That's the optimizer Mr. Fishy has a problem with. Please play the character you wrote not just the good parts.
This reminds me of a PC I DM'd a while ago named Thorgrim Madbeard. He was your typical min/maxer who knocked his Charisma down to a 7 or 6 but played the character as the parties leader and most effective negotiator. During a PC / NPC dialogue I waited for Thorgrim to finish speaking only to reply with a question.."did you just call me an A-hole?!!??!!" LOL
I've played a character before that had a low charisma and somehow kept becoming the party face (to be fair I was the one with the highest intelligence). My guy would groan whenever someone turned to him for explanations or when someone made a stupid (in his eyes) offer.
When the put him in charge of negotiations it ended up like this:
"Look just because everyone else here is too stupid or shy to say something I'm going to explain this to you. We want this -- you want that. I know that you don't want to end your existance quite yet. So we'll give you this, you give us that or we end you -- now. I don't care about all your fancy pants speach or what your title is, I'm bored you're tiring and I just want you to shut up and do what I say."
Now the GM and I understood what was going on, and usually I had just enough leverage to keep myself out of greater trouble than I got the party into -- in fact at one point I gave away another party member to get what I wanted. When everyone asked me why I pointed out (out of character) that they knew how my character was and continued to rely on him to do the face work -- even though two different players made "face" type characters and a third (out of 6) was at least decent at it -- if they were going to have my guy do the talking this was the crap they were going to have to deal it.
Eventually someone else started handling more of the social interactions.
@BigNorseWolf
Fair enough. Mr. Fishy agrees on many of your points. You misunderstood or Mr. Fishy was unclear but we seem to have cleared the troll chunks away and found a middle ground. Mr. Fishy likes Fluffy Crunch and you like Crunchy Fluffy. Same great taste different recipe. Let us go forth and RP Optimized characters.>Puts "I Heart Poodles" sign on Big Norse Wolf<
What? Mr. Fishy is still a fish hole...do not judge Mr. Fishy.
.. I DEMAND TARTAR SAUCE !
My problem is (I'm building a character for Kingmaker right now)...I'm not going to be the 'party face' and so have limited points to buy Cha...I don't want to 'dump' it, but I am GOING to, because I can actually create a MORE social character by trading off Cha for Int!
I could put a 10 in both Cha and Int...but better to put the 8 in Cha, 12 in Int, and use the extra skill point per level to go into Cha-based skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate). After three levels, I will be functionally at the same level as the 10-Cha character, and from there on in, I just get better. The 'stats based on character' types wouldn't like it, but I want to make the most social character possible.
|
I have never seen Charisma as a dump stat or as less important than any other ability score. True, I have measured how much I devote to Charisma depending on my character concept and believe that is a valid decision. In my experience, Charisma has always been a focus ability score in my group.
However, I do not see how Charisma has to be a measure of appearance. May be the beautiful girl who hikes up her dress is awkward and comes across as stiff or lacking confidence. She actually appears foolish rather than sexy. This might be amusing to the person(s) she is trying to attract?
I agree with Professor Cirno, give more purpose to Charisma if you want players to take it. Not every player is going to invest the same value in this ability score, especially if you're looking at it from purely a rules point of view.
Personally, I would separate appearance from Charisma. A low Charisma score can be assigned to the most stunning being on the planet to the ugliest creature crawling around in a sewer. This ability score should be a measure of personality, potential for personal influence and force of personality. The most unattractive people can become great leaders and the most beautiful people cannot motivate anyone.
Charisma should be a measure of how a person can interact with others and sway them to his point of view. Essentially, influence them. Looks can influence people, initially, but how soon does one tire of looks if there is no substance (will looks alone be taken seriously)? I am pretty sure the trophy husband or wife is there as an ornament, but not really respected for their opinion. What does a trophy partner have once their looks begin to fade?
In a time of crisis, we're not looking to our supermodels to solve the problem. We look to our government agencies that are filled with men and women of varied appearance to get the job done. It is their job and hopefully they have the resources to resolve the crisis. Our leaders are rarely attractive. Kevin Rudd inspired Australians to vote for him in 2007, but he is not supermodel. Initially, we are attracted to looks but at the end of the day, how important is looks compared to personal influence and force of personality? (Sorry, I rushed to write this example...)
Attractiveness is a part of Charisma, but what I find attractive may differ from what everyone else finds attractive. I think it is easier to just remove the appearance part of Charisma and place emphasis on the ways a low or high Charisma can play out in different roleplaying situations.
.. I DEMAND TARTAR SAUCE !
In a time of crisis, we're not looking to our supermodels to solve the problem. We look to our government agencies that are filled with men and women of varied appearance to get the job done.
I don't think its a coincidence that our presidents got a lot better looking with the advent of TV.
Charisma is appearance because it says so.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
as an ugly person i can tell you i do catch a lot of flack that most people wont.
Constitution also measures a few different things. For example, a large fat man probably can't run a mile , but if you hit him and little marathon runner with a baseball bat, chances are good the fat mans going to be better off than the twig.
Constitution also measures a few different things. For example, a large fat man probably can't run a mile , but if you hit him and little marathon runner with a baseball bat, chances are good the fat mans going to be better off than the twig.
Actually the fat man is likely to be much worse off -- the marathon runner probably has a better consitution, and can probably better take the hit due to continious training and conditioning -- something your fat man is lacking.
Actually the fat man is likely to be much worse off -- the marathon runner probably has a better consitution, and can probably better take the hit due to continious training and conditioning -- something your fat man is lacking.Constitution also measures a few different things. For example, a large fat man probably can't run a mile , but if you hit him and little marathon runner with a baseball bat, chances are good the fat mans going to be better off than the twig.
Either way, it's going to depend on where you hit him. Neither will do well if you hit him in the head. Hit the fat guy where he's padded compared to the marathoner and he'll do better. But that's not any kind of comparison related to stats - that's about the benefits of natural armor (as derived from rolls of fat padding).
Ever wrap glass in paper...same idea. Extra tissue absorbs the trauma of the impact. Meaning that less force would reach the bones and organs of the large man as opposed to the slender one.
More cushion for the blunt force trauma.
Constitution also measures a few different things. For example, a large fat man probably can't run a mile , but if you hit him and little marathon runner with a baseball bat, chances are good the fat mans going to be better off than the twig.
Actually the fat man is likely to be much worse off -- the marathon runner probably has a better consitution
The problem inherent in the stat is what we're discussing.
and can probably better take the hit due to continious training and conditioning -- something your fat man is lacking.
Nothing a marathon runner does conditions their ribs and bones not to break. Greek boxers and roman gladiators tended to develop a fair bit of pudge to cushion the blows.
.
..
...
....
.....
Nothing a marathon runner does conditions their ribs and bones not to break. Greek boxers and roman gladiators tended to develop a fair bit of pudge to cushion the blows.
..well, yes in general but let's not forget that a few key sets of the marathon runners' bones are being repeatedly exposed to the jarring shock of pounding feet/legs to ground.
Doubly so for 'Ye Ancient Marathon Runner', in the times before air soles and specialist shoes.
O_o Just wanna give them their dues! :) Of course, if you're practicing a martial art that involves taking hits then you want some padding, along with mental conditioning!
::
..to repost a.. post.. developed by BIFTech technicians from another thread..
DM: 'The peasant punches your character in the face'
Player: 'wtf? why?'
DM 'You don't know.'
Player 'What? Ok, I ask him.'
Dm 'What are you going to ask him?'
Player 'I'm going to ask him 'Hey, why did you punch me in the face?'
*Diplomacy Check: SUCCESS!*
DM 'He says sorry but he couldn't help himself. '
Player: '..ok, and?'
DM: 'He says you reminded him of a guy...'
Player: '..AND?'
DM: '..that guy was a jerk.'
Player: '....!'
::
Personally, the whole 'I'm drop dead gorgeous but my personality stinks hence my below average Charisma' stance seems very weak and smacks of folks desperate to get the most out of the least - when taking to extremes!
While I agree that the balance between looks, magnetism, force of personality, sense of self and personality can vary, we would hope that a player would vary them within some rational constraints.
vs
In other words, assuming extremes for such stats seems.. well, desperate while a little disparity between what constitutes the character's charisma score and how it's comprised seems fine.
For a given value of 'fine'.
::
Of course, we don't *have* to run things this way - just as much as the Strength 20 character doesn't have to have any muscles..
..it's the power of his/her/misc's god infusing their being with divine power, didn't cha know?
..but after the seventh character who relies on such interpretation for their stats, things smell old and stale.
*snip*
Please not Benign, this thread started - I believe - due to some optimization practices I was showing on two other threads, and I believe is directly related to a challenge that a Fighter optimized for actually being a fighter could still be decently charismatic.
This being considered the Fighter in question had a 7 Charisma which represents a -10% to success in social situations compared to a normal person. That means 1 out of 10 people will be less impressed by him than the average person. If you were to diplomacy with 100 people, you will statistically annoy 10 more people than the average person, or the average person will make 10 more friends (depending on the DCs).
The fighter was in no way suggested that he was the equivalent of a greek god in his appearance, that's for sure. He was noted as being handsome but wasn't very good at talking, which he overcomes by 2nd level. This is not the case of being excessively repulsive, it's just a case of being a little less effective.
Likewise, having a 7 Charisma means diddly until you actually begin using it. If you want, I welcome you to provide a piece of information stating that NPCs react to players based on their raw ability scores. Go ahead, I will wait. However, while you're doing that, I want to know the ability scores of my enemies as well; since I really need to decide between Ray of Enfeeblement and Touch of Idiocy, and really if that ogre's charisma is particularly bad then I will use my charisma damaging poison.
I mean, if a commoner can walk up and punch you in the face 'cause of an invisible number of a sheet that represents modifiers to checks, then what I'm asking is far from unreasonable.
I mean, if a commoner can walk up and punch you in the face 'cause of an invisible number of a sheet that represents modifiers to checks, then what I'm asking is far from unreasonable.
The source you seek is the DM.
Charisma lacks mechanical representation, thankfully, because if its use and interpretation were as mapped out as combat-dependent stats we'd have a game that role-plays for us.
Charisma is the stat that relies the most on the DM to represent accordingly, through the reactions of the campaign world and the events that unfold, both actively - versus skill checks and role playing - and reactively - in the form of events unfolding and reacting without the character's active engagement.
::
A low charisma character using skills to offset their social downfalls:
Sure, it makes sense!
However, the character has to actively use their skills in order to do so.
When they're not, the world should treat them as their score indicates, assuming the DM is fairly representing the Charisma stat within the campaign world.
Such characters should have to actively work harder to enjoy the perks a character with a higher charisma passively enjoys.
For example:
A low charisma character receives less free doughnuts from an unspecified source than a higher charisma character.
As a result, they must the lower charisma character must personally contend with a doughnut deficient environment.
Now, the lower charisma character can actively offset such doughnut deficiency with the use of practiced charm, persuasive discourse, threatening words etc - in the form of skills..
..however, the lower charisma character can expect to have to offset such donut deficiency more often than the higher charisma character.
Assuming they like doughnuts.
::
Note: As stated earlier, I have no problem with some variance around the charisma stat's interpretation - extremes are where the problem lies and even then these are 'fine' in small doses.
If/When the extreme variance becomes the norm then things get old and stale.
If it requires DM fiat, it is broken. It is literally saying "The mechanics suck here - you, the DM, need to step in.
This isn't exactly a good selling point.
Also none of your posts ever make sense. Like, ever.
Also also, stop with the tiresome semi-signiture.
If it requires DM fiat, it is broken. It is literally saying "The mechanics suck here - you, the DM, need to step in.
This isn't exactly a good selling point.
Also none of your posts ever make sense. Like, ever.
Also also, stop with the tiresome semi-signiture.
o_o
So, you don't agree with something you don't understand?
Interesting!
.
..
...
....
.....Aw come on! How can you not like BenignFascist's posts?
When the mothership lands, you sir will have a window seat.
I do note an unfortunate typo in my penultimate post:
''As a result, they must the lower charisma character must personally contend with a doughnut deficient environment.''
should read:
''As a result, the lower charisma character must personally contend with a doughnut deficient environment.''
|
If you want, I welcome you to provide a piece of information stating that NPCs react to players based on their raw ability scores. Go ahead, I will wait.
Unfortunately, Pathfinder RPG seems to be lacking any rules, guidelines or advice on how to determine the starting attitude of NPCs (if someone else can find something please correct me). In lack of any such rules, it comes down to a GM decision.
Now if the GM wishes to base his decision on the raw Charisma stat of a PC I think that is fine, and actally a good default. Obviously, other factors will likely come into play, like whether the PC just killed the NPC's friend, but as a default using the raw Charisma stat, or asking for a Charisma check is not a bad idea.
A low charisma can a fun thing to have, not just a dump stat.
I had an dwarven alchemist for a one shot with a 7 charisma, and I wrote up a "smell chart" that determined "what he was brewing" before he even got the cauldron over the fire in the morning. It was great fun. It had everything from formaldehyde to lilies, and had the obligatory roll twice and combine the two results at the end of the chart :D
People should love there dump stats and find ways to make them a part of their character as much as their 18's or what-have-you. The only kind of stat that doesn't really have an effect on your character is a 10-11.
.
..
.....the character is pretty good looking :: Cha 14!
..but their personality stinks :: -6 Cha
..they have a Cha of 8.
In other words, assuming extremes for such stats seems.. well, desperate while a little disparity between what constitutes the character's charisma score and how it's comprised seems fine.
I'd go for:
..People react to the character pretty good when they see her :: Cha 14
..People think her personality stinks when they actually talk to her :: Cha 6
..She has a median CHA of 10.
The problem with balance then is: Player supposes visual CHA of 14, but applies the CHA 10 to discussions. Wouldn't she then need to use 6 for verbal interaction respectively? Or just use the 10 to both visual CHA and verbal CHA (default).
If you want, I welcome you to provide a piece of information stating that NPCs react to players based on their raw ability scores. Go ahead, I will wait.Unfortunately, Pathfinder RPG seems to be lacking any rules, guidelines or advice on how to determine the starting attitude of NPCs (if someone else can find something please correct me). In lack of any such rules, it comes down to a GM decision.
Now if the GM wishes to base his decision on the raw Charisma stat of a PC I think that is fine, and actally a good default. Obviously, other factors will likely come into play, like whether the PC just killed the NPC's friend, but as a default using the raw Charisma stat, or asking for a Charisma check is not a bad idea.
This seems exceptionally specific, especially given the things Charisma can represent. Are you saying that on sight a character should know that a person has excellent leadership capabilities or a soothing way of speaking? That's far sillier than a person who's not a naturally gifted speaker but becomes better at it as he does it.
Likewise, it's overkill mechanically to adjust someone's starting attitude based on charisma, because it means that the starting attitude for NPCs will be harsher for no reason, which in turns means they will have to deal with subsequently higher DCs for no reason, when the drawback to a low charisma is you have a penalty to social skills already. In short, it's redundant and it's just spiteful.\
It likewise ignores the concept of someone who seems gorgeous and charming only to turn out to be a complete jerk, since not only are Mr. Fishy and the others suggesting that Charisma must represent beauty, but if Charisma is arbitrarily high then their initial attitude most likewise be higher - and yes, that's GM Fiat - when we already have rules for this sort of thing.
The way I deal with starting NPC attitudes is simple. If you don't know them, and they don't know of you, then they're indifferent. If you've developed a reputation for kindness, success, or similar around town or the area then they'll probably begin as friendly. If they heard you started a brawl in the tavern or some other trouble then they'll probably begin as unfriendly. Creatures beginning as hostile are generally the ones that are out to get you (say orc raiders). Most creatures don't begin as helpful unless there's a special circumstance.
Likewise, other obvious considerations include stuff like the farmer who doesn't like orc-blooded characters initially due to his brother being killed by an orc. Really the story and basic common sense can easily choose their starting attitudes, which modify the DC that Cha modifies as well.
The system already handles it. We're discussing a problem that doesn't exist.
Notice: This post was originally posted in another thread moments ago, but it shares a common theme with this one, so rather than type up a different post to give an example of what I meant by the system already handling it, I've posted it here for your convenience.
In the same vein, your Cha -2 means in most situations your a boorish lout, you may be handsome (or not) but your a complete dick about it (think Gaston from Beauty and the Beast) you may think your a suave wooer of women, but at the heart of it your only that in your own imagination. Women who do fawn over you are willfully blind to your short comings because they admire your other attributes, (aka wealth, success, physicality.)
Skills are active things not passive, so your ranks in bluff and diplomacy mean when you try you know the right thing to say, you may not be genuine about it (bluff) but you can charm the pants off the naive farm girls, and then in the morning you fart in their bed, scratch yourself, and head back into the wide world to slay dragons and swive with the next maiden.
I can agree with this partially, and yet not quite completely. Galnorag notes that a character could be handsome but poor socially. However he defines that a -2 charisma means you are a certain type of person ("boorish lout, complete dick", etc). That I can't agree with, since it is similar to saying "having a high charisma means you're pretty". It COULD represent that, or it could be something different. Gaston might have a 7 Charisma and be a jerk, whereas he could be a handsome introvert and gets overly nervous in conversations, or any number of other character concepts. Ultimately he has a penalty to his charisma based skills.
Likewise, skills are passive and active, so I can't agree here fully. Many skills are passive, used as part of an action, or used when desired, or used with restrictions. Skill ranks can represent training, learning through doing, or just natural growth. It doesn't matter if you studied at a college or you just learned a lot through experiences, or by reading a book, putting 1 rank in a Knowledge skill can represent any of these things and more.
Also, many people don't stop to think about it, but having a low charisma means you're also more likely to like low charisma characters. Using the same example of Gaston from Beauty & the Beast (it really was a great example, Galnorag), it's possible Bell has an above average Charisma (she's definitely strong willed) while Gaston has a poor Charisma. Let's give Bell a +2 charisma and Gaston a -2 charisma.
Now the Diplomacy DC to make Bell indifferent is 17 (15 + Cha modifier). Gaston is 3rd level and invested a few skill points and has a +1 modifier. However, during an initial encounter with bell he botched the Diplomacy roll (5 points under 17) and made her unfriendly. Now the DC is 22 to get her back to indifferent and thus Gaston has pretty much no chance barring certain circumstance modifiers of influencing her in a positive way.
Meanwhile, Gaston is surrounded by women who are ready to throw themselves at him. They're pretty but likely have low marks in other charisma factors, so they might have a 7-9 charisma as well. The DC to impress these women is at low as 13 by default, so Gaston readily made those checks. Likewise, by making them friendly he also has less chance to piss them off (the DC is now 8) and he could take 10 and probably get them to swoon, especially if he sports a +2 circumstance modifier or similar.
Likewise, it's this reason dwarfs don't upset other dwarfs constantly. A dwarf with a -1 Charisma talking to another dwarf with a -1 charisma still has the same effective DC as a human talking to a human, since the DC is lowered by the charisma penalty of the other dwarf. Meanwhile dwarfs are rather impressed by humans, and they tend to love gnomes. But dwarfs come off rather poorly to humans.
See how it all works in the system? ^-^
Um... no a dwarf doesn't upset another dwarf because they follow the same traditions and mores that prevents them from finding fault and dwarves have higher wisdom and are therefore more capable of looking beyond the words to the actual meaning of what is said.
Um... no a dwarf doesn't upset another dwarf because they follow the same traditions and mores that prevents them from finding fault and dwarves have higher wisdom and are therefore more capable of looking beyond the words to the actual meaning of what is said.
I'd like to see some citation on this, Abraham.
Diplomacy DCs are based on Charisma, and lower charisma equates to lower charisma DCs. Ergo, while dwarfs have a -1 penalty on Diplomacy checks compared to a human with the same base ability score (before racial modifier), the DC to befriend and influence dwarfs is 1 point lower, and thus it's statistically the same for a dwarf to speak with a dwarf as it is for a human with a human.
Likewise, having a high wisdom score gives no effects for befriending others, it just means you're more likely to succeed at sense motive, so dwarfs are a bit harder to lie to, and dwarfs aren't great liars (possibly why their society is so direct), especially when trying to lie to other dwarfs.
But what you've said seems entirely baseless and completely made-up.
You're confusing using diplomacy to enhance a creature's opinion with you with actually befriending and getting along with other people.
Diplomacy only works short term -- 1d4 hours is suggested -- if your society lasts longer than that you are not relying on constant diplomacy checks.
In fact there isn't a "get along with people in day to day society" skill. Diplomacy handles asking for specific requests with specific individuals (possibly groups as well though this is infered and not explicitedly stated) and for improving someone's starting attitude towards you -- but not necessarily their long term relationship with you.
Wisdom covers: "willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition"
With specific skills of sense motive and perception -- your awareness of other people and what they want and what they are trying to convey/hide.
Charisma covers: "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
With specific skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate -- your ability to influence others.
How you are influenced is a combination of your awareness of them, your understanding and inituition about what they want and how well they presuade you.
So while dwarves are fancy talkers (using this as a eupheism) they do understand each other well and simply don't take offense because they inituitively know that such offense is short lived at best and doesn't nothing but cause stress for the society -- which is bad for them as well (via common sense) and therefore use their willpower to resist the urge to snap back.
You're confusing using diplomacy to enhance a creature's opinion with you with actually befriending and getting along with other people.
Diplomacy only works short term -- 1d4 hours is suggested -- if your society lasts longer than that you are not relying on constant diplomacy checks.
In fact there isn't a "get along with people in day to day society" skill. Diplomacy handles asking for specific requests with specific individuals (possibly groups as well though this is infered and not explicitedly stated) and for improving someone's starting attitude towards you -- but not necessarily their long term relationship with you.
Wisdom covers: "willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition"
With specific skills of sense motive and perception -- your awareness of other people and what they want and what they are trying to convey/hide.
Charisma covers: "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
With specific skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate -- your ability to influence others.
How you are influenced is a combination of your awareness of them, your understanding and inituition about what they want and how well they presuade you.
So while dwarves are fancy talkers (using this as a eupheism) they do understand each other well and simply don't take offense because they inituitively know that such offense is short lived at best and doesn't nothing but cause stress for the society -- which is bad for them as well (via common sense) and therefore use their willpower to resist the urge to snap back.
The descriptions have no mechanical effect. The diplomacy skill is the social interaction for befriending people and making allies, and adjusting someone's attitude is generally 1d4 hours but can be much longer or shorter depending on the situation, so yes it likely would be used to develop long-term friendships, alliances, and that sort of thing. Over time the two dwarfs would likely generate a helpful relationship by default. Diplomacy would be the go-to skill for both making friends, seduction, and so forth.
Mechanically dwarfs are no more difficult for dwarfs to talk to than humans are for humans to talk to. Likewise humans with high wisdoms are no easier to talk to than humans without. You're statement is entirely a matter of opinion, not backed by the rules, and it is purely fluff and relies on a specific notion of how dwarfs function, whereas orcs have no difficulty influencing other orcs in the same manner as dwarfs have no difficulty with dwarfs.
And orcs are nothing like dwarfs and actually have a wisdom penalty.
Actually -- Back At You.
You suggest that "all dwarves" are easier to befriend because of their lower charisma -- a stereotype that isn't held up in all cases and therefore everything you suggest fails apart immediately.
Suggesting that "high wisdom" humans doesn't hold up either, as humans don't universally have a high wisdom and therefore a general statement about them doesn't hold up.
Much of what you are attributing to diplomacy is fluff discription and not supported by mechanics the exact same thing you are -- trying to accuse me of.
Dwarven society is as much to blame for how dwarves act in general as orc society is for the way they act in general.
To say their society is completely based on their charisma would give us to understand that demons should have a great society due to their higher (in general) charisma scores.
Basically you are suggesting that society and wisdom doesn't matter in the least when interacting with other people...
Not something that can really be backed up at all.
I'm not speaking mechanicese here -- this is general conversation -- not "RAW and nothing but" -- you are assigning more power than diplomacy has -- please note the diplomacy ability specifically states it is generally short term -- as such you can't say "in these circumstances we go to diplomacy since it covers all this" -- because it doesn't.
1. Starting attitude can be influenced -- not all attitude not all the time and not more than once every 24 hours -- hardly a "make society function" mechanic there.
2. Diplomacy specifically states it's short term -- now it can last longer but it doesn't say -- at any point -- that it lasts long enough to form relationships.
Why?
Because relationships and social interaction are too complex to be a single skill.
Finally:
I find your last post in this thread highly entertaining considering your other thread that sparked this one.
Of course dwarves and orcs are nothing alike -- dwarves also get along while orcs don't which is well represented by their low cha -- and low wisdom.
Look at the numbers. All dwarfs have a -2 charisma, so with the same starting charisma as a human, the DC to influence a dwarf will be -1 lower than a human with the same starting charisma. That's not to say that there aren't dwarfs with higher than average charisma, just like there are humans with higher than average charisma for humans.
In both cases it is harder to become friendly with the higher charisma characters unless they just decide they want to be friends with you. It likewise shows it's easier for two low charisma characters to become friends with each other than a low charisma and a high charisma character unless the high charisma character is initiating the friendship, in which case the low charisma character is more likely to be accepting of this friendship because they are more easily influenced - even if they have a have a higher than average wisdom score or a huge sense motive modifier.
Likewise, I noted that over time the friendships would likely grow, as noted in the "can be much longer depending on the circumstances". After you have made your initial impression, subsequent diplomacy checks over the course of time are modified (either by base DC, circumstance modifiers, or both). After you've banked a few Diplomacy checks, assuming you continue acting in a way that the character approves of then it makes sense for them to remain friendly or helpful to you for longer periods of time. Not once did I suggest that it would take a single skill check to do it either.
Now diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, and sense motive would all play part in the interaction and thus development of a friendship. For example, intimidating your friends will lose your friends quickly because it downgrades their initial attitude towards you. Likewise getting caught in a malicious lie would likely harm your diplomacy modifier when dealing with them, but them noticing a white lie (such as you eating their horrible cooking to be nice) might actually improve your diplomacy rolls with them.
Using Diplomacy to improve the mood of a street vendor might indeed last 1d4 hours, but likewise depending on the circumstances it might last much shorter (such as if you befriend them and turn around and insult them) or longer (if you see them regularly).
Meanwhile orcs do have a charisma and wisdom penalty and it is no more difficult for an orc to use diplomacy on another orc than it is for a human to use diplomacy on another human. That's just a fact and it visible in raw mechanics. However, orcs are more likely to lead through intimidation and fear. We can see mechanically that even the sample orcs have a +2 Intimidate due to it being a class skill for them, while also requiring only a DC 10 check to intimidate them. That means that even though an orc is no worse off actually trying to talk or befriend another orc than a human is to a human, they are far more likely to get results through intimidation and brutality.
Dwarfs however are less likely to get results through intimidation due to dwarfs having a +1 bonus to will saves and they a -1 to their Intimidate, so the odds are much worse for dwarfs, and would be more likely to get them into trouble due to their society.
Now an orc who actually did invest in Diplomacy (say an orc expert or cleric) would find it rather easy to befriend other orcs and get them to go along with him on things he said, and these allies would be far more loyal to him than those that are kept in line by Intimidation. This would be the perfect sort of opportunity for an orcish cleric with a silver tongue to incite a coup against an orc warlord or chieftain in a grab for power, since few of the chief's underlings are going to be legitimately loyal.
All the numbers fit amazingly well.
All the numbers fit amazingly well.
Exactly -- I was just going about it in a less mechanical way (for this thread) and pointing out the fluff to what you are saying -- but my basic point -- that long term relationships/social interaction is more than just diplomacy checks still stands -- for many of the same reasons you point out, and for many of the reasons I pointed out (many of which are the same just approached differently).
We are saying the same things here I believe -- using different language, context and examples.
Either way, it's going to depend on where you hit him. Neither will do well if you hit him in the head. Hit the fat guy where he's padded compared to the marathoner and he'll do better. But that's not any kind of comparison related to stats - that's about the benefits of natural armor (as derived from rolls of fat padding).
That's hillarious and it just gave me a great idea for an NPC.
Preaching to the choir.
>Fin to Fist Bump< FFB!
Tier Facist! ummmm, Citizens!
Belle and Gaston are both good arguments for having a Comeliness stat or some sort of Beautiful/Handsome trait mechanic. The whole "A beauty but a funny girl, that Belle" business where the provincial villagers really don't know what to do with a bookish intelligent young woman who nonetheless has a very nice form and figure.
I'd also argue that Gaston has a much better Charisma score than Belle as well as points in Diplomacy since he's not only hugely popular in the town but is able to get together an angry mob at the drop of hat. That said, he's unable to woo Belle successfully because he can't get around the negative circumstance penalties he gets with her for being A). stupid and B). evil. The first of these is something Belle finds unattractive (though she eventually gets over somewhat, as the Beast isn't particularly swift either) but the second is the real deal breaker.
If Gaston had been Good or even Neutral, he might have eventually wooed Belle.
It should also be pointed out that the relationship between Belle and the Beast was an arranged shotgun type affair that Belle really wasn't into but did to save her father. Conceivably she could have married Gaston under similar circumstances and set about reforming him too, especially given the number courtly romance novels she reads.
There are also certain factors to look at. I think most people would admit that, regardless of the role, Angela Lansbury has a pretty high charisma. That said, imagining some twenty something guy and the question of being seduced by Angela Lansbury.... In her role from The Court Jester? Oh yeah. In her roles from The Manchurian Candidate or Bedknobs and Broomsticks? Some hot MILF action there. In her role from Murder, She Wrote? Um.... How old is she there? Currently, at age 85? Well, she's looking pretty good for 85, but she's still 85.
You have to apply circumstance modifiers for all sorts of things, and even then you sometimes get the "Sorry, dealbreaker" moments where it doesn't matter how much charisma, diplomacy or any amount of comeliness modifiers in whatever form someone has.
Here is kind of my problem with this whole discussion. As a player I feel obligated to play characters with at least a respectable Charisma score, because I myself am pretty good with people, and seldom have trouble convincing them to do what I want. So unless the GM calls for a Diplomacy check every time I talk to someone, I'm almost cheating if I dump Charisma and don't play the character as - ugly, abrasive, stuttering, socially inept, alien or some combination thereof. And since I don't like playing those sorts of characters, I really should have at least a positive Charisma bonus- my current character is a Cleric/Wizard/ MT (yeah, I know MT's suck and please don't remind me) with a Cha 14- and I get nothing for it. It would be nice if my 14 Cha did something besides give me a good score on Leadership, which I'm not even taking.
As a GM, I don't really depend on dice to decide NPC reactions. I already know who they are, and what they think. When the PCs have an audience with a king, I'm RPing the king, I'm in character, why should I stop playing and have them role dice to decide what reaction the guy has. Where's the fun in that for me? And I'm not saying I wouldn't allow them to use a social skill to try and change the direction of the conversation, but I'd much rather just RP than - decide on a DC, call for a roll, and check a chart for every interaction- boring!
Which then leads to the people that play with me. They know Charisma does nothing, and they like to optimize (I do too). So should I punish them for making smart choices when they create characters.
I'd rather that Charisma had some in-game effect aside from adjusting NPC reactions (which incidentally I kind of think of as my job). I just wish it did something useful, and mechanical, that people could look at when designing characters and say - "If i put a 14 into Str I get +2 to hit and +2 damage. If I put a 14 in Cha I get X,Y, and Z" instead of a bonus to skills whos usefulness will vary from table to table.
For an appearance stat (homebrew alert here)
I took the total of the physical stats divided by four and then added the total of the modifiers of the mental stats.
So someone with:
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 8
Has:
14+16+14=42/4=11
+
3-1=2= Appearance 13
This is based on the idea that your physical stats represent your body and your mental stats represent your ability to make the most of what you have to begin with by bathing, choosing good colors/styles for yourself, etc.
I believe however that appearance *should* be a composite score of all your stats because they all play into how you move, look, act, think, and present yourself.
Mechanically how does this play out?
Currently not at all -- just gives the players something to be vain about -- which of course affects how the character acts.
One suggestion was to use action points and base the total on Cha.
Me personally, I do my best to never have a single digit score. I will play all tens if I have to just to avoid that penalty.
I might have to try that. It's sort of saying that in some way Charisma is also indicative of luck. I guess the "beautiful people" of the world are luckier.
For an appearance stat (homebrew alert here)
I took the total of the physical stats divided by four and then added the total of the modifiers of the mental stats.
So someone with:
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 8
Has:
14+16+14=42/4=11
+
3-1=2= Appearance 13This is based on the idea that your physical stats represent your body and your mental stats represent your ability to make the most of what you have to begin with by bathing, choosing good colors/styles for yourself, etc.
I believe however that appearance *should* be a composite score of all your stats because they all play into how you move, look, act, think, and present yourself.
Mechanically how does this play out?
Currently not at all -- just gives the players something to be vain about -- which of course affects how the character acts.
As a GM, I don't think you need an Appearence stat. Tell me how you look, and then based on the rest of your character, Charisma being very high on the list, I'll let you know how people react to you. Besides, appearence is not even really a quantifiable, objective attribute.
Example- I worked with this black guy, who went on and on about how hot is wife was. I mean you could tell the dude was not making it up or exaggerating. I was thinking, Beyonce. When I met her, she made Queen Latifha look malnourished. To him she was Appearance 26, to me, well let's just she violated my rule about girls that weigh more than I do.
|
I might have to try that. It's sort of saying that in some way Charisma is also indicative of luck. I guess the "beautiful people" of the world are luckier.
Since I don't believe high Cha people are always beautiful, I consider it more the character making his own luck through force of personality. Int is how much you know about the world, Wis how much you understand the world, and Cha how much you affect the world.
As a GM, I don't think you need an Appearence stat. Tell me how you look, and then based on the rest of your character, Charisma being very high on the list, I'll let you know how people react to you. Besides, appearence is not even really a quantifiable, objective attribute.
Example- I worked with this black guy, who went on and on about how hot is wife was. I mean you could tell the dude was not making it up or exaggerating. I was thinking, Beyonce. When I met her, she made Queen Latifha look malnourished. To him she was Appearance 26, to me, well let's just she violated my rule about girls that weigh more than I do.
Understandable -- after all it's homebrew with no actual mechanical application -- but if it makes my players feel better to have a stat for it then this is how I go about it -- if no one askes for it -- then I don't worry about it.
And just because someone might be "universally" attractive -- doesn't mean people don't have preferences for other things, or might just not be attracted to the person -- I've met women(and men) that most people seem to think are very attractive and I've just not seen it.
But if it makes my players feel better to have a stat for it then this is how I go about it.
Anything that makes the players feel better is good. It is funny how some gamers love stats, and rolling dice. I love it when my players tell me the results of checks I never asked for.
Player: I got a 37 on my Ride check.
GM: Yep, you dismount from your horse like a real pro.
|
|
This seems exceptionally specific, especially given the things Charisma can represent. Are you saying that on sight a character should know that a person has excellent leadership capabilities or a soothing way of speaking? That's far sillier than a person who's not a naturally gifted speaker but becomes better at it as he does it.
How do you mean "specific", Charisma covers "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance", I would say initially personal magnetism and appearance could be assessed in the few seconds it takes for a character to come up with an initial attitude. How is that silly at all?
Compare someone who is attractive, well dressed & presented walking up to the NPC confidently and smiling warmingly, to a character who is homely, scruffily dressed and who nervously shuffles towards the NPC, won't make eye contact, then grins inannely.
Thats enough to make a first impression even before either of those people open their mouths. It may turn out that the confident person can't talk diplomatically for toffee and the nervous person is a skilled negotiator, but that won't come to light until they have a minute with the NPC.
Likewise, it's overkill mechanically to adjust someone's starting attitude based on charisma, because it means that the starting attitude for NPCs will be harsher for no reason
Not for no reason, but for not creating a great first impression. And this was only suggested as a default when no other factors indicate what the initial attitude should be - if the NPC is a shopkeeper hoping for a sale he will likely be friendly no matter what, whilst if the NPC just saw the PC kill his friend he will be hostile no matter what.
which in turns means they will have to deal with subsequently higher DCs for no reason, when the drawback to a low charisma is you have a penalty to social skills already. In short, it's redundant and it's just spiteful.
Yes, just as spiteful as not allowing that Strength 8 character carry as much as the Strength 14 character, or not allowing that Int 8 character bonus skill points each level.
And yes, it may (emphasis on may) mean higher DCs later, where the low charisma will also cause a penalty - just like having a low strength will mean a lower chance to hit initially and also less damage if you do hit. Someone with a lower charisma should perhaps do all they can to make sure that initial attitude is not determined solely by their charisma, perhaps presenting a gift, ensuring they have a good reputation etc.
Using Charisma every so often to determine INitial Attitudes of NPCs is one way that the DM can differentiate the Charisma Stat from social skill ranks, and make that high Charisma character shine, even if he isn't the one with the highest overall modifier.
You obviously feel different, fine, but please don't belittle the way other people play by labelling it as "silly" and "spiteful".
It likewise ignores the concept of someone who seems gorgeous and charming only to turn out to be a complete jerk
Someone who is gorgeous and genuinely charming I would argue would have a decent charisma. However, if a player described his Charisma 7 character as being gorgeous then I would anticipate that the character is even worse than a "7" in the personal magnetism etc department. So they may be gorgeous but they may be really, really nervous and shifty, or perhaps acts like they own the place, giving dirty looks to all they pass and looking like they love themselves.
They could be the sort of person you only have to observe for a moment to realise that "you may be good looking, but you seem like a dick". So if the GM were to base initial attitude on Charisma, that person would still just roll Charisma despite being good looking, in this case their other poor qualities overshadow their good looks. So no, it wouldn't ignore that concept.
The way I deal with starting NPC attitudes is simple. If you don't know them, and they don't know of you, then they're indifferent.
That is fine, but may not be to everyone's liking. If I was approached on the street by a complete stranger asking for help you can bet your life I will take into account their looks, their dress, how they are acting before deciding whether to even stop to see what they want. They may all be in genuine need, but I may think they are about to mug me, are going to beg for money or are trying to sell me something - and yes I am shallow enough that I would be more likely to stop to help a good looking woman :)
Really the story and basic common sense can easily choose their starting attitudes, which modify the DC that Cha modifies as well.
And I don't disagree with any of that, however if the GM feels that appearance, dress, how the person moves and acts or any other facet of natural charisma are also important factors in the story they should feel free to take account of those - I don't see an issue with that.
The system already handles it. We're discussing a problem that doesn't exist.
The system actually doesn't handle this at all - it gives no rules, advice or guidance on how to determine an NPC's initial attitude - it doesn't even say something like "If in doubt, the starting attitude of an NPC is Indifferent". Basically it all comes down to the GM.
And I don't see a problem either - however you seem to have a problem with GMs who choose to occassionally utilise Charisma in determining the initial attitudes of NPCs.
.
..
...
....
.....
Nicely expressed Mr D.Mage.
.
..
...
....Nicely expressed Mr D.Mage.
*awaits the inevitable nonsensical line by line 'disproof'*
I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?
I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?
Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
..and more free donuts - with less active effort!
|
Here's the adjustment we're considering for Charisma. We do not play it as appearance, we play it as it is often described: "force of will" or "how one carries themselves". We're also turning it into a luck score.
This is how we've defined it in our house rules document:
Charisma:
Charisma will function in the traditional sense, but it will also act as a “luck” score for the player. Occasionally an arbitrary decision may need to be made in which the GM may chose to arbitrate in a random manner (e.g. a monster deciding to attack you or the peasant next to you). Luck can function in one of two ways and always is made via an attribute check (D20 + CHA Bonus):
- Static: A static check will be made in cases of you “against the world” (e.g. there’s a trap trigger the size of a deck of cards somewhere in a hallway and you might step on it when you walk by). The target number of these luck checks will be equal to a random die roll equal to 2D6 for events which favor the player up to 4D6 for events which favor the game world, with 3D6 representing an average luck DC.
- Opposed: An opposed check will be made when two or more individuals are seeing “who wins” (e.g. a monster is going to attack somebody randomly, who does he attack). In these instances, the higher roll wins, ties are determined by the player’s CHA bonuses, followed by a roll-off (if required).