PC for being weak and puny.
I am not arguing that, if used, an "initial impression" could not appropriately fall into the CHA check category. I am arguing that there are no rules and no mechanic for "initial impression." The only place it is mentioned is in Diplomacy, not in the CHA ability description. In light of that it is my opinion that "initial impressions" should probably be largely determined by the RP situation and scenario.
If you have a low Charisma score, your charisma is low.
Skills are things you learn to improve natural abilities. The strength examples you gave do not improve the characters strength. They allow them to do things well despite not being as naturally gifted at them.
Having a higher swim check doesn't make you stronger. It makes you a better swimmer for someone with your strength.
I have been clear that it isn't specifically pretty or ugly. It is attractive or unattractive.
Do you attract people to follow you (leadership)
Do you attract people to be for your cause.
Do you attract the energies around you to the point you can channel it (all of the charisma based casters)High Charisma means you have a "personal magnetism", the "ability to lead, and your "appearance" and "personality" make people like you, or at least fear upsetting you. Your very will to make things happen, makes things happen. In a literal sense with casting and channeling.
If you have a low Charisma, you lack these things. I don't care how you describe yourself with the blues eyes or the grey eyes, or whatever. What matters is how people perceive you.
And negative Charisma means you don't have the above qualities. It means people aren't "attracted" to you, but are repelled by you UNLESS you are able to overcome it by some other means.
Kind of like being a weakling makes it hard to swim, and makes you take penalties to attack.
Why are people making this so complicated?
I don't have any argument with what you are saying here. Except that not all low CHA people have to repel others or be otherwise repulsive, rather some could be thought of as simply un-noteworthy or someone easily forgettable and overlooked for one reason or another. They don't have to be actively repellant to other sentient creatures. Like you said, it doesn’t really matter how it’s described as long as the numbers remain the same and you make some attempt to RP those numbers. Doesn’t mean that all low CHA people are “X” it just means that people don’t generally respond well to a low CHA person for one reason or another, TBD by RP.
Well, being someone who makes use of those carrying rules, that would be a good first point -- But since noone plays with those pesky rules (do you get a lot of small races then, since the 75% thing doesn't matter??), then, I would point out that the STR bonus to damage is always on - every time you hit something, you inflict extra punishment for the hit.
On a side note, small characters can actually carry more of what actually matters to them. Items for small sized characters cost the same but weight 1/2 as much, but small characters carry 75% as much as medium size characters, so you're actually able to carry more small-sized gear than a medium character can carry medium size gear. I also DO use encumbrance rules (which is why my players typically invest in mules, ponies, oxen, and other methods of carrying large amounts of equipment, loot, and so forth - especially when they come across about 800 pounds of copper pieces, which is 400 gp).
Likewise, I would like to point out that Charisma is always on, because every time you make a social check, Charisma adds to the chance of success, in the same way that Strength is always on in that it passive modifies the effects of a melee weapon attack.
Likewise, Charisma is only a dumps-stat for characters that don't use it much, just like Strength is the dump stat for most wizards and sorcerers (if you're in melee, a high strength isn't going to help you as a typical wizard or sorcerer, getting out of melee might). Meanwhile, for Fighters, Strength is arguably the best stat you can get (and still very useful even if you're an archery based fighter) because it suits your class.
Charisma provides few benefits for many classes, but also provides few penalties for most classes. However, in the same way that a Strength deprived Fighter will be very sad, a Charisma deprived Sorcerer will be very sad.
Meanwhile, the classes that do receive more benefits from Charisma usually receive them in spades. Paladins lack the martial prowess of the Fighter, but Divine Grace is amazing (easily equating to a +10 untyped bonus to all saving throws by 20th level), Smite Evil in Pathfinder is devastating, Lay on Hands is like having a higher Constitution because a Charisma focused Paladin can spend a swift action to heal themselves for some Xd6 damage and also remove a variety of nasty status effects, they receive bonus spells for a high score (it's kind of nice to be able to turn any weapon you wield into a +5 holy weapon on command).
Now imagine for a moment that the same Paladin could get all of these awesome benefits for pumping it all into Strength. People would cry foul. I see no Paladins dumping Charisma because they get far more benefit out of it than your typical fighter, rogue, or wizard, but the classes that do benefit from it benefit from it in spades. Likewise, it means they're naturally gifted at interacting with people, just like a strong fighter is naturally gifted and swimming or climbing.
The problem I'm seeing here with the "Charisma is weaksauce" commentary is you're looking at classes like Fighters and saying "he should have to have a high charisma too if he doesn't want to suck", and it would seem that they also think wizards must go out of their way to make sure they have a good strength score when an ox is 15 gp and a mule is 8 gp and can carry a crapload of gear.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees a little bit.
Punch would be hostile. Unfriendly is more reasonable.Me personally, because someone suggested a commoner would walk up to a 7 Cha PC and punch him in the face without provocation.
Why are people making this so complicated?
Except they have no reason to be unfriendly to someone they've never met, seen, or interacted with. Upon meeting or interacting, Diplomacy checks may be made. Circumstantial modifiers such as clothing, social class, and so forth are already in the rules as being modifiers to these checks.
Punch would be hostile. Unfriendly is more reasonable.Me personally, because someone suggested a commoner would walk up to a 7 Cha PC and punch him in the face without provocation.
Why are people making this so complicated?
I would say it's far more accurate to think that about 95% of the people you meat from day to day would start out as indifferent. Then based on other things, such as the circumstantial modifiers Ash mentioned and social interactions, may BECOME unfriendly or friendly or whatever.
Ah, I see the problem.
I'm apparently somehow being grouped into some (possibly non-existant) group of people who thinks that a character with 7 charisma is going to be randomly attacked by passerbys and have rocks thrown at them.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. I'm also pretty sure that I said that such a person hadn't been beaten with an ugly stick - but that there would be something "offputting" about them to balance it. And, further, that I even said that reputation was going to be a part of first impressions.
I also didn't say that a warrior with 7 charisma was horribly scarred and incapable of social contact.
What I *did* say is that such a person is a little... off... to the standard commoner, and that no matter how many skill ranks he gets in Diplomacy, he will never be suave and debonair - in the same way that someone who has 12 ranks in swim but a Str of 7 will never be "strong". [Barring, in both cases, these people using their level-based attribute increases, of course.]
And, yes, I'm all for circumstancial bonuses -- I guarantee that if someone's just saved you from being eaten (or worse) by that Ogre over there, you're probably going to find yourself liking them a great deal, regardless of their shifty eyes, scarred complexion or what-have-you.... Of course, if that person is a jerk to you, then their shiny will wear off, too.
I could make additional RL examples (about people "learning" social skills or only being nice when they try [consider "best behaviour" on first dates, for example]), I could talk about rules that used to exist (initial reactions, for instance), I could talk about (as others have) the fact that the description of Charisma clearly states that it is more than "the underlying stat to Diplomacy and Bluff"... but it doesn't seem worth it, since I'll be accused of overpenalizing players, or I'll get attacked for something I didn't say, or...
I'm pretty sure everyone has said everything in this thread at least twice. :)
I think you're right, TOZ.
|
|
And I would say that someone could be considered "suave and debonair" with skill ranks invested in improving his ability to present himself well. I know people that can "turn on" their ability to impress people socially, but their default behavior doesn't fit. So Bob the reasonably good looking but otherwise unnoticable fighter dude with a 7 charisma might come to life at the tavern. He's showing off for the girls, putting a bright face on things, and generally putting forth all the effort he can to be the center of attention. The girls there, if he succeeds on his Diplomacy check, could call him suave and debonair, even though is campmates know that he's usually surly and morose on the adventuring trail, when he's not going out of his way to impress anyone.