Charisma =/= Attractive or likable
Charisma is the ability to assert your will.
Red dragons, liches and certain monsters have buckets of Cha, but are neither attractive or likable.
What you are doing is disregarding social psychology, individual preferences and character depth in order to bolster an underappreciated stat due to an underdeveloped set of rules for social interaction.
The argument that someone with low cha would like to hang out with someone with high cha holds about as much water as a person with low str would like to hang out with huge jocks and body-builders.
A person who is extrovert, supportive, loyal and friendly is someone most want to hang out with. Charisma does NOT make you those things, it just makes you better at affecting people in those directions.
I know many people who I would describe as great people to hang out with, but having low cha, as they are shy, introvert and not overly assertive. But they have personal qualities that agree with mine, and thus, friendships are born, and I prefer spending time with them to someone who has the drive to have his/her way in everything. In fact, I would say that my most charismatic friend is also the most tiresome, since I know whenever he comes around, we WILL end up playing the campaign HE wants.
|
Charisma =/= Attractive or likable
Charisma is the ability to assert your will.
Red dragons, liches and certain monsters have buckets of Cha, but are neither attractive or likable..
But if either appears before an npc, the npc is likely going to be willing to helpful.
If choosing sides, all things being equal it would be best for their survival to ally with the dragon or lich.
That is charisma too.
Charisma =/= Attractive or likable
Charisma is the ability to assert your will.
Red dragons, liches and certain monsters have buckets of Cha, but are neither attractive or likable..
But if either appears before an npc, the npc is likely going to be willing to helpful.
If choosing sides, all things being equal it would be best for their survival to ally with the dragon or lich.
That is charisma too.
By that logic every bridge is quite charismatic, because most people would prefer to cross it rather than brave the rapids or climbs.
And if on the topic of taking sides: Most people side with the one that offers the greater reward. This is as close as I have ever seen anyone come to creating an in-game equivalent of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" sketch.
Charisma =/= Only Attractive or likable
Fixed it for you,
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
I don't know about you, but according to the RAW, I think it does.
I'm pretty sure that Appearance and personal magnetism pretty much covers the areas of Attractive or Likable.
I said MANY posts ago that of course, shared interests take precedence over Chr score. Jocks hang out with Jocks over sports, regardless of which one has high or low Chr.
But until you have the opportunity to recognize their interests, you tend to base it off just general appearance and personal magnetism. These are the two that ARE visible at first, ability to lead and personality will remain unknown until you see or hear them in effect.
Do dragons have High Chr due to appearance as well? Yes they are fearsome, powerful, proud, majestic, magical creatures that you may hear about but don't always see day to day.
Liches, yes they may be ugly rotting corpses, but they have an air of power, fear, and warranted pride. This can exude from people and creatures.
You may be an ugly creature, but very scary just by presence alone can also be Chr.
Your average Bbn that has a 14 Chr and is naturally intimidating (no skill ranks), is based on the way he carries himself. The one with a 7 is just another uncouth savage, until he proves otherwise (by using the skill ranks he took).
I think something that people are missing is that you can see someone has leadership qualities without liking them. I can look through history and see hundreds of them. From charismatic black men during the civil war to tyrants who slaughtered their own people. While as an individual we may not find some of them charismatic, the majority of people did/do.
I think this is the approach Ciretose is trying to take. When an NPC approaches the party, what they see are the physical attributes: how strong they look, how fat they look, how pretty they look, and how they carry themselves. They can also see how others are reacting to them. If the party seems to subconsciously defer to the halfling (with 16 Charisma), an NPC may assume that the halfling is in charge. The halfling may be in charge or he may just be really likable but he's probably the first one they look at. If the party has a hobgoblin with a Charisma of 18 the NPC may look at the hobgoblin and sense that he's got some clout, but the preference may be to talk to the elf with the Charisma of 13.
In other words, the world reacts to your Charisma but it isn't necessarily the same way with every person. You can see how Charismatic someone is but that doesn't automatically put them in the Friendly category. It's the only factor that's always taken into account.
*Inserts composite scores and averaging the components of the composite argument here*
Also I would point out that attractiveness has a lot to do with look and of course non-verbal communication.
A woman might be hot -- I mean the type of beauty that could cause you to second guess your commitment to your wife -- but if she is also standing shoulders squared, screeching with a shrill voice, swinging a sword around all the time, dressed in colors that don't match, and has a history of blaming anyone around them for anything that goes wrong then it doesn't matter how hot she is -- it's going to take someone with a disorder to commit to her long term.
*Inserts composite scores and averaging the components of the composite argument here*
Also I would point out that attractiveness has a lot to do with look and of course non-verbal communication.
A woman might be hot -- I mean the type of beauty that could cause you to second guess your commitment to your wife -- but if she is also standing shoulders squared, screeching with a shrill voice, swinging a sword around all the time, dressed in colors that don't match, and has a history of blaming anyone around them for anything that goes wrong then it doesn't matter how hot she is -- it's going to take someone with a disorder to commit to her long term.
Or a battle oracle with the deaf curse and a dumped INT and WIS around 7 each. ;)
Oh wait, dumped INT and WIS 7 would be a disorder, wouldn't it? Then I agree with your assertion 1000%. ;)
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 see we are arguing different points. My point is that there is no specific mechanic saying exactly how to handle initial impressions.
Now what point are you arguing? If you are saying charisma is a factor that determines how people respond to you then I agree, but it has to have a chance to be represented.
The initial debate started with MDT, but it seems you came in with a different debate without making it clear. I thought you were still saying "the book says handle charisma and initial attitutudes in this manner", which is what was being argued earlier.
Now I ask again what point are you trying to make so we can all get on the same page?
The initial debate started with MDT, but it seems you came in with a different debate without making it clear. I thought you were still saying "the book says handle charisma and initial attitutudes in this manner", which is what was being argued earlier.
Please don't misrepresent what I said.
I said, there are no mechanics provided for initial attitudes and first impressions. You cannot use skill based checks because, quite obviously, once you start using your skills you are no longer in a first impression situation. I stated that CHA, by the words in the core book (IE RAW), that that stat handles such things as how your character is perceived and is a valid yardstick to affect first impressions.
I was then called a liar, a hypocrite, belittled, ignored, misquoted, flat out lied about with people posting 'examples' of how I screw over players, and generally attacked and flamed for not agreeing with certain posters 100% and admitting how 'wrong think' I was.
Which was why I gave up debating anything. I only post to this to clear up yet another misquote of what I posted. Not that I think it will stop anyone from making up shit about what I posted, but what the hell. There's a very vocal minority on the boards that flame, snark and attack when they cannot win a debate. Unfortunately, my personality let's me rapidly descend to their level when dealing with them, so it's just best I avoid posting exchanges with them.
You and I have had disagreements before, but I don't remember any where things went too far before one of us reined ourselves in.
So, according to the logic presented here, if I played an Assassin with Cha30 or some such absurdly high score, and got spotted while breaking into someones house, they would not mind to much, because I am such a handsome assassin?
After all, if a -2 ability modifier in Cha is enough to make people drop one category, having five times that modifier in a positive direction, they should get similarily adjusted, right? I mean, they WOULD be hostile, but come on, I am just THAT awesome.
Aardvark: You just said used fearsome and ugly to describe someone with high charisma, countering my argument that Charisma =/= likable and attractive.
Note that I never said anything about magnetism or appearance. And you just explained what I meant by it.
@mdt: I think more people agree than one would think. While I fervently ramp on and on about how factors decide first impressions, I never said anything about appearance not measuring in. But what constitutes an agreeable appearance is up to the beholder. A cha16 man rife with battlescars and an air of danger around him will make soldiers and similar people find him much more agreeable than the cha16 prince with flawless skin and pretty eyes, which young girls would find agreeable, while they shrink away from the warrior as he is scary.
The initial debate started with MDT, but it seems you came in with a different debate without making it clear. I thought you were still saying "the book says handle charisma and initial attitutudes in this manner", which is what was being argued earlier.
Please don't misrepresent what I said.
I said, there are no mechanics provided for initial attitudes and first impressions. You cannot use skill based checks because, quite obviously, once you start using your skills you are no longer in a first impression situation. I stated that CHA, by the words in the core book (IE RAW), that that stat handles such things as how your character is perceived and is a valid yardstick to affect first impressions.
I was then called a liar, a hypocrite, belittled, ignored, misquoted, flat out lied about with people posting 'examples' of how I screw over players, and generally attacked and flamed for not agreeing with certain posters 100% and admitting how 'wrong think' I was.
Which was why I gave up debating anything. I only post to this to clear up yet another misquote of what I posted. Not that I think it will stop anyone from making up s!~+ about what I posted, but what the hell. There's a very vocal minority on the boards that flame, snark and attack when they cannot win a debate. Unfortunately, my personality let's me rapidly descend to their level when dealing with them, so it's just best I avoid posting exchanges with them.
You and I have had disagreements before, but I don't remember any where things went too far before one of us reined ourselves in.
So you were presenting your case before as a playstyle only?
So you were presenting your case before as a playstyle only?
I was presenting it as a way for a GM to handle initial impressions. However, nobody bothered listening to the things I posted. Then there were posts (like the one above) that pulled pure BS out of thin air and ascribed it to me.
"Oh, so my CHA 30 thug can walk up to you in a crowd, knife you, and your friends will all smile because he's so charming and forgive him."
That is pure BS and nobody ever said anything like that, but then other people take off on that riff and attribute it to me or someone who agreed with me, rather than recognizing it as pure bile spewed by someone who was throwing a tantrum because they were not agreed with. It's the "BIG LIE" approach, if you tell a big lie and yell it often enough and loud enough and ignore anyone who says it's not true, you can get the debate on your terms and make the other person defend themselves from your wholly made up BS without defending your own premises.
You see it in disgusting politics all the time.
So, according to the logic presented here, if I played an Assassin with Cha30 or some such absurdly high score, and got spotted while breaking into someones house, they would not mind to much, because I am such a handsome assassin?
After all, if a -2 ability modifier in Cha is enough to make people drop one category, having five times that modifier in a positive direction, they should get similarily adjusted, right? I mean, they WOULD be hostile, but come on, I am just THAT awesome.
Aardvark: You just said used fearsome and ugly to describe someone with high charisma, countering my argument that Charisma =/= likable and attractive.
Note that I never said anything about magnetism or appearance. And you just explained what I meant by it.
Not even remotely close to what anyone has said. What we have said is that, while you may have broken into someone's house, they won't be turned off by your personality.
Let me give you a real world example: Ted Bundy. He was a very Charismatic man who killed many women. It doesn't forgive his crimes and it doesn't mean that people feel any sympathy for him (a few do but that's a whole different issue). What it means is that he is more likely to be treated better than Richard Trenton Chase who drank the blood of his victims and then enjoyed some necrophilia and cannibalism.
So you were presenting your case before as a playstyle only?I was presenting it as a way for a GM to handle initial impressions. However, nobody bothered listening to the things I posted. Then there were posts (like the one above) that pulled pure BS out of thin air and ascribed it to me.
"Oh, so my CHA 30 thug can walk up to you in a crowd, knife you, and your friends will all smile because he's so charming and forgive him."
That is pure BS and nobody ever said anything like that, but then other people take off on that riff and attribute it to me or someone who agreed with me, rather than recognizing it as pure bile spewed by someone who was throwing a tantrum because they were not agreed with. It's the "BIG LIE" approach, if you tell a big lie and yell it often enough and loud enough and ignore anyone who says it's not true, you can get the debate on your terms and make the other person defend themselves from your wholly made up BS without defending your own premises.
You see it in disgusting politics all the time.
Than I do apologize for the misinterpretation. I clearly thought this was a "the book says....." thing.
I think most of us were trying to get across that it definitely has an effect.
Not that the book adjudicates how that effect is governed, but that a negative modifier creates provides a negative effect, and a positive provides a positive effect. Outside of skill checks, it can influence based on the modifier.
Kamel, I was trying to point out that charisma IS attractivness and likability, as much as it is the opposite. Appearance good or bad and personal magnetism good or bad can be strong or weak influences based on the score.
A 30 chr Assassin, may not be liked, but just the way he carries himself, they may decide to not confront or report him out of a presence he exudes.
A 30 chr Assassin, may not be liked, but just the way he carries himself, they may decide to not confront or report him out of a presence he exudes.
However, a 30 CHA Rogue, with maxed ranks in diplomacy, Skill Focus Diplomacy, and the Spy archetype (Like say, Jim DiGriz) could not only convince the home owner that it was all a big mistake, but end up getting the poor schmuck to give him directions to the 'right' house he was trying to get to to play the joke on his old friend.
To me, that 30 CHA will get him a foot in the door in such a situation in order to try his diplomacy check. A similar rogue, with CHA 5, to me, would have trouble getting the home owner to listen to his diplomacy check in the first place (remember, it takes a minute to attempt a diplomacy check to change his initial reaction).
I think what gets lost in the translation of the argument is the all or nothing factor.
If someone says it does nothing, and I say they are wrong, for some reason the idea comes up that I meant it does everything. When really all I was trying to point out is that it doesn't do nothing, it does at least something.
I think what gets lost in the translation of the argument is the all or nothing factor.
If someone says it does nothing, and I say they are wrong, for some reason the idea comes up that I meant it does everything. When really all I was trying to point out is that it doesn't do nothing, it does at least something.
These are the same people who read 'use it for first impressions' and respond with "So, my 30 CHA 4 INT 4 WIS rogue thug can rape your daughter and kill your wife and you'll laugh it off right?", so no, I don't think it's being lost in translation, I think it's being ignored because it's more fun to make up shit and pretend that's what you said. I think people are just using you to stroke their own ego.
|
|
Stuff
We largely agree, and the specifics aren't important enough to scuffle over.
There are several people on here who feel charisma doesn't effect NPC impression at all, at I find that silly. There is at least one person who feels they how they describe the character negates any negative impact of charisma, and I find that silly.
And there are some people who want skills to be able to completely mitigate any effects of charisma, and I find that troubling, but a legitimate argument to be had and discussed as to where the lines are drawn as to what can do what. I tend to be hard line on skill checks not being used outside of the specific spelled out uses, but I can understand not everyone plays that way.
That pretty much sums up my stance on the issue.
|
|
So, according to the logic presented here, if I played an Assassin with Cha30 or some such absurdly high score, and got spotted while breaking into someones house, they would not mind to much, because I am such a handsome assassin?
After all, if a -2 ability modifier in Cha is enough to make people drop one category, having five times that modifier in a positive direction, they should get similarily adjusted, right? I mean, they WOULD be hostile, but come on, I am just THAT awesome.
Aardvark: You just said used fearsome and ugly to describe someone with high charisma, countering my argument that Charisma =/= likable and attractive.
Note that I never said anything about magnetism or appearance. And you just explained what I meant by it.
@mdt: I think more people agree than one would think. While I fervently ramp on and on about how factors decide first impressions, I never said anything about appearance not measuring in. But what constitutes an agreeable appearance is up to the beholder. A cha16 man rife with battlescars and an air of danger around him will make soldiers and similar people find him much more agreeable than the cha16 prince with flawless skin and pretty eyes, which young girls would find agreeable, while they shrink away from the warrior as he is scary.
No, they would think "holy crap, that assassin is badass" and act based on that, depending on if they think they can take you or not, how much I value my life, if I want to be you when I grow up, etc...
Much like if I saw a Dragon with a 30 charisma, I may pee myself a little because of his awesome presence.
Stuff
We largely agree, and the specifics aren't important enough to scuffle over.
There are several people on here who feel charisma doesn't effect NPC impression at all, at I find that silly. There is at least one person who feels they how they describe the character negates any negative impact of charisma, and I find that silly.
And there are some people who want skills to be able to completely mitigate any effects of charisma, and I find that troubling, but a legitimate argument to be had and discussed as to where the lines are drawn as to what can do what. I tend to be hard line on skill checks not being used outside of the specific spelled out uses, but I can understand not everyone plays that way.
That pretty much sums up my stance on the issue.
I would not say it does not affect impression. I use it for determining who an NPC might approach first, but I don't use it to affect the starting attitude.
As far as skill checks it depends on the specific situation and the description also.
And now that we all agree that going too far in one direction is ridiculous, can we agree that going too far in the other one is equally ridiculous, or are we going to continue the idiotic witch-hunt for anyone who "dares" to dump cha because they don't care to excel at social interactions?
And now that we all agree that going too far in one direction is ridiculous, can we agree that going too far in the other one is equally ridiculous, or are we going to continue the idiotic witch-hunt for anyone who "dares" to dump cha because they don't care to excel at social interactions?
Your argument might hold water if anyone had said something like the following.
"Hey, you take a 5 CHA, you get attacked on sight by everything from small children to warriors to little old ladies."
"Hey, you take a 5 WIS, you have no equipment because you're too gullible and give it all away to conmen every time you enter a bar."
Since nobody said that, your ridiculous statement was not an opposite on the bell curve. What you (and others) have been doing is more akin to, when someone says "Let's search him" responding with "What? You want to gut the poor guy and search his entrails in case he swallowed the diamonds? God you're a sick twisted piece of flotsam! I hate you and I think you are an evil person. Now let the smuggler go on his way and quit abusing his rights!"
|
|
And now that we all agree that going too far in one direction is ridiculous, can we agree that going too far in the other one is equally ridiculous, or are we going to continue the idiotic witch-hunt for anyone who "dares" to dump cha because they don't care to excel at social interactions?
Except Charisma governs social interactions.
In the same way Strength governs melee or Dex governs ranged attacks.
It is what it does.
If you have low Charisma, you aren't as good at social interactions as someone with high charisma in the same way that if you dump strength you aren't as strong as someone with high strength.
Games are created based on boundaries and choices. If you want to be all things at once, use a 100 point buy.
*Inserts composite scores and averaging the components of the composite argument here*
Also I would point out that attractiveness has a lot to do with look and of course non-verbal communication.
A woman might be hot -- I mean the type of beauty that could cause you to second guess your commitment to your wife -- but if she is also standing shoulders squared, screeching with a shrill voice, swinging a sword around all the time, dressed in colors that don't match, and has a history of blaming anyone around them for anything that goes wrong then it doesn't matter how hot she is -- it's going to take someone with a disorder to commit to her long term.
Or a battle oracle with the deaf curse and a dumped INT and WIS around 7 each. ;)
Oh wait, dumped INT and WIS 7 would be a disorder, wouldn't it? Then I agree with your assertion 1000%. ;)
Only as much as having a 14 Int and Wis makes you an amazing genius that never makes bad choices.
Except Charisma governs social interactions.In the same way Strength governs melee or Dex governs ranged attacks.
It is what it does.
If you have low Charisma, you aren't as good at social interactions as someone with high charisma in the same way that if you dump strength you aren't as strong as someone with high strength.
Games are created based on boundaries and choices. If you want to be all things at once, use a 100 point buy.
With the caveat that training can overcome pure natural talent, and feats/spells/whatever can change the dynamics of the situation just like they can in combat.
Only as much as having a 14 Int and Wis makes you an amazing genius that never makes bad choices.
Or a battle oracle with the deaf curse and a dumped INT and WIS around 7 each. ;)Oh wait, dumped INT and WIS 7 would be a disorder, wouldn't it? Then I agree with your assertion 1000%. ;)
We've been over this repeatedly in multiple threads, but since you went there.
A 14 INT is not the opposite of a 7 INT.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 -> Valid values for a human below human average (note, INT removes 1 and 2).
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 -> Valid values for a human above average.
The game system is very very very nice to people who dump, it doesn't penalize them as much for dumping as it should. If it did, then minimum human stat would be the same minus as maximum human stat. Maximum human stat is 25, which is +12. The largest penalty you can have from negative stats is -5 (-4 for INT). Big difference. What it means is a single penalty, numerically, is like a +2 and change (or +3 for INT) bonus, on a curve.
So, a 7 (-2) is actually very much equivalent to a 20 (+5) or 22 (+6) for INT, on the bell curve. That is, they are the same distance from the average on the curve. The problem being that the game system has squished the curve below average.
You may not like the fact that points below the curve are not balanced against the points above the curve, but it's an inescapable fact. That means that you are squishing a LOT more human variation into the numbers below 10 than you are above 10 (in other words, the standard deviation is being squished, so each number below ten actually has a lot more effect on the standard deviation than a number above does).
The game system then exacerbates this disconnect by declaring 10 to be 'Average' while keeping the same Mechanical penalty based on linear progression. Realistically, what should be happening is that below 10, a 3 INT should be -12 and a 1 WIS should be -12, while a 25 in either should be +12. That would be a linear progression from min to max around the arbitrary 10 average.
Only as much as having a 14 Int and Wis makes you an amazing genius that never makes bad choices.
Or a battle oracle with the deaf curse and a dumped INT and WIS around 7 each. ;)Oh wait, dumped INT and WIS 7 would be a disorder, wouldn't it? Then I agree with your assertion 1000%. ;)
We've been over this repeatedly in multiple threads, but since you went there.
A 14 INT is not the opposite of a 7 INT.
IF people insist that a 10~11 is average, and also insist that a 7 is dump as a box of rocks, or socially crippled I will continue to insist that a 14 is genius.
IN FACT -- if the game system itself wants to continue in the lie that a 10~11 is average then it almost forces this obviously incorrect thinking.
Otherwise there is no bell curve and rolling dice, or in fact a point buy below 20 is going to result in "below average" characters.
IF people insist that a 10~11 is average, and also insist that a 7 is dump as a box of rocks, or socially crippled I will continue to insist that a 14 is genius.
You should take that up with the Developers then. They are the ones who set Average to 10/10/10/11/11/11 for the system. I suggest you yell at them, I'm sure they'll pay attention. :)
IN FACT -- if the game system itself wants to continue in the lie that a 10~11 is average then it almost forces this obviously incorrect thinking.
That was my point above. The game, by it's rule structure, enforces the idea that a -7 is much much worse than a 14 is good. People keep refusing to acknowledge it, and the game then turns around and only penalizes you for a -7 as much as it enhances you for a 14. Which is ludicrous, but thems the rules we have to deal with.
Otherwise there is no bell curve and rolling dice, or in fact a point buy below 20 is going to result in "below average" characters.
There is no bell curve now. That is the point. There is instead a skew curve. Min to Average covers a smaller range than Average to Max. So you end up with something that looks like this (I'll give it my best shot).
00000000000|0000000000000000000
000000000++|+++0000000000000000
000000++000|000++00000000000000
00000+00000|00000++000000000000
00000+00000|0000000+00000000000
0000+000000|00000000+0000000000
000+0000000|000000000+000000000
000+0000000|0000000000++0000000
00+00000000|000000000000+000000
00+00000000|0000000000000++0000
0+000000000|000000000000000+++0
-------------------------------
So as you can see, (I hope), the curve the game set's us up with is pretty nastily skewed.
Theoretically, we should set things up with average being 13, and max being 25 and minimum being 1. That's +12 above and -12 below. Then, every two points above or below 13 gives +/- 1. Then, if you dumped 3 points down to 10, you'd have a -2 and just be a little slow, just like a 16 would be +2 and you'd be bright but not a genius. But that's not what we have.
Yeah we are on the same page -- I just don't like the print for the -7 being so much worse when it's the exact same from the average as 14 is and gives the penalties in the same proportion as the 14 gives bonuses.
I guess I'm just a bit old school in this way -- give me back my darn bell curve!
Personally I'm kind of the opinion that having average be a +1 bonus is ok.
After all the average person has a bit of an advantage in continuing living -- otherwise the average person would die just as often as live and the birth rate would have to be much higher to compensate for the continuous loses.
And now that we all agree that going too far in one direction is ridiculous, can we agree that going too far in the other one is equally ridiculous, or are we going to continue the idiotic witch-hunt for anyone who "dares" to dump cha because they don't care to excel at social interactions?Except Charisma governs social interactions.
In the same way Strength governs melee or Dex governs ranged attacks.
It is what it does.
If you have low Charisma, you aren't as good at social interactions as someone with high charisma in the same way that if you dump strength you aren't as strong as someone with high strength.
This IS what I am saying. You are not good at something you don't put points in. A character with Cha7 and no ranks in social skills are as bad as the system allows a heroic character to be. He has a 10% less chance than an average Joe to make friends.
What I DO rage against is the notion of making people have worse initial attitude to Cha7 dude than they do to others. That suddenly makes his35% worse at making friends. And that is the mechanical equivalent of giving the wizard with str7 and additional 5 point penalty to hit and damage just to spite him.
No-one is expecting to make characters that have 7 in cha and still rule the social scene. Just like no-one makes a wizard with Str7 and whines when he does not rule in hand to hand combat. And just like the wizard can work to stay away from melee, the cha7 character with no ranks in social skills can work to stay away from social interactions that requires a skilled tongue. He orders his beer, pays full price, makes some likely bad jokes with his friends and have sex with a whore past her prime that long ago have stopped caring what her clients looks like. While cha18 with maxed social skill ranks drinks for free, gets discounts, is the light of the party and sleeps with whomever he wants if he rolls well enough.
You can force social interaction on the inept ones, sure. And then he would likely fail. Big deal. It's just like how the cleric will likely fail a acrobatics check, or the wizard fail a strength check to burst a door. And this is fine. You know why? Because there is likely one party member who IS good at just that thing, and when that situation comes up, it is HIS turn to shine. In a game about mighty wizards and legendary warriors rarely have so great a focus that more than one character needs to focus on social interactions.
A lot of the kerfuffle wasn't over the fact that people dare take a 6 or a 7 in stats.
It was that they take 6 or 7 in Int and or Chr and then role-play them like they had 14's, and be allowed to do so.
Just because, as was made abundantly clear, there is no rule that says that someone has to role-play their PC's like they have the low scores with penalties that they took.
Since there is no RAW that says you have to role-play low scores like low scores, then there is no real loss for taking 6's or 7's especially if you never use any of the things that those numbers are used for mechanically.
A Brb taking 6 Int 6 Chr to have a 20 Str, and NEVER uses a knowledge or social skill, then they never feel the effects of price they paid for their Str. To me, personally, this is almost like cheating the system, and flaunting it.
No-one is expecting to make characters that have 7 in cha and still rule the social scene. Just like no-one makes a wizard with Str7 and whines when he does not rule in hand to hand combat. And just like the wizard can work to stay away from melee, the cha7 character with no ranks in social skills can work to stay away from social interactions that requires a skilled tongue. He orders his beer, pays full price, makes some likely bad jokes with his friends and have sex with a whore past her prime that long ago have stopped caring what her clients looks like. While cha18 with maxed social skill ranks drinks for free, gets discounts, is the light of the party and sleeps with whomever he wants if he rolls well enough.
He pays full price for a good looking whore. After all she's getting paid for what she does by who will pay her -- if the wizard is willing to pay the price then she'll do what her job is.
Charisma =/= Only Attractive or likableFixed it for you,
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.I don't know about you, but according to the RAW, I think it does.
I'm pretty sure that Appearance and personal magnetism pretty much covers the areas of Attractive or Likable.
ap·pear·ance
/əˈpɪərəns/ Show Spelled[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
EXPAND
4. Law . the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
6. Philosophy . the sensory, or phenomenal, aspect of existence to an observer.
7. Archaic . an apparition.
COLLAPSE
—Idioms
8. keep up appearances, to maintain a public impression of decorum, prosperity, etc., despite reverses, unfavorable conditions, etc.: They tried to keep up appearances after losing all their money.
9. make an appearance, to come; arrive: He didn't make an appearance until after midnight.
10. put in an appearance, to attend a gathering or meeting, especially for a very short time: The author put in an appearance at the cocktail party on her way to dinner.
A list of words synonymous with appearance.
representation
manifestation
introduction
presentation
countenance
expression
exhibition
It would be neatly impossible to say that your attractiveness or physical beauty means nearly as much to Charisma as your ability to hide your inner emotions, put on a good face, maintain public impression. Especially since it isn't even considered meaningful enough to the word appearance to be mentioned in such a way in its definition.
|
|
With the caveat that training can overcome pure natural talent, and feats/spells/whatever can change the dynamics of the situation just like they can in combat.
Except Charisma governs social interactions.In the same way Strength governs melee or Dex governs ranged attacks.
It is what it does.
If you have low Charisma, you aren't as good at social interactions as someone with high charisma in the same way that if you dump strength you aren't as strong as someone with high strength.
Games are created based on boundaries and choices. If you want to be all things at once, use a 100 point buy.
Training can overcome SOME things. Maybe even most things. But not all things that Charisma governs. Magic items can increase your charisma, but you can't negotiate someone into thinking you have a magnetic personality or are a born leader any more than taking points in swim can increase your ability to bend bars.
Training can overcome SOME things. Maybe even most things. But not all things that Charisma governs. Magic items can increase your charisma, but you can't negotiate someone into thinking you have a magnetic personality or are a born leader any more than taking points in swim can increase your ability to bend bars.
Oh agreed -- if you want to be a born leader you should take the trait (small joke there) -- or charming for the magnetic personality.
Bending bars? That's so 2nd edition -- now we just make strength checks to burst things. ;D (I do get the point -- I'm just poking a few jokes before I get to the meat of the reply)
I would suggest that you are completely correct -- but just like an ugly bloke can get the hot chick in real life he can do so in game too. It's the other personality traits that will attract her, and keep her if she (or he) values them more than the personality flaws. He might rust the bars with a spell instead of simply going at them with brute force.
I remember a quote:
"Our friends like us for our positive traits -- they love us for our flaws."
And another:
"There is more than one way to skin a cat."
I feel I should add my own caveat here -- It might appear I'm arguing a point I'm not trying to make (or would ever defend).
At lower level -- yes these things aren't going to make as much of a difference. The higher in level you get the more they will though.
I am personally okay with this -- it shows the character growing pass his initial flaws and also shows real life social norms too -- instead of reducing it to the absolutely ridiculous notion that only the pretty boys will get the hot babes, or that only charisma represents why people like or interact with each other in something other than a non-violent way.
There is far more to human (and non-human) interaction than simple charisma.
Training can overcome SOME things. Maybe even most things. But not all things that Charisma governs. Magic items can increase your charisma, but you can't negotiate someone into thinking you have a magnetic personality or are a born leader any more than taking points in swim can increase your ability to bend bars.
This is true. It's one of the things I was demonstrating with my thread, Practical Optimization: Make the Numbers fit your Roleplaying. Our hero Sigfried has the numbers fit his character concept perfectly. He will never be able to use a magic wand without practice (he can't hit the DC 20 UMD, even if he rolls 100 times), but gets better at interacting with people, whom he begins relatively poorly with doing so.
Our guy, Sigfried, has numbers that perfectly emulate everything we wish to roleplay with him. We can even see his story unfold through those numbers as he gains levels. Effectively, we can track his growth from point A to point B.
Dump stats make believable characters. Without weaknesses and drawbacks to overcome as you're gaining levels, your initials might as well be M.S. However, I prefer the ways that match reality the best, so I tend to base NPC reactions (something not covered in the RAW) on circumstances, rather than metagame numbers that the NPCs do not understand or get to see. I feel it is more realistic like that.
Individual mileage may vary.
|
I never thanked you for starting that post Ashiel. The thread practical optimization is what got my group playing with a 15 point buy. We use to use a 25 point buy. I'm realy back in to makeing characers now. The 15 point buy makes you realy think in the character creation. Now I can't just pick what I want to be good at. I have to decide what im not going to be good at. I personly like it much better then making a character that can brake the game. The real problem I see. 20 or 25 point buy optimized characters do not have a weakness of any kind. This makes it much harder on the DM.
I never thanked you for starting that post Ashiel. The thread practical optimization is what got my group playing with a 15 point buy. We use to use a 25 point buy. I'm realy back in to makeing characers now. The 15 point buy makes you realy think in the character creation. Now I can't just pick what I want to be good at. I have to decide what im not going to be good at. I personly like it much better then making a character that can brake the game. The real problem I see. 20 or 25 point buy optimized characters do not have a weakness of any kind. This makes it much harder on the DM.
You're very welcome Calagnar. I'm glad you liked it. I have been considering starting a new practical optimization thread in the near future.
I never thanked you for starting that post Ashiel. The thread practical optimization is what got my group playing with a 15 point buy. We use to use a 25 point buy. I'm realy back in to makeing characers now. The 15 point buy makes you realy think in the character creation. Now I can't just pick what I want to be good at. I have to decide what im not going to be good at. I personly like it much better then making a character that can brake the game. The real problem I see. 20 or 25 point buy optimized characters do not have a weakness of any kind. This makes it much harder on the DM.
They both have weaknesses. They are just harder to find. I do agree with your 15 point buy statement 100% though. I have made characters for other people with 15 point buy, but at first it was hard because I was so use to 25 point buy. I prefer 20 personally because I still feel limited without feeling encased. That does not mean I won't play a 15 pb game though. I do know my group would not like it.
Ashiel's post in that other thread was well thought out, and one of the better post I have read here.
|
|
Ashiel's post in that other thread was well thought out, and one of the better post I have read here.
Long =/= well thought out.
Here are the lines I take issue with.
1.
"Sigfried is a fighter who's going to be a dashing handsome sort of hero who can woo the fair maiden..."
Sigfried has below average charisma. Sigfried can think he is a "dashing handsome" sort of hero, but other people will think he has below average charisma because...he does. Hell that could be the reason he has the low charisma.
2.
"...which effectively gives him the social graces of someone with no ranks but a +2 charisma every level."
Having improved diplomacy isn't effectively a bonus to Charisma at every level any more than having improved acrobatics would improve your ability to hit with ranged weapons, no matter how logical an argument you make about how you are using the skill in the process of throwing the dagger.
Diplomacy allows you to improve initial attitude after a minute of continuous interaction. That is what it does.
Sigfried is still less charismatic than the average person, but if you talk to him for awhile you realize he is someone you can work with. Sure he is annoying, but if he rolls well, one person can overlook that fact because he is polite. But he is still not very charismatic.
If you want to be dashing, suck it up and put your points in charisma.
Doing otherwise is trying to game the system and penalizing people who actually put points in Charisma and are not getting the added benefits of being a charismatic character because Sigfried the annoying has decided he wants to be the party face without allocating point buy point to be able to do that.
3.
"More concerning is that a number of players seem to think that you're supposed to "play the numbers" instead of "play the character" if you're to be a good roleplayer."
You can play whatever you want. The DM is the one running the NPC. And unless the DM wants to be completely arbitrary the DM is going to consider first the circumstances, then the charisma of his players in determining how the NPCs view the players.
This is common sense.
Only the DM knows all the circumstances that went into the NPC, including the NPCs personality, prejudices, etc...
Players can do as they wish, like who they wish, etc...you don't have to "play the numbers" as a player.
But as a DM, I do have to take the numbers into consideration. Sigfried can act charming and dashing, but the NPCs will see someone being rather arrogant and off-putting. Because he doesn't have the charisma to pull it off. Sure if he can get a full minute of interaction he can improve the attitude of a person toward him, but he is still at root a low charisma character.
Conversely the player with a bard who acts rakishly will be given more leeway in social interactions, as they are perceived by NPCs as charming.
Sigfried may through circumstance prove his worth by slaying a dragon, making him more appealing to the people of the village he saved. This may even lead a fair maiden to fall in love with him...in spite of the fact that he's kind of annoying.
Because he is kind of annoying.
But no, you can't have a low charisma character be treated the same as a high charisma character. It is harder for the low charisma character to succeed socially. As it should be, regardless of if you have grey eyes or blue eyes.
I have not read the post in a while, but I never got the feeling that "party face" was the goal. The goal was to take someone(A fighter type) who is not naturally good with people, and make them more social without sacrificing a lot of combat power.
He goes from being that guy you really wish would not show up, to the guy you can tolerate, maybe even to the guy you can like depending on how much focus goes into it. This can be done with magical items, and/or skill focus(X) Fighters have enough feats that using 1 won't hurt too much.
She never said ignore the numbers though. She may have been guilty of assigning the qualities before the numbers supported them, but that at worst is being ambitious. It would be different if she never tried to raise the numbers to meet the bar.
I guess she will come along and say which one of our interpretation was correct.
But no, you can't have a low charisma character be treated the same as a high charisma character. It is harder for the low charisma character to succeed socially. As it should be, regardless of if you have grey eyes or blue eyes.
This I disagree with, for the most part. It is like how some people are naturally good at sports while other people have to practice to be as good.
Will Sigfried ever be as good as someone with a higher cha, that puts forth the same effort? No. Can he be just as good if not better than someone who does not really try hard to make friends and get along with others, but happens to be have a decent to high charisma? Sure.
|
|
I have not read the post in a while, but I never got the feeling that "party face" was the goal. The goal was to take someone(A fighter type) who is not naturally good with people, and make them more social without sacrificing a lot of combat power.
He goes from being that guy you really wish would not show up, to the guy you can tolerate, maybe even to the guy you can like depending on how much focus goes into it. This can be done with magical items, and/or skill focus(X) Fighters have enough feats that using 1 won't hurt too much.She never said ignore the numbers though. She may have been guilty of assigning the qualities before the numbers supported them, but that at worst is being ambitious. It would be different if she never tried to raise the numbers to meet the bar.
I guess she will come along and say which one of our interpretation was correct.
You can't be naturally good with people when you are naturally not good with people anymore than you can be naturally strong when you are naturally not strong.
You can literally buy items to improve your charisma. You can have a 6 Charisma and still be above average at some point in the game.
But being polite isn't the same as being dashing.
I have not read the post in a while, but I never got the feeling that "party face" was the goal. The goal was to take someone(A fighter type) who is not naturally good with people, and make them more social without sacrificing a lot of combat power.
He goes from being that guy you really wish would not show up, to the guy you can tolerate, maybe even to the guy you can like depending on how much focus goes into it. This can be done with magical items, and/or skill focus(X) Fighters have enough feats that using 1 won't hurt too much.She never said ignore the numbers though. She may have been guilty of assigning the qualities before the numbers supported them, but that at worst is being ambitious. It would be different if she never tried to raise the numbers to meet the bar.
I guess she will come along and say which one of our interpretation was correct.
You can't be naturally good with people when you are naturally not good with people anymore than you can be naturally strong when you are naturally not strong.
You can literally buy items to improve your charisma. You can have a 6 Charisma and still be above average at some point in the game.
But being polite isn't the same as being dashing.
I did not say naturally good. Being good and being naturally good are two different things.
|
|
But no, you can't have a low charisma character be treated the same as a high charisma character. It is harder for the low charisma character to succeed socially. As it should be, regardless of if you have grey eyes or blue eyes.
This I disagree with, for the most part. It is like how some people are naturally good at sports while other people have to practice to be as good.
Will Sigfried ever be as good as someone with a higher cha, that puts forth the same effort? No. Can he be just as good if not better than someone who does not really try hard to make friends and get along with others, but happens to be have a decent to high charisma? Sure.
The low charisma character can get a charisma modifying item, same as a weak character can get a strength modifying item.
I gave an example of circumstances where Sigfried is well liked. Circumstances can overcome weaknesses of character, or vice versa.
But diplomacy doesn't make you dashing any more than linguistics makes you a genius.
It just makes you good at a specific type of social interaction.
|
|
I did not say naturally good. Being good and being naturally good are two different things.I have not read the post in a while, but I never got the feeling that "party face" was the goal. The goal was to take someone(A fighter type) who is not naturally good with people, and make them more social without sacrificing a lot of combat power.
He goes from being that guy you really wish would not show up, to the guy you can tolerate, maybe even to the guy you can like depending on how much focus goes into it. This can be done with magical items, and/or skill focus(X) Fighters have enough feats that using 1 won't hurt too much.She never said ignore the numbers though. She may have been guilty of assigning the qualities before the numbers supported them, but that at worst is being ambitious. It would be different if she never tried to raise the numbers to meet the bar.
I guess she will come along and say which one of our interpretation was correct.
You can't be naturally good with people when you are naturally not good with people anymore than you can be naturally strong when you are naturally not strong.
You can literally buy items to improve your charisma. You can have a 6 Charisma and still be above average at some point in the game.
But being polite isn't the same as being dashing.
Which is exactly my point.
But no, you can't have a low charisma character be treated the same as a high charisma character. It is harder for the low charisma character to succeed socially. As it should be, regardless of if you have grey eyes or blue eyes.
This I disagree with, for the most part. It is like how some people are naturally good at sports while other people have to practice to be as good.
Will Sigfried ever be as good as someone with a higher cha, that puts forth the same effort? No. Can he be just as good if not better than someone who does not really try hard to make friends and get along with others, but happens to be have a decent to high charisma? Sure.
The low charisma character can get a charisma modifying item, same as a weak character can get a strength modifying item.
I gave an example of circumstances where Sigfried is well liked. Circumstances can overcome weaknesses of character, or vice versa.
But diplomacy doesn't make you dashing any more than linguistics makes you a genius.
It just makes you good at a specific type of social interaction.
Diplomacy is the skill used to get people to like you, network, negotiate and so on.
People that are dashing are well liked. If I am a good talker I don't see how I can't be dashing?
Which is exactly my point.I did not say naturally good. Being good and being naturally good are two different things.I have not read the post in a while, but I never got the feeling that "party face" was the goal. The goal was to take someone(A fighter type) who is not naturally good with people, and make them more social without sacrificing a lot of combat power.
He goes from being that guy you really wish would not show up, to the guy you can tolerate, maybe even to the guy you can like depending on how much focus goes into it. This can be done with magical items, and/or skill focus(X) Fighters have enough feats that using 1 won't hurt too much.She never said ignore the numbers though. She may have been guilty of assigning the qualities before the numbers supported them, but that at worst is being ambitious. It would be different if she never tried to raise the numbers to meet the bar.
I guess she will come along and say which one of our interpretation was correct.
You can't be naturally good with people when you are naturally not good with people anymore than you can be naturally strong when you are naturally not strong.
You can literally buy items to improve your charisma. You can have a 6 Charisma and still be above average at some point in the game.
But being polite isn't the same as being dashing.
I am not seeing your point. My point is described above with the sports example. One person has a natural athletic advantage. The other person has had to work on fundamentals to be as affective. Is the 2nd person naturally as good? I would say no, but they can still be as good assuming the 1st person does not work as hard. Now if the 1st person already has an advantage, and they work just as hard to maintain that advantage then the 2nd person won't catch up.
The game also supports this. You can send the high cha person in with no ranks in diplomacy or you can send the low cha person who has ranks in diplomacy to make an impression once he has improved himself. I will go with the low cha person.
|
|
But no, you can't have a low charisma character be treated the same as a high charisma character. It is harder for the low charisma character to succeed socially. As it should be, regardless of if you have grey eyes or blue eyes.
This I disagree with, for the most part. It is like how some people are naturally good at sports while other people have to practice to be as good.
Will Sigfried ever be as good as someone with a higher cha, that puts forth the same effort? No. Can he be just as good if not better than someone who does not really try hard to make friends and get along with others, but happens to be have a decent to high charisma? Sure.
The low charisma character can get a charisma modifying item, same as a weak character can get a strength modifying item.
I gave an example of circumstances where Sigfried is well liked. Circumstances can overcome weaknesses of character, or vice versa.
But diplomacy doesn't make you dashing any more than linguistics makes you a genius.
It just makes you good at a specific type of social interaction.
Diplomacy is the skill used to get people to like you, network, negotiate and so on.
People that are dashing are well liked. If I am a good talker I don't see how I can't be dashing?
"He is so dashing
He is so charismaticHe is so diplomatic
One of these is not a synonym.
Diplomacy does what the skill says it does. Expanding it would be like givinh a lift bonus for jump skill since it indicates great leg strength.