|
Ciretose, the thing you have to keep in mind is that the 3.5 guideline you keep referencing is something they deliberately removed from Pathfinder.
Pathfinder cleaned up a lot of rules. The contradiction between the Charm Person spell and the Diplomacy skill is, apparently, one of them. Paizo decided to keep the wording the same in Charm Person even as they removed the guideline you keep referencing. Hence, it seems obvious to me, that they resolved that conflict by going with what the Charm Person spell says.
You can FAQ if you like, but there is no reason to think Diplomacy is the same as seduction.
That would be a Charisma check, like the opposed Charisma check included in the Charm Person if you want them to do something against their nature.
I am arguing against the side that says Charisma is the stat that governs physical beauty while (lilithsthrall) while at the same time arguing with the side that says it doesn't effect any social interactions beyond skill checks...
By your logic, since an intimidate check can make someone act friendly towards you, they temporarily find you dashing...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diplomacy
Definition of DIPLOMACY
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact
Examples of DIPLOMACY
1. She has had a long and distinguished career in diplomacy.
2. The government avoided a war by successfully resolving the issues through diplomacy.
3. This is a situation that calls for tactful diplomacy.
This is completely consistent with the wording of the skill. It is a skill, not a spell. It governs one, specific thing. Negotiation.
It is not the same as a charisma check. It does not replace a charisma check. It is a learned skill, that has effects in specific situations.
Don't like it, raise your Charisma score.
|
|
People should just house rule how they want to play. The whole thing is ridiculous.People do. But that's not the point. You are saying the rules DON'T allow something that the rules actually don't disallow.
Seems like a bunch of people who want to get benefits without penalties.Back to this again. It has been addressed before. All a low ability score gives you -X to things associated with that ability. Nothing dictates how that has to be represented.
The rules don't say you can't use a jump check to make a custard pie. But you can't.
Because the rules don't specifically say that you can replace a charisma check with a diplomacy check doesn't mean you can. In fact, since the rules are very explicit as to when and how you can make a diplomacy check, and what effects it will have on anyone who you make the check against, it pretty clearly says you can't use it in place of a charisma check.
Or to make pie.
No matter how delicious the pie may be.
I really want pie.
|
|
But how will you get someone to bake you a pie? Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Cha-check? :)
I could negotiate a Pie-Making treaty, perhaps in exchange for Cake. But then I would need cake...
Intimidate could force someone to make you pie, if it lasts long enough for cooking the pie. But they may call the cops on you later.
I guess I could try charming a pie maker, but then she may fall in love with me and pie makers are generally pie eaters...big love you know...plus I'm married...awkward...
I think payment for goods and services is the way to go. Or a decent craft pie check :)
|
|
What are you talking about? I've been talking about the relationship between Charm Person and Diplomacy. Last I checked, Charm Person doesn't mention seduction.
Charm person is a spell. Diplomacy is a skill.
I go by the chart from 3.5, you don't.
You want diplomacy to govern what I think is clearly governed only by Charisma checks. I don't know why you would think it governs anything other than what it says. The rules don't say it, the definition of the word doesn't include it...
You have present nothing saying it should govern anything but diplomatic interaction.
|
|
Charm person is a spell. Diplomacy is a skill.So?
I go by the chart from 3.5, you don't.I do when I'm playing 3.5 or when Pathfinder doesn't already have rules which contradict 3.5. Neither is the case here.
You have present nothing saying it should govern anything but diplomatic interaction.Page 93 of the core book, "You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
It's as if you never read the first of these two sentences.
Yes, that is diplomacy. If it also included being friends, you would be right.
But it doesn't, so...
Elixer of Love is treated as Charm Person, except where noted.
Charm Person makes people regard you as a trusted ally and friend (treat as Friendly) and then goes on to give a number of additional benefits that Diplomacy by itself doesn't allow so easily.
For example, charm person allows you to make an opposed charisma check to get them to do something they normally wouldn't, or would be against their nature. Using Diplomacy to get a guard to let you walk into his master's house and loot his stuff would be DC 35 if he was indifferent, or DC 25 if he was friendly. Charm Person just lets you make an opposed Charisma check, despite the huge DC modifiers that doing it without magic would entail.
You could use Diplomacy to seduce someone as well. Making them friendly or helpful, and then begin making requests for physical loving. The DC to try and seduce a married man who was faithful is actually pretty high (likely DC 25, just going by the static modifiers) and you'd probably have no chance at all if he were strong willed (charisma modifier on top of the normal DC) unless you were quite the temptress.
Likewise, you're falling back on trying to say that Diplomacy is irrelevant to anything except negotiations and treaties, which is clearly false in context of the way the game presents it. As we can look throughout the game and see that Friendly means people like you (if only for a while, good impressions perhaps). Likewise we can see that the benefit usually lasts 1-4 hours, but can last any amount of time as per the circumstances (say courting that handsome fellow).
Meanwhile, I never said Diplomacy makes you pretty. You can't argue worth a grain of sand, so you take to strawmanning people and in very blatant and obvious ways. Literally going on about things they haven't said, so either you're malicious or you're very slow on the cognitive scale, since you're either intentionally misrepresenting your opponent's case, or you aren't capable of comprehending it.
As Shadowlord points out, physical appearance is entirely up to the player, along with their other features (such as hair and eye color). Whereas the word "appearance" (not physical appearance), according to dictionary.com is more accurately read as presence and ability to project a desired image, even if the image is false (such as appearing confident even if you're scared).
And before you suggest that I'm arguing against the dictionary on "Diplomacy" and then arguing based on the dictionary on "Appearance", I'm going to go ahead and clarify for everyone reading (I'm sure you will just try to interpret it incorrectly or ignore it like you do). Diplomacy in its context is defined in the rules by how it interacts with the rest of the game. As shown repeatedly throughout the rules (including charm person, elixir of love, and even its use for Gathering Information), Diplomacy is different from "Negotiate Treaty Skill", even though the dictionary definition is closer to the 2nd.
Whereas, we have no such case-defined definition for "appearance" and so we default to its meaning in the english language. To further justify our case, we have multiple examples and citations from within the system that suggest or even prove that not only does Charisma not dictate physical appearance (including a line that says physical appearance is up to the player), but we have multiple instances that suggest that it's blatantly false in that sense. Likewise, we have rules which show that Diplomacy can be used to make friends (you don't need magic to make friends).
Whereas Cirtose keeps saying stuff, but fails to back it up time after time. He goes on to reference 3.5 trying to help his case (I considered doing the same before, but since it had been changed in Pathfinder I never brought it up, because it was no longer relevant, but Shadowlord also handled that part for us), and he was even wrong in the case of 3.5 (are you seriously going to say someone who "wishes you well" isn't a friend, really?). Cirtose doesn't have anything to fall back on, and repeatedly falls to trying to use poor debating to dodge the issues, instead of addressing them.
|
|
Charm person is a spell. Diplomacy is a skill.So?
I go by the chart from 3.5, you don't.I do when I'm playing 3.5 or when Pathfinder doesn't already have rules which contradict 3.5. Neither is the case here.
You have present nothing saying it should govern anything but diplomatic interaction.Page 93 of the core book, "You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
It's as if you never read the first of these two sentences.Yes, that is diplomacy. If it also included being friends, you would be right.
But it doesn't, so...
I've mentioned trusted allies. I've mentioned "friendly". I didn't mention "friends" or "lovers".
Here's an idea, stop having whatever argument you think you are having in whatever solipsistic world you are in and discuss what I've actually said.
If that is where you are drawing the line for what Diplomacy can do, you and I mostly agree. That is not where others are drawing the line, which is the issue.
Because the rules don't specifically say that you can replace a charisma check with a diplomacy check doesn't mean you can. In fact, since the rules are very explicit as to when and how you can make a diplomacy check, and what effects it will have on anyone who you make the check against, it pretty clearly says you can't use it in place of a charisma check.Or to make pie.
No matter how delicious the pie may be.
I really want pie.
You are starting to win me over. Pie would really hit the spot right now.
But I seriously, I see what you mean. If I did well enough on a diplomacy check, then I should be able to convince you to have sex with me. But no matter how well I do on diplomacy check, I won't get you to enjoy it. (Not that I'm a 7 charisma mind you, but I am definitely more Robin Williams than Russel Crowe.)
Having a 7 charisma with diplomacy really shouldn't make you more likable than a first level fighter with at a 10 charisma.
So when the Secretary of State is negotiating treaties, she also could be putting the moves on...
Not at all. I am saying not every Diplomacy check has to represent a cold discussion with someone who doesn't care about you.
Diplomacy can achieve the "friendly" attitude in an NPC. It doesn’t quantify what “friendly” can or cannot represent. It only quantifies what actions someone under the “friendly” condition could be expected to take for the PC.
Charm Person quantifies one possible representation of the "friendly" attitude. Quantification = trusted ally, or friend / Mechanic = "friendly attitude."
Elixer of Love quantifies one more possible representation of the "friendly" attitude. Quantification = infatuation / Mechanic = "friendly attitude."
Did you see the definition of Diplomacy I posted, or is anything that doesn't go with your narrative out of bounds?
Yes, got it, I know what the word Diplomacy means. I also know that according to THE GAME Diplomacy can make people "friendly," which coincidentally is the same condition as people who suffer from Charm Person.
|
|
So when the Secretary of State is negotiating treaties, she also could be putting the moves on...Not at all. I am saying not every Diplomacy check has to represent a cold discussion with someone who doesn't care about you.
Diplomacy can achieve the "friendly" attitude in an NPC. It doesn’t quantify what “friendly” can or cannot represent. It only quantifies what actions someone under the “friendly” condition could be expected to take for the PC.
Charm Person quantifies one possible representation of the "friendly" attitude. Quantification = trusted ally, or friend / Mechanic = "friendly attitude."
Elixer of Love quantifies one more possible representation of the "friendly" attitude. Quantification = infatuation / Mechanic = "friendly attitude."
Did you see the definition of Diplomacy I posted, or is anything that doesn't go with your narrative out of bounds?Yes, got it, I know what the word Diplomacy means. I also know that according to THE GAME Diplomacy can make people "friendly," which coincidentally is the same condition as people who suffer from Charm Person.
I love how in one sentence you can both imply your definition of the word "friendly" being more important than what the game rules indicated, and in the same sentence you say it doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word "diplomacy" is, it is what it means in the game...at least as how you define it in the game.
Diplomacy is being skilled at convincing people to work with you, take your side in a dispute, basically negotiation.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
You can negotiate people into working with you, or seeing your side in a dispute. But you can't make them not thing you are creepy.
Charm person is a spell, which is something else entirely. It's like saying if you Geas someone into being your love slave it's the same as them wanting to be your love slave.
there is no reason to think Diplomacy is the same as seduction.
You mean like the fact that charmed people are treated as "friendly" and Diplomacy can persuade people into the "friendly" attitude without magic?
That would be a Charisma check, like the opposed Charisma check included in the Charm Person if you want them to do something against their nature.
Actually it wouldn’t be a straight CHA check even in 3.5 stuff. Seduction was handled by Bluff. There's a reference to it HERE.
By your logic, since an intimidate check can make someone act friendly towards you, they temporarily find you dashing...
It specifically says they "act friendly" not that they truly feel that way. The Diplomacy skill actually shifts their true attitude for you.
The rules don't say you can't use a jump check to make a custard pie. But you can't.
No, but to continue your analogy, the rules are in this case saying "treat the custard pie as if it had been achieved by jump."
Because the rules don't specifically say that you can replace a charisma check with a diplomacy check doesn't mean you can.
I would completely agree with you if there was anything that said friends and love interests can only be created with a straight CHA check. But there isn't. There also isn't anything saying that friends and love interests can't be made using Diplomacy. There are however examples of magic that auto-creates friends and love interests and guess what model they use... "Treat target's attitude as friendly."
In fact, since the rules are very explicit as to when and how you can make a diplomacy check, and what effects it will have on anyone who you make the check against, it pretty clearly says you can't use it in place of a charisma check.
The Diplomacy rules are very explicit on what "actions" a particular person in a specific attitude range might take. I see no specifics on what relationships can or cannot be represented by those levels of attitude or the actions they allow.
Charm person is a spell.
Yes, a spell that clearly refers back to Diplomacy.
|
|
there is no reason to think Diplomacy is the same as seduction.You mean like the fact that charmed people are treated as "friendly" and Diplomacy can persuade people into the "friendly" attitude without magic?
That would be a Charisma check, like the opposed Charisma check included in the Charm Person if you want them to do something against their nature.Actually it wouldn’t be a straight CHA check even in 3.5 stuff. Seduction was handled by Bluff. There's a reference to it HERE.
By your logic, since an intimidate check can make someone act friendly towards you, they temporarily find you dashing...It specifically says they "act friendly" not that they truly feel that way. The Diplomacy skill actually shifts their true attitude for you.
Did you just try to reference non-pathfinder material after telling me my 3.5 citation was off limits.
Nice.
Wait, even better, are you trying to cite material that isn't even 3.5? Did you just cite 3.0?
Yup. Even better.
This was from 2002 and has some references to a skill called innuendo... did you even read this before you posted it, or are you just google searching to find some shred of anything that may back up your position, because the rules don't.
But even with all of the weak sauce you are pouring, allow me to retort.
Bluff was used to lie to people to trick them into doing things. If this is the same to you as normal interactions you have with friends and lovers, there are deeper problems at work here.
Seriously...just house rule it. You are just digging a hole here.
|
|
Charm person is a spell.Yes, a spell that clearly refers back to Diplomacy.
That uses diplomacy as an example for how to handle the interactions caused by the spell. Not to explain how diplomacy works.
Particularly since it is the exact same wording as used in 3.5 where they did explicitly define the various levels from hostile to friendly.
In general, when trying to explain how a skill works, they do it in the area where they describe how the skill works rather than in a spell they copied and pasted from the prior version.
Did you just try to reference non-pathfinder material after telling me my 3.5 citation was off limits.Wait, even better, are you trying to cite material that isn't even 3.5? Did you just cite 3.0?
No. He's saying it was never a strait Charisma check, not even in 3.x where you retreated back to.
There you go not being able to comprehend basic English and/or context again.
|
|
You do realize that you're now arguing in circles, right? You're just repeating stuff you stopped arguing earlier when you were shown to be wrong.Charm person is a spell.Yes, a spell that clearly refers back to Diplomacy.That uses diplomacy as an example for how to handle the interactions caused by the spell. Not to explain how diplomacy works.
Particularly since it is the exact same wording as used in 3.5 where they did explicitly define the various levels from hostile to friendly.
In general, when trying to explain how a skill works, they do it in the area where they describe how the skill works rather than in a spell they copied and pasted from the prior version.
I do realize I'm arguing in circles.
The wrong part, not so much.
|
|
Did you just try to reference non-pathfinder material after telling me my 3.5 citation was off limits.Wait, even better, are you trying to cite material that isn't even 3.5? Did you just cite 3.0?
No. He's saying it was never a strait Charisma check, not even in 3.x where you retreated back to.
There you go not being able to comprehend basic English and/or context again.
Since he edited the post, I must have touched a nerve somewhere. But if you actually want to try to defend his argument, I'll quote his reference.
Under bluff
"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."
Now, are you going to argue that the above is the same as being charming? Not to mention the fact that the person you are trying to "seduce" may not even want your advances.
You don't have to defend this. You didn't post it. But feel free to try and do so if you like.
I love how in one sentence you can both imply your definition of the word "friendly" being more important than what the game rules indicated, and in the same sentence you say it doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word "diplomacy" is, it is what it means in the game...at least as how you define it in the game.
Well generally the in game meaning of words take precedence over their dictionary meaning where the two differ. But since we are on the subject of dictionary meanings, have you looked up "friendly" aside from the quality of being "like a friend" it also sports such synonyms as "companionable and affectionate" which seem awfully similar to making friends and love interests.
You can negotiate people into working with you, or seeing your side in a dispute. But you can't make them not thing you are creepy.
You keep defining low CHA as "X" you don't have to convince them you aren't "X" you simply have to overcome your -X penalty to social interactions.
|
|
I love how in one sentence you can both imply your definition of the word "friendly" being more important than what the game rules indicated, and in the same sentence you say it doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word "diplomacy" is, it is what it means in the game...at least as how you define it in the game.Well generally the in game meaning of words take precedence over their dictionary meaning where the two differ. But since we are on the subject of dictionary meanings, have you looked up "friendly" aside from the quality of being "like a friend" it also sports such synonyms as "companionable and affectionate" which seem awfully similar to making friends and love interests.
You can negotiate people into working with you, or seeing your side in a dispute. But you can't make them not thing you are creepy.You keep defining low CHA as "X" you don't have to convince them you aren't "X" you simply have to overcome your -X penalty to social interactions.
You want to be right more than you want to discuss things reasonably. You want to use references in your favor while ignoring those that are not.
Just like you want the positive aspects of being able to put points in places other than charisma without suffering the negative aspects of doing so.
Something tells me it's time to drop this thread. It's not going anywhere, everybody's just arguing in circles. At this rate it'll hit 1,000 posts lol.
Very good point. I don't think the fighting would stop even if everyone agreed.
Since he edited the post, I must have touched a nerve somewhere. But if you actually want to try to defend his argument, I'll quote his reference.
Under bluff
"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."
Now, are you going to argue that the above is the same as being charming? Not to mention the fact that the person you are trying to "seduce" may not even want your advances.
You don't have to defend this. You didn't post it. But feel free to try and do so if you like.
I don't have to, because it has nothing to do with the argument; but I will because I want to be thorough. Even according to this, it is describing using Bluff to convince them that your motives are real during the seduction, in which case we're talking about a combination of three of the four major social checks (Bluff, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy), at least as far as Pathfinder is concerned.
You want to be right more than you want to discuss things reasonably. You want to use references in your favor while ignoring those that are not.
Just like you want the positive aspects of being able to put points in places other than charisma without suffering the negative aspects of doing so.
Auroch-patties. You're plainly lying now. Repeatedly we have said nothing about retaining the positive aspects of Charisma. We have shown having a low charisma issues you a penalty, and that nothing changes that. We have shown, time and time again that Charisma does not mean physical beauty. We have cited many rules on this, where the only thing that you, Mr. Fishy, Lazzo, or anyone else has mentioned is one questionable interpretation of a single word in a description of something, in the same chapter that also says "physical appearance" is up to the player.
We have shown that in game terms, being friendly can be the same thing as being friends with someone or more, and it can last varying degrees of time. We've shown through the rules for Charm Person, Elixir of Love, and so forth, and shown (simply due to the miracle of grammar and the english language) that Charm Person makes you Friendly (as per Diplomacy) and then has additional effects above and beyond normal friendship (you can give them orders they usually wouldn't obey with a successful charisma check, and I promise a lot of things fall into the category of "wouldn't normally do"). The only limitation is nothing suicidal or obviously harmful to the subject ("Here, stab yourself in the eye.").
You keep saying Charisma means something specific, but unlike us, you haven't produced anything to actually argue it. Once you tried to go to 3.5 rules and use those to argue your claim, except those rules (relevant or not) didn't help your case either.
Produce, or shut up.
That uses diplomacy as an example for how to handle the interactions caused by the spell. Not to explain how diplomacy works.
Alright, show me any RAW or any FAQ, 3.5 or PF, that backs you. Outside that, it's your opinion.
The wrong part, not so much.
A clear logical path can be shown as to how and why real friendships and love interests can be cultivated using Diplomacy in PF. So you retreat to 3.5 claiming it changes things, when it doesn't. You continue to say those things MUST be straight CHA checks when nothing in 3.5 or PF says they are and 3.0 in fact uses the Bluff skill to cover the subject of seduction. In what way have you not been proven wrong?
Even the dictionary says that synonyms of "friendly" are "affectionate" so I am not sure by what standard you want to be proven wrong but the people who have been arguing with you have done it by every standard you have tried to introduce for your argument.
Did you just try to reference non-pathfinder material after telling me my 3.5 citation was off limits.
Nice.
You insist on opening the door to material that is not in PF.
Wait, even better, are you trying to cite material that isn't even 3.5? Did you just cite 3.0?
Yup. Even better.
Wait, so 3.5 materials is ok but going back to 3.0 is just overstepping? I'm confused, are we using outdated material or aren't we?
This was from 2002 and has some references to a skill called innuendo... did you even read this before you posted it, or are you just google searching to find some shred of anything that may back up your position, because the rules don't.
Alright, I am seeing that you only want to go back as far as 3.5 so alright, why don't you produce me a 3.5 reference that specifically handles making friends and love interests. If we are going to use outdated material at least I can produce a reference instead of deciding from my own opinion with no actual RAW backing that it is a straight CHA check.
Bluff was used to lie to people to trick them into doing things. If this is the same to you as normal interactions you have with friends and lovers, there are deeper problems at work here.
You are the one advocating use of old material that has been specifically edited out of the PF rules. My personal relations are irrelevant. That is how the game handled it in old outdated material. The current rules that PF uses don't specify how you are to go about making friends and love interests.
My opinion is that is CAN be a function of Diplomacy, for the reasons I have already stated.
Seriously...just house rule it. You are just digging a hole here.
But referring back to 3.5 because current RAW doesn't support your argument is valid?
Since he edited the post, I must have touched a nerve somewhere.
What post is it you think I edited? The post I submitted is the same now as it was when you quoted it and replied. I didn't retract the post or try to change the link. Or are you now misquoting and misrepresenting me like you did the 3.5 entry of Charm Person.
Under bluff
"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."
Now, are you going to argue that the above is the same as being charming?
What difference does that make?
Not to mention the fact that the person you are trying to "seduce" may not even want your advances.
Ok. So a logical path can be shown as to how and why friends and love interests could be handled under Diplomacy and you say "No Diplomacy doesn't handle that, it must be a straight CHA check." But you can't produce any RAW or reference to prove that. Then you say 3.5 proves it, but it doesn't. And now, when a reference to seduction being a Bluff skill check in 3.0 was provided you are arguing that you really can't just use Bluff to seduce people like the skill says?
|
|
Auroch-patties. You're plainly lying now. Repeatedly we have said nothing about retaining the positive aspects of Charisma. We have shown having a low charisma issues you a penalty, and that nothing changes that. We have shown, time and time again that Charisma does not mean physical beauty. We have cited many rules on this, where the only thing that you, Mr. Fishy, Lazzo, or anyone else has mentioned is one questionable interpretation of a single word in a description of something, in the same chapter that also says "physical appearance" is up to the player.
We have shown that in game terms, being friendly can be the same thing as being friends with someone or more, and it can last varying degrees of time. We've shown through the rules for Charm Person, Elixir of Love, and so forth, and shown (simply due to the miracle of grammar and the english language) that Charm Person makes you Friendly (as per Diplomacy) and then has additional effects above and beyond normal friendship (you can give them orders they usually wouldn't obey with a successful charisma check, and I promise a lot of things fall into the category of "wouldn't normally do"). The only limitation is nothing suicidal or obviously harmful to the subject ("Here, stab yourself in the eye.").
You keep saying Charisma means something specific, but unlike us, you haven't produced anything to actually argue it. Once you tried to go to 3.5 rules and use those to argue your claim, except those rules (relevant or not) didn't help your case either.
Produce, or shut up.
Ok. Point by point
1. We agree on the physical beauty part. You clearly have not been reading my posts, just assuming we disagree on this. And we know what happens when you assume...
2. Since you have not been reading my posts, and just assuming, I'll have to go over this again...
First, Friendly has a very specific meaning in game. This is from 3.5, which will be important later when we are discussing Charm Person.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy
Second, Elixir of Love
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items#TOC-Elixir-of-Love
A) Is a spell not a skill
B) This sweet-tasting liquid causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first creature she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person—the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, Will DC 14 negates). The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.
C) The only comparison between this and charm person is that they both only effect humanoids of medium or smaller size. Note the parenthesis when making cross references, this will be important later.
Third, Charm person
A) Is a spell, not a skill
B) Uses the exact same wording as 3.5 which references the chart above which gives very specific meanings for the levels from Friendly-Hostile.
C) This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
D) Remember the parenthesis. This time they say that Charm makes them a regard you as a trusted ally, parenthesis (treat the target's attitude as friendly). Meaning, for the purposes of any other interactions, rolls, spells, etc...consider them having the friendly condition.
Why?
Because you could use other skills/spells on a charmed person, and you need a frame of reference for if these spells/effects will work on them, and how. Even the combat rules make reference to friendly or unfriendly. For example.
"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)"
E) So the spell is saying this person is now your trusted ally, treat them as friendly. Not friendly=trusted ally.
F) You use an opposed Charisma check to try to get them to do something they would not normally do. Not a diplomacy check. A charisma check.
3. "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."
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."
These things are not the same.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diplomacy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charisma
I rather like the Charisma definition, as it fits our discussion perfectly.
"1: a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)
2
: a special magnetic charm or appeal <the charisma of a popular actor>
Examples of CHARISMA
1. The candidate was lacking in charisma.
2. His success is largely due to his charisma."
You want to be able to negotiate people into liking an unlikable character. Kind of like we are trying to negotiate each other into agreement. If either of us had higher charisma, we would just go along with the other because of their charm and personal magnetism.
Instead we keep failing our diplomacy checks at each other.
House rule it if you don't like it. You already are.
|
|
You insist on opening the door to material that is not in PF.
You want to go here. Fine.
Your using the bluff ruling for seduction, which states you can fool someone into thinking that YOU like THEM, is the equivalent of saying that if you raped someone you still succeeding at charming them into sleeping with you.
And even then, you have only succeeded in convincing someone that YOU are interested in THEM, not the other way around.
It is ludicrous, and if that is the ground work of an argument for the using skills to replicate natural charisma so that you can overcome a low Charisma score, I don't know how to even discuss the topic with you.
|
You insist on opening the door to material that is not in PF.
You want to go here. Fine.
Your using the bluff ruling for seduction, which states you can fool someone into thinking that YOU like THEM, is the equivalent of saying that if you raped someone you still succeeding at charming them into sleeping with you.
And even then, you have only succeeded in convincing someone that YOU are interested in THEM, not the other way around.
It is ludicrous, and if that is the ground work of an argument for the using skills to replicate natural charisma so that you can overcome a low Charisma score, I don't know how to even discuss the topic with you.
Ciretose, you're the one who brought up 3.5 material. Pathfinder may be backwards compatible, but it was definitely made without the need to use any 3.5 material. Therefore the original 3.5 material you brought up was irrelevant, as we can get everything we need about both diplomacy and charisma from the core rulebook.
+1 to everyone arguing with Ciretose; Diplomacy can be used to make people friendly, charm person acts like a successful diplomacy friendlyfier with some added benefits, and this thread was absolutely ridiculous from the first post.
I love how in one sentence you can both imply your definition of the word "friendly" being more important than what the game rules indicated, and in the same sentence you say it doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word "diplomacy" is, it is what it means in the game...at least as how you define it in the game.Well generally the in game meaning of words take precedence over their dictionary meaning where the two differ. But since we are on the subject of dictionary meanings, have you looked up "friendly" aside from the quality of being "like a friend" it also sports such synonyms as "companionable and affectionate" which seem awfully similar to making friends and love interests.
You can negotiate people into working with you, or seeing your side in a dispute. But you can't make them not thing you are creepy.You keep defining low CHA as "X" you don't have to convince them you aren't "X" you simply have to overcome your -X penalty to social interactions.
That was unacceptable huh? Ok so YOUR interpretation of RAW is correct but the interpretation that the people arguing against you and showing logical path for isn't. And YOUR reference to outdated material that was intentionally edited out of PF is fine but anyone else who brings up outdated material is wrong? And YOUR dictionary references for diplomacy are fine, but my dictionary references for "friendly" are wrong.
You want to be right more than you want to discuss things reasonably. You want to use references in your favor while ignoring those that are not.
You said friends and lovers can't be made by Diplomacy in PF. I gave references that show it is acceptably handled by Diplomacy.
You said 3.5 definitions didn't allow it. All they do is show what actions a person with X attitude can be expected to take for you. They don't say anything for or against building relationships.
You produce a dictionary reference to Diplomacy. I tell you that if a word is defined in game, that definition takes precedence, which to my knowledge is how it works. I also produce one for Friendly, which by the way has "affectionate" as a synonym and "friend-like" as a definition.
I am discussing this reasonably via every method you have introduced. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge or even effectively attempt to address other people's references.
Just like you want the positive aspects of being able to put points in places other than charisma without suffering the negative aspects of doing so.
A low ability score has a negative aspect of -X to things related to using that ability, nothing more. I have not denied that and that isn't even why I am arguing this point. This has nothing to do with using CHA as a dump stat, it has to do with what Diplomacy can or cannot do. I can show a logical path that puts making friends and cultivating love interests under the umbrella of Diplomacy.
You are saying that is false:
1) You have used 3.5 text to try to prove this, but it doesn't disprove anything, and in fact can support my point, which I showed.
2) You have used dictionary references. But I can counter those with actual game references as well as dictionary references of my own.
3) You have used personal interpretation of RAW, "That uses diplomacy as an example for how to handle the interactions caused by the spell. Not to explain how diplomacy works," which is just as valid as mine, but still doesn't prove me wrong or prove you right.
I actually have been reasonable. I have already stated that if a GM put making friends or cultivating love interests under a straight CHA check it could be a valid application. I simply added that it could just as easily be handled under Diplomacy and I gave my reasons why I thought that. You are the one refusing to listen or accept anyone else’s arguments, reasoning, or references as valid and steadfastly sticking to your opinion that those things can ONLY BE A STRAIGHT CHA CHECK.
You want to go here. Fine.
You clearly wanted to go to past, irrelevant, information. The 3.5 post you wanted to cite doesn't even prove your point.
Your using the bluff ruling for seduction, which states you can fool someone into thinking that YOU like THEM, is the equivalent of saying that if you raped someone you still succeeding at charming them into sleeping with you.
So using 3.5 materials to try to prove your point is acceptable, but using 3.0 material to debunk it as stupid is advocating rape. Nice analogy.
And even then, you have only succeeded in convincing someone that YOU are interested in THEM, not the other way around.
Even in the face of a reference that clearly talks about what we are discussing you dismiss it and say it can't be used in the way it was clearly intended to be used.
Well, started the new campaign last night.
Had characters roll up their Comeliness scores the old school way.
Had a couple amusing things from this, specifically that the half-orc paladin and the tengu wizard were the most attractive members of the party.
Overall effect: positive. It gave everyone a quick shorthand way to describe not just what their character looked like but how good this was. For example, the half-orc was seven feet tall with orcish scarification overlaid with tattoos of sacred pattern of Iomedae. The high Comeliness let everyone know that the overall effect was actually rather attractive, rather that just looking like a scary scarred-up biker with religious gang tats. The tengu, instead of just looking like a giant crow in red silk pajamas, looked like a very pretty crow in red silk pajamas.
It also made for a good benchmark contrast when they ran into the sea hag who had no pajamas. What does negative Comeliness look like? It looks like this.
|
|
You insist on opening the door to material that is not in PF.
You want to go here. Fine.
Your using the bluff ruling for seduction, which states you can fool someone into thinking that YOU like THEM, is the equivalent of saying that if you raped someone you still succeeding at charming them into sleeping with you.
And even then, you have only succeeded in convincing someone that YOU are interested in THEM, not the other way around.
It is ludicrous, and if that is the ground work of an argument for the using skills to replicate natural charisma so that you can overcome a low Charisma score, I don't know how to even discuss the topic with you.
Ciretose, you're the one who brought up 3.5 material. Pathfinder may be backwards compatible, but it was definitely made without the need to use any 3.5 material. Therefore the original 3.5 material you brought up was irrelevant, as we can get everything we need about both diplomacy and charisma from the core rulebook.
+1 to everyone arguing with Ciretose; Diplomacy can be used to make people friendly, charm person acts like a successful diplomacy friendlyfier with some added benefits, and this thread was absolutely ridiculous from the first post.
Yes it can be used to make people friendly. No one is arguing that. That is exactly what it does.
It can't be used to make you attractive if you are unattractive.
The bluff rule he cited said you could convince someone you were attracted to them. He argued that was the same as the same as using a charisma check to seduce someone. It is not.
Go to the link, read for yourself.
The argument is the definition of what friendly means in the game.
In 3.5 the definition was clear.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy
"Friendly
Means: Wishes you well
Will: Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate"
This is not the same as someone being attracted to you, or you being attractive. This is not the same as someone wanting to follow your lead.
Diplomacy is "That Orc sure is an ugly jerk, but he has a point about how we both hate that other guy more so I'm on his side."
Charisma is "There is something about that guy, whatever he's selling, I'm buying!"
The Bluff check he referenced was a horrible example. Go read for yourself.
|
|
A bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with anything.
I'm not reading your links, because they have nothing to do with the core rulebook rules. So they're irrelevant to this argument; the only reason Shadowlord brought up bluff was because you were incorrect even about the irrelevant material you brought up.
Your arguments, they make no sense.
|
|
Since he edited the post, I must have touched a nerve somewhere.What post is it you think I edited? The post I submitted is the same now as it was when you quoted it and replied. I didn't retract the post or try to change the link. Or are you now misquoting and misrepresenting me like you did the 3.5 entry of Charm Person.
Under bluff
"Seduction (Opposed by Sense Motive): This check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive. Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you."
Now, are you going to argue that the above is the same as being charming?
What difference does that make?
What difference does that make?
1. They may or may not be attracted to you. (it is not part of the Bluff to get them to be attracted to you, only to convince them you are attracted to them)
2. If they are not, the check is worthless because all you are doing is convincing them you are attracted to them.
This has nothing, in any way shape or form, to do with getting people to be attracted to you.
Diplomacy can get people to see your point of view and agree with you, even work with you. We are currently failing our diplomacy checks with you, for example.
I can not understand how you could equate the bluff rule you referenced above with being charismatic. I can only assume you didn't read it before you posted and just did a google search for seduce and d20 and that link popped up.
|
|
A bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with anything.I'm not reading your links, because they have nothing to do with the core rulebook rules. So they're irrelevant to this argument; the only reason Shadowlord brought up bluff was because you were incorrect even about the irrelevant material you brought up.
Your arguments, they make no sense.
Actually, he brought it up because he thought it would help defend his point.
I am sorry I have failed my diplomacy check with you. I could point out that I linked to the core rulebook a few times, and quoted it liberally, but once you miss the save by enough, people just get hostile and can't be moved.
Hostile*
Means :Will take risks to hurt you
Possible actions: Attack, interfere, berate, flee
*PHB
|
Just like you want the positive aspects of being able to put points in places other than charisma without suffering the negative aspects of doing so.
Why is it acceptable for a character to use skill ranks in Climb, to offset a poor Strength;
Or spend skill ranks in Acrobatics, to offset a poor Dex;
Or spend skill ranks in Knowledges, to offset a poor Int;
Or spend skill ranks on Perception, to offset a poor Wisdom;
Yet the moment they use skill ranks, to show they have learned to hide or tone down their social failings (low Cha), that's suddenly dirty tactics?
|
|
Just like you want the positive aspects of being able to put points in places other than charisma without suffering the negative aspects of doing so.Why is it acceptable for a character to use skill ranks in Climb, to offset a poor Strength;
Or spend skill ranks in Acrobatics, to offset a poor Dex;
Or spend skill ranks in Knowledges, to offset a poor Int;
Or spend skill ranks on Perception, to offset a poor Wisdom;
Yet the moment they use skill ranks, to show they have learned to hide or tone down their social failings (low Cha), that's suddenly dirty tactics?
It isn't.
Skill points in climb helps you climb. But that doesn't mean your encumbrance changes.
Skill points in acrobatics don't increase your reflex save.
Skill points in knowledges don't give you more spells per day
Skill points in Perception don't raise your will saves
And skill points in diplomacy do help tone down social failings by making people willing to work with you, despite you being unattractive to them in general.
High Charisma "I would follow that guy anywhere!"
Low Charisma "She's a witch, but she's our witch, so cut her down!"