I don't impose auto penalties. If you keep your mouth shut then you are fine, however I will have NPC's talk to you so thinking you will never have to speak and that will get you over is a mistake.It's not an automatic penalty, it's just first impressions. If the player wants to roll it to see if he can make a better first impression, that's fine (he should put points into diplomacy, obviously).
He should not be in trouble until he rolls. Having to roll because they already dislike you puts you in the penalty box. How likeable someone is can't often be known until you speak to them anyway, and people don't give off vibes unless they are in a really good or bad mood most of the time so you really would not know enough to make a judgement call.
Again, we're talking about how the world interacts with your character and perceives them. That's what your Charisma represents, how those around you perceive you. And your int represents how smart you are. Unless you have some skills, you can't fake being smart. It's easy to fake being dumb if you are smart, but nearly impossible the other way around.
I disagree. I think it is an influencing force on how likely you are to affect people in a given way if you try to in the same way that strength is an indicator of how likely you are to succeed at a strength based task if you use it. You can no more make a bad impression without using a charisma based skill than you can drop a box you never tried to pick up.
I think we agree on the overall ideal(stats should have consequences), but disagree on how and when the execution takes place. Using your cousins as an example when they start talking they are already making a diplomacy check, but until then I can't really form an opinion of them.
PS:I guess it is more of a playstyle issue though, and neither one of us would have an issue in the other's game if the only issue is when the "dislike/wary of" comes into affect.
I don't allow point buy in my games. Specifically to avoid min/maxing. What you roll is what you get. I use 4d6 drop the lowest method. And if an ability score is 6 or less, i allow a reroll, but you MUST take the second result, even if it is worse.
You think that is going to stop min-maxing? I will just put the lower stats where I want so they are not bothering me as much. I don't see now that stops anything.
If we have to roll and keep the stats in that order I do what people do in real life and choose a class based on what I am good at.
PS: I am not a min-maxer. I am just making a point. If that is your only reason not using point-buy you may as well use point buy. If rolling just feels more organic, which is a reason I hear echoed a lot, then roll away.
edit:made a change to make my statement make sense.
Even the greatest of heroes, perhaps the greatest even more so, have their tragic flaws. This has been iconic since Homer. That's probably the best perspective to bring to stat allocation, roleplay and optimization need not be mutually exclusive and our group, for one, works very hard at both.And that's perfectly fine. Like I said earlier, if you're roleplaying the stats, then that's fine. It's only a problem when people want the mechanical benefits (other stats boosted) but none of the downsides or roleplaying repercussions.
Oh I agree with you 100% on that, there will always be consequences.
Even the greatest of heroes, perhaps the greatest even more so, have their tragic flaws. This has been iconic since Homer. That's probably the best perspective to bring to stat allocation, roleplay and optimization need not be mutually exclusive and our group, for one, works very hard at both.Except most classical examples are tragic because of flaws of character ie pride or arrogance, not because they have low CHA or INT.
Could not a low charisma be roleplayed as excessive pride or arrogance however? Low charisma does not necessarily mean physically unattractive, or excessively shy, to limit it so stifles the very sort of creative roleplay you ostensibly champion.
a low charisma doesn't mean you have to be a rude jerk with a foul mouth
it can mean that you are extremely arrogant in the common case or an elf or noble of some kind. or even a japanese flavored samurai.
it can mean you are shy and don't do a good job of opening up to others. you still may have those very few you open up to in private. this allows you to roleplay silence.
it can mean you are a Rude foul mouthed S.O.B.
it can mean you have Aspergers or some other social skill hampering mental illness, like obscessive compulsive disorder.
it can mean you compulsively perseverate on your favored topic, whether it be object, person, concept, or anything. like how i compulsively create characters that look like young girls.
it can mean you have an aura that radiates creepyness.
Very good point. I'm so tired of people who take low CHA and do up the "I'm an a-hole dwarf!" bit.
I'd love an OCD dwarf who can't stop polishing his armor and weapons, even in the middle of peace talks or while at the orphanage, and has each item named, and talks to them when someone tries to talk to him.
Noble : Ah, so you're the fighter your friend Alamar was telling me about. Durgen Ironfist, yes? From the Reigan Clan?
Durgen : You hear that, Murgrin? He want's to know if I'm Durgen. Should I say yes? Alamar told me to keep my mouth shut. Murgrin! How'd you get that nick? Was it that stupid ogre yesterday? I'm so sorry! I didn't notice it!
Great point and this really touches on what I was getting at, there's always more then one way to play a stat penalty and creativity should always be fostered.
I also think that "never taking a score with a penalty" is just as bad[/b] as dumping a stat.
I mean really all your characters are at least average if not [i]better at everything? Every time? Not once do you have to contend with a deficiency, never have had a guy that is a bit shy and has to think of what to say before putting his foot in his mouth? Never had a character that maybe should have made a trip to the gym (or was too sickly to go)? Never had a smart smartarse that should have known to keep his mouth shut but couldn't (low wisdom) or didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain (as the saying goes)?
It just strikes me as just as gamist to never have a 'dump' stat at all as to have an extreme dump every time.
Excellent point
|
You think that is going to stop min-maxing? I will just put the lower stats where I want so they are not bothering me as much. I don't see now that stops anything.If we have to roll and keep the stats in that order I do what people do in real life and choose a class based on what I am good at.
PS: I am not a min-maxer. I am just making a point. If that is your only reason not using point-buy you may as well not use point buy. If rolling just feels more organic, which is a reason I hear echoed a lot, then roll away.
Well, to an extent at least. You cannot reduce a stat to make another one higher. What you roll is what you get. Even when i allow point buy (something i haven't done in 4 years), i forbid reducing stats.
And, yes, rolling feels more organic, and characters seem more organic.
You think that is going to stop min-maxing? I will just put the lower stats where I want so they are not bothering me as much. I don't see now that stops anything.If we have to roll and keep the stats in that order I do what people do in real life and choose a class based on what I am good at.
PS: I am not a min-maxer. I am just making a point. If that is your only reason not using point-buy you may as well not use point buy. If rolling just feels more organic, which is a reason I hear echoed a lot, then roll away.
Well, to an extent at least. You cannot reduce a stat to make another one higher. What you roll is what you get. Even when i allow point buy (something i haven't done in 4 years), i forbid reducing stats.
And, yes, rolling feels more organic, and characters seem more organic.
So it is not the issue of putting less useful abilities below a 10, but reducing one thing to make another better?
That is the point of point-buy though, and I see why you don't use it if that is the case.
You think that is going to stop min-maxing? I will just put the lower stats where I want so they are not bothering me as much. I don't see now that stops anything.If we have to roll and keep the stats in that order I do what people do in real life and choose a class based on what I am good at.
PS: I am not a min-maxer. I am just making a point. If that is your only reason not using point-buy you may as well not use point buy. If rolling just feels more organic, which is a reason I hear echoed a lot, then roll away.
Well, to an extent at least. You cannot reduce a stat to make another one higher. What you roll is what you get. Even when i allow point buy (something i haven't done in 4 years), i forbid reducing stats.
And, yes, rolling feels more organic, and characters seem more organic.
Embrace optimization and integrate roleplay, anything else divides differing, yet equally important, elements of the same game needlessly.
another reason people optimize is actually for role-play due to mechanic constraints, lets take the situation where we have a STR 16 fighter, lets say a 14+ 2 racial cause we don't want dump stats and we still want a high CON and decent DEX, and we have the STR 12 cleric, pretty reasonable for a support cleric.
block of text so I spoiler-ed it, may or may not have been necessary.
The cleric is out adventuring and he finds a tree in his path and wants to move it for merchants and such, although he finds that with his strength it's much to heavy. Along comes our fighter friend and these two meet, in character the fighter walks up to the cleric trying to lift a tree and without saying a word (he's always just been a helpful sort) lifts the tree out of the... wait no he doesn't combined they aren't strong enough and now he might as well have just been an npc guard who would run off to find help, instead of the STR 20 fighter that could sufficiently lift it and introduce his character with an appropriate first impression that will always be remembered, and can later show friendship development when in his career with a party his cleric buddy chuckles with him at the troll trying to block a cave with a boulder because they both remember all the times his strength has gotten them through obstacles in the past. All for the price of an 8 in CHA.
As long as people don't equate stats with potential.
I play a paladin with Wis8. In the beginning, I played him as naive and inattentive, then he had a crisis of faith (Irori), started reflecting and studying, dipped a level of monk, maxed out his Sense Motive and Perception, and got ranks in Knowledge (History) to reflect him learning. Now I play him as attentive, reflected and aware, sometimes even wise, as he has overcome his natural limitations.
I also played a sorcerer with Cha24, who was an unlikable megalomaniac. Nobody ignored him, but he rubbed people the wrong way. He became well known within the city-state as "The Dragon of Korvosa".
So, considering I have a "dump" stat that I "ignore" and a high stat that I do not reflect as being likable... Am I doing it wrong?
As long as people don't equate stats with potential.
I play a paladin with Wis8. In the beginning, I played him as naive and inattentive, then he had a crisis of faith (Irori), started reflecting and studying, dipped a level of monk, maxed out his Sense Motive and Perception, and got ranks in Knowledge (History) to reflect him learning. Now I play him as attentive, reflected and aware, sometimes even wise, as he has overcome his natural limitations.
I also played a sorcerer with Cha24, who was an unlikable megalomaniac. Nobody ignored him, but he rubbed people the wrong way. He became well known within the city-state as "The Dragon of Korvosa".
So, considering I have a "dump" stat that I "ignore" and a high stat that I do not reflect as being likable... Am I doing it wrong?
There is no way to "do it wrong". Well there may be, but that is not it. I don't think charisma has to mean people like you. It means you are able to influence them to do as you wish or it at least gives you a decent chance. Is that not what the social skills do after all?
There is no way to "do it wrong". Well there may be, but that is not it. I don't think charisma has to mean people like you. It means you are able to influence them to do as you wish or it at least gives you a decent chance. Is that not what the social skills do after all?As long as people don't equate stats with potential.
I play a paladin with Wis8. In the beginning, I played him as naive and inattentive, then he had a crisis of faith (Irori), started reflecting and studying, dipped a level of monk, maxed out his Sense Motive and Perception, and got ranks in Knowledge (History) to reflect him learning. Now I play him as attentive, reflected and aware, sometimes even wise, as he has overcome his natural limitations.
I also played a sorcerer with Cha24, who was an unlikable megalomaniac. Nobody ignored him, but he rubbed people the wrong way. He became well known within the city-state as "The Dragon of Korvosa".
So, considering I have a "dump" stat that I "ignore" and a high stat that I do not reflect as being likable... Am I doing it wrong?
Precisely. Thus, the base ability score is pretty much irrelevant beyond the bonus/penalty it gives, no?
How are these two different:
Bob(cha6): 10 ranks in diplomacy, +6 skill focus, +3 trained, -2 cha penalty
Jim(Cha18): 10 ranks in diplomacy, +4 cha bonus, +3 trained
They both have +17 to diplomacy. Does Bob have to be played as introvert and socially inept, when he has the same chance to influence people as the obviously suave and gregarious Jim?
This is the primary reason I do not look to ability scores when I play my characters. I look to the totals. I might have a different angle of approach, playing Bob as a careful word-smith, and Jim as a grinning alpha, but both are equally able to achieve the desired result. Doesn't matter than Jim has three times more charisma, unless the conversation goes from diplomatic to deceptive or aggressive, where Jim would have an advantage unless Bob has compensated in that field as well.
And through this logic, you have the reason I have no qualms about dumping strength when I play a caster. If something is in the position to grapple your lv9 wizard, it doesn't really matter if he has str7 or str12, most likely, the enemy will succeed either way, because you inherently suck. You can put feats towards raising your CMD, but that will be mostly patch-work, as monsters are scaled to take on actual combatants, who will have at roughly 10 higher even with your compensation. And on top of having something that amounts to 20% grapple resistance, your resulting lower int makes your spells 5-15% less effective, and you know fewer of them.
This pointlessness runs through the all the arguments. The greatsword-fighter with cha10 will not be able to reliably sway anyone either. His mighty +0 does not make him any more socially relevant than the dour cha7's -2. But his str16 vs str18 will leave him so much weaker he needs to take two feats to make up the difference (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization).
Why shoot yourself in the foot in order to be slightly less suck at something you are going to suck at anyway?
What do you mean your primary stat isn't 20?! You're playing the game wrong! Stop having fun! >:O
What do you mean your primary stat isn't 20?! You're playing the game wrong! Stop having fun! >:O
Never said 20. Just saying that the idea of not sucking just because you don't have a penalty is an illusion. The difference between someone average and someone below average is moot when the DC calls for exceptional.
|
|
Embrace optimization and integrate roleplay, anything else divides differing, yet equally important, elements of the same game needlessly.
Really? I don't think so. First of all, i will never embrace optimization, as it feels unnatural...you don't get points while in the womb that you distribute during pregnancy, to become what you want to be. You get what you get. Hence rolling for abilities. True, it may turn out that i have a STR 20 fighter and a int 16 wizard, but they rolled and that is what they got. Some people are just simply more talented than other people. Does that mean that the player of the wizard should pout and b*tch about the fact that his wizard is clearly not talented as the fighter? No. He should find a way to surpass his limitation. I had a player who would scrap a character if he didn't have and 18 in his primary ability score. He was so annoying when he had to play such characters, that in the end the entire group decided to kick him.
I thougth that having different characters was good. If a player can't get past the fact that the rolled poorly during character creation and during HP rolling, he shouldn't be playing. I hate whining childish players. Things happen, make the best of them.
Never said 20. Just saying that the idea of not sucking just because you don't have a penalty is an illusion. The difference between someone average and someone below average is moot when the DC calls for exceptional.
Not you. Mine was a jesting reply to a post that seems to have been deleted.
Embrace optimization and integrate roleplay, anything else divides differing, yet equally important, elements of the same game needlessly.Really? I don't think so. First of all, i will never embrace optimization, as it feels unnatural...you don't get points while in the womb that you distribute during pregnancy, to become what you want to be. You get what you get. Hence rolling for abilities. True, it may turn out that i have a STR 20 fighter and a int 16 wizard, but they rolled and that is what they got. Some people are just simply more talented than other people. Does that mean that the player of the wizard should pout and b*tch about the fact that his wizard is clearly not talented as the fighter? No. He should find a way to surpass his limitation. I had a player who would scrap a character if he didn't have and 18 in his primary ability score. He was so annoying when he had to play such characters, that in the end the entire group decided to kick him.
I thougth that having different characters was good. If a player can't get past the fact that the rolled poorly during character creation and during HP rolling, he shouldn't be playing. I hate whining childish players. Things happen, make the best of them.
What if you bad stats make you virtually useless?
What if you bad stats make you virtually useless?
Embrace optimization and integrate roleplay, anything else divides differing, yet equally important, elements of the same game needlessly.Really? I don't think so. First of all, i will never embrace optimization, as it feels unnatural...you don't get points while in the womb that you distribute during pregnancy, to become what you want to be. You get what you get. Hence rolling for abilities. True, it may turn out that i have a STR 20 fighter and a int 16 wizard, but they rolled and that is what they got. Some people are just simply more talented than other people. Does that mean that the player of the wizard should pout and b*tch about the fact that his wizard is clearly not talented as the fighter? No. He should find a way to surpass his limitation. I had a player who would scrap a character if he didn't have and 18 in his primary ability score. He was so annoying when he had to play such characters, that in the end the entire group decided to kick him.
I thougth that having different characters was good. If a player can't get past the fact that the rolled poorly during character creation and during HP rolling, he shouldn't be playing. I hate whining childish players. Things happen, make the best of them.
Like any wizard with a 16 int, plus it is completely natural to pick your abilities, I didn't grow up with a 16 STR (not saying I have 16 STR) I spent time in the weight room beefing up. What kind of people could possible grow into an 18 STR? you call that natural? Yeah it is childish to not want to play a fighter with 14 STR but at least he's role-playing, that fighter must be a child to think he can survive as an adventurer.
|
|
Well, there is a rule that says that if all your ability modifiers total +0 or +1 then you scrap the array and roll again. I am a strong supporter of what you roll is what you get, but i am not a sadist. If a player rolls 7,7,8,8,10,14,16 and wants to dump the array, i will allow it.
I once played a INT 3 barbarian. It was one of the most fun characters i played ever, and i never actualy annoyed any other player with my portrayal of it. He did have a penchant for not distinguishing between 'kill' and 'capture', but cleric had a wand of speak with dead, so the problem was solved.
"What do you mean your ranger doesn't have ranks in survival?"
It all comes down to how you envision your character, I believe, more so than optimization, but then I tend to revise stats as concept solidifies.
Not to mention, there are builds that forgives lower primary stats:
Support caster (cleric, druid, summoner, wizard, sorcerer, bard, oracle) - Does not need to worry about DCs, and can make due with even 15 in the primary casting stat. Grab Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand and make everyone better at THEIR jobs.
Skill monkey (rogue, bard, ranger, inquisitor) - Have decent in the primary skill stats, and make up for differences with class abilities and feats. You'll be good enough when you get the basic +5 to my skills gear.
Tank (Cavalier, Fighter, Paladin etc) - Have decent stats where it counts, grab the defensive feats, body-guard feats and toughness. Have high enough strength to not be easily ignored.
However, there are some builds that demands at least 18 in their primary stat(imo):
Offensive/Debuffing caster - Everything you do has a DC. Need to get this high as possible.
Offensive fighter - Must hit everything, must kill everything. High strength is all.
Offensive/dual-wielding rogue - Not only do you need to compensate for a poor innate to-hit modifier, you need to compete with the fighters.
Embrace optimization and integrate roleplay, anything else divides differing, yet equally important, elements of the same game needlessly.Really? I don't think so. First of all, i will never embrace optimization, as it feels unnatural...you don't get points while in the womb that you distribute during pregnancy, to become what you want to be. You get what you get. Hence rolling for abilities. True, it may turn out that i have a STR 20 fighter and a int 16 wizard, but they rolled and that is what they got. Some people are just simply more talented than other people. Does that mean that the player of the wizard should pout and b*tch about the fact that his wizard is clearly not talented as the fighter? No. He should find a way to surpass his limitation. I had a player who would scrap a character if he didn't have and 18 in his primary ability score. He was so annoying when he had to play such characters, that in the end the entire group decided to kick him.
I thougth that having different characters was good. If a player can't get past the fact that the rolled poorly during character creation and during HP rolling, he shouldn't be playing. I hate whining childish players. Things happen, make the best of them.
I meant this more as an interpersonal then intrapersonal suggestion, as in advocates of one or the other need not war continuously over which is better and instead meet each other halfway so to speak.
I meant this more as an interpersonal then intrapersonal suggestion, as in advocates of one or the other need not war continuously over which is better and instead meet each other halfway so to speak.
Embrace optimization and integrate roleplay, anything else divides differing, yet equally important, elements of the same game needlessly.Really? I don't think so. First of all, i will never embrace optimization, as it feels unnatural...you don't get points while in the womb that you distribute during pregnancy, to become what you want to be. You get what you get. Hence rolling for abilities. True, it may turn out that i have a STR 20 fighter and a int 16 wizard, but they rolled and that is what they got. Some people are just simply more talented than other people. Does that mean that the player of the wizard should pout and b*tch about the fact that his wizard is clearly not talented as the fighter? No. He should find a way to surpass his limitation. I had a player who would scrap a character if he didn't have and 18 in his primary ability score. He was so annoying when he had to play such characters, that in the end the entire group decided to kick him.
I thougth that having different characters was good. If a player can't get past the fact that the rolled poorly during character creation and during HP rolling, he shouldn't be playing. I hate whining childish players. Things happen, make the best of them.
I agree with you. In the words of another poster whose name I can't remember-->The GM get to control all the NPC's, normally gets final say on the rules, and the rest of the world. All the players get is their character. At least let them have that.
As to the "you don't pick your stats at birth*", comment that is true, but you between birth and adulthood you have many chances to affect your stats. Reading can improve intelligence and wisdom. Being around certain people and situations can improve your charisma. Exercising can improve physical stats. Just because a character has certain stat at character creation, that does not mean they had them at birth.*That is a paraphrase not an actual quote.
What I don't understand is the mentality of NEEDING a certain score to be "effective". So, what you are saying is that the 2pt difference in ability modifiers between a 16 and a 20 in a stat is the difference between failing and succeeding every time?
Considering the core of things are determined by the roll of a d20. A 4-23 base = fail, and a 6-25 base = success? From what I see they both share the majority of range from 6-23, that's 18 sides on a d20. So, the odds are still mostly the same, whether it's a 16 or a 20.
Also, people keep using Diplomacy as a defense. Diplomacy is a skill check. A skill check is used when a hard number to determine a success or fail is needed. If Bob(cha6) and Jim(cha18) both talk to someone, without diplomacy (as they are not trying to convince them of anything), they are just talking, people would naturally be more inclined to talk to Jim. Now if they had the same Diplomacy score, then Bob may choose to use the skill to convince them to talk to him as well. Their first inclination, however, is to talk with the guy that appears more personable.
Maybe the 6 is reflected in that Bob, doesn't look people in the eye when he talks, ever, so he just comes off to everyone as distrustful.
Maybe the 18 shows that Jim is ready with a smile and there is just a light in his eyes that says, "Hey, I'm approachable, come talk to me."
But it isn't until they have to use that skill with the same total modifier that people will look at them and go, "Despite Bob's creepiness, he's actually an effective speaker, whereas Jim tends to get by well enough without even trying"
That's the difference. Bob, had to train and focus to speak well, but Jim, just gets it naturally and doesn't even try, yet they are equally effective at it. Why, because Jim is just someone people feel compelled to talk to, and Bob, is someone that studied to be able to do what Jim does, yet still makes an initial bad first impression, until he uses the skill.
On another note, if you're not getting role-playing "benefits" for good scores, then either you're not role-playing them. Or you should try talking to your GM as to why he's one-sided on the topic.
What I don't understand is the mentality of NEEDING a certain score to be "effective". So, what you are saying is that the 2pt difference in ability modifiers between a 16 and a 20 in a stat is the difference between failing and succeeding every time?
I think a certain minimum score is needed to be effective*, but for the most part people just want a better chance at success. If you can get that success without a lot of risk(dumping a most likely unused stat) then of course they would do it.
*What that score is varies depending on several factors.
|
He should not be in trouble until he rolls. Having to roll because they already dislike you puts you in the penalty box. How likeable someone is can't often be known until you speak to them anyway, and people don't give off vibes unless they are in a really good or bad mood most of the time so you really would not know enough to make a judgement call.
Really?
the five cha guy probably has bad hygiene habits, belch, has the wrong clothes for the situation, is picking his toenail with a dagger and so on.The seven cha guy will be a bit better, but still he is the social impaired guy. He always scowl when he meet someone, raise his voice for no apparent reason, look away and seem distracted when the NPC is speaking, forget the right action to do when entering a church to speak with a priest, call the priest "hey, mister" instead of the proper title. There are plenty of non verbal signal that we pick mostly subconsciously and that say "he is the wrong guy".
Exactly because they are subconscious signals it is harder to dismiss them and to avoid to broadcast them.
About the whole mix/maxing stat. I find fun how people are crying about "low skill for class XX" and then give themselves very low int or "class xx has a bad will save" and then they pick a 5 will.
"I have already a low chance of success, so I will make it 0, the master will not dare exploit a so striking weakness" is a very bad behaviour for a player.
I think a big part of the issue is what is considered "dumping" a stat. To me, one or two 8's probably isn't dumping stats. Likewise, a single 7 or lower probably isn't out of line. I start having problems when the number of stats below 10 is greater than the number of stats at 10 or higher. I don't care if someone has a 20 in something, if their next highest stat is 10 or 12, and most of the others are less than 10, they would have a hard time convincing anybody in real life that they were worth dragging along on adventures on a regular basis. More than 2 stats at 7 or lower, and I start to enforce the fact that you really don't fit in as an adventurer; I probably won't actively punish it or look for ways to bring it up, but when it does come up, people will react in ways that suggest that they really don't believe you are going to survive or last long in that particular profession.
On the other hand, I also firmly believe that unusually high stats should get just as much attention as unusually low stats, with the end results being mostly based on the character's reactions in both cases. People with a 20 are going to get to deal with a lot of attention whether they like it or not. People with lower stats are likely to be ignored or brushed aside on certain matters whether they like it or not. Either way, I generally won't go as far as actively putting characters at a disadvantage unless they set themselves up for it by their actions, but at the same time, such extreme stats will not be completely ignored. A high stat can be just as much of a bane as a low stat depending on the situation, and a low stat can be just as much of a boon as a high stat depending on the situation.
Personally the next game I run, I think I will give one free 16 and roll for the rest using 2d6+6. That way, people are assured the shot at an 18, but the rest is variable while assuring nothing too horrible. As some have pointed out earlier, we do have some control over our personal attributes, but focusing on a single attribute reduces our ability to control and shape the others, so I'm trying to find something that reflects that while ensuring a minimum level of capability. HP I plan on something similar. After 1st level, I will probably offer the option of taking the average or rolling. That way, those who don't want the risk don't have to take it, but also have to accept that I am not going to give them max without them earning it. That way, those who are willing to accept the risk of rolling can feel like they can potentially earn something better than those taking the quick and easy way.
I have never gotten the whole "must have 20" attitude personally, but than I also tend to play people who might actually fit into normal society without sticking out like a red flag to would be thieves, con artists, assassins, and people who think I should be involved in their plans whether I want to be or not. I guess I've seen too many people take a 20 in a stat and basically play their character as telling the world, "Everyone pay attention to me because I am so good that no one could possibly defeat me at anything. I dare anyone to try." and then get upset when the DM has the audacity to look past the single 20 and have the world react more to all of the 6's and 7's that the player had to take in order to get the 20.
He should not be in trouble until he rolls. Having to roll because they already dislike you puts you in the penalty box. How likeable someone is can't often be known until you speak to them anyway, and people don't give off vibes unless they are in a really good or bad mood most of the time so you really would not know enough to make a judgement call.
Really?
the five cha guy probably has bad hygiene habits, belch, has the wrong clothes for the situation, is picking his toenail with a dagger and so on.The seven cha guy will be a bit better, but still he is the social impaired guy. He always scowl when he meet someone, raise his voice for no apparent reason, look away and seem distracted when the NPC is speaking, forget the right action to do when entering a church to speak with a priest, call the priest "hey, mister" instead of the proper title. There are plenty of non verbal signal that we pick mostly subconsciously and that say "he is the wrong guy".
Exactly because they are subconscious signals it is harder to dismiss them and to avoid to broadcast them.About the whole mix/maxing stat. I find fun how people are crying about "low skill for class XX" and then give themselves very low int or "class xx has a bad will save" and then they pick a 5 will.
"I have already a low chance of success, so I will make it 0, the master will not dare exploit a so striking weakness" is a very bad behaviour for a player.
Yeah really. The score is just a number until a roll comes into affect. I think the cha should matter at some point in the game, but I don't automatically make it do things since I don't make the other stats automatically do things. Like I said before you may have to talk to someone, but I won't have people just ignore you or anything worse until you start interacting with people actively.
If someone dumps a save boosting stat I don't feel any pity for them. I can't tell you how many times someone has dumped con. I have never seen any of those characters make it to the end of a campaign either.That bolded part is funny, but I believe it is true though. Some people expect to live no matter what they do.
What gets me is the perception that you MUST have a maxed out primary attribute to enjoy the game. I GM a lot of non-optimal characters and they do just fine. They have just as much fun as the guy with the super optimized character and they don't die more often.
Casters with merely an 18 in their primary stat do just fine, Fighters with an 18 strength are fine. It's not a competitive game where you need to do more damage than the next guy.
The biggest thing that bugs me about optimizers is that it can often marginalize the players who don't optimize. I see this a lot in PFS where I get a big mix of characters at the same table and it can be quite frustrating.
Edit: ToZ's post looks funny but it's my fault.
+1
I don't impose auto penalties. If you keep your mouth shut then you are fine, however I will have NPC's talk to you so thinking you will never have to speak and that will get you over is a mistake.It's not an automatic penalty, it's just first impressions. If the player wants to roll it to see if he can make a better first impression, that's fine (he should put points into diplomacy, obviously).He should not be in trouble until he rolls. Having to roll because they already dislike you puts you in the penalty box. How likeable someone is can't often be known until you speak to them anyway, and people don't give off vibes unless they are in a really good or bad mood most of the time so you really would not know enough to make a judgement call.
Not really, it depends on how they've defined their low charisma. For example, the dwarf I talked about earlier who obsessively polishes his items and whispers to them. He doesn't have to talk to the NPCs for them to react negatively to them. If the player has said "My dwarf is smelly, dirty, and obnoxious." to describe his low CHA, then no, the NPCs don't have to talk to him. He's scruffy, he smells (above and beyond normal fantasy adventurers), why talk to him?
Now, the INT thing, yes, that's harder to notice until he opens his mouth. However, a really low INT (say 5 or 6) could be noticeable without him opening his mouth. Like the guy who tries to eat the wax fruit. :)
Again, we're talking about how the world interacts with your character and perceives them. That's what your Charisma represents, how those around you perceive you. And your int represents how smart you are. Unless you have some skills, you can't fake being smart. It's easy to fake being dumb if you are smart, but nearly impossible the other way around.
I disagree. I think it is an influencing force on how likely you are to affect people in a given way if you try to in the same way that strength is an indicator of how likely you are to succeed at a strength based task if you use it. You can no more make a bad impression without using a charisma based skill than you can drop a box you never tried to pick up.
You can absolutely make a bad impression without using a skill. In real life, the guy who walks around with yellow pants, one red tennis shoe, one brown sandal, a blue shirt, a grocery cart, and needs a shave and hasn't bathed or washed his clothes in months makes a bad impression without ever opening his mouth or even looking at you. He can be a block away, and you will have noticed him, categorized him, and most likely tried to avoid him.
In game, if the GM describes a patron in the bar as having tattoos, a shaved head, metal piercings, leather armor, a machete on his side, and the cleric notices the tattoo's are dedicated to the goddess of murder, then that character has made an impression without ever rolling a skill check, and the PCs are going to dislike him from the start. Same as if you walked into a bar in real life and saw 5 thugs in gang tats drinking in the corner. Most people I know would see that, turn around, and leave the bar in case someone else decided to do a drive by. Appearances and how you act (which is part of CHA) will cause people to draw conclusions bout you without ever having actually talked to you. It's human nature to observe, categorize, and make assumptions based on appearance.
In the reverse, if your character sees an attractive woman in very well maintained chainmail with a shield strapped to her back with a holy symbol on it, a sword on her side, and she's drinking quietly in the tavern, then they are more than likely going to have a net positive reaction to her. She obviously takes care of her equipment, she's not slovenly, she is either very devout, a cleric, or a paladin. She's being quiet and not disturbing anyone else. She could be a cultist of a death goddess, but until someone makes a check on the holy symbol, she has a positive impression to the PCs on first description.
If I describe a shop as being neat and tidy, all the goods neatly arranged with little price tags propped up against them, and then describe the guy behind the counter as a middle aged man with graying hair and a neatly trimmed beard wearing very well cared for, but ordinary looking clothing, then all the PCs have formed an initial opinion of the guy, be it right or wrong, based on appearances.
I think we agree on the overall ideal(stats should have consequences), but disagree on how and when the execution takes place. Using your cousins as an example when they start talking they are already making a diplomacy check, but until then I can't really form an opinion of them.PS:I guess it is more of a playstyle issue though, and neither one of us would have an issue in the other's game if the only issue is when the "dislike/wary of" comes into affect.
Yeah, we do agree mostly. But as to my cousins, I guarantee you'd form an opinion of them before you talked to them. And them opening their mouth and talking is not making a diplomacy check. A diplomacy check is them trying to influence you. If they're just talking to each other about the coon they almost got last week, that's not a diplomacy check, that's just you overhearing them having a normal conversation.
That's where I think the disconnect between us is. I assume the PCs are not trying to be diplomatic to each other, they work and live with each other, they just act like themselves when they are walking around town. People overhear them interacting with each other before one of them interacts with the NPC. That's not something that always happens, but it does more often than not since people don't like to 'split the team'. :) So if someone has defined their 6 or 7 CHA as "I'm opinionated, foul mouthed, and ugly", then as the four PCs walk into town, I'm assuming he's visible (Ugly), talking loudly and cursing a lot and saying things like "What a pig sty of a town, look at that horse, it's wearing a dress, oh, that one has nice hooters though". If he isn't, he needs to say "I'm keeping my mouth shut because Laudrin said he won't sell my loot for a higher price if I don't." or something like that.
Precisely. Thus, the base ability score is pretty much irrelevant beyond the bonus/penalty it gives, no?
How are these two different:
Bob(cha6): 10 ranks in diplomacy, +6 skill focus, +3 trained, -2 cha penalty
Jim(Cha18): 10 ranks in diplomacy, +4 cha bonus, +3 trainedThey both have +17 to diplomacy. Does Bob have to be played as introvert and socially inept, when he has the same chance to influence people as the obviously suave and gregarious Jim?
Yeah, they do need to be roleplayed differently. You even did it in your sentence there. You described Jim as the "Obviously suave and gregarious" one. Your own description reveals a bias.
It means that Bob works hard at his ability. He's not naturally suave and gregarious, he has to work at it. He more than likely doesn't act suave and gregarious. He works hard, pays attention, watches for peoples reactions, adjusts how he's delivering his thoughts. He chooses exactly the right word at exactly the right time to make the most of his words.
Jim, on the other hand, just kind of floats along on natural good looks and charm. He can say things that Bob can't, and instead of it being a social gaff everyone laughs thinking it's a joke, because nobody so charming would use such a word except as a joke. That's not to say Jim doesn't know what he's doing (he's got the same basic training as Bob), it means Jim doesn't have to work so hard at it, it's just natural to him.
These two people are different people, with different stats, different outlooks on life, and different backgrounds. They should absolutely be roleplayed in different ways.
As to the "you don't pick your stats at birth*", comment that is true, but you between birth and adulthood you have many chances to affect your stats. Reading can improve intelligence and wisdom. Being around certain people and situations can improve your charisma....
I thought that was why we get to put the stats we rolled into the slots we want? To emphasize what we did with our natural potential as we grew up? ;)
|
|
My paladin can't effectively heal himself if he's only able to use LOH two-three times a day. Dump stats are because a single 16 isn't able to portray the kind of hero we all want when we roll up a fighter. Your mind controlling wizard? good luck portraying the years of practice you put in his background with DC 14 saves, sure you can break down a door but that isn't your character at all. Not min/maxing seems more hindering to role-play when you want to be a sneaky rogue and the blind/deaf guy can find you.
But isnt that skills are for? Feats like Spell/Skill Focus and the like?
A stat-dump to me is to put it at 10...
I have this aversion to negatives...
+1 my view point exactly, although im getting ready to play a child in the next game we play, and i will have to "dump" a stat to make it more of what a child would have (high dex and high cha). but even then, everything will be at a 10, and str at 8.
Precisely. Thus, the base ability score is pretty much irrelevant beyond the bonus/penalty it gives, no?
How are these two different:
Bob(cha6): 10 ranks in diplomacy, +6 skill focus, +3 trained, -2 cha penalty
Jim(Cha18): 10 ranks in diplomacy, +4 cha bonus, +3 trainedThey both have +17 to diplomacy. Does Bob have to be played as introvert and socially inept, when he has the same chance to influence people as the obviously suave and gregarious Jim?
Yeah, they do need to be roleplayed differently. You even did it in your sentence there. You described Jim as the "Obviously suave and gregarious" one. Your own description reveals a bias.
It means that Bob works hard at his ability. He's not naturally suave and gregarious, he has to work at it. He more than likely doesn't act suave and gregarious. He works hard, pays attention, watches for peoples reactions, adjusts how he's delivering his thoughts. He chooses exactly the right word at exactly the right time to make the most of his words.
Jim, on the other hand, just kind of floats along on natural good looks and charm. He can say things that Bob can't, and instead of it being a social gaff everyone laughs thinking it's a joke, because nobody so charming would use such a word except as a joke. That's not to say Jim doesn't know what he's doing (he's got the same basic training as Bob), it means Jim doesn't have to work so hard at it, it's just natural to him.
These two people are different people, with different stats, different outlooks on life, and different backgrounds. They should absolutely be roleplayed in different ways.
"Different" is not the issue here. Obviously they should be played different. Even two Cha14 characters with the same feats and ranks should be played differently, this much is a given. But some people seem to equate the bare ability score with a person's ability to succeed. Or even first impressions.
Case in point: Tyrion Lannister. The verbose dwarf in Game of Thrones. Most people look at him and think him a weak abomination. But he has the confidence that mirrors charisma, never backs down from an argument, and invariably wins people over when he gets to say his part. He obviously have charisma, but most people have a bad first impression.
And that is the core of my argument; How can you really base anything except purely mechanical issues that demands an ability check (lifting something heavy, rolling a con check not to die) on a stat alone? There is always something modifying just about everything you do. Charisma does not equate first impression alone. You have prejudices, renown, social class, rumors, appearance, etc. I made a longish post in a similar thread about a prejudiced dwarf initially not liking elves or arcane casters no matter their charisma, but initially treats any dwarf in armor as a bro, no matter his charisma.
My paladin can't effectively heal himself if he's only able to use LOH two-three times a day. Dump stats are because a single 16 isn't able to portray the kind of hero we all want when we roll up a fighter. Your mind controlling wizard? good luck portraying the years of practice you put in his background with DC 14 saves, sure you can break down a door but that isn't your character at all. Not min/maxing seems more hindering to role-play when you want to be a sneaky rogue and the blind/deaf guy can find you.But isnt that skills are for? Feats like Spell/Skill Focus and the like?
You must understand that the difference between int16 and int20 for a lv1 wizard pretty much equals Spell Focus x8, Greater Spell Focus x8, half a Combat Casting feat, Expanded Arcana x2, and some 3.5 feats that do not exist anymore. Pretty darn harsh.
For some, lagging 4 points is tolerable. The two-handed fighter with Str14 "just" needs to have both weapon focus, weapon specialization and weapon training 1 to catch up to the base modifiers of one with Str18.
My paladin can't effectively heal himself if he's only able to use LOH two-three times a day. Dump stats are because a single 16 isn't able to portray the kind of hero we all want when we roll up a fighter. Your mind controlling wizard? good luck portraying the years of practice you put in his background with DC 14 saves, sure you can break down a door but that isn't your character at all. Not min/maxing seems more hindering to role-play when you want to be a sneaky rogue and the blind/deaf guy can find you.But isnt that skills are for? Feats like Spell/Skill Focus and the like?You must understand that the difference between int16 and int20 for a lv1 wizard pretty much equals Spell Focus x8, Greater Spell Focus x8, half a Combat Casting feat, Expanded Arcana x2, and some 3.5 feats that do not exist anymore. Pretty darn harsh.
For some, lagging 4 points is tolerable. The two-handed fighter with Str14 "just" needs to have both weapon focus, weapon specialization and weapon training 1 to catch up to the base modifiers of one with Str18.
That's what I don't get, why do they NEED to have the highest score possible? So what if they are 2 points behind the best? Do you WIN at the game when you have the highest total modifiers? Do you need these scores to even be a contender? If so, why does your DM feel like they need to WIN? Does the minor risk of a 2pt difference worry people so much? I just don't get the feeling of NEEDING to have the highest possible, like always succeeding at playing D&D is something people will remember you for.
My paladin can't effectively heal himself if he's only able to use LOH two-three times a day. Dump stats are because a single 16 isn't able to portray the kind of hero we all want when we roll up a fighter. Your mind controlling wizard? good luck portraying the years of practice you put in his background with DC 14 saves, sure you can break down a door but that isn't your character at all. Not min/maxing seems more hindering to role-play when you want to be a sneaky rogue and the blind/deaf guy can find you.But isnt that skills are for? Feats like Spell/Skill Focus and the like?You must understand that the difference between int16 and int20 for a lv1 wizard pretty much equals Spell Focus x8, Greater Spell Focus x8, half a Combat Casting feat, Expanded Arcana x2, and some 3.5 feats that do not exist anymore. Pretty darn harsh.
For some, lagging 4 points is tolerable. The two-handed fighter with Str14 "just" needs to have both weapon focus, weapon specialization and weapon training 1 to catch up to the base modifiers of one with Str18.
My response to that is why exactly does the STR 14 fighter have to catch up to anybody? He won't be able to do certain things as well as the STR 18 fighter, but he may be able to do other things like combat expertise that the higher STR fighter can't. If you are so concerned about the ability of a STR 14 vs STR 18, there is a simple answer. Instead of focusing on what he doesn't have, focus on and emphasize what he does have. If he as a good INT, combat expertise and the feats after it can be a good choice. A high DEX makes going for more AOOs or a ranged weapon a better choice than a 2 handed weapon. A good CHA means skills like diplomacy and intimidate become good options. Not all fighters have to be a massive, stupid, and antisocial deliverer of instant death. If he doesn't have an 18 STR, don't try to build him like he does, and you'll have a much easier time.
Because even with the highest casting stat in the game, with all the feats available, and all the tricks available in pathfinder you are still only looking at about a 55% success rate with spells that allow a save throw, and whereas the fighter can swing all day hit or miss, you only have those 3~5 slots at first level to really shine.
No one wants to suck regularly, and to suck at what you are supposed to be good at, when you can only do it a very few number of times per day sucks even more so.
A fighter will drop anything he can hit in one round.
A wizard might drop something with a 55% with his best spell possible, if he's lucky and can even target the creature that doesn't have immunity.
Because even with the highest casting stat in the game, with all the feats available, and all the tricks available in pathfinder you are still only looking at about a 55% success rate with spells that allow a save throw, and whereas the fighter can swing all day hit or miss, you only have those 3~5 slots at first level to really shine.
No one wants to suck regularly, and to suck at what you are supposed to be good at, when you can only do it a very few number of times per day sucks even more so.
A fighter will drop anything he can hit in one round.
A wizard might drop something with a 55% with his best spell possible, if he's lucky and can even target the creature that doesn't have immunity.
But even with a 55% success rate, 2pts on a d20 only changes that by 10%. So maxed out to be a super genius socially inept weakling (instead of low int as we are discussing casters). You go from a 45% success to 55%, a 9 in 20 chance to an 11 in 20 chance. *GASP* the horror of a 9 in 20 must be so unbearable to some. Well worth being a socially inept weakling. To me, not so much.
I usually in a 20 point buy get a 16 and two 14 as my stats and then maybe drop one down to 8 and get one 12 if my character is not the best in one area. Also having one character powerful and the rest not is not fun for the players with the weaker characters in my experience.
But even with a 55% success rate, 2pts on a d20 only changes that by 10%. So maxed out to be a super genius socially inept weakling (instead of low int as we are discussing casters). You go from a 45% success to 55%, a 9 in 20 chance to an 11 in 20 chance. *GASP* the horror of a 9 in 20 must be so unbearable to some. Well worth being a socially inept weakling. To me, not so much.
It takes you from mostly succeeding to mostly not succeeding. It also costs you 1 extra first level spell right away, and an extra spell of each level beyond first as you level, 2 extra skill points, +2 on your concentration checks, and doesn't require you to be a socially inept weakling in the slightest:
15 point buy:
8 Str 10 Dex 10 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha
Before race.
If you wanted to have some positive stats I would probably do the following:
8 Str 12 Dex 12 Con 18 Int 7 Wis 12 Cha
Now I have two dumps yes, but I could choose not to and I've even likable.
The problem is a fighter can still be a 1 round killer with the following:
14 str 14 dex 14 con 10 int 14 wis 10 cha
A wizard with:
10 str 14 dex 14 con 14 int 10 wis 14 cha
Isn't going to kill or stop anyone.
Game mechanics force spell casters to max their casting stat.
I do have a prestige class that I've homebrewed that gives other options, but as it stands it is very hard to play an arcane spell caster without a maximized casting stat, and not something I would recommend for beginning, or even experienced players -- I have done it -- it is possible -- but it isn't easy.
That's what I don't get, why do they NEED to have the highest score possible? So what if they are 2 points behind the best? Do you WIN at the game when you have the highest total modifiers? Do you need these scores to even be a contender? If so, why does your DM feel like they need to WIN? Does the minor risk of a 2pt difference worry people so much? I just don't get the feeling of NEEDING to have the highest possible, like always succeeding at playing D&D is something people will remember you for.
I think the problem is that people see those two points in different ways.
One way to see it is that 18 Int is 2 points less than 20 Int. 2 points is only a 11.11% increase in stats. Doesn't sound like much. . .
Another way to see it is that 20 Int is 25% better than 18 Int. (+5 modifier versus +4 modifier). You also get 100% more 1st level bonus spells and a 5th level bonus spell. The contribution of further stat point gains from levels is also more meaningful (that is, each modifier gain will result in you getting better modifiers). Each enhancement bonus to stats magic item will grant you a higher ability score. Inherent ability score increases (from wishes) will give you a higher overall number. And since you'll have more bonus spells quicker, the probability that you won't have a bonus spell at a specific level drops (you won't need a specific item at a specific level to get the 6th level bonus spell, assuming you put all your level ability increases in your spellcasting stat).
Spell save DCs are also a number that people can see in different ways. Let's say a creature saves on a rolled 2 versus wizard A's spell. Versus wizard B's same spell, the same creature saves on a rolled natural 1. That's only a difference of one point. But statistically, the creature will save twice as often (100% more chance of save) against wizards A's spell than against wizard B's spell. Given a large enough sample size, that can be meaningful.
Also having one character powerful and the rest not is not fun for the players with the weaker characters in my experience.
Exactly, so sadly you end up with a whole community of players that feel they NEED to eke every last point of success out of their characters. This just to be able to play on par with the players that are so obsessed with winningness that they couldn't imagine not having their scores capped. It's a viscious cycle, then the min/maxed get mad at the other players who just want to role-play, when their less than optimized characters increase the min/maxers fear of failure.
This community in turn, breed a developer's/DM's need to max out the difficulty of their game/products so that the min/maxers can still be challenged. When the last thing they want is a challenge, they want to win risk-free.
rinse, repeat, and next thing you know, the power bloat grows and overflows. This pleases the min/maxers, but makes it even harder for the role-playing side to take options that build character, instead of feeling like they have to spend everything on power just to keep up.
I do have a prestige class that I've homebrewed that gives other options, but as it stands it is very hard to play an arcane spell caster without a maximized casting stat, and not something I would recommend for beginning, or even experienced players -- I have done it -- it is possible -- but it isn't easy.
It's not extremely difficult to set up. For instance, a spellcaster focused on casting buffs really doesn't need an optimized casting stat. The ability score modifier only helps with bonus spells in that case -- and PF has loaded characters with abilities that compensate running out of spells. . .
What it *does* do is put you in a very specialized box. You have to think/pick spells/gather equipment that works within that box. An experienced player should be able to do that. . .