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.
I agree with the Drow example. I had a Teifling that was treated badly. I was one of those, definitely not human, teiflings too.
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 play with people who aren't hard core optimizers. And I encourage my players to not be hard core optimizers. We also roll stats and hit points. I get a lot more variation that way.
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. I noted the lack of definition for anything else. That was my piece of "proof". Now please, show yours.
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.
That's great and all, but you still haven't answered my questions. In case you forgot...
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.
I said that the way I play was irrelevant, and it is. My comments about the skills was showing the relation that is evident in the rules as far as a Charisma 6 and Charisma 17 go, as well as what they affected.
I am, still, waiting for you to show me where the rules support your game without the introductory of something outside of the standard. That's all this discussion is about. I said as much. You decided to leap in and challenge that statement, so now, I ask you to do so.
I don't really give a flying harpy how you or I play at the moment, because frankly I wouldn't want to play with you anyway (because while I've tried to remain civil and to the point, you've been less so). What does concern me is your apparent declaration that your method is the norm, and is directly supported by the rules.
I'm still waiting.
To emphasize Ciretose's point for anyone that needs a RAW statement
You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:•Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
•Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
•Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.
(emphasis mine)
Charisma is the only abilty score that has a statement that doesn't include specific effects. The middle statement isn't talking about the Chr skill checks those are mentioned above. It specifically addresses checks to influence others, that are not skill checks.
in·flu·ence
noun, verb, -enced, -enc·ing.
–noun
1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.
2. the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others: Her mother's influence made her stay.
3. a person or thing that exerts influence: He is an influence for the good.
(again emphasis mine)
"capacity.. to be a compelling force.. or produce effects on...behavior, opinions"
For some reason people keep going for the if you're not for you're against mentality. Those of us that are stating that a negative has an effect outside skills and abilities, are not saying anegative gets automatically hated, just that it can effect people's opinions of the PC in question.
And charisma can be visible, sometimes just in the way someone carries themselves, the way they meet eyes when they scan a room, the flash of a smile or kind eyes. They also can have an air of authority about them. Charisma is perceivable beyond just beauty/ugliness or when speaking.
EDIT: Diplomacy says:
Check
You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.
Where was the initial attitude derived from in the first place? I challenge you to find the rules where it sets initial attitude.
Charisma checks to influence others are present in instances like charm person and planar binding. There is no other instance of it influencing others outside of such conditions.
Charisma checks to influence others are present in instances like charm person and planar binding. There is no other instance of it influencing others outside of such conditions.
Could you please show me in the book where it says it is referring only to spells.
Charisma checks to influence others are present in instances like charm person and planar binding. There is no other instance of it influencing others outside of such conditions.Could you please show me in the book where it says it is referring only to spells.
By RAW it does not appear in other places is what she is saying. To use it in any other manner than what the book tells you is a house rule. I am not advocating being a slave to the rules, but either it is RAW or it is not RAW.
If it is only listed in those spells and it tells you exactly how it works in those situations only, how can you even ask that question?Are you suggesting we use the spell mechanic in place of a diplomacy check which is basically what those spells(charm person, planar ally come to mind) do, and in the exact same manner?
It also doesn't say under making an attack that you swing your weapon. It says that the roll represents an attempt to strike. Since it doesn't say how you attempt, does it mean it doesn't happen?
There is a point where the rules don't explicitly say a lot of things. It doesn't mean they don't happen, sometimes it just isn't necessary to be told how some things happen.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
As far as RAW is considered, the PC stands in front of it's target, weapon in hand, and a roll determines if it hits. No fluff or style whatsoever, because it isn't in the RAW.
I'm not suggesting the spell mechanic be used for anything other than the spell mechanic. I'm saying that since it doesn't clarify (and again is the only ability score statement that doesn't have specific effects mentioned), that it is not singled out to those effects. The law is "specific trumps general". Since those are specific examples, they trump the general rule, but do not prevent the rule from functioning for anything else.
It is obvious that if you don't swing the weapon there is no attack expect for ranged weapons. Your charisma example is not so obvious and therefore not a valid comparison.
Where is the specific rule that tells you how charisma checks work?
I know there is no rule that does this. That is Ashiel's point. It does not mean don't ever use Charisma checks, but that you can't say "this is how to do it".
The point with the spells was they are not a general rule so they can't count as one, not that they can't be used for other purposes as needed.
To answer one of your questions:
The initial attitude is defined by the GM like many things in the story.
This is basically covered in the Designing Encounters section and for specifics(I am not going to cover every possible type of encounter) you have to search throughout the book.
A social encounter is still an encounter for purposes of XP so the above named section sets the basics up.
So what it appears Ciretose is doing is essentially just having the PC Take 10 on his Charisma check. This determines the general starting attitude of the NPC. Most NPCs start at indifferent but with some of the scenarios we've thrown around that can change quickly. You can use the Diplomacy table to make quick adjustments before any real interaction begins. Ciretose just is playing it by ear instead of using tables and tons of die rolls. He's probably adding some circumstance modifiers (drow are at -2 with elves, dwarves are at +2 with dwarves, etc).
Drow in the elf community: the elves are unfriendly or hostile. The Drow with the 22 Charisma has a 16 on his check if he's taking 10. He will have no impact on the elves. The elf with the 14 Charisma is staring with Friendly to Indifferent. He only gets a 12 for his Charisma checks. The average elf has a Charisma modifier of 0 so the DC is 10. Diplomacy is an untrained skill and worked perfectly.
There is no reason why Diplomacy must be an active skill at all times. Sometimes it's how you carry yourself.
Imagine if you are a dwarf with a Charisma of 6 and you try to interact with the same elves. You are at a -2 to your checks. So they start at indifferent or unfriendly. Trying to interact with them could easily change their attitude to unfriendly to hostile.
For some reason I think my thought process may have been thrown off while typing. I took a sleeping pill and it may be having an effect on my coherency.
So what it appears Ciretose is doing is essentially just having the PC Take 10 on his Charisma check. This determines the general starting attitude of the NPC. Most NPCs start at indifferent but with some of the scenarios we've thrown around that can change quickly. You can use the Diplomacy table to make quick adjustments before any real interaction begins. Ciretose just is playing it by ear instead of using tables and tons of die rolls. He's probably adding some circumstance modifiers (drow are at -2 with elves, dwarves are at +2 with dwarves, etc).
Drow in the elf community: the elves are unfriendly or hostile. The Drow with the 22 Charisma has a 16 on his check if he's taking 10. He will have no impact on the elves. The elf with the 14 Charisma is staring with Friendly to Indifferent. He only gets a 12 for his Charisma checks. The average elf has a Charisma modifier of 0 so the DC is 10. Diplomacy is an untrained skill and worked perfectly.
There is no reason why Diplomacy must be an active skill at all times. Sometimes it's how you carry yourself.
Imagine if you are a dwarf with a Charisma of 6 and you try to interact with the same elves. You are at a -2 to your checks. So they start at indifferent or unfriendly. Trying to interact with them could easily change their attitude to unfriendly to hostile.
For some reason I think my thought process may have been thrown off while typing. I took a sleeping pill and it may be having an effect on my coherency.
It seem he is doing the you are (unfriendly race) so the attitude is unfriendly. If it was FR then it might have been hostile. I am sure he will let you talk yourself up to a certain extent with a decent diplomacy check though.
|
It seem he is doing the you are (unfriendly race) so the attitude is unfriendly. If it was FR then it might have been hostile. I am sure he will let you talk yourself up to a certain extent with a decent diplomacy check though.So what it appears Ciretose is doing is essentially just having the PC Take 10 on his Charisma check. This determines the general starting attitude of the NPC. Most NPCs start at indifferent but with some of the scenarios we've thrown around that can change quickly. You can use the Diplomacy table to make quick adjustments before any real interaction begins. Ciretose just is playing it by ear instead of using tables and tons of die rolls. He's probably adding some circumstance modifiers (drow are at -2 with elves, dwarves are at +2 with dwarves, etc).
Drow in the elf community: the elves are unfriendly or hostile. The Drow with the 22 Charisma has a 16 on his check if he's taking 10. He will have no impact on the elves. The elf with the 14 Charisma is staring with Friendly to Indifferent. He only gets a 12 for his Charisma checks. The average elf has a Charisma modifier of 0 so the DC is 10. Diplomacy is an untrained skill and worked perfectly.
There is no reason why Diplomacy must be an active skill at all times. Sometimes it's how you carry yourself.
Imagine if you are a dwarf with a Charisma of 6 and you try to interact with the same elves. You are at a -2 to your checks. So they start at indifferent or unfriendly. Trying to interact with them could easily change their attitude to unfriendly to hostile.
For some reason I think my thought process may have been thrown off while typing. I took a sleeping pill and it may be having an effect on my coherency.
Yup.
But only within the framework of diplomacy, which is where the big split comes.
RAW Diplomacy only allows you to move someone up and down the chart from "Hostile" to "Helpful", much like diplomatic relations between nations.
Others want diplomacy to govern more or less all social interactions so they can over-ride low scores with a single high skill check.
If you can get someone to listen to you for one continuous minute, you may be able to get them to move up or down that chart if you roll well.
But they won't think you are a born leader with a magnetic personality because of that check. They may think you are reasonable and your goals intersect, or they may think that working with you serves their needs better than killing you. But that isn't the same thing.
The attitude is a very specific thing. I can think someone is amazingly charismatic and still be hostile towards them. And I can think they are a social pariah and still be allied with them.
|
|
It is obvious that if you don't swing the weapon there is no attack expect for ranged weapons. Your charisma example is not so obvious and therefore not a valid comparison.
Where is the specific rule that tells you how charisma checks work?
I know there is no rule that does this. That is Ashiel's point. It does not mean don't ever use Charisma checks, but that you can't say "this is how to do it".The point with the spells was they are not a general rule so they can't count as one, not that they can't be used for other purposes as needed.
To answer one of your questions:
The initial attitude is defined by the GM like many things in the story.This is basically covered in the Designing Encounters section and for specifics(I am not going to cover every possible type of encounter) you have to search throughout the book.
A social encounter is still an encounter for purposes of XP so the above named section sets the basics up.
Not so obvious to you.
To me, it's pretty obvious that your charisma effects how people view you, in the same way your intelligence effects how smart you are when trying to figure out things not specifically spelled out with checks.
This is how you use ability scores. They are the default when no specific skill applies.
It isn't "Spell Checks that represent attempts to influence others." it is "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
Because that is what Charisma does. It influences others, and in a sense it can even be used to call forth the power of arcane magic, not by study but by the sheer force of your awesomeness even magic can be made to do what you want.
If I can call forth a fireball with my charisma, is it not obvious it would have an effect on how people view me? Particularly since the description says it does?
The book doesn't spell out that if a you walks up and calls an NPC's mother a whore that it would effect their initial attitude toward you. Why? Because it's obvious.
As you said, the DM determines initial attitude. And as I said it is based on a number of factors, one of which is the charisma of the PC.
Why? Because a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would influence how an NPC views them.
Obviously.
Not so obvious to you.
I was saying his example was terrible which is why it was not obvious. He tried to use them in the way that they were tied to spells as a general rule. Well actually I think he was just being snarky, but still.
The ability checks are not defaults. They can be the default for that particular GM. If someone is falling, and another PC tries to catch them I can use a dex check, reflex, or even a dex + str check.If I as the GM have to decide which roll has to be made then there is no default. If there was a default I would not really have to think about it.
That does not mean a charisma check can't be valid, but that does not make it the default either.
|
|
Not so obvious to you.
I was saying his example was terrible which is why it was not obvious. He tried to use them in the way that they were tied to spells as a general rule. Well actually I think he was just being snarky, but still.
The ability checks are not defaults. They can be the default for that particular GM. If someone is falling, and another PC tries to catch them I can use a dex check, reflex, or even a dex + str check.
If I as the GM have to decide which roll has to be made then there is no default. If there was a default I would not really have to think about it.
That does not mean a charisma check can't be valid, but that does not make it the default either.
The default when a skill check doesn't apply is what I mean.
It is always debatable which check applied when and where, and thankfully most situations are clear as to what check applies (which is why they are spelled out checks) but creative players offer creative solutions and a good DM adapts.
As you know, because I suspect you are a good DM based on your posts.
The problem I have is with people trying to game the system by expanding what skills do so they don't have to address where they "min"ed when min/maxing.
The problem I have is with people trying to game the system by expanding what skills do so they don't have to address where they "min"ed when min/maxing.
I have not had a player try to expand what skills do yet*. That one is interesting enough that I would like an example. I want to be armed before hand if it ever comes up.
*I have even had the "I was reincarnated/equivalent several times so I get the aging bonuses(which if I would have allowed it had been a +10 to all mental stats) as a part of my stats due to my backstory. He was dead serious too. Of course since the latest body was young he had no physical penalties.
It is obvious that if you don't swing the weapon there is no attack expect for ranged weapons. Your charisma example is not so obvious and therefore not a valid comparison.
Where is the specific rule that tells you how charisma checks work?
I know there is no rule that does this. That is Ashiel's point. It does not mean don't ever use Charisma checks, but that you can't say "this is how to do it".The point with the spells was they are not a general rule so they can't count as one, not that they can't be used for other purposes as needed.
To answer one of your questions:
The initial attitude is defined by the GM like many things in the story.
It is not OBVIOUS, that if you don't swing... it is ASSUMED that it's obvious.
There is no specific rule for how Chr checks work, there is only the general rule. So it only deviates from the general rule, when it specifically says so (like in charm person or planar binding)
My point with the intial attitude is exactly that, as per the RAW you say the initial attitude is defined by the GM. So the GM can use any method he likes per RAW to determine initial attitude. Instead of just making it up, some of us GM's will use numbers that are already defined on the character, like ability score modifiers. We aren't saying that by RAW it must be done this way. We are saying that by RAW that GM's are able to use Chr modifiers to affect initial attitudes as they see fit. And that ability score modifiers have uses beyond just what skills/spells/etc they are spelled out for. They are the general catch-all, for when another specific effect doesn't cover what is being attempted.
Yes, there was a point and a little bit snark in my by RAW requests, because some people think that RAW is the only correct answer. If you only ever base everything off RAW, it can be a double-edged sword. It may say specifically in some places, but there are just as many assumed to be obvious generalities. This is why people also discuss RAI, for when the RAW leaves gaps, and RAW almost definitely leaves gaps.
It is obvious that if you don't swing the weapon there is no attack expect for ranged weapons. Your charisma example is not so obvious and therefore not a valid comparison.
Where is the specific rule that tells you how charisma checks work?
I know there is no rule that does this. That is Ashiel's point. It does not mean don't ever use Charisma checks, but that you can't say "this is how to do it".The point with the spells was they are not a general rule so they can't count as one, not that they can't be used for other purposes as needed.
To answer one of your questions:
The initial attitude is defined by the GM like many things in the story.
It is not OBVIOUS, that if you don't swing... it is ASSUMED that it's obvious.
There is no specific rule for how Chr checks work, there is only the general rule. So it only deviates from the general rule, when it specifically says so (like in charm person or planar binding)
My point with the intial attitude is exactly that, as per the RAW you say the initial attitude is defined by the GM. So the GM can use any method he likes per RAW to determine initial attitude. Instead of just making it up, some of us GM's will use numbers that are already defined on the character, like ability score modifiers. We aren't saying that by RAW it must be done this way. We are saying that by RAW that GM's are able to use Chr modifiers to affect initial attitudes as they see fit. And that ability score modifiers have uses beyond just what skills/spells/etc they are spelled out for. They are the general catch-all, for when another specific effect doesn't cover what is being attempted.
Thank you for proving my point, Mr. Aardvark. You did so better than I think I could have. There are no rules or guidelines for the GM using checks to influence NPC initial attitudes (no DCs, no modifiers for clothing, station, race, etc), so while a GM has every right to introduce Charisma checks to set the starting attitude of someone they have yet to interact with, it is a house rule. It is something that one GM could do differently than another, and neither are wrong or right.
It's a deviation from the standard.
Which is all I ever said, before anyone started fighting about it.
EDIT: Also, it's not OBVIOUS if you swing your weapon. It's obvious that you attack with it (because it says you're making an attack with the weapon), which could easily be a slam, thrust, blade-push, sparta-kick->cleave combo, or making three light cuts quickly. In all cases, the result is the same. The narrative, or description is different.
Not only were you were helpful for proving my point, but also for showing that the rules don't say you swing with your weapon, which means it doesn't get in the way of the narrative roleplaying.
Gracias.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Again it's not obvious, because it doesn't say you attack with it, it's ASSUMED to be obvious. You can't just take your interpretation of what is assumed to be obvious and use it as a factual statement. Believe it or not, what may be obvious to you or I isn't obvious to everyone. To me it's obvious that Chr ability checks influence reaction, because that's what I assume the text to mean. You think that it is the opposite, and that the ability score modifier outside of the specific places where it tells you to use it. Everytime you use RAW there is RAI built into the textual description of every rule. Some is just more clear to see the RAI. Just because it is more well-defined, one still shouldn't take it exactly literally when they use RAW as an argument.
And like you said, since their are NO RULES OR GUIDELINES for how the GM sets the initial reaction, then any way the GM does it is correct by RAW as long as it doesn't disagree with any other rule. Not a houserule, because you are not changing or adding any rules. The rule is, no guideline or rule, meaning that how the GM does it IS the rule. The rules of RAW work just as equally by inclusion as by exclusion.
Stuff
Another CHR stat dump thread?
Let's face it, to optimize, you have to dump something. You can't have everything, even if you have a 50 point buy.
Having said that, dumping CHR sucks (although I do it sometimes). Why? Because D&D is a SOCIAL game, you WANT your fellow gamers to be social, to talk (in character!!!!), to have fun, not be silent!! So the game doesn't really support this, it supports silence and dumping CHR.
In the next version of Pathfinder, I hope they make CHR more relevant in some way. Maybe some kind of luck stat?
The game, as is, your heroes are:
a) UNPOPULAR
b) Can't explain themselves worth a damn
c) Can't convince anyone of anything
.... it's a problem.
Any smart smooth-tongued villain could basically beat the PCs in non-combat ways. Drive the heroes out of town. Make THEM the villains basically. Make the heroes kill/hurt the townsfolk just to survive. It's kind of funny.
Again it's not obvious, because it doesn't say you attack with it, it's ASSUMED to be obvious. You can't just take your interpretation of what is assumed to be obvious and use it as a factual statement. Believe it or not, what may be obvious to you or I isn't obvious to everyone. To me it's obvious that Chr ability checks influence reaction, because that's what I assume the text to mean. You think that it is the opposite, and that the ability score modifier outside of the specific places where it tells you to use it. Everytime you use RAW there is RAI built into the textual description of every rule. Some is just more clear to see the RAI. Just because it is more well-defined, one still shouldn't take it exactly literally when they use RAW as an argument.Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Striking with is fairly clear, I think. Likewise, you are going further away from your (poor) argument. There's a difference between interpreting what the checks mean in the game, as opposed to creating and/or adding checks or mechanics that are not part of the game.
And like you said, since their are NO RULES OR GUIDELINES for how the GM sets the initial reaction, then any way the GM does it is correct by RAW as long as it doesn't disagree with any other rule. Not a houserule, because you are not changing or adding any rules. The rule is, no guideline or rule, meaning that how the GM does it IS the rule. The rules of RAW work just as equally by inclusion as by exclusion.
You are adding a rule. If I find there are no rules for haggling, or for running a business, and I decide to make it based on a Charisma check, or some other stat (such as a modifier in a specific skill), it does not go against the RAW, but it is not part of it either. It is not standard. I have added a house rule. Just because I didn't specifically change another rule, or that it doesn't conflict with core rules, does not make it less so.
Are you tired of arguing this silly argument? I know I am. Ciretose started this argument, which had nothing to do with either of you, and still doesn't (to my knowledge). Is there a reason you're trying to argue that this is somehow part of the core game mechanics?
EDIT: Oh wait, I get it. You guys are angry? Ciretose has obviously been arguing based on previous disputes that he and I have had, and not actually arguing anything relevant to this discussion. I'm guessing you might have some similar grudge?
|
|
The game, as is, your heroes are:
a) UNPOPULAR
b) Can't explain themselves worth a damn
c) Can't convince anyone of anything.... it's a problem.
Any smart smooth-tongued villain could basically beat the PCs in non-combat ways. Drive the heroes out of town. Make THEM the villains basically. Make the heroes kill/hurt the townsfolk just to survive. It's kind of funny.
Absolutely.
If you don't overlook the logical conclusions of rules, the rules tend to self regulate problems.
If you pretend Charisma does not govern what the rule, of course it becomes a dump stat.
|
Interesting reading from lots of people :)
Having looked through the thread and from my own experience, I think its apparent that optimisation makes you better at your roll. (no massive revelation there).
The issue with the current rules set is that with a few minor exceptions, it does not help your character to have higher stats in less relevant statistics. If there were Feat chains linked to particular statistics then it may be different.
Combat Expertise is a good example. If you want a fighter with Combat Expertise you need a 13 Int. This has some interesting feats like improved disarm etc leading from it, so it may be worth your fighter investing 3 of their pressios points into Int... It may not if you are planning to Invest in Power Attack and not worry too much about defense...
Ultimately, if every stat was linked to a class ability then you would have to make the choise. Why would a wizard player put points into strength unless it ties to a specific school or feat path? If however it allowed recalling a spell on a stregth check due to a special ability, then it might just be worth it. As a barbarian, what if your charisma added to your ac if unarmoured and raging? Most of the time it wouldn't matter, but you might jusdt try a build around it. Currently you are unlikely to make a charisma build on the basis you could intimidate a person in battle...
Another interesting Feat is Stunning Blow, it requires 13 dex and 13 wis, but allows you to stun opponents. There was a prestige class in 3.5, exotic wepon master, that allowed you to use this via a weapon. Would a fighter invest for the opportunity to do this? What if it were Charisma based?
Only by making it worth a characters while will people invest in other statistics. This must relate to their main role or they will weaken the party in low point builds. Balancing this would be difficult and I think only really a possibility for a future generation of PFRPG.
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.
That's what the ranks in diplomacy are for. The wizard isn't a nice guy -- he's more likely to tell you to take a flying leap than he is to actually deal with you from a 'gut reaction' point of view -- but he has also learned the value and magic of friendship and the power it can have to influence others far beyond what magic itself can do -- so some night classes at the local finishing school on public speaking, and how to communicate has done wonders to make up for the charisma of 7~8.
Besides while I see your part of "fairly large in amount or quantity" I would point out that an extra 10 ranks in diplomacy from being able to afford the extra skill is far greater than a +2 from a charisma 14.
And I would argue that for spell DC 10 is not a "small bonus" -- it takes two feats to get that -- and a bonus 1st, 4th and 9th level spell are no small matter either -- as pearls of power those carry a price tag of 1,000gp 16,000gp and 81,000gp by themselves -- except now you can actually choose a different spell in them.
These are not "small bonuses" -- these are huge increases of raw power, and include a substantial increase to other abilities through skill ranks, and the equivalent of 2 feats for increasing DC too.
So we are getting:
+40 ranks
2 feats
98,000gp of free equipment
+2 to several skills
+2 languages (hard to have an rp encounter if you can't speak the language)
That is a very large amount of quantity -- and quality.
Yes the +2 to initiative would be nice -- and would cost all of 16,000gp as a belt.
A circlet of persuasion is 4,500gp and uses the head slot (as opposed to the headband slot).
So the stats I could use the stat points on come at a cost of 20,500gp.
Which still leaves them 40 ranks, 2 feats, bonuses to other skills, 2 languages and 77,500gp to make up for.
Very nice breakdown, Abraham.
This is a chicken and egg kind of issue.
Point buy is fair: everyone has the same total number of points to start with, and they choose how to use them, but you WILL get dump stats.
Rolling stats is better, since then people cannot dump (or the "dumping" is limited to putting their lowest roll into the abilities they do not need)! The problem is, some people will be lucky, others... not so much. I have played in groups where some people had such amazing ability scores, it simply put them at least one level ahead of the others.
Better is subjective. It is better for some people/groups. It all depends own what the group/GM likes.
Rolling also gets you dump stats. Point Buy just gives more control over the value of the dump stat will be.|
|
The question is what are you trying to do with diplomacy.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
If you want to convince someone to work with you, Diplomacy is your tool.
If you want to get people to actually like you...not so much.
Diplomacy does a specific thing in a specific setting. You can, through a conversation of no less than one minute, make someone be, at best "helpful"
They aren't your friend. They are your ally. There is a significant difference. One agrees that you have shared goals at this moment (diplomatically negotiated) and one will follow you into the depths of hell.
You can make requests, but "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
While you may decide to work with the Wizard who convinced you that you have shared interests, you may still not like him if he has low charisma, and so your loyalty is tenuous at best.
This is why it is good to always have a party "face".
Rolling also gets you dump stats. Point Buy just gives more control over the value of the dump stat will be.
Rolling get's you an optimized character. By definition, a dump stat is something you intentionally dumped to a sub-par level. This is only possible in point buy.
If I roll 18/14/14/10/10/8, and I put 8 in Intelligence because I'm a Sorcerer, I didn't dump my Int. I optimized my caster based on the numbers I had.
If I instead do a point buy and get myself 7/18/10/7/10/18, then I dumped my Str and Int to boost my Dex and Cha.
There is a fundamental difference between optimizing what you roll, and dumping stats to boost others with point buy. With a die roll, you are dealing with what nature gave you. With stat buy, you have absolute control over your character, and you are the person dumping those stats down, not the dice gods, not genetics.
A lot of these discussions equate optimizing your rolled stats with dumping in a point buy system. They are not the same thing. You can optimize in a point buy without dumping in a point system. You can't dump one stat to boost another in die rolling.
Which you prefer is up to your group and GM, but they are not the same thing.
It is obvious that if you don't swing the weapon there is no attack expect for ranged weapons. Your charisma example is not so obvious and therefore not a valid comparison.
Where is the specific rule that tells you how charisma checks work?
I know there is no rule that does this. That is Ashiel's point. It does not mean don't ever use Charisma checks, but that you can't say "this is how to do it".The point with the spells was they are not a general rule so they can't count as one, not that they can't be used for other purposes as needed.
To answer one of your questions:
The initial attitude is defined by the GM like many things in the story.
It is not OBVIOUS, that if you don't swing... it is ASSUMED that it's obvious.
There is no specific rule for how Chr checks work, there is only the general rule. So it only deviates from the general rule, when it specifically says so (like in charm person or planar binding)
My point with the intial attitude is exactly that, as per the RAW you say the initial attitude is defined by the GM. So the GM can use any method he likes per RAW to determine initial attitude. Instead of just making it up, some of us GM's will use numbers that are already defined on the character, like ability score modifiers. We aren't saying that by RAW it must be done this way. We are saying that by RAW that GM's are able to use Chr modifiers to affect initial attitudes as they see fit. And that ability score modifiers have uses beyond just what skills/spells/etc they are spelled out for. They are the general catch-all, for when another specific effect doesn't cover what is being attempted.
Yes, there was a point and a little bit snark in my by RAW requests, because some people think that RAW is the only correct answer. If you only ever base everything off RAW, it can be a double-edged sword. It may say specifically in some places, but there are just as many assumed to be obvious generalities. This is why people also discuss RAI, for when the...
The argument was never made that a GM can't make decisions concerning how to make the cha checks. The argument was made that a specific way to use cha is not a written rule anywhere in the book with regard to general perceptions of PC's. It may not have been made by you, but some of the others basically said "this is how it is done."
Your RAW vs RAI idea was pretty pointless* since I know what both are and how they work and so was the snark. It got you nowhere.
I am above name-calling and the "you used snark so I must do it also" so I will leave it at that.
PS: *I am not saying the idea is not without merit, but you are preaching to the choir.
|
|
The argument was never made that a GM can't make decisions concerning how to make the cha checks. The argument was made that a specific way to use cha is not a written rule anywhere in the book with regard to general perceptions of PC's. It may not have been made by you, but some of the others basically said "this is how it is done."Your RAW vs RAI idea was pretty pointless* since I know what both are and how they work and so was the snark. It got you nowhere.
I am above name-calling and the "you used snark so I must do it also" so I will leave it at that.
PS: *I am not saying the idea is not without merit, but you are preaching to the choir.
The problem is that is written in the rules.
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
It isn't written in the rules that you have to turn a knob in order to open a door. There is no strength (or would it be Dex?) check for knob turning. Why?
Because it's obvious how doors work, and we don't need the book to spell it out in a check.
Just as it is obvious that "a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." would have some effect on how a character is viewed by others. People tend to view charismatic people as more charismatic.
The only people who would argue otherwise are the ones who want dump stats without having to deal with the effects of having a dump stat.
The argument was never made that a GM can't make decisions concerning how to make the cha checks. The argument was made that a specific way to use cha is not a written rule anywhere in the book with regard to general perceptions of PC's. It may not have been made by you, but some of the others basically said "this is how it is done."Your RAW vs RAI idea was pretty pointless* since I know what both are and how they work and so was the snark. It got you nowhere.
I am above name-calling and the "you used snark so I must do it also" so I will leave it at that.
PS: *I am not saying the idea is not without merit, but you are preaching to the choir.
The problem is that is written in the rules.
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
It isn't written in the rules that you have to turn a knob in order to open a door. There is no strength (or would it be Dex?) check for knob turning. Why?
Because it's obvious how doors work, and we don't need the book to spell it out in a check.
Just as it is obvious that "a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." would have some effect on how a character is viewed by others. People tend to view charismatic people as more charismatic.
The only people who would argue otherwise are the ones who want dump stats without having to deal with the effects of having a dump stat.
It is not written in the rules how to determine an attitude toward a PC, which is what the charisma check is being said to do. That is the arguement. It has nothing to do with dumping stats.
My point is that a GM must decide how to deal with how the PC's are viewed, but there is no specific rule for it. Even if you dump cha and you have a GM that wants there to be a way to deal with impressions he can make a way to do so, which means it does not matter if you try to ignore the dump stat or not.As a DM I can say use charisma checks or I can have the NPC approach each party member to introduce themselves and ask for a diplomacy check among other ways.
Thank you, Wraithstrike, for explaining it better than I could.
I think I have repeated the argument that the observer's personal preferences trumps the charisma of the subject several times.
Let's take Ustalav as an example: If you are an arcane caster of one of the elemental races and look completely strange to them, their xenophobia and distrust of magic WILL make them shun you. Doesn't matter if you have Cha7 or Cha18. A child that has not been taught this behavior yet might have a different opinion, but at the end of the day, there is a very real chance that you will have a mob dual-wielding torches and pitchforks coming for you.
All the while, Rogand the swordsman, with his Cha7 will not be seen in a hostile light beyond his mannerisms should he engage someone in conversation. He does not cast any spells, and he is as human as they come. People might even think well of him for being a strong and hardworking sort that keeps them safe from evil magics of tainted subhuman filth.
Like my dwarf character that has a Cha of 8: He is well dressed and whatnot, but he is mercenary to a fault, makes fun of altruism, and is rather vocal about gold, alcohol and whores, meaning he is not exactly the most polite company. Unless the people he talks to are into that kind of talk.
And there is the issue: Would an uncouth simpleton be more comfortable in the company of a noble paladin, or another uncouth simpleton who appreciates the same things and can relate on a meaningful level? When I GM, I look at the NPC in question when I set initial attitudes. Not charisma. If the party face is a jolly Cha16 cleric of Cayden, and the NPC is a member of a sobriety league suffering from dealing with a drunkard family member, the NPC will be unfriendly initially. The cleric might be able to talk him down to indifferent, but should not be expecting the NPC to do him any favors.
|
|
It is not written in the rules how to determine an attitude toward a PC, which is what the charisma check is being said to do. That is the arguement. It has nothing to do with dumping stats.
My point is that a GM must decide how to deal with how the PC's are viewed, but there is no specific rule for it. Even if you dump cha and you have a GM that wants there to be a way to deal with impressions he can make a way to do so, which means it does not matter if you try to ignore the dump stat or not.
As a DM I can say use charisma checks or I can have the NPC approach each party member to introduce themselves and ask for a diplomacy check among other ways.
It isn't a check.
It is a factor that obviously effects how NPCs view you, in the same way your race, ethnicity, reputation, etc...effects how NPCs view you.
Your appearance effects how NPCs view you.
Your ability to lead effects how NPCs view you.
Your personal magnetism certainly effects how people view you.
The only debatable factor of charisma that may not factor into initial impression is personality, but even that can be gleaned somewhat from an initial impression.
To say these things don't factor in is like saying that being an anteater doesn't effect how people view you.
Diplomacy is a full minute check that starts off based on what the initial impression is. You can't even do a diplomacy check without an initial impression.
And then who does the NPC approach? The scruffy socially awkward caster or the outgoing and friendly looking bard?
Exactly.
Saying these things don't factor in is ridiculous. The reason some people don't want these things to factor in is so they can dump the stat and not have to also accept a non-leadership/face role in the party.
If you have a stat that specifically effects your "Ability to lead" and "Personal Magnetism" but don't want that to have in game effects...
To quote Gob Bluth "Come on!"
|
|
I think I have repeated the argument that the observer's personal preferences trumps the charisma of the subject several times.
Let's take Ustalav as an example: If you are an arcane caster of one of the elemental races and look completely strange to them, their xenophobia and distrust of magic WILL make them shun you. Doesn't matter if you have Cha7 or Cha18. A child that has not been taught this behavior yet might have a different opinion, but at the end of the day, there is a very real chance that you will have a mob dual-wielding torches and pitchforks coming for you.
All the while, Rogand the swordsman, with his Cha7 will not be seen in a hostile light beyond his mannerisms should he engage someone in conversation. He does not cast any spells, and he is as human as they come. People might even think well of him for being a strong and hardworking sort that keeps them safe from evil magics of tainted subhuman filth.
Like my dwarf character that has a Cha of 8: He is well dressed and whatnot, but he is mercenary to a fault, makes fun of altruism, and is rather vocal about gold, alcohol and whores, meaning he is not exactly the most polite company. Unless the people he talks to are into that kind of talk.
And there is the issue: Would an uncouth simpleton be more comfortable in the company of a noble paladin, or another uncouth simpleton who appreciates the same things and can relate on a meaningful level? When I GM, I look at the NPC in question when I set initial attitudes. Not charisma. If the party face is a jolly Cha16 cleric of Cayden, and the NPC is a member of a sobriety league suffering from dealing with a drunkard family member, the NPC will be unfriendly initially. The cleric might be able to talk him down to indifferent, but should not be expecting the NPC to do him any favors.
Obviously circumstances are the primary factor.
But Charisma is a factor.
As to your example, the uncouth simpleton is drawn to the person who has a magnetic personality.
You punish your high Charisma characters when you don't give them the benefits of having a high charisma score, just as much as you punish the low charisma character.
There is an opportunity cost in every interaction, and the party face will generally have an advantage as the party spokesman in most situations. This is one of the primary benefits of having a high charisma. If you don't reward this advantage, it's like not keeping track of encumbrance.
I think I have repeated the argument that the observer's personal preferences trumps the charisma of the subject several times.
Let's take Ustalav as an example: If you are an arcane caster of one of the elemental races and look completely strange to them, their xenophobia and distrust of magic WILL make them shun you. Doesn't matter if you have Cha7 or Cha18. A child that has not been taught this behavior yet might have a different opinion, but at the end of the day, there is a very real chance that you will have a mob dual-wielding torches and pitchforks coming for you.
All the while, Rogand the swordsman, with his Cha7 will not be seen in a hostile light beyond his mannerisms should he engage someone in conversation. He does not cast any spells, and he is as human as they come. People might even think well of him for being a strong and hardworking sort that keeps them safe from evil magics of tainted subhuman filth.
Like my dwarf character that has a Cha of 8: He is well dressed and whatnot, but he is mercenary to a fault, makes fun of altruism, and is rather vocal about gold, alcohol and whores, meaning he is not exactly the most polite company. Unless the people he talks to are into that kind of talk.
And there is the issue: Would an uncouth simpleton be more comfortable in the company of a noble paladin, or another uncouth simpleton who appreciates the same things and can relate on a meaningful level? When I GM, I look at the NPC in question when I set initial attitudes. Not charisma. If the party face is a jolly Cha16 cleric of Cayden, and the NPC is a member of a sobriety league suffering from dealing with a drunkard family member, the NPC will be unfriendly initially. The cleric might be able to talk him down to indifferent, but should not be expecting the NPC to do him any favors.
Obviously circumstances are the primary factor.
But Charisma is a factor.
As to your example, the uncouth simpleton is drawn to the person who has a magnetic personality....
^ Doing it wrong
I was saying that one seeks out others similar to oneself. Why would my dwarf enjoy the company of someone preaching the virtues of abstinence and altruism when he so fervently dislikes such notions? Doesn't matter if you are 15% more charismatic than average if you are everything I hate in the world. He would much rather have a beer with similarly minded people.
- Do you hang out with people of radically different political/religious views?
- Would you prefer to date the most physically attractive woman in the room when at a party, or the one that seems to have more in common with you?
Just try getting a militant muslim and an orthodox jew to sit down and enjoy a nice meal, and see how much their personal magnetism or appearance affects that catastrophe.
And sure, charisma does come into consideration, but you need to have cha 20 to make up for the mechanical disadvantage in attempting to socializing with someone who dislikes you, and Cha 30 to make up for someone hating you (DC25+modifiers for a hostile vs DC15+modifiers for someone indifferent). And there is NO mechanic for how Charisma affects people's initial perception of you. That is 100% subjective.
I posted a suggested houserule where every modifier of charisma forced you to "buy" a descriptive trait that might influence people (Handsome/beautiful, bright-eyed, well groomed, inspiring, fatherly/motherly, etc if positive, smelly, ugly, loud, socially evasive etc if negative) and base initial reactions on whether or not you meet the individual preferences of the NPC.
Because everything you do past the rules of diplomacy is house-ruling anyway.
|
|
Because boring people with low charisma don"t like intereresting people with high charisma and prefer to hang out with other boring people with low charisma?
Because ugly people would prefer to date fellow ugly people rather than someone attractive?
Because people who don't have any kind of personal magnetism aren't drawn to people who do?
If you want to make it a racial prejudice, fine. That is circumstance.
But you seem to be saying unlikable likes unlikable more than they would like someone likable and that is just silly.
|
|
Because boring people with low charisma don"t like intereresting people with high charisma and prefer to hang out with other boring people with low charisma?
Because ugly people would prefer to date fellow ugly people rather than someone attractive?
Because people who don't have any kind of personal magnetism aren't drawn to people who do?
If you want to make it a racial prejudice, fine. That is circumstance.
But you seem to be saying unlikable likes unlikable more than they would like someone likable and that is just silly.
That is indeed silly... I am just saying that first impressions, however, will tend to be more about outward appearance and demeanor rather than "pure" charisma. And that they depend on the NPC's view of the world. Even if your paladin has a charisma of 20, I doubt he would get a positive initial reaction from a cleric of Zon-Kuthon, much the same way I doubt if you played an orc sorcerer with charisma 16 you you would get a positive reaction from a Lastwall peasant.
Afterwards, of course, skills take over, but the initial reaction from NPCs simply cannot be only about Charisma, unless it's, say, a group of human commoners meeting a human only adventuring party (and even then, if they are backwards, obvious sign of arcane spellcasting might scare them, even if the sorcerer in question is friendly).
As for ugly associating with ugly... Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. But charismatic persons can also be obnoxious or disagreeable for certain kind of people. The way a nerd probably dislikes the jock star quarterback because he picks on him, for instance.
Yes and all of those are circumstantial reasons which effect inital impression. And as i have said circumstance is the primary thing that determines initial attitude for an NPC.
But all things being equal, charisma is the determinng factor.
Obviously if you hate elves, a high charisma doesn't change that.
But if you have no feeling one way or another, the npc prefers that character with a higher charisma.
By definition, a dump stat is something you intentionally dumped to a sub-par level. This is only possible in point buy.No, it isn't.
The term "dump stat" has existed much longer than point buy. It's been a part of D&D ever since you could assign your scores (including 3d6, assign-to-taste).
Charisma's just about always been a Fighter's dump stat.
I agree that the term's been around, but I would also agree somewhat with mdt in that there is a fundamental difference. I believe the psychology is different in dumping via point buy and putting your weakest rolled or array stat you've been saddled with in a place it does the least harm. I know I'm a lot more forgiving of the latter than the former and not just because I have my players roll in the game I run.
Yes and all of those are circumstantial reasons which effect inital impression. And as i have said circumstance is the primary thing that determines initial attitude for an NPC.
But all things being equal, charisma is the determinng factor.
Obviously if you hate elves, a high charisma doesn't change that.
But if you have no feeling one way or another, the npc prefers that character with a higher charisma.
I love how it's always 'High CHA Paladin vs Low CHA Farmer'.
How about our average CHA 10 farmer (who's single) is waiting for the local dry goods shop to open. Two new people are in town also waiting, a CHA 5 seamstress, and a CHA 16 school teacher. Both women are dressed nicely but not better than the other person, and everyone is human.
Which one is the farmer going to gravitate toward? Both are down to earth types you'd meet in town. We're not even saying the seamstress is ugly, she's an awkward duck who's plain looking and has a stuttering problem so she doesn't speak and doesn't make eye contact with anyone. The school teacher is pleasant to look at and smiles at anyone that makes eye contact.
Now, walking up, which one does the farmer gravitate toward? Seems pretty obvious to me, and neither woman made a diplomacy check or any other check (after all, they didn't have a minute of talking to do so).
Now, once he's there, if the CHA 5 seamstress happens to have a huge thing for big burly farmers, and she's spent a lot of skill points on Diplomacy, she can try to influence his initial reaction from Indifferent to Interested. Of course, the teacher is starting out at Interested, and she can try to get him up to Ask Her Out level if she tries.