It's the other side of the bell curve from a 16, so I'm missing your point.
Players can have PCs with low stats, they can be entertaining and many times provide more grist for the player to work on than a PC with super human stats.
Now if you are suggesting that players ignore their PC's weaknesses, then I would agree that this shouldn't occur. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with roleplaying a PC with a low mental stat.
Heck one of my favorite combinations is a low INT and high WIS PC as they can be a real blast to play.
-James
Maybe I mispoke with that first statement.
What I meant was if the person that puts a 5 into charisma thinks it is not going to affect his character because he isnt a CHA based class or because he isnt the face, it would be no cigar in my games.
To me, when you use a point buy to build a character that has 16 strength, 16 con, 17 dex, 12 wis (the +2 you get free and you dont want to suck at will saves), then a 7 in int and a 5 in cha because those are the only two stats a fighter can truly do without and still be amazing in combat.
That is munchkinism by definition at my table, the player is purposefully min maxing certain aspects of his character to reap as much benefits as possible and is most likely expecting no downsides (other than the marginal drop in skill points).
If they had a clever back story and a good reason for it I would definitely understand but a stat line up like that just urks me.
a charisma of 8 would suffice to being gruff, hell a 7 i could deal with. a 6 I could stomach. a 5? I would literally be very very upset to see that from any of my players as it is an obvious ploy to just gain more combat ability while caring less about the roleplaying and character development in the game.
This is all obviosly my opinion but i stand by it.
@ dire mongoose
I apologize you are correct, but the odds are very very very low still and I only thought that because I have never played with the 3d6 system. I suppose it could make a very gritty game that way though, like playing a game on hard mode (well sorta depending on your luck). And that depends on if your allowed to re roll ones (my house rule is you can re roll ones once).
I did not know that though, thank you for pointing it out because I actually might use it for a wider, more diverse set of abilities for my players in the future.
a charisma of 8 would suffice to being gruff, hell a 7 i could deal with. a 6 I could stomach. a 5? I would literally be very very upset to see that from any of my players as it is an obvious ploy to just gain more combat ability while caring less about the roleplaying and character development in the game.
Plus, Charisma isn't just a notation of how ugly/beautiful/socially acceptable/well-spoken someone is, but also a measure of their sense of self. Admittedly that much is harder to quantify, but you can almost think of it as a measure of your life energy and youth (as much as Consitution is a measure of your overall health). Think about, for example that a Paladin's abilities stem from the power of his faith and belief, but aren't as much about how well spoken or outwardly beautiful he is necessarily (I love grizzled, battle-scarred paladins in preference to gold-plate wearing pretty boys) as how much he believes in his cause. He can be completely unlearned (int 8) and as naive as they come (wis 8), but that doesn't matter to him, because he believes he is a hero and that is all that matters to him (Cha 16).
In essence, a Cha 5 fighter is NOT a hero. Its not longer a matter of being ugly and uncouth, he is on the same level as a long-term drug addict unable to kick the habit. His level of wellbeing, sense of self and general sloth means he is going to have to be led around ALL the time or else be extremely listless and disinterested, and probably kicked, goaded and heavily persuaded to even get out of his bedroll in the morning.
Of course, roleplay that and I'd give anyone a bonus ;)
If they had a clever back story and a good reason for it I would definitely understand but a stat line up like that just urks me.This is all obviosly my opinion but i stand by it.
A question for you:
Do they have to 'explain' only their low stats or all of their stats?
Why don't you simply just require them to play their character? I guess I'm not seeing the anger here.
How is a 7 acceptable in a human, but a 5 unacceptable in a Dwarf? The Human with the same buy would have an 18STR 7INT 10WIS 17DEX 14CON 7CHA is this somehow more acceptable for some reason?
Why hate on the Dwarf? ;)
I guess I just don't like to tell players what their characters can and can't do in that regard. If they want to be slow and decidedly uncharismatic then they can do so.
After all that's what a point buy (or choosing where rolled stats go) is all about.
-James
I think the overall point is just that if you're going to dump stats then you should be prepared to play that. The frustration comes from people dumping stats their class doesn't need then not bothering to play someone with those stats. When I GM I don't care what people take for stats but I sure as heck better not find the INT 7 fighter solving puzzles or the CHA 7 wizard smiling and chatting up the ladies.
Lol yes if that's the source of your frustration that makes sense.
Ok the post monster ate my post so let me try again:
James you misunderstand me I am saying that if they are going to take a 5 CHA make sure you understand there will be negatives to having a 5 CHA.
That is no different than making an elf have less hitpoints for his reduction in CON and no different than when the halfling wizard with 5 STR gets grappled.
To not make the ability score thats low EVER effect the player is totally unfair, and because fighters rarely participate in anything charismatic when its that low I would say it would have several oustide negative effects.
I have a player right now that is a dwarf with 6 CHA. He is one of the best role players I have ever had.
His character speaks so gruffly with his large uncleaned beard in the way he is nearly unintelligable when speaking at the table incharacter. As the game has gone on he has gotten slowly but increasingly easier to understand by the other players.
I did not charge him with this, he did this all on his own and he is a perfect example of how to play a character. Whenever he meets an NPC and he speaks in character the way he does they always act confused and nod their head and ignore him because they simply cant understand what he is saying, its pretty funny and a great character idea in my opinion.
I did not punish him at all.
Charisma is going to effect a character if its low, just like it would if it was high. To not make the dwarf have to deal with his low charisma score is just like making the elfs Con not a big deal of saying the halflings STR is not a problem. Thos directly effect the game in combat though, charisma does not.
Saying that dwarves are special and dont have to take the side effects of a bad CHA because its built into the race is not only not fair it just doesnt make sense, they WILL be subjectively treated because of the low charisma, thats the point of having a good charisma.
@ stuart
I know what charisma is my friend, but to claim that your looks are unaffected when you get down to a 5? not accurate. Most monsters in the Bestiary have a higher CHA than 5. The common theme? mostly ugly and gruff. I am fine with having an 8 and just being really awkward but average looking but a 5 would definitely be atleast unappealing to look at, to say otherwise is to say they dont have to play their character as they themselves made it.
just my thoughts.
|
but a charisma of 5?I mean come on, that is hardly even realistic. Making a character with that low of charisma just to min max your other stats to high (str, dex, con) is bad form in my opinion.
My guy's CHA is 3 and the only reason it's 3 now is because he's eventually going to drop it to 1 (downside of a feat he's taking later).
He doesn't have a good personality, he's not "magnetic", he doesn't like to lead, and appearance-wise, I guess you could call him two-faced as he sort of has an extra face in his junk.
but a charisma of 5?I mean come on, that is hardly even realistic. Making a character with that low of charisma just to min max your other stats to high (str, dex, con) is bad form in my opinion.
My guy's CHA is 3 and the only reason it's 3 now is because he's eventually going to drop it to 1 (downside of a feat he's taking later).
He doesn't have a good personality, he's not "magnetic", he doesn't like to lead, and appearance-wise, I guess you could call him two-faced as he sort of has an extra face in his junk.
You realize animals have better charisma then 3?
a Dire Rat has more charisma than you... you think thats realistic that a Rat could charm a crowd before you could. You know, the disease carrying, oversized rodents that plague humanity on a regular basis could be a better diplomat than you. Thats realistic?
Most probably don't have an extra face in their junk.
If they did they would still have a better charisma than a 3.
and when you have a 1?
seriously you are 1 point from a comatose state.
|
Charisma of 5 is about akin to frankenstein.
I completely agree with you on dump stats and actually house ruled that stats can't be taken below...I think 8...before applying racial mods.
I did want to point something out though. I happen to have Paizo's Classic Horrors Revisited and Frankenstein in a CR13 Flesh Golem with a 12 CHA. I do see the point you were going for, but wanted to point it out in a more friendly manner before someone possibly snark-attacked you with said information.
Heh, Snark Week. /jest
Yes, he's very fragile. He asks the ladies to handle with care.
seriously you are 1 point from a comatose state.
What does the inquiry sound like? gurgling mouthwash?
stuff
cute.
In response to Codzilla, what in your opinion would be the appropriate way to handle my PC's tactical mistakes? While I can see the argument for letting them be killed if they "deserve" it so that they learn to play smarter my players are quite invested in their characters and PC death bogs down the game and is not very fun in my experience, especially if they didn't die dramatically.
Punishment is one way of teaching but in a game where fun is our collective stated goal it doesn't feel like the right path for me to take. Actually after we wrap up each session we usually talk about how things went down during the game maybe I should start using that time to tell players about what tactics they could use for better future results. Hmmm, in a round about way thanks for that idea Codzilla!
What does the inquiry sound like? gurgling mouthwash?Yes, he's very fragile. He asks the ladies to handle with care.
seriously you are 1 point from a comatose state.
aaah, goodness, this exchange reminded me of the ending scene of the princess bride, where westley was threatening Humperdink - to the pain, cutting off his feet, hands, nose and tongue, then both of his eyes.
and "Your ears you keep, and I'll tell you why -- so that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish -- every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God, what is that thing?" will echo in your perfect ears. That is what "to the pain" means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever."
wow. just. wow.
My charisma 17 bard hooked up with a charisma 8 ranger of Gorum for a while, and watching them together was like pulling teeth. Dude would not bathe without incentive, he got drunk every night and started bar fights and wouldn't remember what the hell for. At one point, she got elevated to charisma 22 from some insane artifact, and he went f#+~ing nuts when she approached any other guy that was more charismatic than him.
Charisma 3. i mean... how in the world? do you even HAVE speech at that point, or is it all exaggerated syllables and pointing at things that you want like a toddler, plus the appropriate shrieking tantrums when you don't get it?
I hope whatever you sank into DEX or INT was worth having the social skills of a severely autistic toddler.
you know a low charisma doesn't affect how you look or your speech skills. A lich can be very charismatic. Charisma is how people treat you regardless of how you look or act.
IRL I know I am not the most charismatic person. I'm not terrible looking and I am very good with words (probably the best RP'er in my group) but people tend to shove me off anyway regardless. It takes a lot of work for me to form bonds with people, but you get use to it.
Wow I just put that out their for the internetz to see. The things I do to prove a point ;)
|
In my group the player of such a character would have to wear a sign around his neck or a hat with a piece of paper pinned to it that said "Charisma 3", "personality of a rock", "everything about me pushes people away", or "you can't stand me".
There needs to be a constant reminder to everyone, including myself. Having a Charisma that low would have a negative effect on every aspect of the character's interactions, at all times.
Shane
P.S. What other cool signs can you guys think of to describe someone whose Charisma is so low that natural selection would have put an end to everyone else's misery long ago?
Charisma IS appearance, personal magnetism, assertiveness and social graces. It says so right on the stat in the core rulebook.
Though I will give Shadow_of_death partial credit, because like Eddie Izzard says, when someone speaks, 80% is how he looks when speaking, and how he says it. 20% is what he actually says. Content does matter, but there is a reason we have socially backwards people as VICE presidents/councilor/second in command, and have the charismatic clueless puppet in front.
Also the lich example reflect the lich's assertiveness, his ability to wield terror, or compelling truth. You rarely, if ever, see a lich that fidgets in the corner of the room when the adventurers come crashing in. His over-inflated self-esteem (Cha) will not allow it. Sure, they are not sexy, nor are they pleasing to behold. They are dark and terrible, creatures of power capable of invoking nightmares. Just like dragons. They have massive Cha scores, but you rarely think "That's one sexy reptile!"
If you are at 5 or less charisma, not only do you appear nigh hideous and deformed, you also have the social graces of the classic humpbacked grotesque in faerie tales. You shy away from things, you're easily bullied, and you cannot find the courage to voice your own opinions. You have no self-esteem, hardly even a sense of self if you get as low as 3.
It is the socially equivalent of an IQ too low to grasp how a door works.
|
|
I hope whatever you sank into DEX or INT was worth having the social skills of a severely autistic toddler.
It was worth it. :) His social skills are fine as he makes most checks.
P.S. What other cool signs can you guys think of to describe someone whose Charisma is so low that natural selection would have put an end to everyone else's misery long ago?
How about "I got your Charisma right here"?
I hope whatever you sank into DEX or INT was worth having the social skills of a severely autistic toddler.
It was worth it. :) His social skills are fine as he makes most checks.
How about "I got your Charisma right here"?
P.S. What other cool signs can you guys think of to describe someone whose Charisma is so low that natural selection would have put an end to everyone else's misery long ago?
see the fact that you can just write off your charisma when it is a 3 merely because you make a check which apparently is easy doesnt make sense to me.
It also doesnt make sense in the overall balance of the game. Sure I mean if the check was mundane, like asking for a drink of water then who cares if you roll a fifteen and come out about at an 11, but any check that requires personal magnetism at all, like speaking long enough to hold a persons attention...
This is also why I hate concepts like this that are poorly fleshed out and make the DM do all the work in "punishing" the player for his charisma. It detracts from the game to make the player actually have to deal with his choice of stats (you know just like every other player has too) and it takes time and effort that I just dont like putting forth when I have a session to run with monsters and plot lines.
I am all for a player playing his low charisma character properly, but making it so I have to roll, or they have to roll, or whatever nonsense everytime they go or do anything personal is a headache, but id I dont do it then other players will say "well why didnt you tell me charisma was literally going to play no part in the campaign or effect us at all, I would have dumped it too!"
Ryzoken: That's not a bad idea. Some people will think it unfair, but considering how much ALL the other stats do compared to Cha, it should count for more.
See the same problem in Fallout 3 - New Vegas. Who cares about charisma, you can just hike the skills you want without problems, because your huge Int score gives you points to spare.
Dumping strength? Prepare to be grappled/tripped/disarmed/bull-rushed/etc by everyone and their uncle, and not being able to carry ANYTHING, needing extra-dimensional storage to circumvent it, which requires time you don't have if you want to get to stuff in combat.
Dumping dexterity? CMD sucks, ranged to-hit sucks, AC sucks, Reflex sucks, initiative sucks, lots of skills suck.
Dumping constitution? "Omae wa mou shinde iru...", as your HP and fort save will be the pits, and a stiff breeze will kill you.
Dumping intelligence? Enjoy your single skillpoint per level, not to mention being too dumb to ever make a knowledge check to justify your USE of player knowledge.
Dumping wisdom? Bye bye will, du dum dee dum, hello enchantment, I think I'm gonna cry~ there goes my free will... controlled by someone new... I sure look silly, now I am feeling blue... it was my will, now I am tool... (Melody: Bye Bye Love - The Everly Brothers)
Dumping charisma? Minor hit on social skills, but you're not the face, so whatever. Leadership kinda sucks for you, but most sensible GMs ban that one so the party consists of 4-5 people instead of close to a baker's dozen after accounting for pets and cohorts.
|
|
Hate to say it, but that icon never made it into the DND world anyway. Most rangers have favored enemies Undead, humans, Evil Outsiders, and Abberations; and Underground as their first favored terrain. They also travel with a cat. The days of the wilderness ranger left for the most part in 2.0... now they are dungeon-crawling, slickarmoires or combatants ready to disable traps.
??
I'm not sure where you are getting your super generalizing intel, but plenty of adventures happen out of doors. Look at, Oh, most of Kingmaker, as far as viable outdoor adventures. The Ranger in our game has FE:Fey, btw. The one in my last Campaign took Goblinoids, then Giants (Dwarf, and a traditionalist). If one is running an Underdark adventure (Of which I am a big fan, personally), then, Yes, your statement is true.
However, I would hope that the thousands of DMs out there in D&D/PF land would have a bit more variety in their Bag'O Useful Adventuring Ideas than to always set things in a 'Dungeon'.
-Uriel
|
I mean, low charisma isn't hateable and ugly... low charisma just means totally unnoticeable. Awesome, scary creatures typically actually have a pretty high charisma. The barely-hearable grumbling character would be the 5 charisma kinda guy, he just doesn't stand out. Nobody is scared of him, nobody pays him much attention, yadda yadda. And really he can overcome that by putting ranks into diplomacy. Training + 1 rank and he's got the same social interaction likeability of a 12-charisma character with no ranks (or a cross-class 1-ranker). This has been discussed many time; a low charisma character with diplomacy may give off a bad first impression (or just be not noticeable), but once he starts talking he is mechanically likeable.
Again, this thread has said over and over again that melee have difficulty keeping up with the casters; so why are we further penalizing them by making it difficult to dump mental stats? Do you give that kinda grief to the low-strength wizard? I guess not, since it has no roleplaying aspects. But for the 7 strength wizard getting grappled "all day"; eh, same is true of the 10-strength wizard, +2 isn't doing much good there.
So I feel like, pending insanely high point buys, people need to not give grief to the low-statted guy. And for the record, home campaign I give 25 points with the note that after racial mod nothing can be below 10 or above 18; since I would rather people not have to roleplay low-stat characters, and think not allowing 20s keeps casters a tiny bit more incheck... but since PFS is the standard, that's what I work with.
Let whatever happens happen.
Not always the right answer but for the most part this is true.
They provoke an AoO? They get hit. They walk into full attack range of some big bruiser? They get torn apart. This will show them real quick like that fighting is serious business, and enemies will capitalize on their mistakes. And you might kill some of them at first, but then they will quickly adopt some actual immersion and take their opponents seriously, at which point the slaughter will stop as play has improved.
Again, this is true most of the time but certainly not all the time.
Otherwise, what happens is you're forced to continue coddling them to preserve their fragile little egos, and then some other DM has to deal with them later. The sooner you make them into good players, the better off we will all be.
That's not the job of the DM. The DM's job isn't to make the players better so that they can fit into some other group. The DM's job is to provide an entertaining adventure for the players, who are often his/her friends.
There is no need to be punishing your players. As DM, you don't necessarily have to pull punches or fudge. From my experience, if you are in a position that you need to do this, then you may have made the mistake long before your players. Did you make sure that the encounter was appropriate? Did you overdo it with some of the gear you gave the opponent? Did you stop and make sure that the players don't make foolish mistakes. It's one thing to let the barbarian charge into the dragon's kill zone. It's another to not give the players a chance to use their knowledge skills so that they know some of the capabilities of the dragon.
There's a lot of talk on the boards about how people play stupid or unwise characters. One thing that is neglected is how to help people play characters smarter than they are. I know that my Intelligence isn't 18+ so how can my decisions reflect such a high intelligence? The DM can provide a clue or hint every now and then. A good rule of thumb might be 1 clue for every bonus to either Intelligence or Wisdom for each adventure. You can have the player ask or you can just provide, that's up to you how to handle that.
There is no need for the DM to be antagonistic or competitive with the players. It certainly isn't the DM's job to "train" the players to be better (whatever that means). If your players are happy and they keep coming back for more of your DMing, then you are doing just fine as a DM. Continue to have fun. This is only a game after all.
|
In response to Codzilla, what in your opinion would be the appropriate way to handle my PC's tactical mistakes? While I can see the argument for letting them be killed if they "deserve" it so that they learn to play smarter my players are quite invested in their characters and PC death bogs down the game and is not very fun in my experience, especially if they didn't die dramatically.
Punishment is one way of teaching but in a game where fun is our collective stated goal it doesn't feel like the right path for me to take. Actually after we wrap up each session we usually talk about how things went down during the game maybe I should start using that time to tell players about what tactics they could use for better future results. Hmmm, in a round about way thanks for that idea Codzilla!
Let whatever happens happen.
They provoke an AoO? They get hit. They walk into full attack range of some big bruiser? They get torn apart. This will show them real quick like that fighting is serious business, and enemies will capitalize on their mistakes. And you might kill some of them at first, but then they will quickly adopt some actual immersion and take their opponents seriously, at which point the slaughter will stop as play has improved.
Otherwise, what happens is you're forced to continue coddling them to preserve their fragile little egos, and then some other DM has to deal with them later. The sooner you make them into good players, the better off we will all be.
CoDzilla is right.
If you nerf the game, you insult your players. Your players are smarter than you think and will generally come up with solutions to things you never thought of.
|
|
There is a way by which to punish a player for having poor Cha without resulting to die rolls. You could simply perform a value check.
The game mechanic for that is an ability check, which is a roll. My character has feats etc. that help him with ability checks, so odds are he would succeed in your example.
I removed a couple posts. Veiled insults are not any better than the naked kind.
Lol Codzilla. Alright while I don't necessarily agree with you in the context of my current game I understand your point.
To Bob: It's entirely possible that the trouble my PCs occasionally find themselves in is as much a result of my choices as theirs. I'm not sure about it but as I gain experience as a Pathfinder DM hopefully my skill with the rules will improve as well. The only Rule that we as a group have decided truly matters in the end is rule 0 so fun is the end all and be all for our group. We hit speed bumps occasionally but everyone has a good attitude so it's nothing we can't overcome with a mild amount of tweaking.
Lol Codzilla. Alright while I don't necessarily agree with you in the context of my current game I understand your point.
To Bob: It's entirely possible that the trouble my PCs occasionally find themselves in is as much a result of my choices as theirs. I'm not sure about it but as I gain experience as a Pathfinder DM hopefully my skill with the rules will improve as well. The only Rule that we as a group have decided truly matters in the end is rule 0 so fun is the end all and be all for our group. We hit speed bumps occasionally but everyone has a good attitude so it's nothing we can't overcome with a mild amount of tweaking.
As a mild aside to this, check out the series 'I hit it with my Axe' over on The Escapist
I imagine CoDzilla and a good few others would probably foam at the mouth at some of the things they do and some of the character concepts/executions/choices, but seriously, this is how 'normal' people often approach the game, especially those not too familiar with the rules (the stress on normal is not to dig at hyper-exceptional roleplayers, or anyone on these boards, but more to do with the fact that the people playing are, well, not exactly your stereotypical players).
This is, I'm guessing, a bit closer to what happens in your game room Lordjimbo, than the elite game rooms of veteran players. The DM of the video series' featured group is highly experienced and copes with his inexperienced players very well, to the point where all are kept interested, engaged and above all excited about what happens next.
Something else just occurred to me. Part of the reason I'm approaching Pathfinder the way I am is because I'm approaching it in the context of it being more of an rpg than a tactical game. Most of the rpgs my group and I have played before this where pretty light on rules so fudging things was just a standard practice. The other game we play pretty consistently is warhammer fantasy battle and when we play that we follow the rules exactly and let the dice fall where they may. I guess part of what's going on is because Pathfinder is such a robust system you can follow the RAW exactly and not encounter to many issues but we've been approaching it more from a story telling perspective than a wargame perspective hmmm.
@Midnighttoker & Kamelguru- I said Charisma was not 'just' about looks and charm, meaning that is a large part but there is more to it than that.
Basically, your CHA 5 fighter isn't a hero, he is something much more demeaning... a SIDEKICK (or a stooge, henchman or, heaven forbid... cohort!).
That's not to say he isn't ugly as sin at the same time though...
|
|
+1. I know I could run a game, with the players I know and make APL + 4 the new routine encounter, and they would still succeed easily. Even if I can't see how right away. While this is obviously harder than normal, the point is if you know good people, and trust good people to be competent, they will be. If you don't trust them to be, you insult them. If they actually aren't, find better people to associate with.
When you are only talking about the APL, you are missing half of the game. Even the tarrasque isn't that difficult for a party well prepared to deal with a tarrasque.
I use the tarrasque as an example because it is something you don't kill, because you can't kill it. It is something you use strategy to deal with.
An encounter neutralized is a success. And ally gained is an asset.
APL is meaningless without context. If you have a high point buy and ignore WPL, you are already at least +2 on your CR, making that +4 actually a +2 or worse. And if your characters know they won't need to do anything but fight, and can therefore built only for that purpose, I would say the functional CR of the party is even higher.
LOL! Stuart yes that is pretty close to I'm dealing with. Especially the attitude of silliness as opposed to the hyper intensive "Let's win this!" that some groups enjoy.
Something else just occurred to me. Part of the reason I'm approaching Pathfinder the way I am is because I'm approaching it in the context of it being more of an rpg than a tactical game. Most of the rpgs my group and I have played before this where pretty light on rules so fudging things was just a standard practice. The other game we play pretty consistently is warhammer fantasy battle and when we play that we follow the rules exactly and let the dice fall where they may. I guess part of what's going on is because Pathfinder is such a robust system you can follow the RAW exactly and not encounter to many issues but we've been approaching it more from a story telling perspective than a wargame perspective hmmm.
Nothing wrong with that. Warhammer is a fantastic tactical system that is very rigid and not exactly forgiving, designed for structured play where you are basically using position and numerical superiority to favour outcomes as much as the individual hardness of any one character or troop. Pathfinder is about a bunch of (almost super-)heroes going about saving the world and getting up to all sorts of derring do and so is much more spectacular on an individual level. Fudge = Artistic License and leads to more cinematic play (there are rules for every stage of grabbing a chandelier, swinging over the heads of the illuminati cult in the ballroom below, landing neatly on the balustrade of the grand staircase and sweeping the mastermind's head from his shoulders with a well-aimed blow... but you can do all that with a single Acrobatics check to make it quicker and easier)
I've played Exalted... now there was a game that encourage imaginative thinking and sheer over-the-top actions.
OT: By the way, anyone looking for a prime candidate for that Chandelier tactic, look no further than Rogue! ;)
Stuart Lean: "Fudge=Artistic License". Agreed!
So I've been reviewing this thread and looking over the various classes and archetypes. I've come to the conclusion that I believe we are arguing the wrong points. The system assumes that you have a melee, skill, divine, and arcane character. So if someone builds an Urban Ranger they are filling the role of the skill-based character. He brings different things to the table and does replace the rogue but that doesn't invalidate the rogue anymore than the Archivist invalidates the Urban Ranger.
I think, in these discussions, we should keep things like this in mind. The druid doesn't replace the cleric even though they both provide strong divine casting. The sorcerer doesn't replace the wizard either. Every class brings something to the table that another does not bring. There is a lot of overlap on purpose so that people don't have to multiclass so much.
So what does the skill-based character need to bring to the table? What makes the rogue a better choice for one player or campaign than the Urban Ranger or other skill-based character? Besides recon, what is the expectation?
So I've been reviewing this thread and looking over the various classes and archetypes. I've come to the conclusion that I believe we are arguing the wrong points. The system assumes that you have a melee, skill, divine, and arcane character. So if someone builds an Urban Ranger they are filling the role of the skill-based character. He brings different things to the table and does replace the rogue but that doesn't invalidate the rogue anymore than the Archivist invalidates the Urban Ranger.
I think, in these discussions, we should keep things like this in mind. The druid doesn't replace the cleric even though they both provide strong divine casting. The sorcerer doesn't replace the wizard either. Every class brings something to the table that another does not bring. There is a lot of overlap on purpose so that people don't have to multiclass so much.
So what does the skill-based character need to bring to the table? What makes the rogue a better choice for one player or campaign than the Urban Ranger or other skill-based character? Besides recon, what is the expectation?
Bob no.
The Urban Ranger cannot out do the rogue at skills. I repeat. CANNOT.
I have already posted why above, if you truly reviewed the thread you would understand why.
If you need me to repeat why I will, but it will have to wait. Do not bring this arguement up again.
The Urban Ranger fills a different niche. They get NO, I repeat NO face skills as class skills. That alone means they are not even close to the same as rogues.