Make it so that 7s don't give you +4 build points and your problem with dump stats goes away immediately.Yes, that's true. For people stuck in the Bronze Age who still roll for stats, though, it's less of a help.
Heretic! :D
Honestly though I think the problem most people have with dump stats is as much the automatic 20 that it allows the player to purchase as it is the low Charisma score.
Dice rolling Char Gen is much less likely to have a 18 in the prime stat meaning the number of starting characters with 20s is moderately small (unless you go with a heavily inflated ability score generation method like 5d6 drop lowest 2).
You might still have PCs with really, really low Charisma scores but the simple probabilities tend to limit the number of truly atrocious stats.
Ultimately I think the debate over dump stats is going to continue as long as the process of dumping 1 stat results in a greater overall benefit to the character. This is especially true with how the 3.x mechanics tend to reward high physical stats and casting stats with a ton of mechanical benefits.
|
I think the correct solution to the Charisma problem as a whole at this point is so huge that it won't happen until the whole ruleset is torn down and rebuilt.Point taken, and thank you. I appreciate your perspective. From the standpoint of someone like me, who's obviously not afraid to drastically alter existing rules, what would you recommend?
P.S. Sheraviel had a 13? That's an intersesting reversal -- most people have a 6 and play it like a 16. I'll be darned.
People noticed her - she just wasn't friendly. :) People noticed her being not friendly. :D
and you have to admit, I played Trog's charisma too - and willingly took a lot of penalties for how badly it was tanked. It was fun. :) Monks are too MAD for me to afford tanking anything else so badly!
STR: Carrying Capacity, few skills of little importance in general
DEX: Reflex saves, Initiative, many skills of which Acrobatics is pretty important
CON: Fortitude Saves, Hit Points, NO skills!
INT: Number of skill points, skills of moderate importance.
WIS: Will Saves, some skills, of which PERCEPTION is crazily important (for at least one party member to have)
CHA: some skills for social interaction
4E takes your fortitude save from the best of Str & Con, reflex from the best of Dex and Int, and will from the best of Wisdom and Charisma. I like that, to start with, quite a bit.
Dex has a lot of stuff associated with it. Looking at these functions of dexterity (ignoring more class based stuff) I don't see anything to move to Charisma except will saves.
If you consider that some spells use ranged touch attacks, I think your solution of moving ranged attack rolls to wisdom, and will saves to Charisma would do the best job of the tasks I see here. I can't think of anything better of the top of my head.
and you have to admit, I played Trog's charisma too - and willingly took a lot of penalties for how badly it was tanked. It was fun. :)
(Sigh) I miss Trog. Our lame efforts to replicate her character just fall flat.
Punishing people for it isn't cool. Adding complex systems of arbitrary randomness isn't really cool.
I personally have done neither. I made Will saves Charisma-dependent (to emphasize the "force of personality" aspect and make it the go-to stat for brave, reckless fighters) -- automatically, not offered as a false "option" -- and then made ranged attacks use the Wis modifier (which forces the Sorcerer, which was merged with the 3e Warlock, to invest in Wis).
However, most people here seem to be anxious to avoid that, and are obsessed with establishing some sort of social dominance for Charisma. That reminded me of how much I disliked the existing Diplomacy rules (dear god, you should see Frank Trollman's rants about it, if you think I'm bad), and I got a little over-eager to kill two birds with one stone.
I'm not sure I understand the desire to link ranged attacks to wisdom other than a purely game balance decision. I mean if I really force it I can kinda force myself to think wisdom reflects hand-eye coordination instead of dexterity but it's kinda a stretch.
Dex is always going to be a god stat to a certain degree though.
I'm not sure I understand the desire to link ranged attacks to wisdom other than a purely game balance decision.
I went into it in some detail on my houserules thread -- it started with an interview with Wyatt Earp I read, which reminded me of a monologue Gene Hackman gives in Unforgiven. Basically, the long and short of it was that Earp believed speed and hand-eye coordination were highly overrated compared to focusing, being careful, and not being distracted or rattled while being fired at.
I went into it in some detail on my houserules thread -- it started with an interview with Wyatt Earp I read, which reminded me of a monologue Gene Hackman gives in Unforgiven. Basically, the long and short of it was that Earp believed speed and hand-eye coordination were overrated compared to focusing, taking your time, and not being distracted or rattled while being fired at.
That makes a lot of sense in relation to everything my father taught me about shooting either a bow or firearm.
|
The problem with a flat charisma check to set starting attitude is that it has a lot of problems.
But If this was directed towards persons who want a reason to make Charisma have more mechanical ingame effect (Like Dex to Init, or Str to Attk, or WIS to saves etc) i don't think you could argue that it would at least succeed in that vein.
Meanwhile, a 10-11 Charisma person (average) has a 45% chance to just dislike anyone they meet, just because. This makes no sense at all. It's far more reasonable to just think about how the NPC would react to a stranger...
Perhaps you disagree so much because your math is different than mine.
Allow me to illustrate how I imagined it
INITIAL ATTITUDE CHECK
Charisma Check DC is 10+ the other's Charisma mod. Failing by more than 5, the initial attitude is Unfriendly. Success by 5 or more is Friendly.
Your 18 CHA Bard is likely going to succeed against anything non angelic creature. He'll even succeed greatly in most cases. The 5 Cha dwarf will find it much harder to woo her.
In no way would I prescribe or reccommend such a check w/ every NPC. As Caius pointed out: this would be for NPCs that you want to have a true roleplaying encounter - that the DM didn't already have reason to apply an attitude before hand.
As for it not making sense why someone would have friendliness or unfriendliness?
To me of course it makes sense. We run in to people all day long who are one way or the other and could change day to day or hour to hour. There could be a hundred thousand different reasons why a particular person rubbed someone the wrong way upon immediately seeing them or just the opposite. And its all personal. For me - I'm automatically more stand offish to a woman I see smoking or has body piercings on her face or large cumbersome tattoos. I'm quite partial to large breasts. I could have just had an arguement w/ my wife. I could have just gotten a raise. You might look like a person I work with whom I cannot stand. You may be sporting 49er attire which I cannot stand that team and automatically have me focused on thinking you're whiner fan. Thats just me. Other people have other biases, or even racial prejudices - the same is true in game as well. She might not like dwarves. She might assume all hobbits are thieves. She might assume anyone with that accent who is from that area of the world is probably reverent to a particular god whom she finds distasteful.
The person in the bar that people are approaching could easily hand-waved neutral or even have everyone hand-waved neutral for easy sake. But that to me makes no sense. If NPCs are to be believable, then there would have to be quirks, traits, or temperaments about them that does not make them all a clone. Perhaps the GM knows the PCs need to interact with a particular person and has a storyline-based reason why an attitude is what it is ("this maiden's little brother was killed by wizard and so she doesn't trust them") or maybe the DM knows this is a good time to make this an important encounter, but hasn't had the time or forethought to explain an initial attitude - so they have PCs roll an initial attitude check.
Then it's up to the DM to determine if it's worth abstracting from the results and aesthetically adding story as to why a person succeeded well or failed miserably - especially if the odds were in their favor and still failed (in unlikely event of the 18 CHA bard actually failing) "Despite you pleasant demeanor and good looks, the bar maid looks at your pipe and exaggeratedly waves her hand in front of her face as if to accentuate her point that your smoking detests her. She asks you not to please smoke elsewhere."
As for it taking too long? I don't see this as any more time consuming than your social interaction in the allies w/ the templars? Even less so - though I will say that your play-by-play was very enlightening and fairly adjudicated. But my suggestion is the equivalent of an initiative check for important encounters. Essentially the check replaces an inititive check at the beginning of an encounter; And only necessary memorable encounters at that.
What Kirth has been trying to say (cuz he and I have talked about this before and I do agree to some extent) that other stats have an IN GAME MECHANICAL modifier that comes into play and called upon far more frequently than the charisma mod does. Yes CHA modifier is important for the roleplaying and aesthetic aspects as you allude to - however part of this thread is talking about the inconsistency of DMs across the board to actually apply this, use this, or incorporate enough of it to really make that a balancer. For many players and DMs, they find it difficult to include non-quantitative numerical aspects of rules nor abstractions from the rules. Kirth is lobbying for a in game mechanical use of the stat on an encounter or at least daily basis that all players would be forced to use - so as to make it an important stat to even non charisma casters - just as DEX is important to non rogues, and CON is to non fighters.
Doing this would alleviate a lot of frustrations that many GMs see with players using Charisma as the go to dump stat and may even see it as worthy of some allocation of points during creation.
I use Charisma for this purpose, as well as justify "aggro" as I pointed out in a previous post. Together it has given Charisma a little more in game mechanical use and ooomph. People still dumb down their charisma - but not as often. And those who do simply don't put themselves in situations where they are expected to "charm" others. They dont girl-chase etc, cuz they know it's irrelevant and is the "weakness" of the character - social interaction. But my players are good roleplayers and they don't try to have an 8 charisma character portrayed like Casanova. And to tie this in to the origial poster - missing out on good roleplaying encounters IS the penalty for dumping the charisma and knowing that that isn't their roll. Considering my games do have a lot of social interraction, and mystery/intrigue as well as combat, that's a tough pill to swallow. BTW the two-handed fighter in my current kingmaker game has a 12 charisma.
One more thing to touch on in regards to your alley encounter play-by-play:
I tend to a) give nice bonuses to Diplomacy/bluff checks if/when the player actually comes up with dialogue (as opposed to just saying "I bluff him into thinking I'm someone else") b)grant auto-success if I think it's really good dialogue, c) grant some level of success automaticaly due to the great dialogue from the player and encourage to roll a diplomacy check for even more - (such as "you not only convinced him that you're the long-lost prince they've been looking for, he offers to pay to have your clothes replaced that he just ripped and soiled with his fists")
This encourages players to roleplay. In previous editions there was no "diplomacy" and all was handled by dm fiat. In the current edition I hate to think that a player came up with a great logical explanation and bluff and really sold it and then all of it crashed because of a bad roll. So to mitigate some of that - I allow the roleplaying to drive the story more than dice rolls and rely on dice to resolve issues that I'm not convinced of or that I want a little more anxiety promoted. If I liked what you said, though, your check will most likely carry a bonus. Regardless, I like the results to have more a wide spectrum than a black vs white fail vs succeed - perhaps the bonus I provided means you failed but only by a little. Maybe you failed w/ the dice by a small margin, but you as a player were very convincing = so the NPC hesitates weighing carefully - he's not convinced - but he's not ready to call your bluff.....he backs off hoping you're lying but not ready to chance it. He yells that this isn't over, gives one last intimidating shove and backs off down the opposite way of the alley...
Robert
I'm not sure I understand the desire to link ranged attacks to wisdom other than a purely game balance decision.I went into it in some detail on my houserules thread -- it started with an interview with Wyatt Earp I read, which reminded me of a monologue Gene Hackman gives in Unforgiven. Basically, the long and short of it was that Earp believed speed and hand-eye coordination were overrated compared to focusing, taking your time, and not being distracted or rattled while being fired at.
I guess I can see that with stuff like long distance shots using an aim action but 3.x ranged seems to be largely about moving blindingly fast and throwing a ridiculous amount of arrows accurately into a target within a tight window of time.
If Combat Archery resembled Olympic archery or target shooting I'd see a moderately compelling case for it but I have to get my head through decades of RPG mechanics using dexterity or reflexes for ranged combat to accept that modification.
I think a Weapon Finesse like option that would allow you to use Wisdom instead of Dexterity for Ranged Attacks might be a pretty interesting addition to a game.
|
|
EDIT: Oh yeah, and Dexterity sure isn't a must have stat either for classes with heavy armor. Most can't ever benefit for a Dexterity higher than +2 or +3, even in Mithril armor, so they'd hit their cap from with magic items and inherent bonuses.
Fail.
Even when capped - Dex applies to initiative and Ref saves.
Both very important.
Especially if you're not wanting to be flat-footed for most of the first round.
Robert
|
|
Diplomacy has three parts.
Part ome allows you t change an initial impression (which is set in opinion by a mix of circumstance and charisma) up or down on the chart given. In 3.5 the definitions for these attitudes were very defined, and what I would call "buisness" relationships.
Part two is to make requests,b again with a chart that is more open, but clearly what I would describe as professional interactions.
Right
"What I would call"
and
"Cleary to me"
Are the catchphrases that stand out; as this is the part everyone is in disagreement with you on. What you would call and clearly to you is apparent perception (to you), and not necessarily the reality.
Using your verbiage - how is someone discussing/wooing and trying to convince a young lass to go upstairs not general interaction? Or even "complying with reasonable requests" once made friendly???
Which is precisely what the skill Diplomacy encomapasses (among other things).
Robert
I guess I can see that with stuff like long distance shots using an aim action but 3.x ranged seems to be largely about moving blindingly fast and throwing a ridiculous amount of arrows accurately into a target within a tight window of time. If Combat Archery resembled Olympic archery or target shooting I'd see a moderately compelling case for it...
Earp was talking specifically about being in a small group gunning down the enemy from ten or twenty feet away, while they tried to do the same to you. You know, like he did at the OK Corral. And much like in D&D. Maybe you have more gunfighting experience than Wyatt Earp did; I personally don't.
|
|
If you had to roll a strength check to handle your weapon correctly (roll charisma to determine initial attitude), and then roll your attack roll, which contains your strength as a modifier if you're not a finesse fighter (make your Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate skill check to modify attitude), that would be analogous.
Jess - your math is good and your example is fairly construed.
The only part of it that I don't see eye-to-eye in the analogy is:
Stating an AC or Attk bonus or strength bonus is what it is, is due to a specified game static integer.
Full plate is AC +9 today, it is tomorrow. It is on the orc, it is on the dwarf. It is a +9. 18 Str is a +4 bonus. It is for the orc, it is for the dwarf.
Initial attitude is subjective. What is it suppose to be? Not everone is indifferent and neutral to everyone all the time.
So what is it suppose to be?
Two choices: Hand-waved arbitrarily handled via DM Fiat, or some random circumstance.
I would say its more analagous to rolling a random encounter chart to see how many barghests are in the woods. or rolling on the weather to see if theirs fog that interacts with ranged attacks and sneak attacks. Or a roll to determine the distance of an encounter before it's spotted. Or a random roll to see how much spell use has a spellcaster NPC used on himself as daily buffs or in previous endeavors throughout the day before being encountered by the PCs.
It's a roll to set the stage for an encounter and its base difficulty.
Robert
|
|
It isn't just about initial attitude. There are A LOT of factors that go into initial attitude. I almost never roll initial attitude. In fact unless a player wants to have a specific interaction not covered by skills I don't roll many charisma checks. And my players generally play what they made, so the low charisma character isn't trying to roll play being Prince Charming.
It's about when the Deus Machina of the evening walks into the room, who is the person they are drawn to? Who do they open conversations with? Who will the King call to lead the mission. And it's about when the person is handing out gifts, who in the party do they like the best?
It's mainly about when ties occur, and NPC's are choosing favorites within the group. And tie goes to the most charismatic.
The highest Charisma in the group tends to be the leader of the group. Why? Because ability to lead is in the description. NPC's assume they are in charge and treat them accordingly.
It isn't punishing the low charisma as much as having them appear as they are designed. AKA, not very charismatic.
It isn't just about initial attitude. There are A LOT of factors that go into initial attitude. I almost never roll initial attitude. In fact unless a player wants to have a specific interaction not covered by skills I don't roll many charisma checks. And my players generally play what they made, so the low charisma character isn't trying to roll play being Prince Charming.
It's about when the Deus Machina of the evening walks into the room, who is the person they are drawn to? Who do they open conversations with? Who will the King call to lead the mission. And it's about when the person is handing out gifts, who in the party do they like the best?
It's mainly about when ties occur, and NPC's are choosing favorites within the group. And tie goes to the most charismatic.
The highest Charisma in the group tends to be the leader of the group. Why? Because ability to lead is in the description. NPC's assume they are in charge and treat them accordingly.
It isn't punishing the low charisma as much as having them appear as they are designed. AKA, not very charismatic.
hey ciretose, id really love to talk with you more about this, as im on your side. think we could email?
|
|
EDIT: Oh yeah, and Dexterity sure isn't a must have stat either for classes with heavy armor. Most can't ever benefit for a Dexterity higher than +2 or +3, even in Mithril armor, so they'd hit their cap from with magic items and inherent bonuses.Fail.
Even when capped - Dex applies to initiative and Ref saves.
Both very important.
Especially if you're not wanting to be flat-footed for most of the first round.
Robert
Oh yeah I failed to point out ranged attack bonus, too.
Robert
|
|
One thing a previous DM of mine did that I had in 2nd edition was allows a 2 for 1 trade off in points (after rolling 4d6 for stats - three sets, and choose your favorite set) So you could bump your 16 to a 17, but you'd have to drain a 12 to a 10 in the process.
However removing Charisma points was a 3 to 1 exchange.
Using today's PF version of point buy, it's certainly a DMs perogative to allow the dropping of a stat but indicating that you cannot start with a stat lower than 7 or 8 or whatever. OR even decree that you cannot drop Charisma at all.
Heavy handed - sure.
But each DM has his/her own hang-ups and idiosyncracies that they want to enforce, and if this is one of the big ticket items for a particular DM, so be it. Players willing to be part of that campaign would be similarly agreeing to this caveat.
Robert
Doing it for every situation would be arbitrary. Your average salesman, inn owner, etc. in a Pathfinder world will likely have already dealt with most types of people. As long as they have coin and don't drive off anyone I doubt they'll care as long as they'll pay.
This is a good point; using charisma to adjust the starting attitude of every npc is probably a little extreme and tends to dilute the point the DM is trying to get across. Most people won't care under ordinary circumstances anyway. Still, it is a valid option for dealing with the extremely high and extremely low portions of society.
|
|
If you had to roll a strength check to handle your weapon correctly (roll charisma to determine initial attitude), and then roll your attack roll, which contains your strength as a modifier if you're not a finesse fighter (make your Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate skill check to modify attitude), that would be analogous.
Jess - your math is good and your example is fairly construed.
The only part of it that I don't see eye-to-eye in the analogy is:
Stating an AC or Attk bonus or strength bonus is what it is, is due to a specified game static integer.
Initial attitude is subjective. What is it suppose to be? Not everone is indifferent and neutral to everyone all the time.
I was expressly addressing the proposal that initial attitude be rolled as a raw charisma check, then further social interaction would be based on rolling social skills. I picked indifferent as the base starting point for all examples much like I picked the random CR monster base AC of 12 from the monster manual - as an equal starting place for the math to work from.
Consider it a stipulated initial condition.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and Dexterity sure isn't a must have stat either for classes with heavy armor. Most can't ever benefit for a Dexterity higher than +2 or +3, even in Mithril armor, so they'd hit their cap from with magic items and inherent bonuses.Fail.
Even when capped - Dex applies to initiative and Ref saves.
Both very important.
Especially if you're not wanting to be flat-footed for most of the first round.
Robert
Tell that to my player's Diviner that tanked Dex. He has Improved Initiative and tends to go first in combat. He always acts during the surprise round, and by level 20 she will have a +12 to Initiative without magical buffs.
So yeah, Dex was tanked on that PC. Hell, I've seen many a PC with a negative Initiative do quite well, especially on characters that would typically have to Delay to receive buffs from other PCs anyway.
As for it not making sense why someone would have friendliness or unfriendliness?
To me of course it makes sense. We run in to people all day long who are one way or the other and could change day to day or hour to hour. There could be a hundred thousand different reasons why a particular person rubbed someone the wrong way upon immediately seeing them or just the opposite. And its all personal. For me - I'm automatically more stand offish to a woman I see smoking or has body piercings on her face or large cumbersome tattoos. I'm quite partial to large breasts. I could have just had an arguement w/ my wife. I could have just gotten a raise. You might look like a person I work with whom I cannot stand. You may be sporting 49er attire which I cannot stand that team and automatically have me focused on thinking you're whiner fan. Thats just me. Other people have other biases, or even racial prejudices - the same is true in game as well. She might not like dwarves. She might assume all hobbits are thieves. She might assume anyone with that accent who is from that area of the world is probably reverent to a particular god whom she finds distasteful.
Wow, that's a bit disturbing dude.
Do you really judge people, or think people judge people, that randomly? I worked in a grocery store for about 2 years, and I saw a lot and I mean a lot of people, ranging from the well mannered to the rude, the well dressed to the ones who came in pajamas and bedroom shoes, black or white, male or female, folks from Ireland, Tailand, and Mexico, and I sure as hell never began with an initial attitude less than Indifferent.What you are saying actually disturbs me. Racisms and such aside (such as the NPC not liking dwarfs, or the assumption that anyone from a certain country worships a god you hate), there's no justification for completely random charisma checks when you meet a character. Those sound like perfectly fine reasons to adjust their starting attitude, but not as a flat charisma check.
The person in the bar that people are approaching could easily hand-waved neutral or even have everyone hand-waved neutral for easy sake. But that to me makes no sense. If NPCs are to be believable, then there would have to be quirks, traits, or temperaments about them that does not make them all a clone. Perhaps the GM knows the PCs need to interact with a particular person and has a storyline-based reason why an attitude is what it is ("this maiden's little brother was killed by wizard and so she doesn't trust them") or maybe the DM knows this is a good time to make this an important encounter, but hasn't had the time or forethought to explain an initial attitude - so they have PCs roll an initial attitude check.
And there's your problem. You fall back on "Well it's easy to handwave the starting attitude" to something that makes sense, but random generation of a starting attitude for no reason doesn't. You got an NPC who hates dwarfs, starting attitude unfriendly for dwarfs but indifferent to everyone else, unless he specifically likes elves because he sees them as perfect opposites of dwarfs, in which case maybe he begins as friendly. However, that's pretty much how starting attitude is generated right now. The GM goes "Hmm, I wonder what this NPC's attitude is and why" and then sets the attitude. He doesn't roll craps or pull on a slot machine for it.
Then it's up to the DM to determine if it's worth abstracting from the results and aesthetically adding story as to why a person succeeded well or failed miserably - especially if the odds were in their favor and still failed (in unlikely event of the 18 CHA bard actually failing) "Despite you pleasant demeanor and good looks, the bar maid looks at your pipe and exaggeratedly waves her hand in front of her face as if to accentuate her point that your smoking detests her. She asks you not to please smoke elsewhere."
The point is it's a bad mechanic that serves no real purpose, especially if it's still going to be coming back to the GM to fix it afterwords. That's like a rule that says "to generate random treasure, roll % dice, consult this chart, and then pick an item of your choice off the chart." Why bother rolling % dice?
As for it taking too long? I don't see this as any more time consuming than your social interaction in the allies w/ the templars? Even less so - though I will say that your play-by-play was very enlightening and fairly adjudicated. But my suggestion is the equivalent of an initiative check for important encounters. Essentially the check replaces an inititive check at the beginning of an encounter; And only necessary memorable encounters at that.
It adds a check when you begin to make a Diplomacy check. If you have 4 PCs who all wish to attempt a Diplomacy check, then you have 4 tests for initial attitude; and no, it's not always handled with Aid Another, because if you have 4 PCs who bothered to invest in Diplomacy, they may all wish to make a real attempt rather than just trying to apply a +2 bonus on guy #1. And, once again, it adds an effect that isn't very useful to the system or roleplaying.
What Kirth has been trying to say (cuz he and I have talked about this before and I do agree to some extent) that other stats have an IN GAME MECHANICAL modifier that comes into play and called upon far more frequently than the charisma mod does. Yes CHA modifier is important for the roleplaying and aesthetic aspects as you allude to - however part of this thread is talking about the inconsistency of DMs across the board to actually apply this, use this, or incorporate enough of it to really make that a balancer. For many players and DMs, they find it difficult to include non-quantitative numerical aspects of rules nor abstractions from the rules. Kirth is lobbying for a in game mechanical use of the stat on an encounter or at least daily basis that all players would be forced to use - so as to make it an important stat to even non charisma casters - just as DEX is important to non rogues, and CON is to non fighters.
Kind of like Constitution? Since that applies to...oh wait, like 3 things in the entire game? Hp, Fort, Stabilizing/Weather. Charisma has that beat. It just that those things are generally seen as more important to more characters; however Charisma was deemed far more important to my Paladin than Con. Because of my Paladin's Charisma, she doesn't even have to sleep unless she's encountered a particularly nasty set of encounters that day and has exhausted all of her power.
You guys are missing the point.
Why should we want wizards who want a great strength score? Should we tie strength into arcane casting? Why would we want Barbarians with great Intelligence scores, should we apply his Intelligence modifier as a bonus to Hit along with his Strength?
You say Dexterity is the god-stat because everyone everywhere wants it, because it applies to Initiative checks, it applies somewhat to AC (the most you can get out of it to AC is +8 unless you're naked, which for anyone but a monk means you're only adding a 1-8 from either magic padded or bracers of armor), Reflex saves, and some Dex based skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Ride, Slight of Hand).
Except, there are plenty of cases where people don't have very good Dexterity scores. Most Paladins will never get much use out of a great Dexterity, for example. Even in Mithril Full Plate they can only enjoy up to +3 Dex to their AC, their Charisma trumps Dex for saves, and they don't need it for Riding, and most Paladins aren't going to be sneaky anyway.
You guys are over generalizing, and apparently getting kind of angry as well. I'm not sure that you're seeing the big picture here. Is there a reason you guys are trying to encourage all stats to be needed equally by all classes; pushing everyone from 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 to 13, 13, 12, 12, 11, 11?
I already said how you can make Charisma more appealing. Add more stuff for it. The only problem that Charisma has (if you want to call it a problem) is that most classes don't benefit from it. It's the stat that's "soft", having the least bonuses or penalties for a high or low score; but it also tends to be quite awesome for the classes that do use it.
Intelligence falls into much the same trap. Thanks to Pathfinder, a high Intelligence isn't essential in the least. A 7 Int fighter can get 2-3 skill points per level, and drop a couple in his class skills for an instant +4 in that skill. At 1st level, I could drop one in Handle Animal, Ride, and Survival, getting a +4 to all those. At 2nd level, I drop a point into Climb, Swim, and Knowledge (Nobility), getting a +4, +4, +2. At 3rd level, I decide I like using Ride, so I drop 2 points into Ride to bring it to +6, and I drop the last point into Intimidate for a quick +4 into that, or a +2 if I tanked my Charisma.
A Ranger is like the Fighter in this regard, except they get more base skill points, so they get at least 4 skill points before human or favored class modifiers; which means as a human ranger, I can totally tank Intelligence to 7 and have 5 skill points to throw around every level.
Intelligence isn't applied to much beyond getting skill points and some skills (Craft, Knowledge, Lingusitics), but hey, y'know, let's pick on Charisma because not enough guys are running around with a high Charisma (read vague sense of personal power and strength, and that's by the Dictionary).
----
But here's a question. Why do your posts sound hostile? Seriously, it seems more like your trying to argue that flat charisma checks are a good idea, when even Kirth said it was just a spur of the moment idea and wasn't very good (a real man/woman can admit that their idea could use some work and then go back to the drawing board, so much, much respect for Kirth in this regard; because it means he wants the mechanics to be good, not just wants the mechanics and praise).
I offered a suggestion for adding material to make Charisma more appealing to other classes. Other classes just need to find a benefit for it; and making an Ability Score Tax for it seems less encouraging (more annoying) that offering viable alternatives.
Also, the more you actively rip up in the core system, the less likely that people will use the rules without a whole new system being published, because it's a lot easier to take a feat than it is to apply a new subsystem into the game; unless the change is small (such as allowing Charisma to apply to Will saves).
Can't we all just talk about this like adults?
Though I'm still waiting Ciretose, who still hasn't answered my question.
|
|
However, that's pretty much how starting attitude is generated right now. The GM goes "Hmm, I wonder what this NPC's attitude is and why" and then sets the attitude. He doesn't roll craps or pull on a slot machine for it.
But there's no reason why he couldn't roll randomly - perhaps he was ambivalent for how the NPC should be, and wanted to see what luck has in store. I use Charisma as I said previously as a way to define "cosmic forces".
He could stipulate sure - just like he could stipulate what random creature would be found during the nights stroll in the woods, or the weather off the random weather chart.
Or he could roll random.
The point is it's a bad mechanic that serves no real purpose, especially if it's still going to be coming back to the GM to fix it afterwords. That's like a rule that says "to generate random treasure, roll % dice, consult this chart, and then pick an item of your choice off the chart." Why bother rolling % dice?
I dont see this at all. I see it does serve a purpose and the random result could result in something other than the status quo - not like selecting an option off a list.
It adds a check when you begin to make a Diplomacy check. If you have 4 PCs who all wish to attempt a Diplomacy check, then you have 4 tests for initial attitude; and no, it's not always handled with Aid Another, because if you have 4 PCs who bothered to invest in Diplomacy, they may all wish to make a real attempt rather than just trying to apply a +2 bonus on guy #1. And, once again, it adds an effect that isn't very useful to the system or roleplaying.
Again - its not different than all four rolling initiative for a combat - if you consider a roleplaying endeavor as an encounter - an intiative is a normal step in a combat encounter.
Kind of like Constitution? Since that applies to...oh wait, like 3 things in the entire game? Hp, Fort, Stabilizing/Weather.You guys are missing the point.
Why should we want wizards who want a great strength score? Should we tie strength into arcane casting? Why would we want Barbarians with great Intelligence scores, should we apply his Intelligence modifier as a bonus to Hit along with his Strength?
I find it amusing that you imply my posts sound hostile but when i read comments like this - and the many you aimed at Ciretose and constantly challenging him to be of significantly derisive and hostile; and comments like "here's your problem" which is always a tension grabber. The sarcastic and snarky wit in many comments has me thinking kettle meet pot.
Furthermore you make it personal by asking rhetorically if we could all just talk like adults - implying of course that I am not (capable), which only strengthens my position here.
In addition to discussing this like adults, I pointed out that your example that Dex is no longer effective to someone who wears heavy armor as a poor example citing that you can still benefit from Reflex Saves, Ranged Attacks and Initiative; only to have it surreptitiously dismissed by some atypical example in your life of someone who managed to dump their dex and take a feat to make up for it. As opposed to saying: "you know what? You got me on that one; Dex is still important in many ways despite the armor". Instead your atypical example that you witnessed is used to dismiss my valid point as if this should then be everyone's reality simply because you experienced it once. That is not the way of a true valid discussion or debate. Brad Pitt is regarded by many to be a very attractive individual. The fact that my lesbian cousin finds him completely unattractive does not make the fact that most surveyed feel otheriwse nor change the fact that he is.
You say Dexterity is the god-stat because everyone everywhere wants it, because it applies to Initiative checks, it applies somewhat to AC (the most you can get out of it to AC is +8 unless you're naked, which for anyone but a monk means you're only adding a 1-8 from either magic padded or bracers of armor), Reflex saves, and some Dex based skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Ride, Slight of Hand).
Except, there are plenty of cases where people don't have very good Dexterity scores. Most Paladins will never get much use out of a great Dexterity, for example. Even in Mithril Full Plate they can only enjoy up to +3 Dex to their AC, their Charisma trumps Dex for saves, and they don't need it for Riding, and most Paladins aren't going to be sneaky anyway.
But even to a paladin it still has merit. Even in full plate it has merit. Even w/ Divine Grace, it still has merit. It doesn't become inert simply because he's a paladin.
You guys are over generalizing, and apparently getting kind of angry as well.
No trust me I'm not angry. And I do apologize that your perception is that my posts were hostile. They weren't written that way.
Intelligence isn't applied to much beyond getting skill points and some skills (Craft, Knowledge, Lingusitics), but hey, y'know, let's pick on Charisma because not enough guys are running around with a high Charisma (read vague sense of personal power and strength, and that's by the Dictionary).
once again - snarky. Pot/kettle thing.
...(a real man/woman can admit that their idea could use some work and then go back to the drawing board,
I rest my case.
By personalizing this, and stating that because I hadn't specifically pointed out that it wasnt perfect (yet) that i am somehow not a real man/woman - you have succeeded in failing your diplomacy check and I'm afraid that is just a wee bit too personaly inflaming for my tastes.
My initial reaction towards you was quite warm but somehow the interaction went south from there, and i refuse to continue to relate to someone who resorts to that sort of imature responses.
I personally use the Charisma check for both determining a random PC targeted (like random aggro when a creature doesn't yet have a reason to single anyone out) and for a random intial attitude check for some personal encounters. It works for my games. It might work for others who want Charisma to have more focus. If it doens't, don't use it. It is a lot less of a hassle or burden on the system than changing Will saves to use charisma modidifiers. But each to their own.
I'm out.
Robert
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm probably gonna take a break from the forums for a little while. They don't really pertain to the games I play in, and most people around here don't really want advice or to discuss the mechanics with a real interest (not saying everyone, just most) instead of just saying "rah this class pwns" or "the game is played like this". While most of the threads remain civil, they're rarely civil debates; mainly because I feel there's a lack of a good debating etiquette; and there's no emphasis on logical reasoning.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think I'm really helping anyone, or learning anything. So it generally ends up in conversations where I'm taking the extra steps to actually engage the discussion like a civil debate, while others are merely talking.
In a civil debate, you have civility (no name calling, no insulting, no cracks about your mother, or some other equally unsavory thing).
But in a debate, you are expected to actually provide at least one of two things; either factual proof, or logical proof, or preferably both.
In my discussion (I can't call it a debate, because I was the only one debating) with Cirtose, I was providing rule evidence to support my claim, including but not limited to the rules for Diplomacy and the definitions of the words and actions that were involved, segments of the game where the rules supported my side of the discussion. Ciretose, even after being asked to provide something to back up his claims, did nothing more than basically repeat "'cause I said so".
It's the same in many conversations I've participated in. The people that actually are interested in the game, its mechanics, how the mechanics reflect the roleplaying enviroment, real life examples, or logical considerations, are few and far between. I think Kirth is probably one of those people, but most aren't.
So, while most of the time we can keep a civil tone, we have threads that quickly reach 3-5 pages that have a lot of nothing in them. No consensus, no actual discussion, and just poorly drawn out arguments. Nothing is gained. Half the time it feels like people are more interested in jumping in and telling people they're not roleplaying right, or being passive aggressive, or just babbling on making random statements that don't even contribute to the friendliness of the thread.
So, I'll be back, after a while. I'm going to think up an adventure for my tabletop group this weekend, and roll out some NPCs, and what-not. I feel as if the well is dry right now, but wishing for rain.
EDIT: Sorry, Robert, I posted this at the same time as you, apparently. I'm reading your post now.
I find it amusing that you imply my posts sound hostile but when i read comments like this - and the many you aimed at Ciretose and constantly challenging him to be of significantly derisive and hostile; and comments like "here's your problem" which is always a tension grabber. The sarcastic and snarky wit in many comments has me thinking kettle meet pot.
Furthermore you make it personal by asking rhetorically if we could all just talk like adults - implying of course that I am not (capable), which only strengthens my position here.
I was getting more hostile with Cirtose because he was trying my patience. You see, I'm used to conversations where people who make claims back them up. Whether it's a conversation between my sister and I, my friends and I, or someone on a discussion forum and myself, I don't make claims without explaining them. I'll deliver rules, logical breakdowns, mathematical formula (I'm not even big on math, but RPG math isn't terribly complicated).
I was getting angry because I was repeatedly asking for Ciretose to actually provide something to the conversation. That's one of the reasons I'm going to take a break, because it does become very annoying when you just want people to show the same courtesy you have. After about the third time I asked, he claimed the burden of proof was on me (which is BS, but whatever) and so I broke it down, went and got dictionary definitions for the words, and basically showed that what I was saying has merit; and then requested he show that his does as well.
He has sense not replied to anything.
Also, sorry for saying "here's your problem", but that's pretty much how I've always heard people begin when they are explaining an issue with your results. For example: If I'm 8 years old an I turn in my math homework, and my teacher notices something doesn't mesh quite right, and she goes "Here's your problem, you forgot to carry the 2.", I'm not going to suddenly get angry at her. She's showing me where the subject point has encountered a glitch.
I explained the problems with the Charisma thing; several of them in fact. I explained that it served no function for actually emulating a social encounter in an even semi-believable way. Statistically, every normal person is just going to like or dislike you for no reason, even before actually interacting with you; and it's not even based on appearances. That doesn't happen normally. Maybe if you wanted a particularly moody person, but that seems irrelevant to a check. I showed that the context that it was being offered in was most similar to applying Dexterity to AC twice in two different ways, which Jess Door was kind enough to chime in and explain as well.
Instead, you and Kirth jumped up and was like "No it's like Initiative, Reflex saves, and AC", but that's not what it was like, and you know it. It was making an ability check to modify the difficulty of the check and then applying the ability modifier to the actual check results. That's a fact.
Even after Kirth had noted that it was merely an idea, and commented that it wasn't a good idea after thinking it over (leading to my respect for Kirth, because those who believe that all their ideas are good generally have poor ideas because they don't ever refine them. I have bad ideas all the time. The gunslinger class I was tinkering with for the playtest board has been refined multiple times for various reasons, because there was something that could have been made better. It is this ability to analyze and then revise that I respect in Kirth).
You're still arguing it for no apparent reason other than to argue with it because I've somehow insulted you. My bad man, sorry for upsetting you. However, from a mechanical sense, no more random is not always better. I'm kind of hard pressed to understand why instating a rule that basically makes every NPC a bi-polar schizophrenic unless you ignore the rule is a good idea or how it leads to good or believably roleplaying.
And yes, I would like to discuss it like adults. See my previous commentary on Ciretose's discussion strategy. We can either look at the mechanics, how they relate to each other, how they model a social encounter, how that matches up with reality ('cause like it or not, even with fireballs and dragons, we default to reality on things that we have in reality); or we can whine about how we're right, you're wrong, and not actually show or provide mechanical or logical examples. There's far too much of the latter than the former; hence, we're not talking like adults, we're talking like morons (and I'm the biggest moron for participating).
But even to a paladin it still has merit. Even in full plate it has merit. Even w/ Divine Grace, it still has merit. It doesn't become inert simply because he's a paladin.
For sake of finishing our discussion on mechanics, yes it has merit, but it has about as much merit to the Paladin as charisma does to the Fighter. Her saving throws wouldn't be as high if I had evened her Charisma and Fortitude, since she would have been thinned out and her Reflex and Will would have been lower than if I had just tanked Dex to a 12, Con to a 7, and put all my junk in Charisma.
To the Paladin, my Con was about as useful to my character as Cha is to my hypothetical Fighter Sigfried, because in both cases it was what was the least useful to the largest number of things. Which is my point. Every stat is potentially a dumpstat. It just depends on what your class needs at the time. Not every character needs a good Strength, and not every character needs a good Intelligence, and not every character needs a good Charisma; or even a moderate one. Most people find it hard to tank Dex/Con/Wis because those are the defensive stats and lacking in them will generally bite you (but my Paladin can make up for it through her Cha). Which is kind of everything in a nutshell. It's not that all the ability scores aren't useful. It's not that all the ability scores are bad. It's just that not everyone needs all the ability scores, and a lot of classes and archtypes need the same stats.
Now say for example we do screw over poor hypothetical Sigfried and make it so that you absolutely must be "this tall in Charisma to participate in social situations", then you're not doing anyone any favors. He either has the choice between being mediocre at everything, being a really poor fighter, or sitting out completely on social situations. This is a poor design decision. Most call it "Decker Syndrome" after Shadowrun's deckers, who basically end up in a mini-adventure when they attempt to help the party, so the street samurai, the talker, the magician, and anyone else playing are basically sitting around watching what the Decker is doing instead of playing.
The game intentionally favors specialization. The designers of D&D from 1E to present have favored specialization. It's a core concept. You got guy 1, he specializes in A, guy 2 specializes in B, guy 3 specializes in C, and guy 4 specializes in D, and together they are a team. This doesn't mean that guy 4 should never be able to do some of the stuff Guy 1 does, but guy 1 does it better.
In the example of the 1st level Bard vs 7th level Fighter, the 1st level Bard only loses out because he never dropped that 1 rank into his class skill "Diplomacy". He would have beaten Sigfried by +1 without a fancy suit and 7 ranks in the same skill. Sigfried would never compete socially with a Charisma focused character who had even a fraction of his emphasis on it. He would never compete with a 7th level Bard, who could have practically walked into the bar and walked out with a few prospects on his arms.
However, Sigfried can attempt with a reasonable chance of success when dealing with more normal people, while the Bard could probably talk an Ogre out of eating him if given a chance. Exactly where is this a problem?
Now say you basically induct these punishments disguised as roleplaying aids into the game. You require Sigfried, who has invested 7 ranks into Diplomacy and purchased a nice suit or had his armor engraved or decorated to make him look nice (+2 Diplomacy), and he goes and tries to speak with the lady. He rolls a 1d20-2 and gets an 9. Say the DC is 10. She's unfriendly. "Get lost freak." the girl says, for no reason. He just walked up. Why is she such a b*** to him? What did he do? Ok, so now all the DCs to even ask her directions just went up by 5. He still has a -2 to his Diplomacy, so he's handicapped there too.
So Sigfried decides he wasted those skill points, and asks the GM if he can spend them on something else. Even if the GM is nice, and does, Sigfried pretty much stays out of roleplaying encounters if possible, especially if they actually mean something to the story. He waits anxiously for the party's face to finish talking or doing his Decker-thing, wanting instead to go back to killing monsters and gathering treasure; because at least something that he can do pretty well.
Meanwhile, the Paladin over there? Yeah, Sigfried's kind of jelous of him, because as it turned out, the Paladin's dump stat was a bit different than his, but his dump stat helps him in combat too, so the Paladin is bantering on in Decker-land with his phat Diplomacy and Charisma, and then happily romps out with Sigfried and lays down smite-tastic justice on all the monsters. The Paladin, has obviously, won D&D (joking, but you get the idea).
I rest my case.
By personalizing this, and stating that because I hadn't specifically pointed out that it wasnt perfect (yet) that i am somehow not a real man/woman - you have succeeded in failing your diplomacy check and I'm afraid that is just a wee bit too personaly inflaming for my tastes.
My initial reaction towards you was quite warm but somehow the interaction went south from there, and i refuse to continue to relate to someone who resorts to that sort of imature responses.
I guess we all have our PMS/IMS moments from time to time, and I lost my temper a couple of times. However, I was talking about how you were fighting me about the Charisma thing being a good idea without actually providing any reasons for it; just telling me that I was wrong because I said it was like making a Dex check to modify your AC before applying your Dex to your AC (which again, was a perfect analogy). It was Kirth's idea, and then he admitted it was bad, to which I commented that it requires a real man/woman to admit something like that; so much respect for Kirth. I wasn't insulting you. Apologies if it came out that way, as that wasn't my intention (my intention was to praise Kirth for having the maturity to essentially say "Actually, that has problems, it could be better." and begin brainstorming anew. It's a rare trait.
Lastly, apologies for our misunderstandings. Like I said, if I was to stat myself out, I'd have a 16 Intelligence, a useless selection of skill points, a 7 Charisma, and a smattering of Diplomacy (to make up for my Charisma), and this is a fine example of where I came on pretty good and then put my foot in my mouth without meaning to. Cheers.
|
|
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm probably gonna take a break from the forums for a little while. They don't really pertain to the games I play in, and most people around here don't really want advice or to discuss the mechanics with a real interest (not saying everyone, just most) instead of just saying "rah this class pwns" or "the game is played like this". While most of the threads remain civil, they're rarely civil debates; mainly because I feel there's a lack of a good debating etiquette; and there's no emphasis on logical reasoning.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think I'm really helping anyone, or learning anything. So it generally ends up in conversations where I'm taking the extra steps to actually engage the discussion like a civil debate, while others are merely talking.
In a civil debate, you have civility (no name calling, no insulting, no cracks about your mother, or some other equally unsavory thing).
But in a debate, you are expected to actually provide at least one of two things; either factual proof, or logical proof, or preferably both.In my discussion (I can't call it a debate, because I was the only one debating) with Cirtose, I was providing rule evidence to support my claim, including but not limited to the rules for Diplomacy and the definitions of the words and actions that were involved, segments of the game where the rules supported my side of the discussion. Ciretose, even after being asked to provide something to back up his claims, did nothing more than basically repeat "'cause I said so".
It's the same in many conversations I've participated in. The people that actually are interested in the game, its mechanics, how the mechanics reflect the roleplaying enviroment, real life examples, or logical considerations, are few and far between. I think Kirth is probably one of those people, but most aren't.
So, while most of the time we can keep a civil tone, we have threads that quickly reach 3-5 pages that have a lot of nothing in them. No...
This is an incredibly condescending post.
It isn't because I said so. It is a question of which is the default, the skill check or the ability check.
I read diplomacy as pertaining to specific set of professional interactions. You know, the stuff diplomats engage in.
And I view Charisma pertaining to personal interactions, first impressions, etc...you know, things charismatic people are good at.
As I said in the last post, it doesn't come up much. Initial attitude is determined primarily by circumstances. The innkeeper likes everyone who pays and doesn't cause trouble, the BBEG doesn't like you.
Where it mainly comes into play is as a tie breaker, and in NPCs perception of you. NPCs will generally think the most charismatic character in the group is the leader, since charisma effects "ability to lead".
Your role play example made no sense. I'm going to assume they start out as unfriendly toward you. The diplomacy check is exactly the right check, as you are trying to diplomatically deal with the investigators, but attempting to change attitude would take a full minute of interaction, during which since you were under questioning you should have been made to make a bluff check, rather than it being your choice to make one (they are questioning you and would have been making a sense motive on you since you are taking a full minute of not answering their questions).
The guards then successfully intimidates (demoralizes) you, leaving you shaken for...wait for it...1 round. Maybe two if he rolled REALLY high.
During this 1 round you are shaken, rather than wait 6 seconds you try to intimidate the guards back. But what you call intimidate is actually either a bluff or a non-check, since you are threatening to yell out and not actually intimidating them. Either you are bluffing about yelling out, or you actually will yell out, and you don't need to roll anything because the DM knows how the Templars would act, as he knows what their orders are. You don't.
The sense motive is fine to see they are worried about you yelling out, except since you didn't actually do an intimidation they wouldn't be shaken, and even if you did and they were it would only be for one round unless you rolled really high, so it wouldn't help you since you just used a standard action to find out they were shaken, and probably won't be for the standard action you use in the next round. Doesn't matter since what you did wasn't an intimidate check, it was either a bluff check or something you were actually going to do that the guards would react to as the DM saw fit based on what their orders/personality are.
Again, next one isn't an intimidate check, it is either the truth or a lie. Either you will yell out, and they need to deal with that, or your bluffing and they need to sense that. You don't control the NPCs, the DM does.
Reading that explains a lot about your play style. You want to control the NPCs, not let the DM.
The DM knows what is going on, knows what the NPCs know, knows everything really. Even in your example you are using skills off the description to do things way beyond the scope of the skill.
Which is my whole point. You can't use skills to do things they aren't intended for. You don't get to/have to roll everything. Like I said my group very rarely does charisma checks. It comes up when NPCs assume the high charisma character is the leader, occasionally with initial impressions, and occasionally when NPCs have to make a choice of who they like more when other factors are even.
If the ugly barbarian was the one who saved my daughter, I still like him a lot better than the really charismatic Bard. Circumstances are the first arbiter. But ties go to the Charismatic, just like in real life.
Ashiel, I think a large part of the problem you are having is that relying solely on logical arguments here, especially when it comes to something as nebulous as precisely how the attributes are defined, is only going to get you so far before you land in a vast gray area. To some people, that gray area, and the fact that pure logic only goes so far in it, is part of what makes these debates interesting; even actual experience only counts in specific circumstances and with specific details that demonstrate or disprove the specific argument being made at the time. I think you have made some good points in the various threads I have seen you in, and have been unfairly attacked in some of them as well, but logic, like common sense, is a tricky things at times. What is logical to one person may seem like complete gibberish to another person with completely different experiences. The other part of the difficulty is that there are some DMs that only DM, many players that are only players, and still others commonly fill both roles. Thus, peoples' understanding and expectations of the written rules and their effective limits varies considerably.
More on point, ranks in Diplomacy really only come up once you actually interact with people. If you walk into a shop, from the time you step in the door to the time you actually talk to the clerk, its not in play. Which means you have to use something else to determine starting attitude, and having charisma be a part of that is certainly fair. If I were to actually write an equation for it, I would probably use something along the lines of (Wis + Cha)/2 + appropriate story/character specific modifiers, with heavy weight on the modifiers, and starting attitudes typically indifferent but able to fluctuate between unfriendly and friendly. As one of the few predefined portions, Charisma is still very important, but not impossible to overcome if the player chooses to use all of his stats, race, and background to the fullest advantage they can devise. Only time I would start it out hostile or helpful is if there were preexisting conditions in the story to justify such extreme attitudes. This gives a little bit of real world versimilitude in that people will prejudge, but also give the character the ability to choose how to respond to that prejudgment, as the player is capable of doing in real life.
|
|
Ashiel, I think a large part of the problem you are having is that relying solely on logical arguments here, especially when it comes to something as nebulous as precisely how the attributes are defined, is only going to get you so far before you land in a vast gray area. To some people, that gray area, and the fact that pure logic only goes so far in it, is part of what makes these debates interesting; even actual experience only counts in specific circumstances and with specific details that demonstrate or disprove the specific argument being made at the time. I think you have made some good points in the various threads I have seen you in, and have been unfairly attacked in some of them as well, but logic, like common sense, is a tricky things at times. What is logical to one person may seem like complete gibberish to another person with completely different experiences. The other part of the difficulty is that there are some DMs that only DM, many players that are only players, and still others commonly fill both roles. Thus, peoples' understanding and expectations of the written rules and their effective limits varies considerably.
More on point, ranks in Diplomacy really only come up once you actually interact with people. If you walk into a shop, from the time you step in the door to the time you actually talk to the clerk, its not in play. Which means you have to use something else to determine starting attitude, and having charisma be a part of that is certainly fair. If I were to actually write an equation for it, I would probably use something along the lines of (Wis + Cha)/2 + appropriate story/character specific modifiers, with heavy weight on the modifiers, and starting attitudes typically indifferent but able to fluctuate between unfriendly and friendly. As one of the few predefined portions, Charisma is still very important, but not impossible to overcome if the player chooses to use all of his stats, race, and background to the fullest advantage they can devise. Only time I would start it...
+1
Circumstance is most important, as your charismatic sorcerer is still a witch in places that hate magic. But it is one of the factors you have to consider in interations, and skills only do the things they say they do.
Circumstance is most important, as your charismatic sorcerer is still a witch in places that hate magic. But it is one of the factors you have to consider in interations, and skills only do the things they say they do.
...or what your GM says they do. ;)
|
|
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm probably gonna take a break from the forums for a little while. They don't really pertain to the games I play in, and most people around here don't really want advice or to discuss the mechanics with a real interest (not saying everyone, just most) instead of just saying "rah this class pwns" or "the game is played like this". While most of the threads remain civil, they're rarely civil debates; mainly because I feel there's a lack of a good debating etiquette; and there's no emphasis on logical reasoning.
I'm sorry to hear you're so frustrated, Ashiel, and you should definitely take a good step back find find something else that you enjoy doing if the forums are getting to you! But I hope you do come back, I really enjoy many of your threads, and enjoy reading your posts.
My rules for survival on an internet forum, and in forum debates? I only post when I have something to say. Making the conversation about other's responses is always a losing proposition! Sometimes you can have that internet conversation that is a real debate, but really that's nearly impossible. The opportunities for missteps and misinterpretations are so large, and if someone has a bad day, they either type something that throws everything off the rails or read something into a post that most people wouldn't, and the whole thing flies apart into craziness.
When I feel that someone isn't posting in good faith, I generally explain myself once, and then don't read that thread for a while, until my own sense of offended honor is gone. I guess my rule is if I lose my sense of humor about a thread, I'm out until I regain it.
Hopefully you read this and it's useful advice, or you've already arrived at that same conclusion (sounds like you're close at least) and take a good break. I find leaving the forums as a whole hard to do, but on a thread by thread basis it's pretty simple.
Here's another totally random thought I had while shaving this morning:
What if Charisma were tied to your character's starting social class? You know, so that sons and daughters of nobles have more presence and magnetism because they've been born and bred to command people. Commoners with great presence can be assumed to have been noticed and elevated. For a mechanical benefit, starting wealth could be 20 gp x Charisma score, so that fighters with high Cha could afford better armor and more weapons, wizards with high Cha could have larger collections of scrolls, etc.
This fits in nicely with high-Cha paladins as well. The oddball would be bards and sorcerers (why should they all be nobles?), but inserting some fluff would easily take care of that: maybe bards are welcome everywhere for the songs and tales they bring -- as people who can make or break reputations, they are in high regard in society, and no one wants to offend them needlessly. For sorcerers, maybe their bloodline extends back to a dragon who ruled a large area, or a fey lord, or a lich-king, or whatever.
Just a random thought, but it would (a) provide an incentive for high Cha; and (b) stick with the social aspect for that incentive that most people seem to be stuck on.
Here's another totally random thought I had while shaving this morning:
What if Charisma were tied to your character's starting social class? You know, so that sons and daughters of nobles have more presence and magnetism because they've been born and bred to command people. Commoners with great presence can be assumed to have been noticed and elevated. For a mechanical benefit, starting wealth could be 20 gp x Charisma score, so that fighters with high Cha could afford better armor and more weapons, wizards with high Cha could have larger collections of scrolls, etc.This fits in nicely with high-Cha paladins as well. The oddball would be bards and sorcerers (why should they all be nobles?), but inserting some fluff would easily take care of that: maybe bards are welcome everywhere for the songs and tales they bring -- as people who can make or break reputations, they are in high regard in society, and no one wants to offend them needlessly. For sorcerers, maybe their bloodline extends back to a dragon who ruled a large area, or a fey lord, or a lich-king, or whatever.
Just a random thought, but it would (a) provide an incentive for high Cha; and (b) stick with the social aspect for that incentive that most people seem to be stuck on.
I like it but I also would likely add Cha mod to HP recovery coming from your force of will making it effect Will saves angle.
As to bards and sorerers I could buy the logic that the extra GP comes from "gifts", trinkets, or tips for services rendered.
Or to use my 13 year old sister-in-law in a wheelchair who does the whole thats a pretty necklace, then before I can turn back around the person has given her the gold necklace would fit well in your proposal.
|
|
So as I read the other thread, myself as well as a lot of other people were thinking the thread was gonna be about role playing, but it wasn't so. So I thought id open up this thread to talk about how to get to them through the role playing aspect of the game. I'm really interested in this one since I have a dwarf fighter with a cha of 5 in my group.Yer average pansy-waisted limp-wristed sackless, gutless s#%tbag of a GM is gonna run cryin back to Mommy's basement like the Lilly livered, yella bellied eternal virgin he is the moment he hears a real batch of cursin, insulting, and blunt honesty stream outta anyone's pie-hole.
That would be about a CHA7 roleplay there. CHA5 would be more vulgar and insulting, most likely resulting in my ban from the board for a few days if not permanently.
So, do you feel you have the right to force your players to act in such a manner? After all, I assume you dont force them to act like morons for not taking stellar INT stats, and those STR charts are far more pathetically weak that you'd think; by them, your average modern soldier is elite tier, and most us "lazy" gamers are still in the heroic range.
If your players choose not to act like psychopathic beasts, but let it be generally understood their personality is deficient, isnt it on you as GM to provide the reaction?
You don't force them to do anything. We all know people who think tey are more charismatic than they are. You can play anyway you like, but NPCs will view you as the DM sees fit based on circumstances and, yes, charisma scores.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm probably gonna take a break from the forums for a little while. They don't really pertain to the games I play in, and most people around here don't really want advice or to discuss the mechanics with a real interest (not saying everyone, just most) instead of just saying "rah this class pwns" or "the game is played like this". While most of the threads remain civil, they're rarely civil debates; mainly because I feel there's a lack of a good debating etiquette; and there's no emphasis on logical reasoning.I'm sorry to hear you're so frustrated, Ashiel, and you should definitely take a good step back find find something else that you enjoy doing if the forums are getting to you! But I hope you do come back, I really enjoy many of your threads, and enjoy reading your posts.
My rules for survival on an internet forum, and in forum debates? I only post when I have something to say. Making the conversation about other's responses is always a losing proposition! Sometimes you can have that internet conversation that is a real debate, but really that's nearly impossible. The opportunities for missteps and misinterpretations are so large, and if someone has a bad day, they either type something that throws everything off the rails or read something into a post that most people wouldn't, and the whole thing flies apart into craziness.
When I feel that someone isn't posting in good faith, I generally explain myself once, and then don't read that thread for a while, until my own sense of offended honor is gone. I guess my rule is if I lose my sense of humor about a thread, I'm out until I regain it.
Hopefully you read this and it's useful advice, or you've already arrived at that same conclusion (sounds like you're close at least) and take a good break. I find leaving the forums as a whole hard to do, but on a thread by thread basis it's pretty simple.
Thank you Jess. I appreciate that. I feel much better now. I've just gotten very burned out with some of these discussions, and especially with the arguments; and admittedly a good bit is probably my fault because I tend to invest myself into the posts I write, and try to go the extra mile for people during discussions; only for it to end up like this.
I will take your advice. It sounds like a good method, and a lot less headache. I'll be doing that, and I'll probably reply to a lot less posts. Pick and choose, I guess you could say. I think this thread has taught me a lot, and combined with your kind words, means even if I have gotten frustrated, I'm better off for it now.
Much thanks, again. I'll keep your words in mind.
Here's another totally random thought I had while shaving this morning:
What if Charisma were tied to your character's starting social class? You know, so that sons and daughters of nobles have more presence and magnetism because they've been born and bred to command people. Commoners with great presence can be assumed to have been noticed and elevated. For a mechanical benefit, starting wealth could be 20 gp x Charisma score, so that fighters with high Cha could afford better armor and more weapons, wizards with high Cha could have larger collections of scrolls, etc.This fits in nicely with high-Cha paladins as well. The oddball would be bards and sorcerers (why should they all be nobles?), but inserting some fluff would easily take care of that: maybe bards are welcome everywhere for the songs and tales they bring -- as people who can make or break reputations, they are in high regard in society, and no one wants to offend them needlessly. For sorcerers, maybe their bloodline extends back to a dragon who ruled a large area, or a fey lord, or a lich-king, or whatever.
Just a random thought, but it would (a) provide an incentive for high Cha; and (b) stick with the social aspect for that incentive that most people seem to be stuck on.
This seems like a cool idea. I'm not sure I'd support the idea of setting an ability score based on a purely social consideration (that sounds a bit troublesome), but honestly Charisma (both D&D and the actual definition) is really vague. Perhaps instead of the ability score itself, this would be a cool idea for an add-on stat; such as Reputation or similar.
Maybe if everyone was issued a Reputation-esque score, with a trait for noble-born directly modifying it (similar to Rich Parents modifying starting GP), you might have something that would be easily usable for this sort of thing.
Just an idea.
I don't mind a charisma modifier to starting cash but honestly other than low level survival rate the influx of cash at char gen tends to be diminished by 2nd or 3rd level when you start needing to go with better armors and masterwork equipment.
Front-loaded benefits aren't horrible per say but I think any balancing has to impact the life of the character.
Riffing on Kirth's idea I wonder if you could use Charisma score as a modifier to base equipment costs. You need to cap the modifier or the hot sorceress always drinks free (hrmm maybe no cap would be appropriate ;)).
I was thinking maybe +/- 5% per modifier with a cap of +/- 10% or 15%.
It's not huge in comparison to craft item discounts but those involve a feat selection (and I hate them anyway). Getting full plate for 1350 gp instead of 1500 or 1650 gp might definitely encourage people to invest in a good charisma score.
Maybe if everyone was issued a Reputation-esque score, with a trait for noble-born directly modifying it (similar to Rich Parents modifying starting GP), you might have something that would be easily usable for this sort of thing.
Just an idea.
Oh! Now that sounds like a really interesting idea. That would certainly go well with how the party I'm DMing. They often do things that I'm not expecting like deciding to talk with a Mimic instead of fighting it and managing to make it friendly.
The reputation would certainly do well to how your party is received because of their actions and interactions.Ashiel, you bring up lots of interesting things for debate. It's funny some of the comments remind me of a friend of mine, that's pretty cool.
Maybe if everyone was issued a Reputation-esque score, with a trait for noble-born directly modifying it (similar to Rich Parents modifying starting GP), you might have something that would be easily usable for this sort of thing.
Just an idea.
Oh! Now that sounds like a really interesting idea. That would certainly go well with how the party I'm DMing. They often do things that I'm not expecting like deciding to talk with a Mimic instead of fighting it and managing to make it friendly.
The reputation would certainly do well to how your party is received because of their actions and interactions.Ashiel, you bring up lots of interesting things for debate. It's funny some of the comments remind me of a friend of mine, that's pretty cool.
Thank you Rain. I might tinker with a reputation system and get back to you.
|
|
Circumstance is most important, as your charismatic sorcerer is still a witch in places that hate magic. But it is one of the factors you have to consider in interations, and skills only do the things they say they do....or what your GM says they do. ;)
Viva la house rule. I get it.
But what confuses me is the argument that diplomacy and intimidation do tons of things not described at all in the very specific and limited description of the skills, mixed with outrage that charisma might effect the very things that are in the description for it.
Weird...
From now on, I guess my players will get bonuses to kick damage from Jump checks, since they both pertain to leg strength. And I guess they can get weapon finesse and quick draw with a high sleight of hand score. It is so draconian to make them actually take the feats for those skills and then not be able to take other feats they want. And while we are at it, a I guess a high knowledge score should give you the favored enemy bonus, since you know lots about the things they are fighting. That is the same thing, right?
LOL Cire, well played :)
From now on, I guess my players will get bonuses to kick damage from Jump checks, since they both pertain to leg strength. And I guess they can get weapon finesse and quick draw with a high sleight of hand score. It is so draconian to make them actually take the feats for those skills and then not be able to take other feats they want. And while we are at it, a I guess a high knowledge score should give you the favored enemy bonus, since you know lots about the things they are fighting. That is the same thing, right?
Yeah. It's not like we have established rules for handling any of those things like attack rolls and damage modifiers based on Strength; and it's not like you haven't provided any kind of mechanical source material to suggest that Charisma is used to determine pure social interaction, such as the multitude of DCs and situational modifiers that you posted, and the steps explaining the process of interacting with an NPC outside of skill checks. I mean, you did all that, so I guess it is the same thing.
We bow to you, master of logic and reasoning.
|
|
Ciretose, you seem to be under the false impression that one can't improve on their natural ability to flirt, charm, communicate or persuade in real life. The social skills simulate the fact that you can get better at social interaction.
You can improve it. Every 4 levels or with magic items.
In your games can you work out to improve your ability to lift things?
Ciretose, you seem to be under the false impression that one can't improve on their natural ability to flirt, charm, communicate or persuade in real life. The social skills simulate the fact that you can get better at social interaction.
You can improve it. Every 4 levels or with magic items.
In your games can you work out to improve your ability to lift things?
Yeah, there's a feat in the alchemist supplement book, which is 3PP, which is sold on the Paizo store that increases your carrying capacity. So you'd spend a feat to represent getting better at carrying heavier loads; even if you're not getting any better at swinging swords.
EDIT: Here's a question. When posed with two situations; one that makes sense and facilitates something in a logical way of emulating reality; why would anyone explicitly rail against that just to dump on the guy with a low Charisma? Ciretose is making up drawbacks to having a low Charisma which are most definitely not part of the game, and he seems to think that someone has to become a superhuman to learn to talk to a girl; or at least wants the mechanics to function as such.
He still hasn't provided any mechanical evidence to backup his claims, or his words; he just tries to pick apart everything everyone else says (and poorly I might add). His arguments < nothing.
|
|
From now on, I guess my players will get bonuses to kick damage from Jump checks, since they both pertain to leg strength. And I guess they can get weapon finesse and quick draw with a high sleight of hand score. It is so draconian to make them actually take the feats for those skills and then not be able to take other feats they want. And while we are at it, a I guess a high knowledge score should give you the favored enemy bonus, since you know lots about the things they are fighting. That is the same thing, right?Yeah. It's not like we have established rules for handling any of those things like attack rolls and damage modifiers based on Strength; and it's not like you haven't provided any kind of mechanical source material to suggest that Charisma is used to determine pure social interaction, such as the multitude of DCs and situational modifiers that you posted, and the steps explaining the process of interacting with an NPC outside of skill checks. I mean, you did all that, so I guess it is the same thing.
We bow to you, master of logic and reasoning.
Your example had a diplomacy check that takes 1 minute occurring uninterrupted when you were functionally detained in a dark alley for questioning, but didn't include a sense motive from the NPC. Then, after you were intimidated, you try to "Intimidate" back with something that isn't actually an intimidate check, because "her Intimidate is a little better" (your statement). Your liberal reading of "intimidate" being...threatening to call for help.
That was your example.
It is too bad there is an ability that governs the character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance that we could base checks off of.
I mean, how could your personality, personal magnetism, and appearance impact social interaction. That is obviously crazy talk.
In the example you gave, there didn't need to be any rolls. The Templars had orders to do...something. I don't know what, because you didn't say, which is strange as that is the most important thing governing what is going on. The templars either were going to be afraid if you called for help or they weren't. They either had orders to do something or they didn't...all of which would determine if they were going to let you talk for a minute for a diplomacy check or not.
Circumstances are the most important thing, in my games Charisma is a tie breaker or something that might effect first impressions. It can be overcome by actions. If you help someone, they will probably like you more, if you screw them over they will probably like you less. All things that are more important than scores or checks in my games.
But the fact that you picked a skill to use because it "is a little better" than the skill that would actually govern what you were doing pretty much proves my point about cherry picking.
Your example had a diplomacy check that takes 1 minute occurring uninterrupted when you were functionally detained in a dark alley for questioning, but didn't include a sense motive from the NPC. Then, after you were intimidated, you try to "Intimidate" back with something that isn't actually an intimidate check, because "her Intimidate is a little better" (your statement). Your liberal reading of "intimidate" being...threatening to call for help.
That was your example.
No it wasn't. I posted that for entertainment purposes and said as much in the thread. The actual example of using Diplomacy in play was used with the hypothetical bard + Sigfried; so if you're going to call examples, get your facts strait.
It is too bad there is an ability that governs the character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance that we could base checks off of.
I mean, how could your personality, personal magnetism, and appearance impact social interaction. That is obviously crazy talk.
Show me how it works then. I want to see some rules. If not, stop arguing. If you have nothing to back it up, take a hike, have a smoke, swim with the whales, but don't argue it if you're not going to argue something. I've requested it repeatedly; give me the rules; otherwise everything you say = < Nothing.
|
|
Ciretose, you seem to be under the false impression that one can't improve on their natural ability to flirt, charm, communicate or persuade in real life. The social skills simulate the fact that you can get better at social interaction.
You can improve it. Every 4 levels or with magic items.
In your games can you work out to improve your ability to lift things?
Yeah, there's a feat in the alchemist supplement book, which is 3PP, which is sold on the Paizo store that increases your carrying capacity. So you'd spend a feat to represent getting better at carrying heavier loads; even if you're not getting any better at swinging swords.
EDIT: Here's a question. When posed with two situations; one that makes sense and facilitates something in a logical way of emulating reality; why would anyone explicitly rail against that just to dump on the guy with a low Charisma? Ciretose is making up drawbacks to having a low Charisma which are most definitely not part of the game, and he seems to think that someone has to become a superhuman to learn to talk to a girl; or at least wants the mechanics to function as such.
He still hasn't provided any mechanical evidence to backup his claims, or his words; he just tries to pick apart everything everyone else says (and poorly I might add). His arguments < nothing.
Referencing a feat that is not only non-core, but from a 3rd party publishers clearly is to strong an argument for me to overcome.
But if we are bring in stuff outside pathfinder, let's look at the 3.5 definitions for the Diplomacy skill, specifically what it defines as the attitudes and how they can be adjusted.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Diplomacy_Skill
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you
Unfriendly Wishes you ill
Indifferent Doesn’t much care
Friendly Wishes you well
Helpful Will take risks to help you
Fanatic Will give life to serve you
It gives specific examples of actions they may take as well
Here is another cite so you know I'm not cherry picking.
http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Diplomacy_Skill
Show me where it says anything other than the kind of diplomacy you would see at a United Nations meeting.
But hey, feel free to use a really high disguise check to make yourself invisible if your stealth is too low.
|
|
Your example had a diplomacy check that takes 1 minute occurring uninterrupted when you were functionally detained in a dark alley for questioning, but didn't include a sense motive from the NPC. Then, after you were intimidated, you try to "Intimidate" back with something that isn't actually an intimidate check, because "her Intimidate is a little better" (your statement). Your liberal reading of "intimidate" being...threatening to call for help.
That was your example.
No it wasn't. I posted that for entertainment purposes and said as much in the thread. The actual example of using Diplomacy in play was used with the hypothetical bard + Sigfried; so if you're going to call examples, get your facts strait.
Show me how it works then. I want to see some rules. If not, stop arguing. If you have nothing to back it up, take a hike, have a smoke, swim with the whales, but don't argue it if you're not going to argue something. I've requested it repeatedly; give me the rules; otherwise everything you say = < Nothing.It is too bad there is an ability that governs the character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance that we could base checks off of.
I mean, how could your personality, personal magnetism, and appearance impact social interaction. That is obviously crazy talk.
1. "This encounter occurred during an actual game."
Your quote, which I read as meaning "This is how I played this encounter"
And more to the point, if you are citing an example, I would assume you are going to cite an example that would best illustrate how you think things should work. And in your example, you admitted that you picked whatever skill you had the most ranks in, even if it wasn't the skill that most closely governed what you were trying to do.
Not a very strong example to use, IMHO.
2. I copied and pasted what Charisma does into the comment. The above is a list of what Charisma governs. Which would be the rules that say what Charisma governs. So I don't know how much more I could cite rules.
Is your argument that Charisma doesn't govern "a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." or that those things don't have in game effects?
You can't prove a negative. I can only show you what the rules say they govern. If you think they govern more, I can't cite something saying they don't anymore than I can cite an example that says you can't use a high swim check to talk to fish like Aquaman.
You are saying things do things that the rules don't say that they do.