Actually, the statistics assume nothing more than the mechanical considerations of an average creature of similar power.
What it absolutely demonstrates, however, is that having a higher key ability means you have more options. It is true that, against a pit fiend, you likely wouldn't be tossing save or die spells at him. However, you pretty much don't even have the luxury of the option otherwise.
Personally, I tend to go for spells that don't require saves, have secondary effects even on a save, or just annoy the crap out of an opponent by throwing down a metric ton of obstacles and/or battlefield control (sometimes while not even technically being on the same plane of existence while engaging in the duel).
Also, I agree that fighting groups of enemies drastically changes things. However, it does mean that you are disadvantaged against a single target. Personally, as a GM, I tend to run larger combats with more enemies, so a lot of options are all well and good. The math is pretty empirical however that there it goes from a fair chance to succeed to an almost no chance to succeed, which ultimately leads to a potentially wasted spell/action, or a useful turn.
The bonus spells are nice too.
That being said, I've been known to play casters with lower key casting stats. This is particularly true with Clerics, since I feel less pressured to have their saving throws be good, because (honestly) the spells I will be casting probably don't require saves anyway (party buffs, summons, undead, etc). This allows a bit more comfort into other areas (such as strength, constitution, and intelligence).
I don't need to feel like I beat the system by scraping the most points out of it and took the least penalty for doing so. If I die, I die, it's a game. I already have 3 other concepts in mind for my next character. If the other players are upset at me for not trying to get as many points as I can, then I must've have stumbled into the wrong gaming group, and I'd rather find that out early.
That's cool. I've played games with NPC classed PCs, with 3 point buy. It's tons of fun. Doesn't change much though for most games.
OP, have we answered your question? (This is my first post on this thread.)
The way i deal with stat optimization and dumping is to let it happen. I think the primary issue is that optimizing for the stats that affect rules-n-rolls has a clear, on-the-table impact. CHA, in particular, is the stat associated more than any other with RP/discussion-based encounters and challenges, where the characters can do their thing without die rolling. If the low-CHA PC artfully and amusingly get through an encounter in a way that might really work, many DMs will not then burst the bubble by saying, "that's fine, but make a Diplomacy check to see if it works." Contrast that to roleplaying how many hit points you have; you can use low CON as an RP inspiration, but no amount of roleplaying (in most campaigns) allows you to ignore your HP when you get hit in combat.
I do try to tailor my games to require clues and other CHA-based advantages that they might lack come combat-time if they blow it or have no social skills, but mostly I just live with the fact that dump stats are part and parcel with a numerical game system that gives players choice, which is what it is all about in the end.
One nice thing 4E did was the choice between two stats for the three saving throws, where CHA and WIS were the choices to affect your will save. You could offer that in your PF game, but I have no idea how many or disruptive the ripples would be from the particular rock in the pond.
Well, even though it is late, I can assure you that it would lead to higher Charisma scores. Simply because when all things are considered equal, wisdom is generally ahead of Charisma because of its effect on Will saves. If you could use Charisma OR Wisdom for will saves, it would basically make it a matter of pure preference.
As far as ripples go...
Stuff like Succubi / Bards / Paladins would be harder to dominate.
Wizards would have better Reflex saves. Thug-Rogues would have better Fortitude saves.
Some more, but that's the biggest ones I can think of at 2am. Going to bed. Peace guys. ☺
|
The way i deal with stat optimization and dumping is to let it happen. I think the primary issue is that optimizing for the stats that affect rules-n-rolls has a clear, on-the-table impact. CHA, in particular, is the stat associated more than any other with RP/discussion-based encounters and challenges, where the characters can do their thing without die rolling. If the low-CHA PC artfully and amusingly get through an encounter in a way that might really work, many DMs will not then burst the bubble by saying, "that's fine, but make a Diplomacy check to see if it works." Contrast that to roleplaying how many hit points you have; you can use low CON as an RP inspiration, but no amount of roleplaying (in most campaigns) allows you to ignore your HP when you get hit in combat.I do try to tailor my games to require clues and other CHA-based advantages that they might lack come combat-time if they blow it or have no social skills, but mostly I just live with the fact that dump stats are part and parcel with a numerical game system that gives players choice, which is what it is all about in the end.
Umm wait there are games where that doesn't happen?!? Sorry, but I though a snazzy idea or speech just gave a DM given bonus to the roll...not replace it completely. And yes I have had a player come up with a GREAT idea...deliver the idea...get a +4 bonus for the idea...and flubbed the social encounter by rolling a 1 when they have zero ranks and -2 charisma bonus. In anycase, if your replace talking with the actual roll, then there is never ever a reason to ever take any of the social skills OR charisma (okay, barring sorcerer and such)...even for the party face.
|
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
Easy.
Those players don't get to be the party leaders. When NPC's interact, they instinctively assume the low charisma characters must work for the high charisma characters, or something similar.
This can be adjusted, but think of how many times NPC's interact with parties, and then think of how much the low charisma characters could miss out on by being low charisma.
Captain of the Guards approaches, points to the high Charisma player and says come sit at my table so we can discuss things, as he assumes he is the group leader...
Etc...
This happens to my low charisma players all the time in our group. It is the trade off. Often the charisma players will be able to get little advantages that add up over time.
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
Easy.
Those players don't get to be the party leaders. When NPC's interact, they instinctively assume the low charisma characters must work for the high charisma characters, or something similar.
This can be adjusted, but think of how many times NPC's interact with parties, and then think of how much the low charisma characters could miss out on by being low charisma.
Captain of the Guards approaches, points to the high Charisma player and says come sit at my table so we can discuss things, as he assumes he is the group leader...
Etc...
This happens to my low charisma players all the time in our group. It is the trade off. Often the charisma players will be able to get little advantages that add up over time.
Keep in mind, for those that are new to the game, this is by no means the way the standard game is played.
One mildly annoying thing about 3.x that Pathfinder didn't fix: each class has clear preferences for dump stats. Playing a fighter? Put that low roll into Int or Cha. A wizard? You won't mind being a bit feeble and unpopular if it gets you the high Int for bonus spells and better DCs, and the Con and Dex that will keep you alive.The problem is, after a while almost all PC fighters have crappy Cha. Yes, you might get the occasional maverick who'll pump it up high enough to get a positive modifier. But the game itself discourages this. In a 15-point buy, putting 2 points into Cha when you could nerf it down to 7 and gain 4... well, that's the difference between having either 13 or 19 points to spend on everything else. Cha is just not that useful for a fighter. The maverick is just going to be savagely punished for his folly, as his fighter will lag in some combination of AC, hp, attack rolls and damage.
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. The way I deal with it is to accept it. In real life, people self-select occupations that they are suited for. You made it clear that you are not looking for why the game mechanically favors optimization. In real life, most prestigious occupations require optimization. In my opinion, this is one of the realistic aspects of 3.X/Pathfinder.
Dilbert comic strip thrives on the joke that engineers are low charisma, high intelligence geeks out there that should be running the universe. The joke is funny because most of us know such a person. There are occasionally high charisma engineers, just as there are brilliant football players, but it's not a job requirement. A football player can spend his free time reading Nietzsche if he so chooses, but there's no incentive. And so I haven't heard a lot of athletes quoting philosophers.
It makes perfect sense to me that a person with fantastical strength, exceptional health, good reflexes, but no natural charm would choose to be a fighter. If they were born with charm, then they'd likely choose a slightly different vocation, like Paladin. Why does that bother you?
All of that assumes two things:
1) You are using spells that require saving throws
2) You are battling a single creature
Actually neither of those matter -- the difference in spells per day allow is huge and there are multi target SoL spells as well -- so one target or not you want maximum efficiency -- because each spell cast is another spell wasted -- if it is going to be spent it needs to be spent to best effect. Higher caster stats raise the chance of maximum effect and give you more spells per day.
Unlike those with unlimited action resources (such as a fighter swinging his sword) the spell caster is limited -- if he doesn't want to be the party shmuck then he needs to have those he does have be successful as often as possible.
a lot of sane, calm, great and wise stuff
I wish more people had your attitude and view on the game and playing the game. Hard core Power gamers will probably never understand you. Reading your posts in this thread has me happy, and I will try adopt your view on how this game can be played.
/Kind regards Zark.
The basic idea is that you want your character to be able to battle. It's natural to boost stuff that helps in battle.
So if one complains that fighters don't up their cha, make it useful for some builds, make intimidating and feinting stronger choices. In this case for example, there are these critical condition skills - do something like them for indimidating or feinting instead of critical hits and the intelligent, charismatic fighter is born.
That was one example, you can do the same for most class/dumpstat combinations (one thing could be writing a guide about melee oriented shifter wizards that favor strength - in this case it might be a good idea for the DM to allow natural spell for beast shape instead of just wild shape)
|
|
Keep in mind, for those that are new to the game, this is by no means the way the standard game is played.
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
Easy.
Those players don't get to be the party leaders. When NPC's interact, they instinctively assume the low charisma characters must work for the high charisma characters, or something similar.
This can be adjusted, but think of how many times NPC's interact with parties, and then think of how much the low charisma characters could miss out on by being low charisma.
Captain of the Guards approaches, points to the high Charisma player and says come sit at my table so we can discuss things, as he assumes he is the group leader...
Etc...
This happens to my low charisma players all the time in our group. It is the trade off. Often the charisma players will be able to get little advantages that add up over time.
Wait...there is a standard game? Since when?!?
Wait...there is a standard game? Since when?!?Keep in mind, for those that are new to the game, this is by no means the way the standard game is played.
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
Easy.
Those players don't get to be the party leaders. When NPC's interact, they instinctively assume the low charisma characters must work for the high charisma characters, or something similar.
This can be adjusted, but think of how many times NPC's interact with parties, and then think of how much the low charisma characters could miss out on by being low charisma.
Captain of the Guards approaches, points to the high Charisma player and says come sit at my table so we can discuss things, as he assumes he is the group leader...
Etc...
This happens to my low charisma players all the time in our group. It is the trade off. Often the charisma players will be able to get little advantages that add up over time.
Since they made things like SRD/PRD, and rule sets. Y'know, the stuff that is the standard.
EDIT: To be a little clearer, allow me to elaborate. Ciretose explained that in his games the NPCs react poorly or outright ignore players based on their ability scores. This is how Ciretose plays his game.However, that has nothing to do with the way the standard game works. Notice there's nothing suggesting or ruling that says this is intended, or even a good idea. It is effectively a house rule, and while it may have merit in the discussion, it is akin to mentioning "called shots" as a balancing feature.
Q: Hey, wizards in my party are stealing the show from the Fighters. How do other GMs deal with this?
A: Well in my group the Fighters all make called shots for the head, and because of their improved fighting ability, they hit enemies in the head and kill them faster than wizard fireballs and such.
Would be a similar example. It might work great for that group, but it's a deviation from the standard (there's no called shot rules), and such should be considered when advice is taken or given.
All of that assumes two things:
1) You are using spells that require saving throws
2) You are battling a single creature
Actually neither of those matter -- the difference in spells per day allow is huge and there are multi target SoL spells as well -- so one target or not you want maximum efficiency -- because each spell cast is another spell wasted -- if it is going to be spent it needs to be spent to best effect. Higher caster stats raise the chance of maximum effect and give you more spells per day.
Unlike those with unlimited action resources (such as a fighter swinging his sword) the spell caster is limited -- if he doesn't want to be the party shmuck then he needs to have those he does have be successful as often as possible.
The reason it matters is because it really isn't necessary overall. Yes, it certainly helps, I will never say that it doesn't. But does it really matter if your spells have a DC of 29 or 30 or 31? Could you take start with a 16 primary stat and a 14 Charisma instead (of course if Charisma is your primary stat, this whole thing becomes a bit moot)? Would your character be more rounded and be able to do more than just cast combat spells? You will never have enough spells to rely on them for everything if the GM uses a wide variety of encounters, from social to combat to hazards and traps.
Note that I will always agree that a higher casting stat gives you more benefits. I just don't think that you must have the highest casting stat possible from the start to be playable. I think you can start with a lower stat and still have a fun and playable character that isn't a hindrance to the party.
a lot of sane, calm, great and wise stuffI wish more people had your attitude and view on the game and playing the game. Hard core Power gamers will probably never understand you. Reading your posts in this thread has me happy, and I will try adopt your view on how this game can be played.
/Kind regards Zark.
I used to be more of a number cruncher and I still like to build powerful characters when I get to play (which is maybe once a year). I just like to be good at more than just one or two things. I have found that my players enjoy a game that they can immerse themselves in beyond just combat. That's what my players want but I don't think that's how everyone should play.
I don't think that there is really much difference between my games, with more social interactions, and combat heavy games. In both, the players have learned what the GM is going to focus on and the GM tailors the game to his players. I have a different style, but I don't like to think that mine is better or worse than theirs.
The turning point for me was in a 3.5 game where a friend of mine dumped everything he had into a two-handed warrior. He had one trick, he could beat the crap out of anything. Anything except the single rust monster that destroyed his weapon in the very first encounter. We were too far from town to head back and re-equip him. I started to make my characters decent at a variety of things instead of awesome at one or two. I have had greater success, even in more "power gamer" styles games. I always have something to do.
a lot of sane, calm, great and wise stuffI wish more people had your attitude and view on the game and playing the game. Hard core Power gamers will probably never understand you. Reading your posts in this thread has me happy, and I will try adopt your view on how this game can be played.
/Kind regards Zark.
I used to be more of a number cruncher and I still like to build powerful characters when I get to play (which is maybe once a year). I just like to be good at more than just one or two things. I have found that my players enjoy a game that they can immerse themselves in beyond just combat. That's what my players want but I don't think that's how everyone should play.
I don't think that there is really much difference between my games, with more social interactions, and combat heavy games. In both, the players have learned what the GM is going to focus on and the GM tailors the game to his players. I have a different style, but I don't like to think that mine is better or worse than theirs.
The turning point for me was in a 3.5 game where a friend of mine dumped everything he had into a two-handed warrior. He had one trick, he could beat the crap out of anything. Anything except the single rust monster that destroyed his weapon in the very first encounter. We were too far from town to head back and re-equip him. I started to make my characters decent at a variety of things instead of awesome at one or two. I have had greater success, even in more "power gamer" styles games. I always have something to do.
If I may ask, what else would you expect a fighter to do if not beat things with his weapon?
On a side note, I would have said "Ok, that sucks...", then pulled out my trusty quarterstaff or picked up a large stick of quarterstaff size and shape, or a club (1d6 + 1.5 attack power + power attack + greater magic weapon? :D) and kept going.
|
|
Wait...there is a standard game? Since when?!?
Since they made things like SRD/PRD, and rule sets. Y'know, the stuff that is the standard.
EDIT: To be a little clearer, allow me to elaborate. Ciretose explained that in his games the NPCs react poorly or outright ignore players based on their ability scores. This is how Ciretose plays his game.However, that has nothing to do with the way the standard game works. Notice there's nothing suggesting or ruling that says this is intended, or even a good idea. It is effectively a house rule, and while it may have merit in the discussion, it is akin to mentioning "called shots" as a balancing feature.
Q: Hey, wizards in my party are stealing the show from the Fighters. How do other GMs deal with this?
A: Well in my group the Fighters all make called shots for the head, and because of their improved fighting ability, they hit enemies in the head and kill them faster than wizard fireballs and such.
Would be a similar example. It might work great for that group, but it's a deviation from the standard (there's no called shot rules), and such should be considered when advice is taken or given.
Not even remotely the same. Sorry, but ciritose (as much as I disagree with him at times) IS playing your version of the "standard" game since he isn't breaking or changing ANY rules. The way NPC react to PC is purely DM choice territory. Wat you said is a mechanical houserule. Ciritose is NOT doing houserules. It's the same as if I decided that the vain villianesse chooses to have an obession with the higgest charisma party member. This is why there is no such thing as a stanard game...even if one is playing strickly by RAW. For instance ravingdork playes strickly by RAW...so do I in one of the my groups. I can pretty much assure you that our games are vastly different from how much we argue.
Not even remotely the same. Sorry, but ciritose (as much as I disagree with him at times) IS playing your version of the "standard" game since he isn't breaking or changing ANY rules. The way NPC react to PC is purely DM choice territory. Wat you said is a mechanical houserule. Ciritose is NOT doing houserules. It's the same as if I decided that the vain villianesse chooses to have an obession with the higgest charisma party member. This is why there is no such thing as a stanard game...even if one is playing strickly by RAW. For instance ravingdork playes strickly by RAW...so do I in one of the my groups. I can pretty much assure you that our games are vastly different from how much we argue.
When you are making and/or using rules that don't exist, you are deviating from the standard. This is fine, we all do it in our games from time to time (I have a number of house rules that make alignment less conflicting to roleplaying, for example).
Likewise, if the way NPCs react is based on the metagame Charisma, this is deviating from the standard. There's nothing that says this is out it is done. Likewise, Ravingdork plays by the RAW, but your gaming styles seem to class. You could be playing the same game, but having a different pace or focus.
Ciretose is using a house rule, or he is metagaming, or he is using GM fiat outside of the standard. Given that his NPCs reaction is entirely or at least heavily based on a game statistic, it seems more like a house rule.
There is a distinction.
If I may ask, what else would you expect a fighter to do if not beat things with his weapon?
I expect him to be a character with more options than just "I hit things." The character is supposed to represent a living, breathing person in the campaign. If the only thing he can do is beat things with his two-handed sword, then it is simply one-dimensional.
On a side note, I would have said "Ok, that sucks...", then pulled out my trusty quarterstaff or picked up a large stick of quarterstaff size and shape, or a club (1d6 + 1.5 attack power + power attack + greater magic weapon? :D) and kept going.
That was the problem though, he didn't even have that as a back up. He had no ranged weapons. No back up weapons. There wasn't really much he could use as an improvised weapon simply due to location. His intelligence was less than 10 and he wasn't human so he only had 1 skill point per level. I don't even remember which skill he was focusing on. I do remember that it wasn't going to be very helpful. We rarely have any divine casters in our groups. None of us like clerics or druids.
This particular player was known for his temper tantrums. We watched him try to DM once. He got frustrated with a module and how we were reacting to what was happening. He response was to tear the module in half and storm off. He felt his character was gimped because he lost the only thing he focused on.
When you are making and/or using rules that don't exist, you are deviating from the standard. This is fine, we all do it in our games from time to time (I have a number of house rules that make alignment less conflicting to roleplaying, for example).
Likewise, if the way NPCs react is based on the metagame Charisma, this is deviating from the standard. There's nothing that says this is out it is done. Likewise, Ravingdork plays by the RAW, but your gaming styles seem to class. You could be playing the same game, but having a different pace or focus.
Ciretose is using a house rule, or he is metagaming, or he is using GM fiat outside of the standard. Given that his NPCs reaction is entirely or at least heavily based on a game statistic, it seems more like a house rule.
There is a distinction.
I have to disagree here. Reacting to Charisma isn't a metagame concept. Ciretose is having the NPCs react to a character based on their Charisma. Just like an NPC would walk up to the strongest looking character to ask him to help move a cart. Why would one be metagaming and the other not?
The reason it matters is because it really isn't necessary overall. Yes, it certainly helps, I will never say that it doesn't. But does it really matter if your spells have a DC of 29 or 30 or 31? Could you take start with a 16 primary stat and a 14 Charisma instead (of course if Charisma is your primary stat, this whole thing becomes a bit moot)? Would your character be more rounded and be able to do more than just cast combat spells? You will never have enough spells to rely on them for everything if the GM uses a wide variety of encounters, from social to combat to hazards and traps.Note that I will always agree that a higher casting stat gives you more benefits. I just don't think that you must have the highest casting stat possible from the start to be playable. I think you can start with a lower stat and still have a fun and playable character that isn't a hindrance to the party.
I never said it was the only way to be playable -- however it is the easiest way to be sure you'll do your job well as a caster.
Consider why people with clerics that start with "only" a 14~16 wisdom thing their spells are no good -- because the save throws are "too easy".
The difference between a DC 29 and a DC 31 and the extra spells and the extra skills and the better concentration check all together is what makes the highest casting stat possible so worthwhile. The problem is that unlike the fighter where a higher strength only helps with part of his job, a higher intelligence helps with all of the wizard's job.
The difference between an intelligence 16 and an intelligence 20 isn't just 10% on save throws -- it's also 2 spell slots -- a first level and a fifth level. The difference between an 18 and a 22 is a second level and a sixth level slot. Between 20 and 24 is a third level and seventh level slot. Between 24 and 28 is a first level slot, a fourth level slot and a ninth level slot.
Just having those extra higher level slots can be huge, and the higher up you go the bigger the difference those 4 points make. Again at stat 24 compared to 28 it's a first level, fourth and ninth level spell slot -- that's huge in and of itself, but it's also 10% better chance on your DC's, +2 on concentration checks, 2 extra skill points per level, and if you take spell mastery 2 extra spells mastered per feat spent, not to mention more languages.
For the points I could use having a 16 dex and a 16 intelligence which would give me a +3 on the dex checks, I can instead have an 20 intelligence and 13 dex. I by level 6 I can have all the difference on skills completely gone just from skill points, and pass that I pull ahead. The same happens to charisma too (which combined with its lack of influence on initiative a save throw or AC means that it is incredible easy to dump).
The problem (for the wizard at least) is that not taking a higher intelligence in order to be more "well rounded" ends up costing you the ability to be more well rounded, since you have less spells, have less option to use specific spell types, and have less skill points.
Now can you play with a less than maximum intelligence? Yes. Can you do well with it as a wizard? Sure -- but you would still have been infinitely better off with a higher intelligence than the other stats. Because the benefits of intelligence are so loaded for a wizard.
Finally consider your thought of multiple opponents:
If I use stinking cloud with a 16 intelligence the DC is 16. If I use it with a 20 intelligence then the DC is 18 -- for all opponents in the cloud -- my chance of success didn't go up 10%, it went up 10% per opponent -- meaning that I have (opponents-1)*.1+.1 greater success rate than the intelligence 16 wizard.
I'm not going to quote everything because we don't disagree on the math.
For the points I could use having a 16 dex and a 16 intelligence which would give me a +3 on the dex checks, I can instead have an 20 intelligence and 13 dex. I by level 6 I can have all the difference on skills completely gone just from skill points, and pass that I pull ahead. The same happens to charisma too (which combined with its lack of influence on initiative a save throw or AC means that it is incredible easy to dump).
I don't think that you have enough skill points to pull ahead. How many skill points would you have and which ones would you be focused on?
I do agree that there isn't a lot for Charisma, but not counting the Craft skills, Profession, Knowledge, or Perform skills, it does have the second largest impact on skills. For every positive modifier to Charisma, that's like getting 7 free skill points. All but two of the Charisma-based skills can be used untrained while nearly all the Intelligence-based skills require at least some training. Charisma has a higher pay-off for skills than Intelligence for the lower skill point characters.
The problem (for the wizard at least) is that not taking a higher intelligence in order to be more "well rounded" ends up costing you the ability to be more well rounded, since you have less spells, have less option to use specific spell types, and have less skill points.
I highly doubt that the difference between a 15 and an 18 Intelligence is that significant.
What do we get overall? Let's assume that both characters put every bonus they can into Intelligence so that by level 20 they are still only 3 points apart. That is only a +2 difference in saves. That is 40 skill points but if you want your wizard to be good at Knowledge (6 different skills) and Spellcraft (just to identify magic and craft some items), you don't really have the skill points to do much else. You may still want to put a few points into Fly. That's 8 different skills. While 7 of them are Intelligence-based, you still don't have as many skill points as you might want. In the end, you aren't significantly better than the wizard who started with a 15. You are better, but not significantly.
Now can you play with a less than maximum intelligence? Yes. Can you do well with it as a wizard? Sure -- but you would still have been infinitely better off with a higher intelligence than the other stats. Because the benefits of intelligence are so loaded for a wizard.
The assumption was that you must play with a maxed out Intelligence, which I think we both agree is not the case. I have never played with a maxed out Intelligence and I have never had a problem. I would never say that you are infinitely better off with a higher intelligence. I would say that you are at an advantage.
|
|
Keep in mind, for those that are new to the game, this is by no means the way the standard game is played.
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
Easy.
Those players don't get to be the party leaders. When NPC's interact, they instinctively assume the low charisma characters must work for the high charisma characters, or something similar.
This can be adjusted, but think of how many times NPC's interact with parties, and then think of how much the low charisma characters could miss out on by being low charisma.
Captain of the Guards approaches, points to the high Charisma player and says come sit at my table so we can discuss things, as he assumes he is the group leader...
Etc...
This happens to my low charisma players all the time in our group. It is the trade off. Often the charisma players will be able to get little advantages that add up over time.
Keep in mind, for those that are new to the game, that Ashiel speaks only for the way Ashiel plays, which generally isn't according to the rules.
skills
Which is points that you wouldn't have had at all if you didn't have the intelligence score. At which point you are now ahead -- the other wizard wouldn't have even had the option.
Also the assumption was never that you [i]must[/b] play with a maxed out casting stat -- it was that a maxed out casting stat is significantly better for the character than a 'well rounded' character as a wizard.
Dex is nice for crafting -- but a single rank means that I have a +5 bonus (total from class bonus, rank and +1 dex bonus) instead of the simple +3 from dex alone.
|
|
Since they made things like SRD/PRD, and rule sets. Y'know, the stuff that is the standard.
EDIT: To be a little clearer, allow me to elaborate. Ciretose explained that in his games the NPCs react poorly or outright ignore players based on their ability scores. This is how Ciretose plays his game.However, that has nothing to do with the way the standard game works. Notice there's nothing suggesting or ruling that says this is intended, or even a good idea. It is effectively a house rule, and while it may have merit in the discussion, it is akin to mentioning "called shots" as a balancing feature.
Q: Hey, wizards in my party are stealing the show from the Fighters. How do other GMs...
Uh, no. I generally ignore your posts at this point actually.
But since I was mentioned by name this is how I play.
The NPC is actually effected by the Charisma of the characters.
Crazy I know, but your ability scores actually effect the game.
Weird.
So an ability score that effects personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would actually effect how NPC's view your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Crazy...
skillsWhich is points that you wouldn't have had at all if you didn't have the intelligence score. At which point you are now ahead -- the other wizard wouldn't have even had the option.
Also the assumption was never that you [i]must[/b] play with a maxed out casting stat -- it was that a maxed out casting stat is significantly better for the character than a 'well rounded' character as a wizard.
Dex is nice for crafting -- but a single rank means that I have a +5 bonus (total from class bonus, rank and +1 dex bonus) instead of the simple +3 from dex alone.
It wasn't the assumption from you. It is the general assumption from previous posters and far too many people on the boards.
I think we are using two different definitions of "significant."
Your definition: "having or expressing a meaning; indicative"
My definition: "Fairly large in amount or quantity"
Both are correct but I think we are arguing past each other because we aren't using the same meaning.
Small bonuses, even many of them spread out, are not significant by the definition I am using. Nice, but not significant.
Besides, what would your wizard do when confronted with a role playing encounter that requires the use of some Charisma? He can't always cast spells in these circumstances.
Keep in mind, for those that are new to the game, that Ashiel speaks only for the way Ashiel plays, which generally isn't according to the rules.
Indeed. I have a variety of house rules. I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that they were the way the game runs. In fact, if I were writing the post you did, I would have said "I handle it like this".
Whereas, sorry, there is nothing in the game that mentions anything about NPCs reacting to your Charisma.
Uh, no. I generally ignore your posts at this point actually.
But since I was mentioned by name this is how I play.
The NPC is actually effected by the Charisma of the characters.
Crazy I know, but your ability scores actually effect the game.
Weird.
So an ability score that effects personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would actually effect how NPC's view your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Crazy...
Here, you again say this is how it works, as opposed to this is how you handle it. Someone new to the game may read this and believe this is the standard, the norm, but it is not. It is neither said, nor implied, nor is there any guidelines at all to suggest how much then numbers mean, and you are inventing reactions and scales that don't exist.
The best that you have ever mustered on this topic is that it doesn't say much about this topic. The closest thing we have to go with for any form of NPC interaction rules is found in the social skill rules, and anything else is added into it, and thus entirely custom.
Which is exactly what I said.
|
|
Being the pot, calling the kettle black...again...
You shoe horn the rules so you don't have to take penalties and can expand skill checks to cover things not governed anywhere in the skills and I'll actually consider that phrases like "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." means that the rules are that charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I am crazy like that.
If I may ask, what else would you expect a fighter to do if not beat things with his weapon?I expect him to be a character with more options than just "I hit things." The character is supposed to represent a living, breathing person in the campaign. If the only thing he can do is beat things with his two-handed sword, then it is simply one-dimensional.
Fair enough, though at some point, that becomes a greater request than is fair. At low levels, you can easily be like that kid on Home Alone and start getting clever with all kinds of mundane things, but as the game gets higher and higher, the level of required competency in any given field increases. Ergo, a fighter without a weapon is more or less just along for the ride (unless they have invested in some clever magic items). Warblades from the Tome of Battle have less trouble in this regard, since they can do more that "hit it with a stick".
On a side note, I would have said "Ok, that sucks...", then pulled out my trusty quarterstaff or picked up a large stick of quarterstaff size and shape, or a club (1d6 + 1.5 attack power + power attack + greater magic weapon? :D) and kept going.That was the problem though, he didn't even have that as a back up. He had no ranged weapons. No back up weapons. There wasn't really much he could use as an improvised weapon simply due to location. His intelligence was less than 10 and he wasn't human so he only had 1 skill point per level. I don't even remember which skill he was focusing on. I do remember that it wasn't going to be very helpful. We rarely have any divine casters in our groups. None of us like clerics or druids.
Well, I always carry a backup weapon or three. Poor planning.
This particular player was known for his temper tantrums. We watched him try to DM once. He got frustrated with a module and how we were reacting to what was happening. He response was to tear the module in half and storm off. He felt his character was gimped because he lost the only thing he focused on.
This sounds like the majority of the problem. Bad player, and worse, it sounds like he needs psychological help. Honestly, I'd tell him to get a grip or get out. From the sounds of it, he wasn't even a good at being a power gamer, let alone a good player.
I have to disagree here. Reacting to Charisma isn't a metagame concept. Ciretose is having the NPCs react to a character based on their Charisma. Just like an NPC would walk up to the strongest looking character to ask him to help move a cart. Why would one be metagaming and the other not?When you are making and/or using rules that don't exist, you are deviating from the standard. This is fine, we all do it in our games from time to time (I have a number of house rules that make alignment less conflicting to roleplaying, for example).
Likewise, if the way NPCs react is based on the metagame Charisma, this is deviating from the standard. There's nothing that says this is out it is done. Likewise, Ravingdork plays by the RAW, but your gaming styles seem to class. You could be playing the same game, but having a different pace or focus.
Ciretose is using a house rule, or he is metagaming, or he is using GM fiat outside of the standard. Given that his NPCs reaction is entirely or at least heavily based on a game statistic, it seems more like a house rule.
There is a distinction.
Actually he(NPC) can't react to the charisma because he does not know what it is. If the PC, who should be controlled by the player, does not make any obscene actions then there really is no basis for a negative reaction.
Strength can be judged by appearance most of the time. That is why. There are always exceptions, but normally the guy with the muscles will be stronger than one that is not well built.
Being the pot, calling the kettle black...again...
You shoe horn the rules so you don't have to take penalties and can expand skill checks to cover things not governed anywhere in the skills and I'll actually consider that phrases like "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." means that the rules are that charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I am crazy like that.
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
Does that mean you use wisdom to over ride a players bad decision or make decisions for them?
|
|
I have to disagree here. Reacting to Charisma isn't a metagame concept. Ciretose is having the NPCs react to a character based on their Charisma. Just like an NPC would walk up to the strongest looking character to ask him to help move a cart. Why would one be metagaming and the other not?When you are making and/or using rules that don't exist, you are deviating from the standard. This is fine, we all do it in our games from time to time (I have a number of house rules that make alignment less conflicting to roleplaying, for example).
Likewise, if the way NPCs react is based on the metagame Charisma, this is deviating from the standard. There's nothing that says this is out it is done. Likewise, Ravingdork plays by the RAW, but your gaming styles seem to class. You could be playing the same game, but having a different pace or focus.
Ciretose is using a house rule, or he is metagaming, or he is using GM fiat outside of the standard. Given that his NPCs reaction is entirely or at least heavily based on a game statistic, it seems more like a house rule.
There is a distinction.
Actually he(NPC) can't react to the charisma because he does not know what it is. If the PC, who should be controlled by the player, does not make any obscene actions then there really is no basis for a negative reaction.
Strength can be judged by appearance most of the time. That is why. There are always exceptions, but normally the guy with the muscles will be stronger than one that is not well built.
The NPC is run by the DM. Of course it reacts to the Charisma. It governs a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
You are arguing strength is easier for an NPC to discern than appearance and personal magnetism?
|
|
Being the pot, calling the kettle black...again...
You shoe horn the rules so you don't have to take penalties and can expand skill checks to cover things not governed anywhere in the skills and I'll actually consider that phrases like "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." means that the rules are that charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I am crazy like that.
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
Does that mean you use wisdom to over ride a players bad decision or make decisions for them?
On occasion when a player is about to do something very unwise I will give them a Wisdom check to realize they are about to do something unwise.
Same with an intelligence check if the character is smarter than the player playing them.
Not regularly, but yes.
And I'm not the only one, since these kinds of checks pop up in Adventure Paths as well.
Being the pot, calling the kettle black...again...
You shoe horn the rules so you don't have to take penalties and can expand skill checks to cover things not governed anywhere in the skills and I'll actually consider that phrases like "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." means that the rules are that charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I am crazy like that.
This would be a very compelling argument if you had something to back it up. Here, I shall request what is specifically needed, to aid you in your task. Please cite the section that explains what the expected reaction to a Charisma 6 character is, what it means, and how it appears on a character, as per the rules. Then, please contrast this with a Charisma 17 character or creature, and the definitions thereof.
Thank you in advance.
How do other DMs deal with this?
Well, my DM had us roll 5d6 drop 2 5 times (pick the best) for each stat. It has led to good stats all around. Our fighters are charismatic heroes, not man-children who couldn't pick their own noses without assistance.
It has been fun.
|
|
Being the pot, calling the kettle black...again...
You shoe horn the rules so you don't have to take penalties and can expand skill checks to cover things not governed anywhere in the skills and I'll actually consider that phrases like "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." means that the rules are that charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I am crazy like that.
This would be a very compelling argument if you had something to back it up. Here, I shall request what is specifically needed, to aid you in your task. Please cite the section that explains what the expected reaction to a Charisma 6 character is, what it means, and how it appears on a character, as per the rules. Then, please contrast this with a Charisma 17 character or creature, and the definitions thereof.
Thank you in advance.
To which I respond
http://unfollowingjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Ricky-Gervais-On-Bei ng-An-Atheist.jpg
Or more directly, no.
The rules says what charisma governs. The default for things not covered by skills falls to the appropriate ability.
The burden is not on me to disprove anything. The game doesn't say how an NPC should react to being defecated upon, but as a DM I can muddle through such things.
I have to disagree here. Reacting to Charisma isn't a metagame concept. Ciretose is having the NPCs react to a character based on their Charisma. Just like an NPC would walk up to the strongest looking character to ask him to help move a cart. Why would one be metagaming and the other not?When you are making and/or using rules that don't exist, you are deviating from the standard. This is fine, we all do it in our games from time to time (I have a number of house rules that make alignment less conflicting to roleplaying, for example).
Likewise, if the way NPCs react is based on the metagame Charisma, this is deviating from the standard. There's nothing that says this is out it is done. Likewise, Ravingdork plays by the RAW, but your gaming styles seem to class. You could be playing the same game, but having a different pace or focus.
Ciretose is using a house rule, or he is metagaming, or he is using GM fiat outside of the standard. Given that his NPCs reaction is entirely or at least heavily based on a game statistic, it seems more like a house rule.
There is a distinction.
Actually he(NPC) can't react to the charisma because he does not know what it is. If the PC, who should be controlled by the player, does not make any obscene actions then there really is no basis for a negative reaction.
Strength can be judged by appearance most of the time. That is why. There are always exceptions, but normally the guy with the muscles will be stronger than one that is not well built.The NPC is run by the DM. Of course it reacts to the Charisma. It governs a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
You are arguing strength is easier for an NPC to discern than appearance and personal magnetism?
I am saying it is easier to determine than someone is stronger than average before they do anything to represent that strength than it is to determine if they are charismatic.
How can you react to a PC's charisma before it has a chance to act? Appearance is a part of charisma sometimes, but even ugly monsters like hags can be powerful in their persona.
|
|
I am saying it is easier to determine than someone is stronger than average before they do anything to represent that strength than it is to determine if they are charismatic.
How can you react to a PC's charisma before it has a chance to act? Appearance is a part of charisma sometimes, but even ugly monsters like hags can be powerful in their persona.
Same way you walk into a room and can usually tell who is in charge before anyone explains it to you.
That is what Charisma is. It is the natural unspoken quality someone has that lets you know that they are in charge.
This is why the diplomacy check specifically says it changes initial impressions, not creates them.
Being the pot, calling the kettle black...again...
You shoe horn the rules so you don't have to take penalties and can expand skill checks to cover things not governed anywhere in the skills and I'll actually consider that phrases like "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." means that the rules are that charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I am crazy like that.
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
Does that mean you use wisdom to over ride a players bad decision or make decisions for them?
On occasion when a player is about to do something very unwise I will give them a Wisdom check to realize they are about to do something unwise.
Same with an intelligence check if the character is smarter than the player playing them.
Not regularly, but yes.
And I'm not the only one, since these kinds of checks pop up in Adventure Paths as well.
I think it is a nice way to reward the player, but I don't see it supported by the rules.
PS:I do the same thing with wisdom and int checks.edit:Rolling to make a check is not the same as taking over a character. I was saying do you just say "your character does ___". I know you did not say you take over a PC's character if they have a low charisma so I will explain again.
NPC: I don't like PC X
Now in order for PC X to not be liked he had to do something, even if it was subconscious. If the player did not make him do it then the GM did.
Even if that something was wearing clothes that make him look out of place which took happened well before he met the NPC.
|
|
I think it is a nice way to reward the player, but I don't see it supported by the rules.
PS:I do the same thing with wisdom and int checks.edit:Rolling to make a check is not the same as taking over a character. I was saying do you just say "your character does ___". I know you did not say you take over a PC's character if they have a low charisma so I will explain again.
NPC: I don't like PC X
Now in order for PC X to not be liked he had to do something, even if it was subconscious. If the player did not make him do it then the GM did.
Even if that something was wearing clothes that make him look out of place which took happened well before he met the NPC.
You assume the negative.
The example I use most often is the NPC trying to figure out who is in charge of your party and assuming it is the one with the highest charisma.
Which is exactly what Charisma governs.
NPCs should be drawn to the higher charisma characters. That is what "Personal Magnetism" is.
Should the DM roll dice to see who the monster attacks first? No, they should consider the monsters intelligence and the party make up and go based on that.
The DM controls the NPC, and will react to the PC initially based first on circumstances (if you just saved their life, they like you. If you just killed there child...not so much) but also on the charisma of the characters they meet.
I think it is a nice way to reward the player, but I don't see it supported by the rules.
PS:I do the same thing with wisdom and int checks.edit:Rolling to make a check is not the same as taking over a character. I was saying do you just say "your character does ___". I know you did not say you take over a PC's character if they have a low charisma so I will explain again.
NPC: I don't like PC X
Now in order for PC X to not be liked he had to do something, even if it was subconscious. If the player did not make him do it then the GM did.
Even if that something was wearing clothes that make him look out of place which took happened well before he met the NPC.
You assume the negative.
The example I use most often is the NPC trying to figure out who is in charge of your party and assuming it is the one with the highest charisma.
Which is exactly what Charisma governs.
NPCs should be drawn to the higher charisma characters. That is what "Personal Magnetism" is.
Should the DM roll dice to see who the monster attacks first? No, they should consider the monsters intelligence and the party make up and go based on that.
The DM controls the NPC, and will react to the PC initially based first on circumstances (if you just saved their life, they like you. If you just killed there child...not so much) but also on the charisma of the characters they meet.
So there are no auto-negative reactions?
This would be a very compelling argument if you had something to back it up. Here, I shall request what is specifically needed, to aid you in your task. Please cite the section that explains what the expected reaction to a Charisma 6 character is, what it means, and how it appears on a character, as per the rules. Then, please contrast this with a Charisma 17 character or creature, and the definitions thereof.
Thank you in advance.
To which I respond
http://unfollowingjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Ricky-Gervais-On-Bei ng-An-Atheist.jpg
Or more directly, no.
The rules says what charisma governs. The default for things not covered by skills falls to the appropriate ability.
The burden is not on me to disprove anything. The game doesn't say how an NPC should react to being defecated upon, but as a DM I can muddle through such things.
Ah, but the burden of proof does fall before you. You say that Charisma affects the initial reaction of the NPCs, and you say this is the norm. I asked you to show me where it says this, and you attempt to dodge the question and cite atheist catchphrases that are incorrect in the context of your statement.
You are saying this is the norm (why else would you argue that it is), and yet you refuse to provide so much as a shred saying exactly what a 6 Charisma means, how it makes people react to them, or how that relates differently from a Charisma of 17, as I requested. Also, as you are arguing that this is part of the standard game, you must provide proof.
Likewise, your defecation example is amazingly poor. You are describing a reaction to an action. Charisma is not an action, but influencing them, as described by the rules. If I'm incorrect, please show me why.
You may wish to learn more about the burden of proof, logical discussion, hypothetical, and allegorical examples. However, please consider researching these afterwords, as I would very much like to see the citations, and I'd hate to keep it waiting.
EDIT: Just to show I'm a good sport, I'll provide a piece of proof towards my side.
Charisma 6 has a -2 penalty towards social interactions related to the Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate skills. Charisma 17 has a +3 bonus towards social interactions related to the Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate skills. We can see that this provides a 25% difference between social skill interactions. However, it does not detail how it affects initial starting attitudes. Since it provides nothing concerning initial starting attitudes, nor examples of what a 6 Charisma means in relation to a 17 Charisma, we can conclude that there is no default effects based on the raw number.
Your turn.
|
|
I think it is a nice way to reward the player, but I don't see it supported by the rules.
PS:I do the same thing with wisdom and int checks.edit:Rolling to make a check is not the same as taking over a character. I was saying do you just say "your character does ___". I know you did not say you take over a PC's character if they have a low charisma so I will explain again.
NPC: I don't like PC X
Now in order for PC X to not be liked he had to do something, even if it was subconscious. If the player did not make him do it then the GM did.
Even if that something was wearing clothes that make him look out of place which took happened well before he met the NPC.
You assume the negative.
The example I use most often is the NPC trying to figure out who is in charge of your party and assuming it is the one with the highest charisma.
Which is exactly what Charisma governs.
NPCs should be drawn to the higher charisma characters. That is what "Personal Magnetism" is.
Should the DM roll dice to see who the monster attacks first? No, they should consider the monsters intelligence and the party make up and go based on that.
The DM controls the NPC, and will react to the PC initially based first on circumstances (if you just saved their life, they like you. If you just killed there child...not so much) but also on the charisma of the characters they meet.
So there are no auto-negative reactions?
It is all relative. If you are the low charisma person in your party, you'll generally be received as the low charisma friend of the high charisma character in the party.
If the NPC wasn't already going to be hostile to you because of circumstances, they aren't going to be hostile because you aren't charismatic.
But they also may not be drawn to you in the way they are drawn to the high charisma character. And they may avoid interacting with you if you have low charisma, because, well, you have low charisma.
But it isn't like "I hate that stinky guy!"
I think it is a nice way to reward the player, but I don't see it supported by the rules.
PS:I do the same thing with wisdom and int checks.edit:Rolling to make a check is not the same as taking over a character. I was saying do you just say "your character does ___". I know you did not say you take over a PC's character if they have a low charisma so I will explain again.
NPC: I don't like PC X
Now in order for PC X to not be liked he had to do something, even if it was subconscious. If the player did not make him do it then the GM did.
Even if that something was wearing clothes that make him look out of place which took happened well before he met the NPC.
You assume the negative.
The example I use most often is the NPC trying to figure out who is in charge of your party and assuming it is the one with the highest charisma.
Which is exactly what Charisma governs.
NPCs should be drawn to the higher charisma characters. That is what "Personal Magnetism" is.
Should the DM roll dice to see who the monster attacks first? No, they should consider the monsters intelligence and the party make up and go based on that.
The DM controls the NPC, and will react to the PC initially based first on circumstances (if you just saved their life, they like you. If you just killed there child...not so much) but also on the charisma of the characters they meet.
I think that people are misunderstanding you here. From what I understand, you are saying this is an initial reaction but someone else with ranks in one of the social skills could change that reaction. Or maybe the smartest one is the leader or the wisest but at first glance, the NPCs that know nothing of the party assume that it's the one with the highest Charisma.
Question for you, and not meant to derail the thread, do you take into account races or other biases? For example, if someone is playing a drow sorcerer and the party enters an elven city, just because his Charisma is a 22 and the next highest is the half-orc rogue at 16, do the elves flock to the drow or half-orc or do they look for the elf with the highest Charisma?
|
|
TLDR
I've been over this with you a million times. Read the description of a given skill. That is what that skill does.
Anything else is governed by the ability score.
It really is that simple.
You can't use swim to bend bars (Strength check) . You can't use Acrobatics to juggle (perform:Juggling). You can't use linguistics to challenge someone to a game of chess (Int Check).
You want me to prove a negative that you yourself can't show as a basis of your argument.
This is the last post of yours I am responding to, as the circular argument is far beyond getting old. Please don't tell people what I am thinking, as clearly you are not on the same page.
Fair enough, though at some point, that becomes a greater request than is fair. At low levels, you can easily be like that kid on Home Alone and start getting clever with all kinds of mundane things, but as the game gets higher and higher, the level of required competency in any given field increases. Ergo, a fighter without a weapon is more or less just along for the ride (unless they have invested in some clever magic items). Warblades from the Tome of Battle have less trouble in this regard, since they can do more that "hit it with a stick".
It depends on how the GM handles skills and how often each one is called for. One thing that Pathfinder did was make skills a bit easier to use. Some places they changed DCs. Some places they simply removed "epic use." They made it easier to improve your skills as well.
You may notice that the fighter I mentioned earlier with the high Diplomacy only has ranks in 4 skills. He relies on his stats, equipment, and Aid Another for whatever he can. Everything else is up to the party. For example, he doesn't worry about what that dragon's weaknesses are. He lets the wizard tell him while he moves in for the glory.
Well, I always carry a backup weapon or three. Poor planning.
That's something that the GMs we had didn't enforce until that time. It was a reminder to me that the player shouldn't put all his eggs in one basket and the GM shouldn't hold back just because the player did something dumb.
This sounds like the majority of the problem. Bad player, and worse, it sounds like he needs psychological help. Honestly, I'd tell him to get a grip or get out. From the sounds of it, he wasn't even a good at being a power gamer, let alone a good player.
The problem we had at the time was that he was my roommate and the only place we could game was at my place. That problem as been resolved (he moved and as far as I know he was getting some help but I don't talk to him anymore so I don't know how he's doing). His attitude didn't change what I learned from it though: A character should have as many options as he can without hindering himself.
It is all relative. If you are the low charisma person in your party, you'll generally be received as the low charisma friend of the high charisma character in the party.
If the NPC wasn't already going to be hostile to you because of circumstances, they aren't going to be hostile because you aren't charismatic.
But they also may not be drawn to you in the way they are drawn to the high charisma character. And they may avoid interacting with you if you have low charisma, because, well, you have low charisma.
But it isn't like "I hate that stinky guy!"
I understand you now. That makes every thing more clear.
I was reading it as(Not exact but gives the general idea):
NPC:I am not serving you any beer.
PC:What did I do?
NPC:I just don't like you.
|
|
I think that people are misunderstanding you here. From what I understand, you are saying this is an initial reaction but someone else with ranks in one of the social skills could change that reaction. Or maybe the smartest one is the leader or the wisest but at first glance, the NPCs that know nothing of the party assume that it's the one with the highest Charisma.Question for you, and not meant to derail the thread, do you take into account races or other biases? For example, if someone is playing a drow sorcerer and the party enters an elven city, just because his Charisma is a 22 and the next highest is the half-orc rogue at 16, do the elves flock to the drow or half-orc or do they look for the elf with the highest Charisma?
Yes and no.
Each skill check does a specific thing. Intimidate is self explanatory. Diplomacy can move them up and down that chart (if you have the time) as well as gather information, etc...each skill does a specific thing that is very specifically laid out.
What doesn't fit, falls to Charisma.
Charisma governs "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
This is specifically broader wording than the other abilities, because of the nature of Charisma.
NPCs are going to treat the highest charisma person as the leader of the group because that person has the highest ability to lead. By definition.
Player characters may not treat the player that way, but they will always be perceived as the one with the highest ability to lead, because they are.
Much like the sergeant mentioned above who people only followed because they had to wasn't the "real" leader as much as the NCO that everyone actually really followed.
As to the 2nd question, circumstances trump charisma. That 22 Charisma would mean that anyone approaching them would think they were formidable and be impressed by them. But they are still drow.
Much like someone might comment about what a great leader Lee was, if he showed up in Union Territory during the Civil War, they weren't giving him lollipops.
|
|
It is all relative. If you are the low charisma person in your party, you'll generally be received as the low charisma friend of the high charisma character in the party.
If the NPC wasn't already going to be hostile to you because of circumstances, they aren't going to be hostile because you aren't charismatic.
But they also may not be drawn to you in the way they are drawn to the high charisma character. And they may avoid interacting with you if you have low charisma, because, well, you have low charisma.
But it isn't like "I hate that stinky guy!"
I understand you now. That makes every thing more clear.
I was reading it as(Not exact but gives the general idea):
NPC:I am not serving you any beer.
PC:What did I do?
NPC:I just don't like you.
Right, that would be out of bounds. It isn't punishment as much as incentive, with maybe a few minor exceptions for extreme cases in specific situations.
Now in Bob's example having an NPC say "I don't serve Drow" would work, as that is circumstances.