Dumping the charisma


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

901 to 950 of 950 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Adm.Venge wrote:

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.

First, let me say I like how you think and I appreciate you coming here it the spirit of peace.

That being said, there is a problem with your position.

No one, not even shadowlord, has argued a charisma check could not be used. There is a consensus that a charisma check could be used to flirt, among many other social interactions.

The split come when you want to circumvent your negative charisma by using skills to do things that don't fall under what is in the skill description.

It has always been that if it doesn't match a skill, you use the ability most suitable. Need to bend a bar, strength. Seeing if you remember the guys name, intelligence, etc...

So if it isn't part of a skill, it defaults to the ability.

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is arguing against a charisma check doing something. They are arguing for skill checks to also do things not included in the skill description.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Post Nine Hundred!

To infinity and beyond!


Shadowlord wrote:
Lazzo wrote:
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.

Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

Shadowlord wrote:


Quote:
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.

And like I said, if you disagree, I won't get in to it. That's just your opinion

Shadowlord wrote:


Quote:
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 then again demonstrated by me to be a fact up-post.

Shadowlord wrote:


Quote:
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.

Not that one, the second one, where you list things shifting above and below cha.

Shadowlord wrote:


Shadowlord wrote:


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?
Lazzo wrote:
It could be. Ofcourse.

Then you and I agree on this point.

Quote:

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.

But correlation doesn't mean causality. So if the skill checks and friendship correlate, doesn't mean that the skill checks made the friendship. Especially since we agree that friendships could hapen without the checks.

Shadowlord wrote:


Quote:

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.

Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lazzo wrote:
Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

Again with this. So the fact that appearance is part of what determines your charisma score means that all unattractive people by defninition have an unpleasant personality and an inability to lead. All people with an unpleasant personality and an inability to lead are by definition unattractive. All people that can lead others also have a pleasant personality and and are attractive. All people that are attractive are defined to have a pleasant personality and are good leaders.

Lazzo wrote:
Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

NO. Diplomacy isn't FORCED by the rules to dictate friendship. Diplomacy CAN by the rules be used to represent forming a friendship.


Lazzo wrote:
Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

I am not going to get back into this argument. It was ended, several pages ago. Perhaps you should go back and read what happened in the thread since you have been gone.

Lazzo wrote:
Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?
Shadowlord wrote:
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.
Lazzo wrote:
Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

By the same token neither does a high CHA because no matter how high your CHA is you will always have enemies. That doesn't prove anything... and, What Jess said.

ciretose wrote:
The split come when you want to circumvent your negative charisma by using skills to do things that don't fall under what is in the skill description.

That has never been what I was arguing for, regardless of what you may think or the fact you and several others keep accusing it. I made a logical observation that cultivating friendships and love interests could fall under Diplomacy and you have stated that RAW can't possibly allow that. The fact is, RAW doesn't address it either way. Adm. Venge is 100% correct in his reckoning of what this argument is.

Adm.Venge wrote:

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.

You are absolutely right. This is an argument that can't be won by either side using RAW because it's an argument of RAI on both sides. With that, I believe I will take my leave as I have other things to do with my time. Thanks for an, IMO, perfectly worded neutral argument.


Shadowlord wrote:
Lazzo wrote:
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.

They are never interchangeable. "I do A to make B happen", you never know if B happens, regardless if you succeed in A. "I do A and B happens" B always happens if I succeed in A. (unless it's a lie) That is the case with the skill also.

Shadowlord wrote:


Quote:
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.

Then I think the rest of the skill description is poor. True romantic intentions and favor don't come in to it. However if you think it's only 'favors' of that nature, fine by me, no need to discuss it further then.

Shadowlord wrote:


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Hmmm... This is really interesting. Here our views seem to differ totally. I would never see a skill check do diddly, unless there is some reason for it to apply. You seem to first roll the check and then arrange the circumstances to match the result? I wouldn't go flaunting that your approach is somehow more RAW though. There are often modifiers given by RAW and those are applied before the roll based on circumstances. An impossible circumstance could simply be seen as an insurmountable roll penalty. Also different circumstances give different DCs. Those circumstances are always set by DM.


This thread is full of nougat and smurf.


Jess Door wrote:
Lazzo wrote:
Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.

Again with this. So the fact that appearance is part of what determines your charisma score means that all unattractive people by defninition have an unpleasant personality and an inability to lead. All people with an unpleasant personality and an inability to lead are by definition unattractive. All people that can lead others also have a pleasant personality and and are attractive. All people that are attractive are defined to have a pleasant personality and are good leaders.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And people who carry the same always hit the same power and wizards who can throw the same amount of spells always have the same amount of skills ect. ect. Nothing new here.

Jess Door wrote:


Lazzo wrote:
Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.
NO. Diplomacy isn't FORCED by the rules to dictate friendship. Diplomacy CAN by the rules be used to represent forming a friendship.

So there some particular rules you use to do it, or just wing it?


Shadowlord wrote:
Lazzo wrote:
Notice the difference between 'measures' and 'determine'. You can determine your character to look whatever. Big nose, small ears, high cheeks, whatever. But when you measure it, good or bad, how it comes together, you use charisma. Per RAW.
I am not going to get back into this argument. It was ended, several pages ago. Perhaps you should go back and read what happened in the thread since you have been gone.

Can't be bothered. Facts remain facts.

Shadowlord wrote:


Lazzo wrote:
Do you think that a high charisma, high diplomacy person could be friends with anyone in the world?
Shadowlord wrote:
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.
Lazzo wrote:
Therefore, diplomacy does not a friend make.

By the same token neither does a high CHA because no matter how high your CHA is you will always have enemies. That doesn't prove anything... and, What Jess said.

Well I said neither charisma or diplomacy determine friendships. That's what it proves.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

That depends on how said character with high strength chose to have his appearance. A high strength doesn't automatically mean bulky muscles.

[...]
Now if she has a thing for muscular men and the character is in fact, muscular, then yeah, sounds good to me.

OKay, I can go with that, so you would provide bonuses based upon the player's description of the character, whether the stats back those up or not? So if I described my Strength 7 rogue as brawny and muscular you would possibly have the princess favour my character? What about if a player has never described how his strength manifests, do you assume it isn't visible without a display of feats of strength?

I haven't bothered much with the attractiveness vs charisma part of this thread so far, but if the above is the case re strength, would you provide a bonus to the PC whose player described them as stunningly handsome despite having a 7 charisma?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Shadowlord wrote:
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!"

That is cool and I think we are in agreement, I wouldn't do either of those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DigitalMage wrote:
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?

Well said, Digital -- and I fully agree with what you're saying (and your issue with this disagreement). I tried to make very similar "common sense" points a few hundred posts ago (about how someone with 7 charisma could just be shifty-eyed, or glare all the time, or have a look on his face everyone just wants to slap off him).

Sadly, it seems that some people want to be completely able to trump the restrictions from a low charisma by taking a few extra skill ranks - (and go so far as to say taking ranks in Climb and Swim make your character athletic, which is better than being strong?) and this should completely make up for it and don't seem to accept that there may be times you don't get to *use* your social skills (as you're suggesting here by showing "initial reaction" sort of situations).

Liberty's Edge

Tilnar wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
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?

Well said, Digital -- and I fully agree with what you're saying (and your issue with this disagreement). I tried to make very similar "common sense" points a few hundred posts ago (about how someone with 7 charisma could just be shifty-eyed, or glare all the time, or have a look on his face everyone just wants to slap off him).

Sadly, it seems that some people want to be completely able to trump the restrictions from a low charisma by taking a few extra skill ranks - (and go so far as to say taking ranks in Climb and Swim make your character athletic, which is better than being strong?) and this should completely make up for it and don't seem to accept that there may be times you don't get to *use* your social skills (as you're suggesting here by showing "initial reaction" sort of situations).

+1

Negative scores have negative effects. Don't like it, get a magic item.


I don't know if I, as a GM, would let someone with low Charisma claim to be 'attractive, yet quiet' because 'quiet' isn't necessarily an attractive or unattractive thing. You can have either high or low charisma and be 'quiet'. Manifesting as being 'the strong, mysterious, silent type' or the 'awkward quiet person'.

What I MIGHT allow, is someone with low charisma being attractive, yet irritating. They can have their raven hair and a fair complexion, but their voice sounds like Fran from 'The Nanny' and they constantly sound like they have a runny nose... or something...

Mechanically, I wouldn't give them any additional bonuses or penalties to visual or audible cues beyond the penalties they would get from low charisma. (in other words, I would play the low charisma straight).

In roleplay, however, I might have NPC's roll their eyes a disproportionate amount of times towards said character and they might cringe when s/he speaks. And if said character ever laughs or tries to crack a joke I might give everyone in the room the 'nauseated' condition.


DigitalMage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

That depends on how said character with high strength chose to have his appearance. A high strength doesn't automatically mean bulky muscles.

[...]
Now if she has a thing for muscular men and the character is in fact, muscular, then yeah, sounds good to me.

OKay, I can go with that, so you would provide bonuses based upon the player's description of the character, whether the stats back those up or not? So if I described my Strength 7 rogue as brawny and muscular you would possibly have the princess favour my character? What about if a player has never described how his strength manifests, do you assume it isn't visible without a display of feats of strength?

I haven't bothered much with the attractiveness vs charisma part of this thread so far, but if the above is the case re strength, would you provide a bonus to the PC whose player described them as stunningly handsome despite having a 7 charisma?

I wouldn't really provide any 'bonuses' however, this kind of thing might set a brief baseline for how the interactions start.

For example, if the Strength 7 rogue was described as brawny and muscular, then the princess (who has been noted as favoring 'strong men') might take a liking to him at first, until the time comes that he needs use his strength for her and fails miserably and he earns the ire of a princess for his deception.

Likewise, if a character were described as stunningly handsome, npc's would see that, and react accordingly in general RP (which can be both a good AND bad thing, especially how I GM), but once they opened their mouth they'd have that same +2 bonus to shoving their foot in it (aka -2 cha penalty) I would also expect a low cha character to somewhat roleplay the stat as well, a little more shy, or more arrogant, or something. Just something to distinguish the character.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

That depends on how said character with high strength chose to have his appearance. A high strength doesn't automatically mean bulky muscles.

[...]
Now if she has a thing for muscular men and the character is in fact, muscular, then yeah, sounds good to me.

OKay, I can go with that, so you would provide bonuses based upon the player's description of the character, whether the stats back those up or not? So if I described my Strength 7 rogue as brawny and muscular you would possibly have the princess favour my character? What about if a player has never described how his strength manifests, do you assume it isn't visible without a display of feats of strength?

I haven't bothered much with the attractiveness vs charisma part of this thread so far, but if the above is the case re strength, would you provide a bonus to the PC whose player described them as stunningly handsome despite having a 7 charisma?

I wouldn't really provide any 'bonuses' however, this kind of thing might set a brief baseline for how the interactions start.

For example, if the Strength 7 rogue was described as brawny and muscular, then the princess (who has been noted as favoring 'strong men') might take a liking to him at first, until the time comes that he needs use his strength for her and fails miserably and he earns the ire of a princess for his deception.

Likewise, if a character were described as stunningly handsome, npc's would see that, and react accordingly in general RP (which can be both a good AND bad thing, especially how I GM), but once they opened their mouth they'd have that same +2 bonus to shoving their foot in it (aka -2 cha penalty) I would also expect a low cha character to somewhat roleplay the stat as well, a little more shy, or more arrogant, or something. Just something to distinguish the character.

It is that fine line between "fluff" and trying to get around the rules.

I am fine if a character wants to be physically attractive and have low charisma. But people will think you are a complete ass.

Movies and Books are full of the good looking jerk that no one likes.

Charisma is like that. Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone.


ciretose wrote:

I am fine if a character wants to be physically attractive and have low charisma. But people will think you are a complete ass.

Movies and Books are full of the good looking jerk that no one likes.

Charisma is like that. Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone.

This, for me, is the end of the thread. I need read no more.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

What took you so long? :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
What took you so long? :)

My money says he was trying to push the thread to 1,000 posts before quitting, but he got bored of it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

MONEY TALKS?! O_O


TriOmegaZero wrote:
MONEY TALKS?! O_O

This thread is about charisma, not badass ACDC songs :P

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
MONEY TALKS?! O_O

Cash Rules Everything Around Me

C.R.E.A.M.

Get the money

Dolla, Dolla, Bill y'all!

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
MONEY TALKS?! O_O
This thread is about charisma, not badass ACDC songs :P

You sir, have been Thunderstruck.


ciretose wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
MONEY TALKS?! O_O
This thread is about charisma, not badass ACDC songs :P
You sir, have been Thunderstruck.

Does that mean I'm on a Highway to Hell now?

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
ciretose wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
MONEY TALKS?! O_O
This thread is about charisma, not badass ACDC songs :P
You sir, have been Thunderstruck.
Does that mean I'm on a Highway to Hell now?

Do you hear Hell's Bells?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Is A Man In Black back yet?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Is A Man In Black back yet?

He knows better, cause I'm TNT

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
[...] but once they opened their mouth they'd have that same +2 bonus to shoving their foot in it (aka -2 cha penalty) I would also expect a low cha character to somewhat roleplay the stat as well, a little more shy, or more arrogant, or something. Just something to distinguish the character.

It seems we are in complete agreement on this matter, though if th disparity between actual strength and that the player describes is too much I may discuss that with the player :)


Just to help it go over 1000 my 2c:

Charisma is defined to include appearance. If you want your appearance to be out of the norm (for that CHA), take a trait (or feat) for that.

Its just identical how Dexterity applies for many things, but if you want your characters reflexes to particularly great you take a trait for that (or Lightning Reflexes).

Now influencing others is done with Bluff, Diplomacy & Intimidate. Its again the same thing. You aren't going to be a great archer, even if you have a great dex, if you don't train (take feats & classes that raise BAB).

ciretose wrote:
Movies and Books are full of the good looking jerk that no one likes.

1. Usually someone likes them, just not the main characters.

2. Bluff, Diplomacy & Intimidate can be used to for very different goals. How you use them basically is how jerk you are. Usually Movies and Books jerks intentionally try to irritate and succeed.

3. Bluff, Diplomacy & Intimidate isn't necessarily high even though your CHA is above average.


This thread makes my eyes bleed....

Liberty's Edge

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This thread makes my eyes bleed....

It has a low Charisma score :)


ciretose wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This thread makes my eyes bleed....

It has a low Charisma score :)

...but you can't tell until you interact with it.

*shakes fist*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Dude, let it DIE! DX


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber

I like the idea that campaign worlds are full of ugly, shallow people with a lack of motivation. It allows the rest of the tropes to be more believable.

Liberty's Edge

Atavist wrote:
I like the idea that campaign worlds are full of ugly, shallow people with a lack of motivation. It allows the rest of the tropes to be more believable.

Sounds a lot like Earth :)

Scarab Sages

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://beshir.org/pub/Amusing/Motivatio nal%2520Posters/RPG%2520Posters/Int%2520Dump.jpg&imgrefurl=http://beshi r.org/pub/Amusing/Motivational%2520Posters/RPG%2520Posters/&usg=__BEBUj _reFZpG6u2WIycXx9wUw2k=&h=600&w=750&sz=65&hl=en&start=0 &zoom=1&tbnid=XaB9VVK7BI13wM:&tbnh=162&tbnw=179&prev=/i mages%3Fq%3Ddump%2Bint%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls% 3Den%26biw%3D1284%26bih%3D680%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=h c&vpx=823&vpy=131&dur=804&hovh=169&hovw=212&tx=99&a mp;ty=104&ei=XHH0TI6ODI34nAe0p6yQCg&oei=XHH0TI6ODI34nAe0p6yQCg& esq=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0

read this lol

hopefully it works...

If not just google "Dump Int" under images and look for george bush.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dude, let it DIE! DX

It DID die, someone decided to necromate it.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dude, let it DIE! DX
It DID die, someone decided to necromate it.

1000 is so close... :)


I don't have the strength to read this thread, but in an effort to give people what may be a twist on this topic to reach 1000 posts, the thread seems totally PC oriented.

Charisma is one-sided in favor of PCs. PC's have the ability to ignore NPC's charisma and specifically Diplomacy checks.

Characters expect their high CHA/Diplomacy to give them everything from lower prices, room & board, Ball invitations and members of the opposite sex. But when the mayor of the town (high CHA and Diplomacy) gives a impassioned speach for assistance (DM gives great speak and then rolls a natural 20). PC's can give it no credance.

DM as Mayor: "Blah, blah, blah...Help us!"

PCs: Let's go to the next town.

DM: I rolled a friggin' 20 and that makes it a 50 Diplomacy check! You feel the need to help.

PCs: Don't try to railroad the plot. We want to do something else.


Duncan & Dragons wrote:

I don't have the strength to read this thread, but in an effort to give people what may be a twist on this topic to reach 1000 posts, the thread seems totally PC oriented.

Charisma is one-sided in favor of PCs. PC's have the ability to ignore NPC's charisma and specifically Diplomacy checks.

Characters expect their high CHA/Diplomacy to give them everything from lower prices, room & board, Ball invitations and members of the opposite sex. But when the mayor of the town (high CHA and Diplomacy) gives a impassioned speach for assistance (DM gives great speak and then rolls a natural 20). PC's can give it no credance.

DM as Mayor: "Blah, blah, blah...Help us!"

PCs: Let's go to the next town.

DM: I rolled a friggin' 20 and that makes it a 50 Diplomacy check! You feel the need to help.

PCs: Don't try to railroad the plot. We want to do something else.

And this is why in my games I talk to my players about this stuff in advance, and warn them that, if/when diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks happen, they are bound by them just as much as the NPC's. It just makes sense.

Now clearly, said PC's might decide they had more important things to do than help, but just 'randomly going on to the next town' isn't one of them.

If these were less altruistic PC's, they'd be more than free to try to negotiate terms of rewards from the people, but they would still be subject to the diplomacy effect, meaning their choices are narrowed.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Duncan & Dragons wrote:

I don't have the strength to read this thread, but in an effort to give people what may be a twist on this topic to reach 1000 posts, the thread seems totally PC oriented.

Charisma is one-sided in favor of PCs. PC's have the ability to ignore NPC's charisma and specifically Diplomacy checks.

Characters expect their high CHA/Diplomacy to give them everything from lower prices, room & board, Ball invitations and members of the opposite sex. But when the mayor of the town (high CHA and Diplomacy) gives a impassioned speach for assistance (DM gives great speak and then rolls a natural 20). PC's can give it no credance.

DM as Mayor: "Blah, blah, blah...Help us!"

PCs: Let's go to the next town.

DM: I rolled a friggin' 20 and that makes it a 50 Diplomacy check! You feel the need to help.

PCs: Don't try to railroad the plot. We want to do something else.

And this is why in my games I talk to my players about this stuff in advance, and warn them that, if/when diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks happen, they are bound by them just as much as the NPC's. It just makes sense.

Now clearly, said PC's might decide they had more important things to do than help, but just 'randomly going on to the next town' isn't one of them.

If these were less altruistic PC's, they'd be more than free to try to negotiate terms of rewards from the people, but they would still be subject to the diplomacy effect, meaning their choices are narrowed.

See I don't think you can make PCs do anything without the railroading, which is why I am so much in the penalizing low Charisma side of things.

PCs can like or dislike whoever they want. As a DM it is my job to try and make the NPCs appear to the PCs in whatever way they are intended, but I can't make the PCs like anyone. The PCs are not in my control.

NPCs however, are. So if you have a low Charisma it is shown by NPC attitudes. Because those are the people in my control.


Quote:
And this is why in my games I talk to my players about this stuff in advance, and warn them that, if/when diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks happen, they are bound by them just as much as the NPC's. It just makes sense.

Player1 "how long has this guy been talking to us?"

Player2 "about a minute..."

Player1 "How long does it take to do a diplomacy check?"

Player2 "starts flipping through rule book"

player1 "Gorthack embeds his axe in the talky man's skull.


ciretose wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Duncan & Dragons wrote:

I don't have the strength to read this thread, but in an effort to give people what may be a twist on this topic to reach 1000 posts, the thread seems totally PC oriented.

Charisma is one-sided in favor of PCs. PC's have the ability to ignore NPC's charisma and specifically Diplomacy checks.

Characters expect their high CHA/Diplomacy to give them everything from lower prices, room & board, Ball invitations and members of the opposite sex. But when the mayor of the town (high CHA and Diplomacy) gives a impassioned speach for assistance (DM gives great speak and then rolls a natural 20). PC's can give it no credance.

DM as Mayor: "Blah, blah, blah...Help us!"

PCs: Let's go to the next town.

DM: I rolled a friggin' 20 and that makes it a 50 Diplomacy check! You feel the need to help.

PCs: Don't try to railroad the plot. We want to do something else.

And this is why in my games I talk to my players about this stuff in advance, and warn them that, if/when diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks happen, they are bound by them just as much as the NPC's. It just makes sense.

Now clearly, said PC's might decide they had more important things to do than help, but just 'randomly going on to the next town' isn't one of them.

If these were less altruistic PC's, they'd be more than free to try to negotiate terms of rewards from the people, but they would still be subject to the diplomacy effect, meaning their choices are narrowed.

See I don't think you can make PCs do anything without the railroading, which is why I am so much in the penalizing low Charisma side of things.

PCs can like or dislike whoever they want. As a DM it is my job to try and make the NPCs appear to the PCs in whatever way they are intended, but I can't make the PCs like anyone. The PCs are not in my control.

NPCs however, are. So if you have a low Charisma it is shown by NPC attitudes. Because those are the people in my control.

I see it differently personally. The npc's aren't in my control any more than the pc's are. They're all characters in a world. I'm a voice for the NPC's, in the same way that the players are a voice for the PC's. However, the decisions I make for the NPC's aren't my decisions, they are the NPC's decisions, and I expect the same sort of roleplay from my players.

Perhaps it's an odd style, but I make this kind of point known prior to starting the campaign. A diplomacy roll won't force a PC down a specific path, but it certainly can narrow his options, based on his personality.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
And this is why in my games I talk to my players about this stuff in advance, and warn them that, if/when diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks happen, they are bound by them just as much as the NPC's. It just makes sense.

Player1 "how long has this guy been talking to us?"

Player2 "about a minute..."

Player1 "How long does it take to do a diplomacy check?"

Player2 "starts flipping through rule book"

player1 "Gorthack embeds his axe in the talky man's skull.

Lmao, valid point Wolf. Of course, unless they're in a private area, they can expect other people to have seen them, which creates a panic, which spreads throughout the town, and eventually something comes to make them pay for their crimes.

Depending on how well known their capabilities are, this could start out with a squad of town guardsmen, or it could jump straight up the ladder to other adventurers.


Really!?!

@Kyrt-Ryder: But the PC's could roll diplomacy to calm the mob...and their pitchforks.

Liberty's Edge

I like high charisma, Then again what I choose to play is not fighters. With me it's languages I play a Gaesha so thats says everything. Now working on a ballerina . I can speak japanese so I play that as her main language. Two weeks and five days of studying Gaesha was intresting to do.

The Exchange

So, of my two current AP characters, I have a 7Cha Shoanti Fighter who is hugely muscled and ruggedly 'decent looking' but has the social graces you would expect from a released slave pit fighter.

And a 18Cha Half-orc Bard who is monstrously large, has one blind eye which he doesn't hide at all and bestial features, yet is friendly, helpful and always ready with a joke or song.

Dammit. I guess I'm just doing it wrong. :-/

Liberty's Edge

Wolfthulhu wrote:

So, of my two current AP characters, I have a 7Cha Shoanti Fighter who is hugely muscled and ruggedly 'decent looking' but has the social graces you would expect from a released slave pit fighter.

And a 18Cha Half-orc Bard who is monstrously large, has one blind eye which he doesn't hide at all and bestial features, yet is friendly, helpful and always ready with a joke or song.

Dammit. I guess I'm just doing it wrong. :-/

I would say you are doing it right.

In both cases the character's charisma has in game effects that are understood to effect interactions.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

Really!?!

@Kyrt-Ryder: But the PC's could roll diplomacy to calm the mob...and their pitchforks.

The working theory here is that if they killed somebody because they didn't want to deal with his diplomacy check that they didn't have a face to counter-negotiate with the character in question.

(Also... I think a better idea would be bluff, and conning the crowd into believing they were framed. Glibness for the win.)

901 to 950 of 950 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Dumping the charisma All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.