1. They may or may not be attracted to you.
Right, so you are arguing that the Seduction skill doesn’t actually seduce people.
Yes it says you are trying to convince them that you are sincere, in order to gain A FAVOR. It doesn’t specify what favor that could be. Sexual favors perhaps, I don’t think that’s a stretch at all considering the skill is called seduction. It doesn’t say “you get a favor if they like you, roll a CHA check to determine if they like you.” If the Bluff succeeds you convince them that you are sincere and they grant you “a favor.”
I can not understand how you could equate the bluff rule you referenced above with being charismatic.
I didn’t, I equated it with saying: In older editions of the game seduction was handled with a skill check rather than a straight CHA check.
I also equated it with saying: Look I can post useless information that has been specifically edited out of PF too.
We are currently failing our diplomacy checks with you, for example.
Who is we? No one else is arguing against me. On the other hand WE (Mergy, Ashiel, Liliths Thrall, Mikaze, etc... ) seem to pretty much be in agreement. You are the one who is arguing alone here.
Actually, he brought it up because he thought it would help defend his point.
I have stated several times now why I brought it up. It does in fact prove that from 3.0 things like seduction could be rolled into skill checks not only CHA checks, and are actually intended to be. It also proves that I can use outdated material to prove my point too; doesn’t mean it’s applicable to the way PF is now being run, any more so than your 3.5 references.
I am sorry I have failed my diplomacy check with you.
You seem to have failed your diplomacy check with a lot of people.
|
1. They may or may not be attracted to you.Right, so you are arguing that the Seduction skill doesn’t actually seduce people.
This is the source you posted. Tell me what is unclear.
"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."
In your game is everyone attracted to your low Charisma character to the point that they will do favors if you can bluff them into believing you are also attracted to them?
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.
The sub-skill is called seduction and it is used to convince someone you are sincere for the specific purpose of gaining “a favor.” It doesn’t say what the favor can be, but with a title like seduction I don’t think it’s hard to guess. It also doesn’t say the person has to like you first based on a CHA check. It says Bluff vs. Sense motive.
Go to the link, read for yourself.
Perhaps you should read it.
The argument is the definition of what friendly means in the game.
In 3.5 the definition was clear.
And that definition was changed in PF.
"Friendly
Means: Wishes you well
Will: Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate"
But even if we are talking old material that was edited out, does anyone but ciretose actually want to argue that the description above couldn’t be applied to making friends or entertaining love interests?
Friendly means being as a friend. Synonyms of friendly include companionable and affectionate. The game deffinition says people who are “friendly” wish you well and can be expected to commonly chat with you, give you advice, give you limited aid, and even advocate on your behalf.
is is the source you posted. Tell me what is unclear.
"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."
In your game is everyone attracted to your low Charisma character to the point that they will do favors if you can bluff them into believing you are also attracted to them?
There you go taking it out of context again. You've had no less than three people that I've counted tell you what Shadowlord is saying, and yet you still ignore it and try to turn it into something different.
But since you brought it up (I know you're talking to Shadowlord and not me, but I don't mind sharing either), in my games Diplomacy is the skill used to gain favors, which could result in making someone attracted to you (they become friendly), while Bluff could prevent someone from realizing you're flirting with them for ulterior motives, and might be used as part of the encounter.
However, the low charisma character who looks like he or she wants to look (as per the rules, you may choose your character's physical appearance) will role a Diplomacy check, modified by their starting attitude - and they get one opportunity to improve their starting attitude per day - to see if they get what they want from them. A temptress with a +5 Diplomacy modifier could make an indifferent person friendly (DC 15), and then proceed to put the moves on them (DC is now 10 + modifiers, and she can probably take 10 and seduce them, barring special considerations such as gender preference or the target being faithfully loyal to another mate). That would be seduction in most of my games, with various circumstance modifiers as appropriate (folks love a person in uniform, go-go-gadget parade armor).
Meanwhile, later the person could use this intimacy to try and gain leverage with someone (possibly modifying other diplomacy, bluff, or even intimidate checks through circumstance modifiers).
This is the source you posted. Tell me what is unclear.
"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."
In your game is everyone attracted to your low Charisma character to the point that they will do favors if you can bluff them into believing you are also attracted to them?
I don't make my low CHA characters pull of a CHA check to use a skill that doesn't call for it. Personally I feel that making friends and entertaining love interests can fall under Diplomacy as easily as it could potentially fall under a straight CHA check. You keep saying that there is all this RAW saying it can only be a CHA check and citing 3.5 rules that don't prove your point in the least. So I found an old cite of my own. If you want to show how it doesn’t do EXACTLY what it EXPLICITLY says it does, go for it, I would be happy to read it tomorrow morning, now I am going to bed. In the mean time the entry is pretty clear, and this is my opinion of what it is saying:
Yes it says you are trying to convince them that you are sincere, in order to gain A FAVOR. It doesn’t specify what favor that could be. Sexual favors perhaps, I don’t think that’s a stretch at all considering the skill is called seduction. It doesn’t say “you get a favor if they like you, roll a CHA check to determine if they like you.” If the Bluff succeeds you convince them that you are sincere and they grant you “a favor.”
The sub-skill is called seduction and it is used to convince someone you are sincere for the specific purpose of gaining “a favor.” It doesn’t say what the favor can be, but with a title like seduction I don’t think it’s hard to guess. It also doesn’t say the person has to like you first based on a CHA check. It says Bluff vs. Sense motive.
Additionally it proves that even from 3.0 social encounters such as seduction could be rolled under skill checks. It also shows that if you insist on using non-PF rules for this discussion I am perfectly capable of addressing what you bring into the argument from 3.5 and using it to further my own point (CASE in point) as well as produce my own outdated information and use it to further my point.
|
|
There you go taking it out of context again. You've had no less than three people that I've counted tell you what Shadowlord is saying, and yet you still ignore it and try to turn it into something different.But since you brought it up (I know you're talking to Shadowlord and not me, but I don't mind sharing either), in my games Diplomacy is the skill used to gain favors, which could result in making someone attracted to you (they become friendly), while Bluff could prevent someone from realizing you're flirting with them for ulterior motives, and might be used as part of the encounter.
However, the low charisma character who looks like he or she wants to look (as per the rules, you may choose your character's physical appearance) will role a Diplomacy check, modified by their starting attitude - and they get one opportunity to improve their starting attitude per day - to see if they get what they want from them. A temptress with a +5 Diplomacy modifier could make an indifferent person friendly (DC 15), and then proceed to put the moves on them (DC is now 10 + modifiers, and she can probably take 10 and seduce them, barring special considerations such as gender preference or the target being faithfully loyal to another mate). That would be seduction in most of my games, with various circumstance modifiers as appropriate (folks love a person in uniform, go-go-gadget parade armor).
Meanwhile, later the person could use this intimacy to try and gain leverage with someone (possibly modifying other diplomacy, bluff, or even intimidate checks through circumstance modifiers).
No one else is here anymore. Everyone else got tired of arguing with you all. I personally enjoy it.
So again, going point by point, even though you didn't address any of the other points I made...
1. Context
This is what he posted, I'm not even sure what edition it references, but to both of you it is more relevant than the 3.5 diplomacy chart, so let's just call it gospel for our purposes.
http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/dndskills.pdf
It is under the bluff skill (not diplomacy) as one of the ways you can use bluff. It describes when to use the bluff skill as follows
"This skill is used for acting, conning, fast talking, misdirection, and misleading, body language. See Diplomacy for using reasoning and Intimidate for using threats."
So your source is saying Diplomacy is used for reasoning with someone...which is my argument...but we'll keep going for fun's sake, as it is your source and I want to be fair. One of the uses for bluff is listed below.
"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."
So in this old version of the game (viable of course for your argument while the chart which defines what hostile/Friendly is not) you can try to convince someone you like them romantically to get them to do you a favor.
You seem to be arguing that anyone you try this on is interested in you romantically, regardless of your charisma. And in addition, this skill can be used to make them interested in you romantically. Is that correct, and if so what lines in the rule or context am I missing? Please bold it or something for me.
2. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
Are you trying to negotiate someone into liking you? I mean, I guess it's it medieval times, if your rich you can get the arranged marriage thing working, but which of the listed thing that it does are your going courting with? Are you
A. persuading others to agree with your argument that they shouldn't find your negative charisma annoying?
B. Resolving the differences brought on by you having a negative charisma and still wanting the person to like you/
C. Are you gathering valuable information or rumors from people so that you can blackmail them into liking your low charisma character?
Or are you trying to make a skill check do something it wasn't designed to do to compensate for a low ability score rather than just getting a headband of charisma?
|
|
An NPC may get a feeling about the PC based upon observation of him and his behaviour. The GM (not NPC) can use the Charisma score of the PC to gain an idea of how that NPC might feel about that PC initially.I think this is a fair idea. It can be used in so many ways to make the game more enjoyable and help the player deal with the consequences of their stat choices.
I think I detect a level of sarcasm here :) It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account.
So when a high strength character approaches the princess NPC who in the scenario is stated as being attracted to strong men, the GM should not amend the initial starting attitude of that NPC to the PC because that would be taking into account Strength in a way that isn't spelt out in the rules and would be spiteful to all the other PCs that don't have as high a strength.
Indeed the female NPC should have the exact same starting attitude when approached by the scrawny wizard as the muscular barbarian. <rolls eyes>
.
..
...
....
.....
Indeed the female NPC should have the exact same starting attitude when approached by the scrawny wizard as the muscular barbarian. <rolls eyes>
Enough with the common sense already, you're ruining the thread!
Never can we use the base stat!
I speak good! I am good!
What kind of world judges me otherwise?
So again, going point by point, even though you didn't address any of the other points I made...
I addressed your points. If I have missed one please re-post or link back to it so that I can have another crack at it. You on the other hand have not addressed several of mine.
1. Context
This is what he posted, I'm not even sure what edition it references, but to both of you it is more relevant than the 3.5 diplomacy chart, so let's just call it gospel for our purposes.
You keep retreating back to 3.5 stuff that was specifically edited out of PF for your argument. You opened the door. You forced the door to stay open. So stop bleeding about it just because it didn’t go your way.
http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/dndskills.pdf
It is under the bluff skill (not diplomacy) as one of the ways you can use bluff. It describes when to use the bluff skill as follows
"This skill is used for acting, conning, fast talking, misdirection, and misleading, body language. See Diplomacy for using reasoning and Intimidate for using threats."
So your source is saying Diplomacy is used for reasoning with someone...which is my argument...but we'll keep going for fun's sake, as it is your source and I want to be fair. One of the uses for bluff is listed below.
The source is saying: Skills can be used for Social Interactions.
"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."
Interesting how it doesn’t mention a straight CHA check. Much like Diplomacy and Intimidate also don’t. The only place CHA comes into play using this is to give you penalties or bonuses to the Bluff check.
So in this old version of the game (viable of course for your argument while the chart which defines what hostile/Friendly is not) you can try to convince someone you like them romantically to get them to do you a favor.
Again with all the bleeding. You started with the irrelevant posts from prior versions of the game. Several people tried to keep you in a PF discussion but you wouldn’t have it. Now you are trying to discredit someone elses non-PF references. I have addressed in full and multiple times, your 3.5 posts and used it in my argument. Why don’t you try doing the same instead of complaining.
You seem to be arguing that anyone you try this on is interested in you romantically, regardless of your charisma. And in addition, this skill can be used to make them interested in you romantically. Is that correct, and if so what lines in the rule or context am I missing? Please bold it or something for me.
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not. CHA does play a part in that, to the tune of whatever penalty or bonus you have to your Seduction skill. Or is that not how skills work? After a Diplomacy check, when you have successfully raised the NPC to “helpful” with your diplomatic skills, do you make the PC roll a CHA check to double check if the NPC really likes them enough to be helpful?
The skill is Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor if successful. NOT Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor if they like you based on a CHA check.
2. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
Are you trying to negotiate someone into liking you? I mean, I guess it's it medieval times, if your rich you can get the arranged marriage thing working, but which of the listed thing that it does are your going courting with? Are you
A. persuading others to agree with your argument that they shouldn't find your negative charisma annoying?
B. Resolving the differences brought on by you having a negative charisma and still wanting the person to like you/
C. Are you gathering valuable information or rumors from people so that you can blackmail them into liking your low charisma character?
Or are you trying to make a skill check do something it wasn't designed to do to compensate for a low ability score rather than just getting a headband of charisma?
You are using Diplomacy to shift their attitude toward you to “friendly.”
...
Now since you braught up avoiding people’s points, I have a few right here that you haven’t bothered to address.
"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."--snip--
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
Huh?
(emphasis mine)
It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account.
.
GMs adjudicate gray areas of the rules according to their own opinions and generally take into account the opinions of their players. GMs do what they feel is right for their group at their table. There is a big difference between a GM saying, "In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills." And someone on an internet forum saying, "NO it MUST be done with CHA checks or you're doing it WRONG! It's RAW!" There is no such RAW and it can be easily ruled either way. A GM could reasonable rely on ability scores for things like making friends and seeking love interests. He could just as reasonably roll those under the umbrella of existing social skills.
Enough with the common sense already, you're ruining the thread!
Are you saying I lack common sense? If so I might have to break out the SAD MOVIES again!
"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."--snip--
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
Huh?
(emphasis mine)
"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."
(Emphasis mine)
Put those two halves of the same sentence together and you get:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor on success.
I'm not sure what you don't understand.
|
|
"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."--snip--
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
Huh?
(emphasis mine)
Exactly.
It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account."In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills."
So what do you say is the "right" way then. To use player made fluff to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills? Is there a RAW to that?
Exactly."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."--snip--
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
Huh?
(emphasis mine)
Is it really that difficult for you to read the whole sentence.
"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."--snip--
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
Huh?
(emphasis mine)
"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."(Emphasis mine)
Put those two halves of the same sentence together and you get:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor on success.
I'm not sure what you don't understand.
I don't understand is; if someone convinces me that her romantic intentions are real, how does that make me interested in her. Which is exactly what you are saying.
She can convince me of her real intentions in order to get favor from me, but if I have no interest in her, that won't carry any special favor.
Do you seriously not comprehend that, or is this just a case of never admit?
Are you saying I lack common sense? If so I might have to break out the SAD MOVIES again!
...damn you!
So what do you say is the "right" way then. To use player made fluff to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills? Is there a RAW to that?It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account."In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills."
That's a fine accusation, based on twisting my words and taking them out of context. What I wrote was:
GMs adjudicate gray areas of the rules according to their own opinions and generally take into account the opinions of their players. GMs do what they feel is right for their group at their table. There is a big difference between a GM saying, "In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills." And someone on an internet forum saying, "NO it MUST be done with CHA checks or you're doing it WRONG! It's RAW!" There is no such RAW and it can be easily ruled either way. A GM could reasonable rely on ability scores for things like making friends and seeking love interests. He could just as reasonably roll those under the umbrella of existing social skills.
How/where does that imply what you are saying?
|
|
But if he's got a high strength without being muscular she shouldn't realize how strong he is unless he demonstrates it (and in-fact, might not care. Some women use the term 'strong men' for muscular bodies, while others actually like the strength itself.)
I think kyrt-ryder is right here. But there are times when you make a strength check on something not explicitly spelled out in the book with exact checks. You guesstimate based on the values of similar checks.
However you wouldn't make a jump check to lift something and you wouldn't make climb check to bend bars.
Checks are specific training at a specific skill. You can have low charisma but learn how to explain things well and follow social etiquette in order to get people to work with you (Diplomacy). You can have a low Charisma and learn how to be really scary looking (intimidate) or lie (Bluff).
But when you try to have a skill check do something other than what it says it does, that is where I draw the line.
O_o For the record: My remarks are typically aimed at those that think they're aimed at them!
Quite witty. In that case I shall put away my sad movies and pretend I never for a moment thought you might be talking to me.
O_o For the record: My remarks are typically aimed at those that think they're aimed at them!
Quite witty. In that case I shall put away my sad movies and pretend I never for a moment thought you might be talking to me.
..that would save me a trip to the shops, thank you!
|
|
"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."--snip--
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
Huh?
(emphasis mine)
"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."(Emphasis mine)
Put those two halves of the same sentence together and you get:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor on success.
I'm not sure what you don't understand.
I don't understand is; if someone convinces me that her romantic intentions are real, how does that make me interested in her. Which is exactly what you are saying.
She can convince me of her real intentions in order to get favor from me, but if I have no interest in her, that won't carry any special favor.
Do you seriously not comprehend that, or is this just a case of never admit?
Exactly my point.
And he wants this to a) work how he wants it, not how it reads and b) be able to cite this as why you can use diplomacy (a completely different skill) in a way that contradicts the description of the spell in a version later than the one this is cited from.
He wants this to be Burger King, all the time. And you can have it you way, Sir. Just house rule it.
So what do you say is the "right" way then. To use player made fluff to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills? Is there a RAW to that?It seems many feel that unless the RPG has an explicit rule to how to use a stat, a GM should never take a stat into account."In this game we are going to use CHA in a prevalent way to determine how NPCs react to PCs outside of social skills."That's a fine accusation, based on twisting my words and taking them out of context. What I wrote was:
stuff
Oh I didn't mean to accuse. It was a question. Because several people have been saying player made fluff trumps charisma, so that was an offered example.
So what should determine NPC reactions outside of social skills and fluff?
I don't understand is; if someone convinces me that her romantic intentions are real, how does that make me interested in her. Which is exactly what you are saying.
So then by your standard, if I successfully use Diplomacy to bring someone to the "friendly" state do I now need to roll and additional CHA check to see if they can really stand being around me long enough to be "friendly?"
She can convince me of her real intentions in order to get favor from me, but if I have no interest in her, that won't carry any special favor.
Where does the skill say that?
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor if successful.
Just like:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Believable lie if successful.
Diplomacy vs. Attitude + CHA mod = Improved Attitude if successful.
Intimidate vs. 10 + HD + WIS mod = Intimidated if successful.
Do you seriously not comprehend that, or is this just a case of never admit?
I comprehend that you seem to be arguing for holding Seduction to a double standard which no other social skill is held to.
And he wants this to a) work how he wants it, not how it reads
Actually I am the one saying it works how it says it works. You are the one who wants to add CHA checks to see if they really like you or not which is not stated anywhere in the skill.
The skill says:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor if successful.
b) be able to cite this as why you can use diplomacy (a completely different skill) in a way that contradicts the description of the spell in a version later than the one this is cited from.
You brought in 3.5 materials trying to claim that making friends couldn't possibly be rolled under Diplomacy. Your material didn't do anything for your argument actually it fits far better with mine. I brought this reference in because it's an irrelevant 3.x reference of my own and you opened the door on that. Also, because it does show an explicit example of the types relationship interactions being rolled under skills, NOT ONLY AS CHA CHECKS.
But when you try to have a skill check do something other than what it says it does, that is where I draw the line.
Interesting statement considering the 3.5 stuff you brought into the argument supported my point more than it did yours.
(CASE in point, final pragraph.)
O_o For the record: My remarks are typically aimed at those that think they're aimed at them!
Quite witty. In that case I shall put away my sad movies and pretend I never for a moment thought you might be talking to me.
..that would save me a trip to the shops, thank you!
Well by all means, save yourself a trip. Quite welcome.
I don't understand is; if someone convinces me that her romantic intentions are real, how does that make me interested in her. Which is exactly what you are saying.So then by your standard, if I successfully use Diplomacy to bring someone to the "friendly" state do I now need to roll and additional CHA check to see if they can really stand being around me long enough to be "friendly?"
Now whos twisting words? Infact that's not even twisting thats inventing out of thin air...
She can convince me of her real intentions in order to get favor from me, but if I have no interest in her, that won't carry any special favor.Where does the skill say that?
Well: "Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you". Right there. Where does it say, that the target becomes interested on success?
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor if successful.
Wrong. Bluff vs. Sense Motive = believed if succesfull.
The thing believed doesn't necessarily affect the target one bit.-"The King is under attack, you must go protect him".
-"Uh ok, but I'm not from around here and I don't care about the king"
Just like:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Believable lie if successful.
Diplomacy vs. Attitude + CHA mod = Improved Attitude if successful.
Intimidate vs. 10 + HD + WIS mod = Intimidated if successful.
Correct but irreelvant.
Do you seriously not comprehend that, or is this just a case of never admit?
I comprehend that you seem to be arguing for holding Seduction to a double standard which no other social skill is held to.
I'm holding the skill you quoted and your conclusion from it to a logic standard. Making someone believe something to do something, is useless, if the belief itself gives no incentive to that someone to do that something.
|
|
First problem I'm seeing is you're telling your players how their characters have to react. You're saying that they WILL have these outward signs of having a low charisma, when really there's no reason they have to. You could be a complete jerk and happily make eye-contact, seem confident, walk up to someone and say "Hey, do you usually dress that badly or are you just trying something new?"
OK I think we are getting to the crux of the disagreement, you obviously feel the default rule should be that a low charisma never manifests itself visibly, and only comes to light when a person opens his mouth. Only if the player actually explicitly describes that their character's Charisma manifests in visual appearance and observable behaviour should a GM be allowed to use that information then, am I understanding correctly?
Or do you not take it into account even then, because then you may be penalising the player who took the time to add some fluff and character to their PC, but not penalising the player who didn't?
So (to use an example character from upthread) in your world would an NPC who witnesses a handsome druid urinating by a doorway and then who approaches and leans in and sniffs the NPC be greeted with the same intial attitude as the character who smiles warmly and bows graciously. Because to do otherwise would be unfairly penalising the low charisma character twice, because the player is roleplaying his character that way to explain the low charisma.
Of course, equally if a GM were to apply any situational modifiers based upon any manifestations described by the player the GM would likewise be doubly penalising a low charisma.
So how would this situation play out? The PCs are trying to attend a ball for the nobility of the city. They have managed to forge invitations and so only need flash them to the guards and courtiers as they walk in. A player describes how his character enters the building and is avoiding eye contact with not only the guards and courtiers but other guests, that he is mumbling under his breath and is sweating.
Would you have any guards or coutiers approach the PC with the suspicion that he may not supposed to be here, or is here to commit a violent act? What if the player then stated that they were playing the character that way because the character's Charisma is 6 and he sees the character as being really introverted and gets stressed in social situations. What then? The player has taken the time to bring some life to his character and explain how his charisma manifests, and he has not had his character approach any NPCs to interact with them, so Diplomacy or Bluff skills have not come into effect yet.
Would you treat that PC any differently than another PC who also had a Charisma of 6 but just said "my character walks into the ball holding up the invite"? I am genuinely curious.
As for "telling your players how their characters have to react" I never tell a player how to play their character, but if a player puts a particularly high or low rating in a stat such as charisma I may ask them how they see that. Do they envision a handsome but painfully introverted person who never makes eye contact and sweats in stressful social situations? Are they thuggish in their behaviour, bullying and cursing all the time? Once I have established this, I can potentially use that knowledge and roleplay my NPCs appropriately even when and if the player chooses not to roleplay that out in a particular scene (we all have our off days).
Either way, you're evaluating based on actions and descriptions, not "you must be twitchy, sweaty, and nervous because you have a low charisma". That's the worst kind of metagaming in my book.
And not a type of metagaming I am suggesting. As stated above, if the player hasn't already described their character as acting in a certain way, I won't assume it, and instead may ask them to explain how their stat manifests.
Personally I feel Charisma will have some visual manifestations as well as some verbal manifestations, and even verbal manifestations can potentially be observed in advance (seeing how the PC deals other nameless NPCs in the tavern, not really worth a Diplomacy or Intimidate roll, as the PC approaches the NPC).
And all I'm suggesting is it's stupid. Why is it stupid? Because Charisma is already a factor in how NPCs will react to you.
Not exactly, it is taken into account in your attempts to change their initial attitude to you, but not to determine that initial attitude. If the NPC is a king or highly placed noble and is initially unfriendly he may not even grant an audience to you preventing you even getting a chance to use Diplomacy!
I'm saying it's a bad idea to arbitrarily decide to make Charisma a deciding factor in the initial attitude of an NPC...
I thought I had made it clear that it would be only occassionally when it would be a deciding factor and that more often than not the deciding factors will be the story issues, reputation, deeds etc.
I really see it as no worse than situational modifiers that may occassionally be granted or imposed by the GM. For example a GM may allow a bonus to an Intimidate check because the PC has a STrength of 18, has been described as thuggish, brawny, with a few scars, and is wielding a great axe.
Is the GM being stupid to apply such a situational modifer even though Strength modifer doesn't affect Intimidate checks normally, the great axe is not described as giving an Intimidate bonus, and the descrition is purely fluff? Is the GM being spiteful because the Strength 6 Halfling rogue with no weapon doesn't get awarded the same bonus?
As long as such a modifer (in this case likely a bonus) isn't always applied, then most people would see no issue with it. And so I see no issue personally having an NPC be initially Unfriendly or Friendly in occassional and specific situations (e.g. when the target of a seduction) and when no other story factors are considered significant, due to a higher or lower than average natural charisma.
I have a friend. My friend is (or was) a low charisma sort. He's an alright looking fellow and he's friendly, but he was very introverted. It tended to be slow to initiate conversations,
I am glad that your friend managed to break outof his social shell, but I honestly cannot debate the merits of someone who I don't know, and I would not wish to either for worry that I may offend.
The current system reflects this well.
Unfortunately the current system is extremely lacking reflecting the alternative situations that I described which IMHO are no less valid, indeed I think the system gives less mechanical incentive to have a higher charisma than any other stat. Personally it would be nice to have some other mechanical benefit to Charisma that cannot be duplicated by skill ranks.
In short I think the PF RPG rules are deficient in modelling the distinction between raw Charisma and social skills and, rather than make up house rules, I am not averse to a GM who may occassionally wish to consider raw Charisma in determining an NPC's Initial Attitude, something for which the PF RPG provides exactly zero rules on how to do anyway.
The proposed idea of setting starting attitudes doesn't,
The proposed idea is a GM taking raw Charisma into consideration when setting starting attitudes, along with a whole host of other factors such as reputation, actions and deeds (which you seem to think are all okay to consider), and weighting the raw Charisma as the least significant of all those so that it may only be the deciding factor in an occassional siuation.
and makes assumptions about the character based on what you say their charisma means
Already dealt with, my examples tried to suggest several different ways that a low (or high) charisma may be protrayed - but because I was suggesting them you feel that I must be imposing those ways on my players - I do not.
so I will not think that is fine. I will always see that as meta-gaming, foolish, and spiteful, because that is all there is to it for me.
And I will pity the fact that you seem incapable of appreciating, even if not liking, another person's playstyle and that you feel it necessary to denigrate that playstyle because it is not one you like with terms such as "stupid", "spiteful" and "foolish".
You seem extremely rigid in your view of the rules and how the GM may apply situational considerations; your view seems to be that if its not in the book it shouldn't provide a benefit unless you arbitrarily decide its okay, e.g. using story factors to determine Initial Attitude of NPCs.
Well by all means, save yourself a trip. Quite welcome.O_o For the record: My remarks are typically aimed at those that think they're aimed at them!
Quite witty. In that case I shall put away my sad movies and pretend I never for a moment thought you might be talking to me.
..that would save me a trip to the shops, thank you!
Thank you :)
I like to think our exchanges are a pleasant island of calm within a thread of chaos!
Oh I didn't mean to accuse. It was a question. Because several people have been saying player made fluff trumps charisma, so that was an offered example.
I was hit with this already up-thread. What I have said is that a low ability score gives you a -X modifier to the things associated with it. But there are no rules defining how that must be represented by your character in game. It could be any number of things. There were a few exchanges, after that post about how those things might be used to circumvent your -X mod, eventually culminating in me giving an example of how I would address it if a player attempted to do such. I responded with this scenario to show how I might address the situation.
So what should determine NPC reactions outside of social skills and fluff?
I think starting attitudes should, in most situations, be based on the RP scenario in game more than your CHA: Are you going to turn away the dirty, rude Ranger who happens by while you are being attacked by Orcs? No, he saves your life and has earned your gratitude and perhaps friendship based on the RP scenario, his CHA should not come into play in that kind of scenario. I think most exchanges between and NPC and a PC can be handled through RP and/or rolled under the existing Social Skills. However, I have already stated that IF a PC wants something that isn't appropriate for the RP scenario and IF it can't be rolled under social skills then a CHA check would be appropriate. I have never said that I think it's unfair or against RAW to use CHA checks to see how an NPC reacts if the situation calls for it. What I am currently arguing with ciretose is whether or not making friends and pursuing love interests COULD POSSIBLY be rolled under skill checks, particularly Diplomacy. I think it can.
Now whos twisting words? Infact that's not even twisting thats inventing out of thin air...
I am following the pattern. You are saying that using this skill in the way it was intended to be used requires a further CHA check to see if they are actually interested in you. The skill is: Bluff vs. Sense Motive = The result, according to the wording in the skill description, is the target believes you are sincere and you persuaded them to grant a favor. The skill does not include any prerequisite of the NPC needing to like you based on a separate CHA roll. If the skill doesn’t call for any other prerequisite I don’t understand why you are advocating one. Hence, my question: If you successfully bring someone to the “friendly” state with Diplomacy, do you also require them to roll a prerequisite CHA check to see if that person will actually hold to what the skill says they will hold to?
Well: "Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you". Right there. Where does it say, that the target becomes interested on success?
I understand your point. I just don’t agree with it. The skill says that if you are successful, then you have convinced them you are sincere and get a favor.
Wrong. Bluff vs. Sense Motive = believed if succesfull.
The thing believed doesn't necessarily affect the target one bit.
-"The King is under attack, you must go protect him".
-"Uh ok, but I'm not from around here and I don't care about the king"
This sounds more like what a GM should do on a botched Bluff roll. For a successful Bluff, even if the guy says I don’t know who the king is and don’t care, the Bluff worked so the guy would believe there is trouble brewing and perhaps he should lay low or clear out. “I have no loyalty to this king, but I have seen the anarchy that follows a king’s death. We will finish this another time.”
I'm holding the skill you quoted and your conclusion from it to a logic standard. Making someone believe something to do something, is useless, if the belief itself gives no incentive to that someone to do that something.
So you, like ciretose, are arguing that the Seduction skill doesn’t actually seduce.
It doesn’t say: Bluff vs. Sense Motive = They believe you are sincere. Now roll a CHA check or a Diplomacy check to see if they will grant you a favor.
Bluff vs. Sense Motive = They believe you are sincere so you get/persuade a favor.
Oh I didn't mean to accuse. It was a question. Because several people have been saying player made fluff trumps charisma, so that was an offered example.I was hit with this already up-thread. What I have said is that a low ability score gives you a -X modifier to the things associated with it. But there are no rules defining how that must be represented by your character in game. It could be any number of things. There were a few exchanges, after that post about how those things might be used to circumvent your -X mod, eventually culminating in me giving an example of how I would address it if a player attempted to do such. I responded with this scenario to show how I might address the situation.
Rules actually do describe what the stats entail beyond skill modifiers. That is why they can't be subsumed by skill points.
Roleplaying itself means playing a role. Stats define that role. If you enact despite your stats, you're just improvising. If you enact despite you're stats, the enactment and the actual events in the game world have no correlation. However if you define roleplaying to be something different in that respect, I'll not bother debate that and leave it at that.
So what should determine NPC reactions outside of social skills and fluff?I think starting attitudes should, in most situations, be based on the RP scenario in game more than your CHA: Are you going to turn away the dirty, rude Ranger who happens by while you are being attacked by Orcs? No, he saves your life and has earned your gratitude and perhaps friendship based on the RP scenario, his CHA should not come into play in that kind of scenario. I think most exchanges between and NPC and a PC can be handled through RP and/or rolled under the existing Social Skills. However, I have already stated that IF a PC wants something that isn't appropriate for the RP scenario and IF it can't be rolled under social skills then a CHA check would be appropriate. I have never said that I think it's unfair or against RAW to use CHA checks to see how an NPC reacts if the situation calls for it. What I am currently arguing with ciretose is whether or not making friends and pursuing love interests COULD POSSIBLY be rolled under skill...
Situation ofcourse should determine the reaction of the npc. You'll welcome the Rangers help and be thankfull, but you'll still think he's dirty and rude. And if he does nothing to change that, once you feel you paid your debt of gratitude, you'll propably want nothing to do with him.
Most run ins with people however have no such situtation going on. If no skill is applied, then I agree that Charisma should determine how they see you.
I have to say I disagree on the friends and relations part though. Charisma will help you meet people. Diplomacy (in PF sense) will help the meeting to go on a positive note. Friendship and love however are impossible to achieve with skills or active trying. Active trying as in actively trying with a certain individual. Ofcourse if you actively try as many people as possible your chances increase.
|
|
Oh I didn't mean to accuse. It was a question. Because several people have been saying player made fluff trumps charisma, so that was an offered example.I was hit with this already up-thread. What I have said is that a low ability score gives you a -X modifier to the things associated with it. But there are no rules defining how that must be represented by your character in game. It could be any number of things. There were a few exchanges, after that post about how those things might be used to circumvent your -X mod, eventually culminating in me giving an example of how I would address it if a player attempted to do such. I responded with this scenario to show how I might address the situation.
Finally we agree, you admit you are trying to circumvent the rules.
Charisma does not effect how PCs feel about anyone else, only how NPC's feel about the players. Your examples are about "making" PC do something, which isn't the issue.
The issue is how NPC's view a PC.
Interparty dynamics have nothing to do with it. The PC's can love a low charisma character if they want to. PCs are run by people who play them.
But other NPCs will react to the low charisma character as someone with low charisma.You want to use skill checks to circumvent this, but the checks have very specific uses and purposes.You can use a magic item if you want to raise your charisma, or put and ability point in it when you level.
But you can't entirely circumvent low abilty scores with skills. If you could, every one would play high INT rogues.
Rules actually do describe what the stats entail beyond skill modifiers.
What section of RAW are you referring to?
Roleplaying itself means playing a role. Stats define that role. If you enact despite your stats, you're just improvising. If you enact despite you're stats, the enactment and the actual events in the game world have no correlation. However if you define roleplaying to be something different in that respect, I'll not bother debate that and leave it at that.
Then show me in the rules where what I wrote HERE or HERE is wrong.
Situation ofcourse should determine the reaction of the npc. You'll welcome the Rangers help and be thankfull, but you'll still think he's dirty and rude. And if he does nothing to change that, once you feel you paid your debt of gratitude, you'll propably want nothing to do with him.
This is one possible reaction yes. I am not saying it isn’t. I am saying it’s not the only possible outcome.
I have to say I disagree on the friends and relations part though. Charisma will help you meet people. Diplomacy (in PF sense) will help the meeting to go on a positive note. Friendship and love however are impossible to achieve with skills or active trying. Active trying as in actively trying with a certain individual. Ofcourse if you actively try as many people as possible your chances increase.
Diplomacy shifts people’s attitudes toward you. If you are consistently going to the same bar and hanging out with the same guy/girl, you spend a good deal of time in RP with that NPC and using Diplomacy to help the meetings go positively. You don’t think that could be a valid representation of the beginnings and cultivation of a friend/love interest relationship? Do you think those consistent positive meetings can’t represent opening the door to RP scenarios where that NPC becomes a friend or love interest?
Now whos twisting words? Infact that's not even twisting thats inventing out of thin air...I am following the pattern. You are saying that using this skill in the way it was intended to be used requires a further CHA check to see if they are actually interested in you. The skill is: Bluff vs. Sense Motive = The result, according to the wording in the skill description, is the target believes you are sincere and you persuaded them to grant a favor. The skill does not include any prerequisite of the NPC needing to like you based on a separate CHA roll. If the skill doesn’t call for any other prerequisite I don’t understand why you are advocating one.
Ah, I think this actually is a case of reading comprehention. (And I don't mean that as insult, perhaps english is not your first language?) It says "in order to" as in "with the intention of". So you convince someone with the intention of getting a favor. What you propose would read as "you convince someone and get a favor". So even though you convince her that your intentions are real, she may not be affected because she has no that sort of interest.
Like "I flap my arms in order to fly away" vs "I flap my arms and fly away". In the first case, the statement can be true; I succeed at flapping my arms, wanting to fly away, but I still don't fly, which is clear by context. The latter case would obviously be a lie.
Hence, my question: If you successfully bring someone to the “friendly” state with Diplomacy, do you also require them to roll a prerequisite CHA check to see if that person will actually hold to what the skill says they will hold to?
Nope. If the situation allowed the PC to roll a diplomacy check, I'll use the check to determine the result.
Well: "Use this skill to convince someone that your romantic intentions are real in order to get persuade someone to do a favor for you". Right there. Where does it say, that the target becomes interested on success?I understand your point. I just don’t agree with it. The skill says that if you are successful, then you have convinced them you are sincere and get a favor.
Indeed there's the difference :-)
I'm holding the skill you quoted and your conclusion from it to a logic standard. Making someone believe something to do something, is useless, if the belief itself gives no incentive to that someone to do that something.So you, like ciretose, are arguing that the Seduction skill doesn’t actually seduce.
Well I'm not getting in to a debate over what seduction means in the real world. But I'm guessing that's what threw you off track in the first place; yes, seduction means generally making someone want you despite the initial reaction. However even then it usually means trying for a very specific kind of 'favor'.
The skill you quoted really has nothing to do with that, by the description. You only convince someone of your romantic intentions. You plan to use that to gain something. But if the target cares not of you romantically, the skill can't apply.
Finally we agree, you admit you are trying to circumvent the rules.
I did no such thing. Your inability to comprehend what you read is not the same as me admitting anything.
Charisma does not effect how PCs feel about anyone else, only how NPC's feel about the players. Your examples are about "making" PC do something, which isn't the issue.
The examples in those posts were about how an NPC reacts to the PC.
The issue is how NPC's view a PC.
Which I addressed in that post, the PC failed the roll and the guard said “move along.”
Interparty dynamics have nothing to do with it. The PC's can love a low charisma character if they want to. PCs are run by people who play them.
And the NPCs are run by a GM who, last I checked, is also a person. If the GM decides that an RP scenario is reason enough for someone to overlook your shortcomings, such as you just saved their life, then there is nothing in RAW that dictates a CHA check must be rolled to make a friend. If the GM decides that Diplomacy is a valid way to open the door for a friendship or love interest, then there is no RAW saying that can’t be a valid way to adjudicate. There is nothing in PF that excludes it, nothing in your 3.5 posts that exclude it (in fact they seem to imply it), and older versions of the game have used existing Skill checks to handle such interactions before.
But other NPCs will react to the low charisma character as someone with low charisma.You want to use skill checks to circumvent this, but the checks have very specific uses and purposes.You can use a magic item if you want to raise your charisma, or put and ability point in it when you level.
The Diplomacy skill presents a mechanic. The mechanic is, you can make people friendly or helpful with a successful roll. The mechanic also describes typical actions that people who view you as such can be expected to take. It doesn’t include or exclude the potential relationship types that those attitude levels and common actions could potentially represent.
|
|
Excuse me, I was just continuing the train of thought. If charisma is to be used for first impressions, then so should wisdom be. If wisdom, why not intelligence? If intelligence, why not the physical stats too, what the heck?
OR we could go with what the situation dictates.
Or you could combine the two take into account both stats and situation, giving weighting to the factors appropriately.
PCs walk into a bar, seems like the bartender could be indifferent or friendly depending on how his business is, or what kind of guy he is.
PCs walk into a bar, having just rid the city of an evil sorcerer who killed the bartender's brother, I'm guessing he's pretty friendly.
PCs walk into a bar and set the place on fire, you can bet the bartender is worse than indifferent.
And those are great calls, and where story factors obviously outweigh any stat factors.
But if there were no such story factors, PCs walk into a bar. Would every PC get a stock standard initial attitude? Would not perhaps Charisma play a role then?
And I think you are perhaps right that the other stats could come into it if they have some relevance. For example...
PCs walk into a bar, the bartender is looking for strong looking men he might be able to persuade to help bring up some barrels from the cellar (his dead brother used to do all the lifting). Then yes, the high strength PC may get a more friendly welcome than his Str 8 companion.
However, I think Charisma is going to be the Ability score that will be more broadly applicable.
Rules actually do describe what the stats entail beyond skill modifiers.What section of RAW are you referring to?
The Core Rulebook starting from page 16 describes what each stat represents in addition to where the bonuses apply.
Roleplaying itself means playing a role. Stats define that role. If you enact despite your stats, you're just improvising. If you enact despite you're stats, the enactment and the actual events in the game world have no correlation. However if you define roleplaying to be something different in that respect, I'll not bother debate that and leave it at that.Then show me in the rules where what I wrote HERE or HERE is wrong.
I don't think there are rules in the product for roleplaying, I just told you what roleplaying generally means and why you need it.
The links seem a bit not connected to this, but in the first link the girl wouldn't really be pretty with a cha 7 and the second link seems house ruley because RAW doesn't state any of the things listed there. Basically: "Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." (page 17) It doesn't say you can have some of those above and some of those below. Ofcourse if someone thinks on a scale of 3 to 20, appearance of 7 is pretty, it's a matter of opinion.
Situation ofcourse should determine the reaction of the npc. You'll welcome the Rangers help and be thankfull, but you'll still think he's dirty and rude. And if he does nothing to change that, once you feel you paid your debt of gratitude, you'll propably want nothing to do with him.This is one possible reaction yes. I am not saying it isn’t. I am saying it’s not the only possible outcome.
But you'll still think the ranger is dirty and rude, despite the rescue, right?
I have to say I disagree on the friends and relations part though. Charisma will help you meet people. Diplomacy (in PF sense) will help the meeting to go on a positive note. Friendship and love however are impossible to achieve with skills or active trying. Active trying as in actively trying with a certain individual. Ofcourse if you actively try as many people as possible your chances increase.Diplomacy shifts people’s attitudes toward you. If you are consistently going to the same bar and hanging out with the same guy/girl, you spend a good deal of time in RP with that NPC and using Diplomacy to help the meetings go positively. You don’t think that could be a valid representation of the beginnings and cultivation of a friend/love interest relationship? Do you think those consistent positive meetings can’t represent opening the door to RP scenarios where that NPC becomes a friend or love interest?
It could be. Ofcourse. But it won't guarantee it and lack thereof wouldn't prevent it. So there's very little causality. With charisma and diplomacy you get better chance to get to know eachother. The rest is up to something else. Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?
Ah, I think this actually is a case of reading comprehention. (And I don't mean that as insult, perhaps english is not your first language?) It says "in order to" as in "with the intention of". So you convince someone with the intention of getting a favor. What you propose would read as "you convince someone and get a favor". So even though you convince her that your intentions are real, she may not be affected because she has no that sort of interest.
English is my first language, but thanks for the concern. I have said, I see your point and I see what you are saying. I don’t agree.
Like "I flap my arms in order to fly away" vs "I flap my arms and fly away". In the first case, the statement can be true; I succeed at flapping my arms, wanting to fly away, but I still don't fly, which is clear by context. The latter case would obviously be a lie.
The two sentences you wrote CAN be interchangeable. Yes, they CAN mean different things and given context COULD be proven to mean different things. It is possible that with context the first sentence only shows intent whereas the second shows completion. However, if a writer did not have such a difference in mind then the two could in fact be interchangeable and mean the same thing: “I flapped my wings to fly away from that place” vs. “I flapped my wings and flew away from that place.” You could read them interchangeably. It all depends on context.
1) This skill is admittedly quite poorly worded. Either that or there was a copy/paste error because, "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." Doesn’t make grammatical sense unless you assume either one of those words isn’t supposed to be there or it is supposed to say to get/persuade.
2) That said, the context is: The skill is called Seduction, it is an opposed roll that makes no mention of how much the person likes you based on a separate CHA check. The parent skill also is not reliant on any prerequisite CHA check to see if a person will react well to you. The check is for the purpose of “get/persuading someone to grant you a favor.” That is the goal; there is nothing that says a passed check doesn’t automatically reach that goal. It does say that convincing someone you are sincere is the path to reach that goal. But the goal of the check is to get/persuade a favor out of someone.
Nope. If the situation allowed the PC to roll a diplomacy check, I'll use the check to determine the result.
That’s what I would have guessed. So why then are you advocating a CHA check for this skill where none is called for?
seduction means generally making someone want you despite the initial reaction. However even then it usually means trying for a very specific kind of 'favor'.
And this skill uses Bluff to simulate that. Your goal is talking them into a favor. The path to that goal is using a Bluff check vs. Sense Motive check to convince them you are sincere despite their initial feelings about you. If successful the goal is reached and you have successfully gotten/persuaded a favor.
The skill you quoted really has nothing to do with that, by the description. You only convince someone of your romantic intentions. You plan to use that to gain something. But if the target cares not of you romantically, the skill can't apply.
And that same pattern of thought can be used to say: Well you succeeded on the Diplomacy check with the mercenaries who want to kill you. They heard out your plan to fake your own death and they think it could work. Like I said you succeeded in your check, but they just don’t seem to care and they want to kill you anyway.
Great Gygax's knickers, is this debate still going on?
Gentlemen, I put forth the idea that all your current arguments are flawed and thus, unprovable. Let me explain.
So you wish to seduce someone. Well, ciretose is correct. Nothing under Diplomacy allows you to seduce someone. However, nothing under Charisma says you can use it to seduce someone either. In fact, there are no rules in Pathfinder to cover seducing an NPC.
From this, we can come up with at least two courses of action. One, since there are no rules specifically covering seduction, you simply cannot seduce someone, ever. No rule, therefore, it cant be done. The other course of action is to use RAI to find a logical fit for seduction, because it seems highly improbable that seduction is impossible.
Shadowlord applied RAI and found Diplomacy to be acceptable. Ciretose disagrees and argues that raw Charisma score is the correct interpretation. If using Diplomacy to seduce someone is a house rule, by the same argument, so is using Charisma.
RAI discussions very diffucult to prove because they are interpretations of rules intent.
In addition, there are no rules to dictate how a GM should set an NPC's starting reaction. Both sides have admitted this, and yet you continue to debate. If you feel that a PC's Charisma is a deciding factor, then adjust the starting reaction accordingly. If you argue that a PC's Charisma is the reason an NPC wont speak to said character, that IS a house rule. Setting and circumstance is one thing, simply saying "the king will never talk to a PC with 7 Charisma" is a different matter entirely. I dont see anything wrong with this as long as you make it clear to your players prior to character generation that having a low Charisma score will negatively impact thier ability to interact with key figures in your campaign.
But other NPCs will react to the low charisma character as someone with low charisma.You want to use skill checks to circumvent this, but the checks have very specific uses and purposes.You can use a magic item if you want to raise your charisma, or put and ability point in it when you level.The Diplomacy skill presents a mechanic. The mechanic is, you can make people friendly or helpful with a successful roll. The mechanic also describes typical actions that people who view you as such can be expected to take. It doesn’t include or exclude the potential relationship types that those attitude levels and common actions could potentially represent.
And the mechanic needs 1 minute of interaction to be applicable, attitude change lasts generally 1d4 hours and can't be applied again for 24 hours.
Very specific uses, which can't override your normal persona. (here, charisma)
The Core Rulebook starting from page 16 describes what each stat represents in addition to where the bonuses apply.
It's been shown several times a character’s looks and CHA don't share a 1 to 1 ratio. I have also shown rules stating a character’s physical appearance is decided separately from Ability scores, HERE and HERE.
I don't think there are rules in the product for roleplaying, I just told you what roleplaying generally means and why you need it.
No there aren’t. But there are rules and examples that say physical appearance is decided by the player separately from ability scores and other factors. And what you told me was your opinion of what role playing means.
in the first link the girl wouldn't really be pretty with a cha 7
This has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate statement several times up-thread.
and the second link seems house ruley because RAW doesn't state any of the things listed there.
What is outside RAW? She wanted to flirt, she rolled the dice, and she didn’t meet DC. He told her to move along.
Diplomacy shifts people’s attitudes toward you. If you are consistently going to the same bar and hanging out with the same guy/girl, you spend a good deal of time in RP with that NPC and using Diplomacy to help the meetings go positively. You don’t think that could be a valid representation of the beginnings and cultivation of a friend/love interest relationship? Do you think those consistent positive meetings can’t represent opening the door to RP scenarios where that NPC becomes a friend or love interest?
It could be. Ofcourse.
Then you and I agree on this point.
But it won't guarantee it and lack thereof wouldn't prevent it.
I never said it was the only way or that it was a guarantee. I merely said it reasonably COULD happen. Those types of interactions COULD be handled under existing skill checks.
Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?
No. Some people are going to hate you and try to kill you no matter what. Otherwise there would be no point to the game for high CHA, high social skill characters because they wouldn’t have any enemies.
I see your point and I see what you are saying. I don’t agree.
Like "I flap my arms in order to fly away" vs "I flap my arms and fly away". In the first case, the statement can be true; I succeed at flapping my arms, wanting to fly away, but I still don't fly, which is clear by context. The latter case would obviously be a lie.The two sentences you wrote CAN be interchangeable. Yes, they CAN mean different things and given context COULD be proven to mean different things. It is possible that with context the first sentence only shows intent whereas the second shows completion. However, if a writer did not have such a difference in mind then the two could in fact be interchangeable and mean the same thing: “I flapped my wings to fly away from that place” vs. “I flapped my wings and flew away from that place.” You could read them interchangeably. It all depends on context.
But they are not interchangeable. In the first case, we don't know, if she flew. What if it was a Dodo or a baby bird? It flapped it's wings to fly, but still didn't. In the second case we know.
1)--snip--2) That said, the context is: The skill is called Seduction, it is an opposed roll that makes no mention of how much the person likes you based on a separate CHA check. The parent skill also is not reliant on any prerequisite CHA check to see if a person will react well to you. The check is for the purpose of “get/persuading someone to grant you a favor.” That is the goal; there is nothing that says a passed check doesn’t automatically reach that goal. It does say that convincing someone you are sincere is the path to reach that goal. But the goal of the check is to get/persuade a favor out of someone.
1) agreed.
2) The context can't be real world seduction, because you can seduce openly without any romantic intentions and even with a succesfull seduction you don't necessarily get any favors, except for sex. If you propose that the 'favor' in the skill is specifically only sex, then I might agree.
Otherwise, the context is convincing her of real romantic intentions. If she cares not of those, she's not incented to carry any favor based on that. Same as a succesfull flapping of arms won't make me fly, if they lack sufficiant aerodynamic properties.
So why then are you advocating a CHA check for this skill where none is called for?
I'm not saying a CHA check is required though. Depends on what the target is interested in. Money, company, looks...? I could use high CHA as a basis for the target to want to become romantically involved.
Recall my original response was due:
According to the skill it would seem it is your skill at Seduction that makes them interested in you or not.
There is no logical way to get to that conclusion from the skill description.
Quote:The skill you quoted really has nothing to do with that, by the description. You only convince someone of your romantic intentions. You plan to use that to gain something. But if the target cares not of you romantically, the skill can't apply.
And that same pattern of thought can be used to say: Well you succeeded on the Diplomacy check with the mercenaries who want to kill you. They heard out your plan to fake your own death and they think it could work. Like I said you succeeded in your check, but they just don’t seem to care and they want to kill you anyway.
And that indeed could be the case. Depends on what the mercenaries want. Maybe they want the bounty on you (= girl likes you), maybe they like to kill people (= girl is not interested). First case, they go along with your plan (convinced of sincerity), second case, your diplomacy never had a chance in that context, regardless of roll.
And the mechanic needs 1 minute of interaction to be applicable, attitude change lasts generally 1d4 hours and can't be applied again for 24 hours.
Right, so you need to spend 1 minute chatting with someone. And your group needs to decide a standard by which to judge the Starting Attitude of NPCs in relation to the PC. This could be RP scenario, it could be CHA, it could be Caste, it could be Wealth, it could be Faction, or any number of other things. It is not set by RAW.
Very specific uses, which can't override your normal persona. (here, charisma)
Actually it does. It specifically overrides their Starting Attitude toward you and replaces it with something that is, hopefully, more advantageous. And that attitude change CAN potentially be indefinite. Now if you are saying that their Starting Attitude is dictated by the PC’s normal persona (CHA) and the skill specifically overrides that Attitude and improves it, potentially indefinitely, then it actually does override that normal persona.
However, your point stands. A high Diplomacy isn’t going to help you on a straight CHA check. The argument then becomes, what is within the realm of acceptable for skill checks, and what must be done using CHA checks. The answer is, as Adm. Venge pointed out, RAW doesn’t dictate that.
But they are not interchangeable. In the first case, we don't know, if she flew. What if it was a Dodo or a baby bird? It flapped it's wings to fly, but still didn't. In the second case we know.
In your example they aren’t interchangeable. That neither proves or disproves the same about the skill.
2) The context can't be real world seduction, because you can seduce openly without any romantic intentions and even with a succesfull seduction you don't necessarily get any favors, except for sex. If you propose that the 'favor' in the skill is specifically only sex, then I might agree.
Well based on the context (IE: Seduction) I would assume those favors would certainly be sexual in nature. Or related in some way to an intimate encounter.
I'm not saying a CHA check is required though. Depends on what the target is interested in. Money, company, looks...? I could use high CHA as a basis for the target to want to become romantically involved.
I could see this. However, a GM could just as easily put similar requirements on ANY social skill. And while that can be balanced nicely and add to the game, it is not dictated in RAW. The mechanic is Bluff vs. Sense Motive = Favor. Anything beyond that is to be decided on a case by case basis by the GM at his table, it is not specified in the rules.
And that indeed could be the case. Depends on what the mercenaries want. Maybe they want the bounty on you (= girl likes you), maybe they like to kill people (= girl is not interested). First case, they go along with your plan (convinced of sincerity), second case, your diplomacy never had a chance in that context, regardless of roll.
But that isn’t dictated in RAW. It is left up to individual GMs at individual tables. RAW doesn’t say “this will work IF” it gives a mechanic.