|
I take issue with the word "unfairly"This is a roleplaying game. if you put a 5 in your charisma, you should be ready to play it out. Now a lot of GMs don't call people out on it, so it is a "safe" dump stat.
That's why it's unfair to change the rules without letting them react to the changes.
But for point buy min/maxers who dumped CHA so they could have a massive STR, they knew the price when they made the character.
Yes, they knew that they would never need Cha for anything.
If every game they had been in before was a hack-n-slash and the GM switched gears to a political intrigue campaign with no warning, that would be worth shouting about.
Which is exactly what I'm saying.
(...) I'm not looking for a forceful way to role play, I'm asking for examples.
Some have been given but I think it might help you to step back and let some loose to the current exchange dynamics. I will.
|
The 5 cha player is a major example. Idk much about his persona as I haven't gotten much. The reason I'm bringing him up is as an example of a low cha character that idk anything about and how to bring his character more into the light of the game.
This is a big part of the problem. If the player has an unsually low or high stat that can affect their character, explore with the player how they picture that stat value manifesting in the character.
I'm running Kingmaker - and trying to introduce as much interesting non-combat as possible. It's a social skills heavy game.
One of the players has a half orc bard with a high charisma. That charisma plays out in a couple ways. The player describes him as handsome and pleasant, but physically imposing - and intimidating, as one of his eyes is milky white rather than the normal color, and he's a rather large half orc. He's friendly and fair with friends, and stands out quite a bit in a crowd.
Find out how the character's stats manifest from the player. If they're lost, give them your own suggestions - I find that giving a suggestion I KNOW the player won't like will force them to come up with an idea all their own, instead of hand-waving it as "Oh, I don't know, you pick" - giving them an option they rebel against will encourage them to choose something else and make the character come alive to them more.
I'm not looking for a forceful way to role play, I'm asking for examples.
You're making it difficult by not providing full examples of your own.
Let's do a couple of example from modern life.
Negative charisma quiet dude that disappears in the background walks into Walmart to buy stuff - he experiences no difficulty.
Negative charisma quiet dude is in a fancy shop - he has a more difficult time getting service, but when he does get a salesman to pay attention, he's pushed into purchases he's not really sure he should have - maybe at inflated prices.
Negative charisma quiet dude is trying to buy an illegal substance. He doesn't have many friends, and unless he has a friend or aquaintance that can push him in the right direction, will have a hard time even finding out where to go. Once there, he experiences many of the same difficulties he would in a high class shop - plus the added bonus of possible violence.
Negative charisma ugly stinky dude walks into Walmart to buy stuff - he experiences no difficulty.
Negative charisma ugly stinky dude is in a fancy shop - he has a more difficult time getting service and if he's unpleasant looking enough may be steered away with as little fuss for more upscale clientele as possible. Salesmen that interact with him are more likely to dislike him, and want to get out of his presence as soon as possible. they are perfunctory in their service, though they do want the sale and commission.
Negative charisma ugly stinky dude is trying to buy an illegal substance. He doesn't have many friends, and unless he has a friend or aquaintance that can push him in the right direction, will have a hard time even finding out where to go. Once there, he experiences many of the same difficulties he would in a high class shop - plus the added bonus of possible violence.
Negative charisma always saying the wrong thing dude walks into Walmart to buy stuff - he experiences no difficulty.
Negative charisma always saying the wrong thing dude is in a fancy shop - at first he's treated like any other customer - until his first inappropriate comment. Salesmen that interact with him are more likely to dislike him, and want to get out of his presence as soon as possible - and get him away from sensitive clientele. they are perfunctory in their service, though they do want the sale and commission.
Negative charisma always saying the wrong thing dude is trying to buy an illegal substance. He doesn't have many friends, and unless he has a friend or aquaintance that can push him in the right direction, will have a hard time even finding out where to go. Once there, he experiences many of the same difficulties he would in a high class shop - plus the added bonus of possible violence.
nice examples, and fairly dead on.
My group ( and everyone is different ) doesn't treat Chr as a measure of looks but at force of personality. Low Chr characters have a hard time staying out of trouble , obtaining services and being treated seriously.
It really comes down to GM fiat. Most good gamers can role-play a poor Chr , but if you need to there are plenty of fun ways to penalize them. As is mentioned above.
A low cha can represent a number of things that make the character less appealing to society; ugly, gruff, rude, an a!!@%%&, etc. That's my take on it. Now if you can help me out with role playing examples that I can tailor and add in, like invitations to a ball the nobles are putting on where the character will be separate from the group and will have to role play on his own. I'm not looking for a forceful way to role play, I'm asking for examples.
My example is stop take a step back and TALK TO YOUR PLAYER. If you think he/she is roleplaying a 5 charisma like a 10, then talk to him or her about it. Explain your views on the subject, and come to some kind of aggreement about how the character will behave. You dont like the fact that this person dumped charisma and isn't playing it the way you think a 5 charisma should be played right? You dont want to solve it by making the player role a bunch of diplomacy rolls or bluff rols or charisma checks right?
Then the answer is not to passive aggresively take it out on the player. The answer is to take the player aside after the game or between games, or even right there, and tell them 'Look I think we need to sort out how your 5 charisma dwarf behaves. I dont think you are playing it the way we should. Why dont we work out some quirks/mannerisms/behavior patterns that will make him a more lifelike 5 charisma dwarf?'.
If your player then cries foul and b$&~+es at you, go ahead and make him suffer by all the shopkeeps and barmaids hate him. But the player may not realize that you are not happy with how they are playing the character, and they may not even be doing it deliberately, and are simply unsure how to roleplay a bottom of the barrel charisma.
The 5 cha player is a major example. Idk much about his persona as I haven't gotten much. The reason I'm bringing him up is as an example of a low cha character that idk anything about and how to bring his character more into the light of the game.
This is a big part of the problem. If the player has an unsually low or high stat that can affect their character, explore with the player how they picture that stat value manifesting in the character.
I'm running Kingmaker - and trying to introduce as much interesting non-combat as possible. It's a social skills heavy game.
One of the players has a half orc bard with a high charisma. That charisma plays out in a couple ways. The player describes him as handsome and pleasant, but physically imposing - and intimidating, as one of his eyes is milky white rather than the normal color, and he's a rather large half orc. He's friendly and fair with friends, and stands out quite a bit in a crowd.
Find out how the character's stats manifest from the player. If they're lost, give them your own suggestions - I find that giving a suggestion I KNOW the player won't like will force them to come up with an idea all their own, instead of hand-waving it as "Oh, I don't know, you pick" - giving them an option they rebel against will encourage them to choose something else and make the character come alive to them more.
I'm not looking for a forceful way to role play, I'm asking for examples.You're making it difficult by not providing full examples of your own.
Let's do a couple of example from modern life.
Negative charisma quiet dude that disappears in the background walks into Walmart to buy stuff - he experiences no difficulty.
Negative charisma quiet dude is in a fancy shop - he has a more difficult time getting service, but when he does get a salesman to pay attention, he's pushed into purchases he's not really sure he should have - maybe at inflated prices.
Negative charisma...
these are some very good examples. thank you. the reason i didnt post examples of my own is because i dont have any.
@kolokotroni
i have said im not trying to punish the character, thats not my intention and i am certainly aware of the fact that most people dont know how to role play such a thing, thats why im asking for help so that i can give him advice from a gm standpoint and if that doesnt work, work in situations into the game so that i can help them more directly as people dont like taking advice sometimes. basically, if Paizo had put a section in the GMG where they talk about how to deal with power gamers and such, and they had a section on "players who dump cha" what would it say.
as for your advice, thank you it was very helpful. im not a dumbass, im just a guy asking for some help in this area to add a little bit more depth to my game. thanks for the help thus far.
@kolokotroni
i have said im not trying to punish the character, thats not my intention and i am certainly aware of the fact that most people dont know how to role play such a thing, thats why im asking for help so that i can give him advice from a gm standpoint and if that doesnt work, work in situations into the game so that i can help them more directly as people dont like taking advice sometimes. basically, if Paizo had put a section in the GMG where they talk about how to deal with power gamers and such, and they had a section on "players who dump cha" what would it say.as for your advice, thank you it was very helpful. im not a dumbass, im just a guy asking for some help in this area to add a little bit more depth to my game. thanks for the help thus far.
I dont think you are a dumb anything, I just get a little frustrated with the passive agressiveness a lot of dm's show when players do things they dont like. The key to a happy dm and happy players is open lines of communication. If you dont like something, whether its powergamming, inappropriate comments at the table, or spilling the cheetoes and not picking them up, its your job to bring it up and find a resolution with your players. Its not a game problem, its a style problem, and should be resolved appropriately.
Like I said the player might actually need help with it. Someone who is fairly charismatic might not even know how a 5 charisma character would behave. It could be an alien concept that they need guidance to roleplay. The reverse is also true, someone who is shy and soft spoken may not know how to play the dashing born leader. So sit down with them and work out character traits and behaviors for the character that you both are happy with. Then you can base npc reactions off of what the character(player) actually says and does, and when the player is acting like a 10 charisma instead of 5 you can point it out using those traits.
Personally I have had lots of fun with low mental stat characters. Some of my favorite characters was a half orc who's idea of diplomacy was hitting it with the blunt side of his axe.
|
|
these are some very good examples. thank you. the reason i didnt post examples of my own is because i dont have any.
By full examples, I mean - how does the player imagine the 5 charisma dwarf's low charisma manifests itself?
My basic examples, it appears, doesn't make my point clearly, so I will try again:
What many of the others are saying is that the attitude we're feeling from your posts is that you want to penalize a player for making good mechanical choices for some reason.
You've posted that you don't, but all the examples we're getting from you indicates the opposite - you're suggesting that because someone is unpleasant to be around, shopkeepers might refuse to sell them basic goods - let me tell you, most shopkeepers - at least the successful ones - will sell to anyone as long as the client in question won't hurt their sales in some other way, and won't put them in danger.
The system is set up in such a way that low Charisma is often a good choice. This is unfortunate, but it's a fact. Anything you do to change this is a houserule. Houserules are totally legal, but you have to be up front about them with players from the point of character creation - or you're asking for some very resentful players. Making everything clear from the start is the only way to head off a passive aggressive cold war that makes everyone miserable.
In general, a low charisma person in real life is limited in their ability to make friends, negotiate for things they want, keep potential mates around (willingly), and advance in their chosen career path if they're competing against others with a higher charisma.
These real life significant penalties have very little meaning in the game world - much of it is handwaved as you're accepted as a part of the party, and game balance makes inequal shares of the treasure (he's just a hireling) untenable, and most other issues only come up in heavily social games.
Most of the penalties and rewards for a low / high charisma will be roleplaying. When you rescue the town, the team spokesperson is acclaimed as the hero, while Grok the Stinky meets pretty girls that assume he's just Spokesperson's bodyguard and only speak to him to ask excitedly if he'll let them through to meet Spokesperson. Things like that.
Rather than trying to make it so Grok the stinky is unable to function in life without someone to speak for him, talk with the Grok's player frankly and openly at the point of character creation to get a clear idea of what's going on with his character.
In specific situation, don't just decide that Bob the Common Man hates Grok. What is Bob doing? Why is he interacting with Grok? If he needs help, would he turn away Grok because he has strong BO? If he's selling fruit, would he rather lose a sale than offer Grok an apple? You need to approach each situation from the NPC's point of view instead of the DM's point of view if you want the world to have verisimilitude.
Edit: Corrected spelling. How embarassing!
The system is set up in such a way that low Charisma is often a good choice. This is unfortunate, but it's a fact. Anything you do to change this is a houserule. Houserules are totally legal, but you have to be up front about them with players from the point of character creation - or you're asking for some very resentful players. Making everything clear from the start is the only way to head off a passive aggressive cold war that makes everyone miserable.
For what it's worth, that's the best post on the topic I've ever seen in print, Jess.
I think I have a slightly different perspective of low Charisma than is traditional.
Charisma skills are not just the "you like me ones" they are also intimidate and the "you don't like me, but I have the force of personality to get you to do what I want anyway."
Low charisma characters (assuming they haven't mitigated this weakness with ranks in skills are... ignored. They don't have whatever it is that makes people pay attention to them. The high-int wizard with a low charisma always comes up with great battle strategy - and no one listens to his plan, because he can't convince them that it is a good idea.
High charisma people are listened to, low charisma people need to work (ie use social skills) to get their point of views across.
So, the low charisma dwarf heads into a smithy to get a shiny new axe. And sees said axe, tries to purchase. "Oh, I'm sorry sir. In the middle of retouching this blade, be right with you." High charisma cleric walks in to buy the same axe, and the store-keep will start selling it with the dwarf who came in first standing right there. (Unless the dwarf does some opposed skill checks, of course.)
Provided you are upfront about this you (& given that you & the PC are unsure of how his CHA 5 affects him) could use his CHA to represent his Social status. So others with a lower status will be more likely to interact with him. On the streets he is more likely to fall in with a bad crowd (because he's the dodgy/ quiet guy who doesn't assert himself). Thus the PC can still interact with others and even very comfortably, so you would not hinder RP but enhance it.
You could also say that he is less memorable or likely to get a lower reward than his companions. His fame amongst the populace is not as great as the CHA 17 Paladin.
Of course, these would be house rules and have to be discussed (with reworkings to PC if wanted).
|
Hey all - I figured I'd chime in here - I've read every post on this thread and there certainly is a wide range of viewpoints and approaches on this subject.
To the OP:
I appears generally that what you're looking for is specific detailed encounter/scenarios in which a low-charisma character suffers (not needlessly) moreso than someone who doesn't. You don't want to "force" a person to roleplay a certain way - but neither do you want the choice to optimize by dumping the stat to carry no penalty at all. Most players can skirt this by opting not to get involved in the "face" moments - allowing others. However, you're in a conundrum because if you find ways to encourage proper roleplaying for poor charisma that players aren't appreciative of - you're forced to either a) penalize them, or b) force them to a certain style of roleplay - both of which you state you're not wanting to do.
This is tricky indeed.
Here's how I see things: A low charismatic character (one who does not use CHA as a casting stat) is not hindered any more than a high charisma character is benefitted (again - one who does not use CHA as a casting stat).
Contemplate this: Come up with scenarios in your head where a 14 CHA on a dwarven fighter is truly helpful - other than the statistical mechanical benefit of say Intimidate. If you can come up with situations where this is a boon, then it should be just as easy to imagine sceanarios in which a 5 is detrimental. The reality is - most of the time neither are truly going to be paramount to the game.
The onus is of course on the DM to come up with the appropriate times/scenarios and frequency when this truly makes a difference. But if you're not ready to truly reward the 14 cha fighter, you shouldn't go out of your way to ensure a 5 charisma fighter is hindered.
The way I see things is the Charisma situation has two sides of the coin: Quantifiable, and Aesthetic.
Aesthetically speaking - this is how the presence of charisma affects the game in an non-mechanical fashion. Does the shopkeep ignore you? Are the guards more likely to question and search you? These are roleplaying situation that you the GM creates - to use them is obvious use of singling out and are punitive. Ultimately the onus is on the DM to use/create situations where the Charisma can be a factor. But again, if you don't see the positive charisma as being all that helpful, you shouldn't hold the less charisma accountable. Doing this can be seen as punitive. By your own words you're not wanting to be punitive. So this doesn't seem like a valid answer for you.
But lets see some real-world examples.
Cop pulls over a 14 Charisma person for speeding. A rathing nice and eloquent individual may garner just a warning - I'm not talking about silver-tongued bluff or diplomcizing the situation - just the demeanor of the individual being polite and agreeable. The 5 charisma silent sulking sullen one w/ a bad demeanor - probably isn't going to get the same treatment. I stop at a convenient store every single morning on my way to work. I'm a generally friendly and outgoing agreeable sort of person, always chipper w/ a good morning and pleasant hello. I know the staff, I've learned their names, I engage in conversation and ask about things that I knew about them. I have benefitted at least once a week w/ a free drink on my way to work - the cashier just saying - "no problem, don't worry about it" as I reach for my wallet. There are other people I see come in regularly. One such individual is a "dwarf" in personality - even in some appearances -- short stout long beard, and not at all overly pleasant. I've never seen the staff respond to him in this way. I never "asked" for a free drink; I never bluffed and said I didn't have money - it's just a perk the staff have provided due to a positive charisma.
Now - by this same token, they aren't OVER charging this other guy; they aren't forcing him out of the store, they arent making him go to the back of the line. He is just another customer. So I guess in short - perhaps you don't need to "penalize" the low charisma - as it could be unfair - you simply find ways to award the fighter who chose not to optimize and has a 12+ charisma.
Another way to look at charisma aesthetically is to (as someone pointed out) come up with a few sub-descriptions for any inferior stat (and superior ones). Why does Tarldag have a 7 Charisma? Does he stink? Does he curse and swear all the time? Does he hate everyone but other dwarves? Why does Illyathilys have a 7 Con? Does he have severe allergies? Maybe he's asthmatic? Maybe he has low tolerance to pain or low tolerance to the sun - lupus? Albino? Why does Mirlkot have a 7 Dex? Does he have a limp? Is he hunched over like scoliosis? Is he blind in one eye causing poor depth perception???
In this way you can encourage roleplaying by "encouraging" players to come up with a reason for the low stat. This then creates character development and story line fodder to be roleplayed. But you can't expect players to constantly use this to hinder themselves - some core thespian roleplayers will latch on this and run with it, and really play it up. Most gamers are not that level of roleplayers - sure were good at it, but were not all ready for shakespere stage. In this way the onus is once again on you - the DM - to create encounters/scenarios/situations in which this ailment is utilized, or comes into play. If overdone of course will lead to resentment. Once again, it certainly shouldn't be made any more of a big deal as you would benefit him had he had a 14 Charisma; but the option is there from time to time for the spirit of fun - but always encourage the player to find reasons to embrace the so-called limitation of his character that was selected/discussed/agreed upon by you and he.
However if you're not comfortable taking on this onus, if you're willing to encourage this type of negative aspect, and encouraging the roleplay of - if you feel this is penalizing or forcing someone to roleplay - then I really dont know what else to say.
There truly is no way to have a player embrace an ill effect or roleplay it effectively if the player doesn't want to without resorting to forcing it upon them, or penalizing them. Thats the unfortunate truth. In which case you'll have to live with being unhappy about the so called optimizing or simply dissallow the stat from the beginning. An easier route as stated earlier, is to instead - provide in game benefits occasionally for those who didn't dump the stat. Provided that there are occcasions where the dumped charisma stat character gets to shine in combat or spells or whatever their make up is, then everyone gets equal fun time.
Low charisma doesn't have to mean unattractive. I think most of us have come to perceive Megan Fox to be of very low character; even go so far as to say she is the epitome of a stuck up bi-otch. (at least our perception as laced in the media). But she is drop-dead gorgeous. Most guys would give up a kidney to have her craw into their beds. On the other hand Jack Nickleson is a very unattractive man - but when it comes to clout, charm, and guile - the man is one of THE Coolest cats on the planet. And it's really hard not to love the guy. Same is true w/ Steven Tyler or Mick Jagger - how can something that awful looking command such a presence in the room? Call it what you want: chutzpah, charm, guile, leadership....charisma.
The other side of the coin is Quantitative. This is the IN-GAME mechanics aspect of charisma. By the rules as written (and I agree w/ Kirth on this) the game does nothing to truly "hinder" charisma as a dump stat on a non-charisma caster, and truly it is the only stat where a low number doesn't really hurt the character - making it the 'go-to' stat to drop in most cases.
IF the DM is not the type to look for ways to use this in-game through roleplaying, if this is a dungeon-laden campaign where storylines, and roleplaying and interaction is an afterthought at best, then no one will ever truly experience a sting for dumping that stat. Some are okay with this. If you as a DM are not - then once again the onus is on you for finding aesthetic ways to make the charisma an important stat - again maybe not so much penalizing low stats, but awarding high ones. In that way you are not hurting a character for it's choice unfairly in any way outside the scope of the rules. Its up to the DM to creatively find ways to make the charisma score play a role. Youre at the helm - you're writing the story - come up with scenarios that challenge the player to be suave, eloquent, silver tongued etc - occasionally of course - so as to not "pick on him".
On the other hand - as it relates to "quantitative" aspect of the stat, there are ways to use a low charisma in game to give some penalties/awards to players - and use aesthetic explanations for how the mechanics work. (such as "I have a 7 CON so my mechanics are lower hit points - aesthetically - I have narcolepsi and am always tired" How you wish to enforce this has no wrong/right answer - its merely an agreement of player/DM feeling comfortable with it applying fairly and judiciously.
Here is one way in which I have used low charisma. Real life analogy - the socially inept bullied person w/ low charisma - whether due to defunct agoraphobic or introverted personality or due to odd demeanor or odd looking - or a combination above - it is this person who gets targeted first during dodge-ball. It is this person who gets called over during red-rover. Wanting to humiliate these people is a normal human tendency. Why? Cuz humans are cruel - especially when in large numbers. Its these people that get the gum put on their seats in class before they sit down, or the sign on the back that says "im a dork - kick me".
Transferring this to in-game: Most of the time, the DM can easily rationlize why a creature/NPC would target a specific individual. Obvious aesthetic reasons to select a target may include: a Will save based spell used against a fighter, a fort save based against the rogue - provided the attacker is savvy enough to distinguish; or an undead creature going after the cleric that tried channelling), or a creature that is doing all the damage etc.
However there are times when a DM is faced with "Who do I attack" Or "I have this uber nasty special attack - how do I determine who gets hit with it to make it seem non-arbitrary."
Answer: Charisma Check. Lower result is who the NPC selects out of potential targets. That guy is who the dodgeball is being thrown to. He's the guy thats being pantsed/wedgied/targed etc.
Aesthestically explained that the individule exuded creepiness, bad demeanor, foul persona etc. He just made the person uncomfortable.
Its an in game mechanical way of rewarding better charisma characters. Again if overused it will ruin the fun for a lot of people - but it's one tool in a GM bag arsenal of things you can do to make things fun - and using Charisma for a more mechanical use IN GAME - since it has little effect for non casters.
A couple of times a game, I may call for a charisma check to see if the BBEG who has not yet found a true reason to single out a target, to find a reason to "pick on someone". It's a lot easier to pick on a low charismatic person - as has been the case in most society and sociolgoical circles in real life that we can draw inspiration from.
Hopefully some of this was helpful.
Robert
|
i have said im not trying to punish the character, thats not my intention and i am certainly aware of the fact that most people dont know how to role play such a thing, thats why im asking for help so that i can give him advice from a gm standpoint and if that doesnt work, work in situations into the game so that i can help them more directly as people dont like taking advice sometimes. basically, if Paizo had put a section in the GMG where they talk about how to deal with power gamers and such, and they had a section on "players who dump cha" what would it say.
You keep talking about players who've 'dumped' Charisma; as if they took a perfectly good score and vandalised it.
In reality, they've done nothing of the sort.
Using point-buy, all stats start at 7, and the player chooses to spend points to raise them. Or not.
You're using emotive language, so it's not surprising others are reading your posts, and assuming you're on a mission to punish players who are spoiling your game.
But 'neglecting to raise Charisma from it's default value' doesn't quite have the same ring of righteous indignation.
In reality, they've done nothing of the sort.
Using point-buy, all stats start at 7, and the player chooses to spend points to raise them. Or not.You're using emotive language, so it's not surprising others are reading your posts, and assuming you're on a mission to punish players who are spoiling your game.
But 'neglecting to raise Charisma from it's default value' doesn't quite have the same ring of righteous indignation.
Umm snorter all stats start at 10 in Pathfinder so you get bonus points for going below that.
Umm snorter all stats start at 10 in Pathfinder so you get bonus points for going below that.
So indeed, the players did take an average stat and chose to lower it to purchase other stats.
10 is where the book says the stats start yet 7 is the minimum.
i believe there could be arguments for both cases.
but a 7 isn't that debilitating.
lets use another stat to explain my case. intellect
a feeblemind spell reduces your intellect to 1.
i read a thread about some guy complaining that a feebleminded rogue shouldn't be able to sneak attack.
i silently supported a case from another that showed that sneak attack (and good tactics of other sorts) are perfectly okay with an intellect of 1.
lets look at animals. most have an int of 1 or 2.
to be specific, lets look at the various predators.
wolves use flanking manuevers and pack skirmish tactics, they also set up multimember relays where they would swap after certain distances (like a relay race). some would call these decent tactics despite the fact that they wouldn't let a 7 int pc do this. but a 1 int wolf does this kind of stuff rather frequently.
"animals don't understand magic." the same pack of wolves knows to take on the more "vulnerable" looking targets. they also know that fire hurts and can associate that globe of fire with the frail looking old man clad in robes.
"low int characters can't sneak"
let me point you to the lioness, she has an int of 1, she sneaks, pounces, and ambushes. good tactics still and this is stuff rogues like to do.
if an int of 1 (the bare minimum) still allows for extremely good tactics and the patience to utilize them
than a cha of 7 shouldn't be any bit of a social hinderance beyond the minor social skill penalties
lets look at animals. most have an int of 1 or 2.
That's a poor example, though, as Gygax was laboring under the illusion that all animals were equally near-mindless brutes, far stupider than the most profoundly impaired human, and this misconception somehow propogated to the present day. Having been around cattle and dogs, for example, it's abundantly clear that the dog is about a zillion times more intelligent -- yet they both get a rating of 2 in-game.
|
|
Let's look at Charisma.
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious."
1. Personality - Good charisma means your personality is one that people like, bad charisma, you annoy people. Neutral means you aren't particularly likable or annoying as a baseline.
2. Personal magnetism - Good means people are drawn to you, bad means they are repelled. Neutral means people are indifferent to you as a baseline.
3. Ability to lead - Good, people want to work with you/follow you, bad, people don't want to work with you/follow you. Neutral means they aren't predisposed either way.
4. Appearance - Good, people think you are naturally good looking, bad, people think you are naturally unattractive, neutral people don't think of you as good or bad looking.
5. Magic use, where you literally are able to call upon either arcane powers or the grace of the gods simply by the force of your will.
Now looking at these things, and saying they don't have an effect on role play is just ridiculous.
The skills that use charisma don't cover all, or even most situations.
Bluff - "Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill". The "actions" (feint, secret message, deceive someone) are standard actions against the sense motive. In other words, very specific actions, not general interactions.
Diplomacy - This is the one most cited as "put skill points here to make up for low charisma". But this is a very specific action, not a set of actions.
"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier."
Meaning it doesn't effect the initial attitude, it allows you to attempt to change it. The initial attitude is determined by other factors, including your charisma. But "Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction."
Similarly "Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request." and "Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work, searching for rumors and informants."
Diplomacy is about negotiating with people to get them to work with you, not about your general likability, appearance, personality, or ability to lead. It is a skill you learn and master to adjust starting attitudes, get info, and make deals.
Disguise - Self explanatory.
Handle Animal - Also fairly self exploratory.
Intimidate - "You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you" is not the same as them liking you, or your personality or appearance. And "Using Intimidate to change an opponent’s attitude requires 1 minute of conversation."
Demoralizing is a standard action.
Perform - Self explanatory.
Use Magic Device checks - Basically functionally the same as a sorcerer using the force of his will to call forth magic, only you are using your will to make the specific magic item work rather than call forth from the ether or whatever.
These are not replacements for being likable. These are workarounds for specific situations.
If you have low charisma and your DM doesn't role play it, your DM is letting you get away with it and your playing an "easier" version of the game under your house rules.
This is not to say you can't overcome low charisma with smart role playing. It is to say if you have a negative to charisma it will effect peoples initial attitude toward you until you do something to change it.
that is what adding your charisma bonus to the check is for
as well as the recipient recieving thier charisma bonus to thier DC's.
|
|
that is what adding your charisma bonus to the check is for
as well as the recipient recieving thier charisma bonus to thier DC's.
The checks handle very specific situations, not every situation. Or even most situations.
That is the point. Skills are things you have learned to be more able to do certain things better than your natural ability would allow.
A high Swim check means you studied and practiced swimming, so you are a better swimmer than you would normally expect someone with your strength to be.
A high diplomacy means you've studied diplomatic interactions to the point your are much better at negotiating than you would expect someone of your charisma to be.
But in both cases, if you aren't dexterous you aren't dexterous. If something comes up that involves strength that doesn't fall under a specific skill, you make a Strength check. If you need to bend a bar or lift something for example.
Same with Charisma, and a lot of situations occur where your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are called on.
A high Swim check means you studied and practiced swimming, so you are a better swimmer than you would normally expect someone with your strength to be.
A high diplomacy means you've studied diplomatic interactions to the point your are much better at negotiating than you would expect someone of your charisma to be.
No, it could mean you have, but it does not mean you did. Your ranks in a skill are irrelevant to actual training in game terms. Having an Intimidate of +17 doesn't have to mean you trained being scary in your off time, it means you're damn scary. Scarier in fact that most CR 1/3 thugs busting up a shopkeeper's store will ever be. You can walk into a room, naked, and scare the pants off a room of armed guards with a gritty stare.
Your +8 swim check, despite your -3 strength? Maybe you swim differently. Maybe you simply wave your body to push water around you instead of the classical stroke-based swimming. Maybe you do this because it feels more comfortable to you, and it works for you. Heck, at +8, some people probably say you swim like a fish.
You +0 Diplomacy despite your -2 Charisma? Eh, seems like you probably had a bad start. Maybe you had some social hangups (maybe you picked your nose, or didn't look people in the eyes, or something else that made you 10% worse at something than the average Joe), but you got over those hangups and now you're about average. Heck, you might even become outgoing or be the life of the party (+4 Diplomacy).
Or maybe it does represent someone who is just an absolute bastard and has such a way with words that everyone begrudgingly lets him do what he wants, or somehow folds to his direction. House comes to mind.
The statistics are merely a mechanical representation of the characters we want to play. How you explain those mechanics are up to you; and being a spiteful GM just makes me sad. I would never act in many of the ways that have been portrayed; I like my players. I like my friends. Why would I want to intentionally punish them for something so pitiful? It's not like that +4 points during point buy is really so darn amazing.
Also, why does every stat have to be equally important? Why the fascination with PCs that have 13s across the board? Isn't that kind of the complete opposite of how the game or interesting team-based thing? You got the strong guy, the smart guy, the face, or Ocean's 11 where you got a whole team of guys that are crazy good at like 1 thing, often at the expense of something else (hell, most of the Ocean's 11 people didn't really have great social ability).
Strength isn't that important to Wizards. Why should I expect a bookworm to have even a moderate one?
One of my best characters right now is a Paladin with a 7 Con. Fun fact, she's the party's Tank. Why? Doesn't need it as much. Good AC + Swift Action Healing + Stupid High Charisma = Amazingly good Tank + Good Saves. Yeah, she has an 18 Charisma and a 7 Con.
How's that for Dumpstats?
Also, we should probably make sure my Paladin has to save vs Foodpoisoning everyday when she eats. Maybe the GM should have her make random Constitution checks to avoid soiling herself during adventures because her internal organs are frail and prone to seizing. Or maybe, just maybe...
He should just run the damn game so we can get back to roleplaying. If I get whacked with a sword, well I'll try to take measures to not fall down. If I get hit with a poison, then I'll hope my Divine Grace pulls her through it. If asked why her Constitution is so bad, I have this nice little story about how she's born with a genetic disease.
Or, y'know, we could make sure she has to make random Constitution checks every day, for no apparent reason than the GM just being bad at his/her role.
Just a thought.
|
|
No, it could mean you have, but it does not mean you did. Your ranks in a skill are irrelevant to actual training in game terms. Having an Intimidate of +17 doesn't have to mean you trained being scary in your off time, it means you're damn scary. Scarier in fact that most CR 1/3 thugs busting up a shopkeeper's store will ever be. You can walk into a room, naked, and scare the pants off a room of armed guards with a gritty stare.
Your +8 swim check, despite your -3 strength? Maybe you swim differently. Maybe you simply wave your body to push water around you instead of the classical stroke-based swimming. Maybe you do this because it feels more comfortable to you, and it works for you. Heck, at +8, some people probably say you swim like a fish.
Actually, it does.
You get skill points at each level that you allocate. You weren't born a great swimmer, or intimidating as hell. You became a great swimmer or intimidating as hell, over time, by developing skills.
Skills are things you focus on learning. Abilities are things that you are. Even those go up over time (every 4 levels to be exact, along with mental stats as you age.) and down (physical stats when you get old)
This is why you can only put so many skill points in one thing or another when you level, and why you get the +3 for "Trained" skills.
If your games are "story" games where players always win and can do whatever they want, and everyone at the table is cool with that, it's fine. Some people want to be challenged.
Actually, it does.
You get skill points at each level that you allocate. You weren't born a great swimmer, or intimidating as hell. You became a great swimmer or intimidating as hell, over time, by developing skills.
Skills are things you focus on learning. Abilities are things that you are. Even those go up over time (every 4 levels to be exact, along with mental stats as you age.) and down (physical stats when you get old)
This is why you can only put so many skill points in one thing or another when you level, and why you get the +3 for "Trained" skills.
If your games are "story" games where players always win and can do whatever they want, and everyone at the table is cool with that, it's fine. Some people want to be challenged.
You assume much Ciretose, and my grandfather taught me what it means to assume. People in real life get better at things. Even if you're really strong, you can drown just as easily if you don't know how to swim; but D&D rules are an abstraction.
You could have a 9 Strength but take a feat or trait that lets you carry more, so while you're naturally inept at applying your strength effectively, you might still be able to carry stuff pretty good. Heck, maybe you even look pretty brawny, but your muscles give out easily 'cause you don't work out enough or eat right.
Your ability scores are the baseline. I might begin at below average at social interaction (Diplomacy) because I have a 7 Charisma, but as I interact with more people my hangups slowly vanish (maybe my player is putting a couple of my ranks into Diplomacy) and I'm a bit more outgoing and good at speaking, but I'm still just as easy to talk to (fact: Charisma 7 characters are easier to talk to than Charisma 10 charcters, and are more likely to accept requests for aid).
If you feel that for a Fighter to become a sociable fellow he must attain 16 levels and/or various forms of magical enhancements to stop accidentally implying the barmaid has great hooters, when he really meant her eyes, then I'm sorry for you. Very sorry.
EDIT: Also, my players do like challenges. It's the #1 thing they say they love about my games, with the #2 thing being that they have a lot of fun with the stories and plots. The #3 thing is that kobolds are evil and you should respect and fear them even into the mid-levels; which is most likely directly related to #1.
EDIT 2: Also, this shows D&D/PF can model life pretty good. If I had to stat myself out, I'd probably say Int 16, Cha 7, really fast. Most of my skill points divided between a variety of useless skills not applicable in normal life. I used to be a wallflower, socially awkward, and shy. I've grown out of that, but I retain the ability to listen and relate to other people who have social problems, and I offer advice and assistance with breaking out of their shell. I'd probably also say Wisdom is my 2nd dump-stat, since I'm really not very perceptive (I'm pretty sure I have a negative Perception modifier, but a fair Sense Motive).
|
|
If your games are "story" games where players always win and can do whatever they want, and everyone at the table is cool with that, it's fine. Some people want to be challenged.That's a well-crafted strawman, bro. :)
Thank you :)
I honestly look at it this way. If you are saying that dump stats have no effect on role playing, you are not only letting your players game the system, your kind of forcing them to in order to be competitive with everyone else. You are just as much punishing your players that way, if their high scores in "lesser" stats have no benefits relative to the guy who dumped.
If that is how you run your game, it's going to be story time.
I'm not saying you actively try to punish low charisma/wisdom/etc...characters, but when they try to do something that would be effected by the stat involved, you take that into consideration.
Don't be the party face if you are less charismatic than most people. If you want to be the face, make a high charisma character.
If your games are "story" games where players always win and can do whatever they want, and everyone at the table is cool with that, it's fine. Some people want to be challenged.That's a well-crafted strawman, bro. :)Thank you :)
I honestly look at it this way. If you are saying that dump stats have no effect on role playing, you are not only letting your players game the system, your kind of forcing them to in order to be competitive with everyone else. You are just as much punishing your players that way, if their high scores in "lesser" stats have no benefits relative to the guy who dumped.
If that is how you run your game, it's going to be story time.
I'm not saying you actively try to punish low charisma/wisdom/etc...characters, but when they try to do something that would be effected by the stat involved, you take that into consideration.
Don't be the party face if you are less charismatic than most people. If you want to be the face, make a high charisma character.
Or you could, since you invested about 8 ranks into Diplomacy, which is about 8 more than anyone else did, putting you above the 18 Charisma sorcerer (who happens to have a +12 Intimidate, the freaky bastard).
I never said that I ignore the penalties for a low stat. I just don't invent new ones. Guy with a 7 Cha has a -2. That's the penalty. Guy with the 14 has a +2, that's the bonus. It doesn't mean he'll never be good at something; just that he's not great at it when he starts off at it.
This binary 0s and 1s logic is really crampin' the roleplaying man. Maybe you should just keep playing hakkinslash. /joke
|
|
You assume much Ciretose, and my grandfather taught me what it means to assume. People in real life get better at things. Even if you're really strong, you can drown just as easily if you don't know how to swim; but D&D rules are an abstraction.
You could have a 9 Strength but take a feat or trait that lets you carry more, so while you're naturally inept at applying your strength effectively, you might still be able to carry stuff pretty good. Heck, maybe you even look pretty brawny, but your muscles give out easily 'cause you don't work out enough or eat right.
Your ability scores are the baseline. I might begin at below average at social interaction (Diplomacy) because I have a 7 Charisma, but as I interact with more people my hangups slowly vanish (maybe my player is putting a couple of my ranks into Diplomacy) and I'm a bit more outgoing and good at speaking, but I'm still just as easy to talk to (fact: Charisma 7 characters are easier to talk to than Charisma 10 charcters, and are more likely to accept requests for aid).
If you feel that for a Fighter to become a sociable fellow he must attain 16 levels and/or various forms of magical enhancements to stop accidentally implying the barmaid has great hooters, when he really meant her eyes, then I'm sorry for you. Very sorry.
For a fighter with high charisma, he won't say she has great hooters, unless that is the move that will work at that particular time.
By rewarding people who dump stats, you punish those who don't.
As to diplomacy, the rule applies in very specific circumstances, not as a default.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
Don't confuse skills for abilities. If you start with a 7 charisma, around level 4 you may have become more to be more charismatic, or when your older and know better your low charisma fighter may give off less of a scary date rapist and more a slightly creepy old man vibe thanks to the old age bonuses.
The bigger point is, if you don't have consequences for dumping, you basically forces others to dump stats to compete. Why would I put anything in Charisma if you are going to let Bill the Creepy be just as effective as me?
Bards, Sorcerers, and Paladins (and now oracles) aren't getting the rewards intended to them as high charisma characters because you want to let that 5 charisma player not have to deal with having a low score.
Going to work now, so probably no more responses, but it's a dead horse issue that sides are entrenched on anyway.
For a fighter with high charisma, he won't say she has great hooters, unless that is the move that will work at that particular time.
You should really give some actual examples, dude. You say a lot of nothing, and that's saying something about nothing.
By rewarding people who dump stats, you punish those who don't.
So by just using the penalties that are there, that's rewarding the player who has a poor charisma but invests skill points into it? Not buying that man. Doesn't compute. You don't have to make up new problems for the PC to "not reward" it.
As to diplomacy, the rule applies in very specific circumstances, not as a default.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
Don't confuse skills for abilities. If you start with a 7 charisma, around level 4 you may have become more to be more charismatic, or when your older and know better your low charisma fighter may give off less of a scary date rapist and more a slightly creepy old man vibe thanks to the old age bonuses.
That's cute but you have nothing to back it up on. There are no rules for this. Just your fiat, and questionable fiat at that.
The Diplomacy rules are pretty versatile. Diplomacy works perfect for trying to pickup a girl a bar. It says you can use the skill to "persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
But it doesn't say that's all it's for. You can influence an NPC's attitude up or down, causing them to like or dislike you. You can make requests, ask for advice, or even convince them to do something they normally wouldn't do.
Example: Bard with an 18 Charisma walks into a bar. He spots this fine half-elven lass who's playing a flute, and decides he wants to talk to her, impress her, then woo her. He doesn't have Diplomacy, so he's going on his raw natural ability.
She's indifferent 'cause she's not a huge b#@* and she doesn't know him. He walks up and tries to make a good first impression, and rolls 1d20+4, resulting in a 13 (DC 15). Ok, still indifferent. So he talks with her a while, and then decides he's going to try the pickup line, "Hey baby, I got another flute you can play in my room." and rolls his 1d20+4 again, and gets an 18, but she's not a girl who's into one night stands (+5 for complicated/lengthy aid) or perhaps she's worried about garnering a negative reputation for herself (+10 for dangerous aid), setting the DC at 20. Oops, bard biffed it. He's cute and all, but she's not into it. She probably laughs at him or tells him he's barking up the wrong tree. Further requests apply a cumulative +5 penalty, and may result in her becoming irritated.
Sigfried the Fairly Handsome comes into the room. Now Sigfried is something of a local hero and has reached 7th level. He started out as something of a gruff warrior, and had little to talk about rather than swords and combat training, and has a 7 charisma. However, he's gotten pretty good at relating to people, especially having been traveling with his friends so much. He now has a +7 Diplomacy, because he's invested seven ranks and a masterwork suit (+2 Diplomacy).
He sees the same half-elven lass playing the flute, and a rather disappointed bard walking off. He comes up and strikes up a conversation. He takes 10 and gets a 17, making a good first impression with a kind word and a sharp look. He listens to what she says for a while, and has a conversation with her. After a bit, he too gets a bit forward, and casually mentions that he'd love to continue their discussion in his room after dinner. 1d20+7 and he banks a 23, beating the DC 20, and Sigfried has some pillow talk later that evening.
And you're doing that thing again. You just told me my PC puts off weird rapist vibes. Good show dude, now back it up. C'mon, I'm waiting. Tell me where 7 Charisma means "weird rapist vibes", 'cause otherwise, not only are you metagaming the NPC reaction, but you're assigning traits to my PC that aren't part of my PC.
Actually,
The bigger point is, if you don't have consequences for dumping, you basically forces others to dump stats to compete. Why would I put anything in Charisma if you are going to let Bill the Creepy be just as effective as me?
Bards, Sorcerers, and Paladins (and now oracles) aren't getting the rewards intended to them as high charisma characters because you want to let that 5 charisma player not have to deal with having a low score.
Going to work now, so probably no more responses, but it's a dead horse issue that sides are entrenched on anyway.
Ok, now this is rich dude. Yeah, I totally see that the Fighter fighter not terribly minding the -2 to charisma based skills is going to make the Paladin feel bad about his +2 to all charisma based skills, +2 to all saving throws, spellcasting, extra lay on hands, and all that stuff.
You've sold me. You not only know everything about what ability scores mean, but you're also a paragon of mechanical knowledge and an expert on balance. Good show. Let's make Paladin powers based off STRENGTH and CONSTITUTION instead!
Hey, that dude with rapist vibes just might be good at lying about those dozen or so women that have disappeared over the past few weeks. Must have been investing in bluff.
Hey, that dude with rapist vibes just might be good at lying about those dozen or so women that have disappeared over the past few weeks. Must have been investing in bluff.
Good point. That might make for a really good plot. Crazy killer on the loose, party has to find him before he strikes next! :D
|
|
stuff you can scroll up and read
Your arguement seems to be that you can't use ability scores for things not written, but you can use skill checks for things not written.
You can use diplomacy to change attitude toward you, on the scale given. You can't negotiate someone into thinking you are charismatic anymore than you can intimidate them into falling in love with you.
Your strength example is just wrong. You can use magic items to increase your strength to lift things, if those things increase your strength. You can similarly make someone not charismatic become charming using magic.
Skills cover specific situations with clearly laid out rules for how, when, and what they can be used for. Abilities cover the rest. It isn't the other way around.
Letting a low charisma character be naturally charning is like letting a low strenght character be able to lift heavy things because "my character is very muscular despite his low strength.
|
|
Hey, that dude with rapist vibes just might be good at lying about those dozen or so women that have disappeared over the past few weeks. Must have been investing in bluff.
Absolutely. That is using a skill for it's purpose.
Now if you had everyone at the bar saying clearly it wasn't rape and murder because of how charismatic he is...not so much.
The Diplomacy rules are pretty damn vague, and intentionally so. They already allow you to do things outside of the basic description of the skill. It doesn't say you're allowed to make requests of people, or ask for dangerous aid, what it does say as part of the description is:
Your arguement seems to be that you can't use ability scores for things not written, but you can use skill checks for things not written.
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
It then goes on to say you can adjust an NPC's attitude towards you.
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier. If you succeed, the character's attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations. If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character's attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character's attitude toward you is decreased by one step.
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
So already, the Diplomacy skill is saying that you can make friends with NPCs in a social environment. The basic description of Diplomacy didn't cover this, but that's how it's written. Let's see what else we can do with it.
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
Ok, so now we can ask the NPC for things outside of just negotiating or calming down a situation, or as part of a gather info check. We can ask for aid, or any number of things. The basic Diplomacy description doesn't even say we can ask for aid, but this part does.
Gather Information: You can also use Diplomacy to gather information about a specific topic or individual. To do this, you must spend at least 1d4 hours canvassing people at local taverns, markets, and gathering places. The DC of this check depends on the obscurity of the information sought, but for most commonly known facts or rumors it is 10. For obscure or secret knowledge, the DC might increase to 20 or higher. The GM might rule that some topics are simply unknown to common folk.
Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.
Try Again: You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature's attitude more than once in a 24-hour period. If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made. You can retry Diplomacy checks made to gather information.
Special: If you have the Persuasive feat, you gain a bonus on Diplomacy checks (see Feats).
And that's the end of Diplomacy. I used it, as written, to resolve two PCs in the example of my last post wooing a half-elven maiden over a period of conversation and drinks. As far as I can tell, that seems exactly how Diplomacy works. Diplomacy is the skill for this. Bluff is the skill for Deception. Intimidate is the skill for thuggery. Sense Motive is the skill for sensing Deceptions and getting a feel for motives.
You can use diplomacy to change attitude toward you, on the scale given. You can't negotiate someone into thinking you are charismatic anymore than you can intimidate them into falling in love with you.
Actions speak louder. The point is, he gets her to like him, and then he gets the girl. It could begin a wonderful relationship and a deepening plot.
Your strength example is just wrong. You can use magic items to increase your strength to lift things, if those things increase your strength. You can similarly make someone not charismatic become charming using magic.
I didn't say anything about magic.
Skills cover specific situations with clearly laid out rules for how, when, and what they can be used for. Abilities cover the rest. It isn't the other way around.
Until you actually provide something to even support your claims, consider yourself ignored.
Letting a low charisma character be naturally charning is like letting a low strenght character be able to lift heavy things because "my character is very muscular despite his low strength.
You're intentionally missing it I think. No one said naturally charming. Naturally charming was the bard. He was naturally better at wooing the girl than most people would be. It was way better naturally than Sigfried would be. Sigfried however, was ultimately more charming, all things considered. Had the Bard placed even a single point in Diplomacy, he would have been better off that Sigfried (+8 vs +7).
So unless you have something better in the rules to show, that deals with the social interaction as I showed in the past rules, consider yourself to have lost this argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you actively try to punish low charisma/wisdom/etc...characters, but when they try to do something that would be effected by the stat involved, you take that into consideration.
The only people I have seen trying to do everything BUT that ARE the "real" role-players. Those ability penalties factor into skills - which is how the character interfaces with the game world. Whether "real" role-players like it or not.
|
|
The only people I have seen trying to do everything BUT that ARE the "real" role-players. Those ability penalties factor into skills - which is how the character interfaces with the game world. Whether "real" role-players like it or not.
I'm not saying you actively try to punish low charisma/wisdom/etc...characters, but when they try to do something that would be effected by the stat involved, you take that into consideration.
You both want to expand what skills to to include things beyond the scope.
Skills are intentionally specific and narrow, with specific times they apply, and actions you need to do to use them, with specific checks.
Diplomacy is being diplomatic, aka _United Nations style diplomatic interactions. When Hilary Clinto is engaged in diplomacy with her Iranian counterpartN it is about adjusting attituded to become more friendy towward each other, not trying to get some at a bar.
You wouldn't use a climb check to lift a heavy rock, arguing it improved your ability to grip rocks. You don't get quick draw if you pump up your slieght of hand. The skill does what it does, and everything outside of the scope falls to ability scores.
It isnKt dm fiatN you can roll your check with your ability score and hope for the best. But skills do what they do and the rest falls to ability scores.
It is the downside of min/maxing. You donKt want to deal with downsides in your gamesN apparently.
But even a 6 charisma can be above average with enough equipment. But it sounds like you want the benefits without the penalties. He decription of what charisma governs is very clear
But even a 6 charisma can be above average with enough equipment. But it sounds like you want the benefits without the penalties. He decription of what charisma governs is very clear
Repeatedly stated that the penalties are applied.
Diplomacy is being diplomatic, aka _United Nations style diplomatic interactions. When Hilary Clinto is engaged in diplomacy with her Iranian counterpartN it is about adjusting attituded to become more friendy towward each other, not trying to get some at a bar.
No, it's not. You can see it's not. You can make someone like you. You can ask them to do favors for you. You can buy them a few drinks and ask what the local rumors are around town. You're adding limits where they don't exist.
And you're adding rules that don't exist.
I'm still waiting for you to show me the rules that govern the aforementioned examples; because if you cannot, then you got nothing.
You both want to expand what skills to to include things beyond the scope.Skills are intentionally specific and narrow, with specific times they apply, and actions you need to do to use them, with specific checks.
Diplomacy is being diplomatic, aka _United Nations style diplomatic interactions. When Hilary Clinto is engaged in diplomacy with her Iranian counterpartN it is about adjusting attituded to become more friendy towward each other, not trying to get some at a bar.
Diplomacy (Cha)
[...]
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers
You can use Diplomacy to carry out basic interactions with a creature that isn't unfriendly towards you.
There are times to default to ability checks and times to rely on skill checks instead. Outside of strength and constitution ability checks which are pretty clearly outlined in RAW the exact time when to use skills and when to use raw ability score is generally left to the individual DM.
I tend to assume that many of the skills are actually broader than their the specific mechanical implementations described in the rules document. In this case diplomacy handles a variety of social interactions beyond just speechifying. It also handles more subtle forms of influence such as negotiation and manipulation.
Simply put most characters don't have enough skill points to invest in a huge number of social skills in order to achieve the type of granularity that some suggest. Furthermore forcing defaults to ability scores for anything remotely out of the norm forces DMs to set a lot of DCs on the fly.
However I do like defaulting to ability scores for some uses. Intelligence ability checks can be used to provide clues to stuck players, wisdom ability checks might give the PCs a premonition of danger, and charisma ability checks might handle the variety of social situations in which a diplomacy, bluff or intimidate check is not really relevant.
I actually like incorporating various ability checks because I think it helps illustrate that not every application of a character's action is going to be a function of BAB or skill checks or caster checks, etc. I'm just cautious about not depending on them too much because I don't want to undermine the skill system more than it already is.
*good post*
I agree with the majority of this, and while I might not do certain things (maybe not the wisdom check thing), it's very true that flat ability checks are uncommon, but relatively spelled out during the game. Strength checks are used to break/unstuck things, Constitution checks are used to stabilize, Chrisma is used for opposed force of will (see any charm, dominate, or planar binding spell).
Ciretose is essentially making up rules, suggesting that you must be making all these raw charisma checks, when everything in the books suggests that social interactions are governed by the four social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive). Even things that modify your appearance (such as wearing parade armor, or not wearing nobles clothing while speaking with nobles, and so forth) merely add modifiers to your Diplomacy modifiers.
He's saying that the rules as presented, that work, should be ignored or are not what we're supposed to use; and seems to be suggesting that we are supposed to make up new rules not defined to force flat charisma checks or whatever; and is also ignoring anything that actually reflects reality in the least. I mean, I know D&D = Fantasy, but we have basics.
He also seems to think that the Fighter being able to dump Charisma to 7 with relatively few drawbacks is unfair, despite the fact it gives him relatively few benefits not to. And this is apparently unfair to the Paladin, who apparently will feel sad because his not dumping Charisma only gave him: Naturally gifted social skills, a significant to extraordinary bonus to all his saving throws, extra healing/self-healing capabilities, stronger smites, and more spells.
It would appear, to me, that Ciretose seems to have no comprehension as to how the game functions at all; but I'm actually getting pretty psyched to hear what his answer to this conundrum is. He has yet to actually answer how the rules do say to handle these things, and just says a lot of words without providing anything to back them up with; so I'm really excited to see what he pulls out to back 'em up with.
Until then, I wait, and comment on the conversation thus far; as I have now.
|
|
You both want to expand what skills to to include things beyond the scope.Skills are intentionally specific and narrow, with specific times they apply, and actions you need to do to use them, with specific checks.
Diplomacy is being diplomatic, aka _United Nations style diplomatic interactions. When Hilary Clinto is engaged in diplomacy with her Iranian counterpartN it is about adjusting attituded to become more friendy towward each other, not trying to get some at a bar.
You can use Diplomacy to carry out basic interactions with a creature that isn't unfriendly towards you.
Diplomacy (Cha)
[...]
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers
We agree. A diplomat can negotiate basic agreements with some who isn't unfriendly.
Is love me, or be my best frined a "basic instruction" to you?
|
|
There are times to default to ability checks and times to rely on skill checks instead. Outside of strength and constitution ability checks which are pretty clearly outlined in RAW the exact time when to use skills and when to use raw ability score is generally left to the individual DM.
I tend to assume that many of the skills are actually broader than their the specific mechanical implementations described in the rules document. In this case diplomacy handles a variety of social interactions beyond just speechifying. It also handles more subtle forms of influence such as negotiation and manipulation.
Simply put most characters don't have enough skill points to invest in a huge number of social skills in order to achieve the type of granularity that some suggest. Furthermore forcing defaults to ability scores for anything remotely out of the norm forces DMs to set a lot of DCs on the fly.
However I do like defaulting to ability scores for some uses. Intelligence ability checks can be used to provide clues to stuck players, wisdom ability checks might give the PCs a premonition of danger, and charisma ability checks might handle the variety of social situations in which a diplomacy, bluff or intimidate check is not really relevant.
I actually like incorporating various ability checks because I think it helps illustrate that not every application of a character's action is going to be a function of BAB or skill checks or caster checks, etc. I'm just cautious about not depending on them too much because I don't want to undermine the skill system more than it already is.
I agree with this post.
Negotiation and manipulation are diplomacy. Flirting is charisma. Inital impressions are circumstances mix with charisma. Getting people to join your army is diplomacy. Making loyal friends is charisma.
An ally shares your goal, a friend trusts you.
I don't roll charisma much, but I don't try to shoehorn skills where they don't fit. You are not using diplomacy to bed the barmaid unless it is a cash transaction. The local sheriff works with you because of diplomacy, but he has a beer with you and shares secrets due to charisma.
You both want to expand what skills to to include things beyond the scope.Skills are intentionally specific and narrow, with specific times they apply, and actions you need to do to use them, with specific checks.
Diplomacy is being diplomatic, aka _United Nations style diplomatic interactions. When Hilary Clinto is engaged in diplomacy with her Iranian counterpartN it is about adjusting attituded to become more friendy towward each other, not trying to get some at a bar.
You can use Diplomacy to carry out basic interactions with a creature that isn't unfriendly towards you.
Diplomacy (Cha)
[...]
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiersWe agree. A diplomat can negotiate basic agreements with some who isn't unfriendly.
Is love me, or be my best frined a "basic instruction" to you?
A NORMAL PERSON can ask another NORMAL PERSON for directions to the closest bathroom using Diplomacy. It's black and white right there in the rule text.
My personal solution to the problem of one or more 7s is either predetermine a default array (generally better than the elite array) that doesn't incorporate any negatives to ability scores or I modify the point buy total by +x and say no point buy backs for low stats.
The preponderance of 7s in game is tied to the +4 build points that the PCs can spend on better stats in other meaningful areas. I find that if they don't need to buy down to 7s in order to get the stats they want in their prime requisites most people will stick with an average score.
If I give the PC 19 points + no negatives to buy stats instead of 15 points + negatives I find that you'll have characters that are appropriate heroic rather than odd mixes of high and really low scores.
I also have gone to a 4e racial modifier model and gotten rid of the +2, +2, -2 model because negative racial ability modifiers have never really been a great design feature in my mind and I am a dirty, dirty heretic.
I agree with this post.Negotiation and manipulation are diplomacy. Flirting is charisma. Inital impressions are circumstances mix with charisma. Getting people to join your army is diplomacy. Making loyal friends is charisma.
Don't tell me. Prove it. That's all I want is for you to prove it. That's all I'm asking. What you are saying is worth < Nothing if you cannot provide something to back up your claim. You say Charisma is for flirting. Show me. Give me a page number, or a link tot he PRD, or something. Otherwise, it's just you making stuff up.
I don't roll charisma much, but I don't try to shoehorn skills where they don't fit. You are using diplomacy to bed the barmaid unless it is a cash transaction. The local sheriff works with you because of diplomacy, but he has a beer with you and shares secrets due to charisma.
Citation, please. If the local Sheriff is friendly with you, why wouldn't he have a beer with you after the beat? In fact, isn't getting a secret from him gather information? Back it up buddy. Put up, or shut up, as they say.
I also have gone to a 4e racial modifier model and gotten rid of the +2, +2, -2 model because negative racial ability modifiers have never really been a great design feature in my mind and I am a dirty, dirty heretic.
No you are a pragmatist.
|
|
Is love me, or be my best frined a "basic instruction" to you?
Assuming you meant interaction, yes it is.
I also have gone to a 4e racial modifier model and gotten rid of the +2, +2, -2 model because negative racial ability modifiers have never really been a great design feature in my mind and I am a dirty, dirty heretic.No you are a pragmatist.
I also have gone to a 4e racial modifier model and gotten rid of the +2, +2, -2 model because negative racial ability modifiers have never really been a great design feature in my mind and I am a dirty, dirty heretic.No you are a pragmatist.
Heh, the only thing I can't decide is where I stand on size modifiers for small races. I like them because size modifiers to ability scores are hardwired into the game but I also don't like them from the standpoint of having negative modifiers to stats.
My current thinking is to do the following:
Halfling: +2 to any stat (Halflings are small humans in my setting), -2 to strength (size modifier), +2 to dexterity (size modifier).
The wildcard modifier is equivalent to +2/+2 in fixed configurations and can be used to either supplement strength because I like the idea of actually making Halfling fighters viable or can be used to boost another stat. The only think I'm somewhat uncomfortable about is whether allowing a net +4 to Dexterity would be unbalancing to the game or if the +2 wildcard should exclude doubling up on dexterity modifiers. My current thinking is that +4 to dexterity is not completely game breaking so it's probably okay.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what to do with Gnomes though in order to make them mechanically differentiated from Halflings, which is something I think 3.x fails to do to a large degree.
The wildcard modifier is equivalent to +2/+2 in fixed configurations and can be used to either supplement strength because I like the idea of actually making Halfling fighters viable or can be used to boost another stat. The only think I'm somewhat uncomfortable about is whether allowing a net +4 to Dexterity would be unbalancing to the game or if the +2 wildcard should exclude doubling up on dexterity modifiers. My current thinking is that +4 to dexterity is not completely game breaking so it's probably okay.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what to do with Gnomes though in order to make them mechanically differentiated from Halflings, which is something I think 3.x fails to do to a large degree.
That should work ok Vuron. My little brother plays Pathfinder goblins (they have a +4 Dex, 30ft speed, darkvision 60ft, and a +4 racial to Ride and Stealth, and a -2 Str/Cha; and honestly, the +4 Dex is really nice, but a far cry from gamebreaking.
|
|
I agree with this post.Negotiation and manipulation are diplomacy. Flirting is charisma. Inital impressions are circumstances mix with charisma. Getting people to join your army is diplomacy. Making loyal friends is charisma.
Don't tell me. Prove it. That's all I want is for you to prove it. That's all I'm asking. What you are saying is worth < Nothing if you cannot provide something to back up your claim. You say Charisma is for flirting. Show me. Give me a page number, or a link tot he PRD, or something. Otherwise, it's just you making stuff up.
I don't roll charisma much, but I don't try to shoehorn skills where they don't fit. You are using diplomacy to bed the barmaid unless it is a cash transaction. The local sheriff works with you because of diplomacy, but he has a beer with you and shares secrets due to charisma.Citation, please. If the local Sheriff is friendly with you, why wouldn't he have a beer with you after the beat? In fact, isn't getting a secret from him gather information? Back it up buddy. Put up, or shut up, as they say.
Onus isn't on me. You have to show where it says in the skill, as the ability is the default.
Which is what he said.
You want a loophole, not me.
Stuff
I don't mind racial bonuses to stats because I think they can provide flavor and assist in world building but I generally disagree with negative racial modifiers to stats because I think they tend to penalize characters who play against type too much. Plus because abilities aren't balanced the -2 to charisma is hardly balanced against the -2 to constitution or -2 to strength.
Like I said above I do like ability modifiers based upon size and do think that small races should have a negative to strength but that needs to be compensated for by providing more desirable racial traits to the small races.
20' Movement for small races needs to die in a fire though ;)