|
But entertain one thought of mine: How would you portray... let's say someone with dex 6, yet still having an acrobatics modifier of +30 through levels, ranks, skill focus and so forth? He is godly, but... dex 6.
More proof that the skills can overcome natural talent, or lack of, at least in the game any.
There is no way in real life, as an example, that someone with a -6 is that good at acrobatics.@MDT:It is not that there is no connection, but if the game has a mechanical way for it to be done then I should be able to do it. If I don't invest anything into a goal then of course I agree that it should not happen.
6 dex high acrobatics.
You throw like a girl (low ranged attack), your reflexes suck (low ac, initiative, reflexes), your manual dexterity stinks, you couldn't get out of a paper bag, and walking around you trip over things.
But if you take a second to focus, your training kicks in and you can keep your balance while traversing narrow or treacherous surfaces and dive, flip, jump, and roll, avoiding attacks and confusing your opponents.
The counter argument would be to apply Acrobatics to AC, as it is the same skill set you use to dodge.
But you wouldn't argue for that, would you?
But entertain one thought of mine: How would you portray... let's say someone with dex 6, yet still having an acrobatics modifier of +30 through levels, ranks, skill focus and so forth? He is godly, but... dex 6.
More proof that the skills can overcome natural talent, or lack of, at least in the game any.
There is no way in real life, as an example, that someone with a -6 is that good at acrobatics.@MDT:It is not that there is no connection, but if the game has a mechanical way for it to be done then I should be able to do it. If I don't invest anything into a goal then of course I agree that it should not happen.
6 dex high acrobatics.
You throw like a girl (low ranged attack), your reflexes suck (low ac, initiative, reflexes), your manual dexterity stinks, you couldn't get out of a paper bag, and walking around you trip over things.
But if you take a second to focus, your training kicks in and you can keep your balance while traversing narrow or treacherous surfaces and dive, flip, jump, and roll, avoiding attacks and confusing your opponents.
The counter argument would be to apply Acrobatics to AC, as it is the same skill set you use to dodge.
But you wouldn't argue for that, would you?
There are no mechanical rules that support acrobatics to AC so I can't argue for it. I don't know any clumsy people in real life that can do what you described.
Throwing like a girl is normally an issue of strength as opposed to accuracy.In real life dex is a lot more complicated than it is in the game. Quickness, and hand eye coordination would not be under one attribute.
If real life worked like dex in the game does you would suck at all of them, and therefore not be good at acrobatics most likely.
Because the game allows for skill ranks to overcome ability scores you can have low ability scores and excel at things that you are not good at as a character.
I'm just sick of the arguing.
There are not any alignment, paladin, munchkin rule bending, monks suck, rogues do to much damage, spell X is ruining my game, My GM is a jerk or similar threads going on so I have to be entertained with this one.
PS:I forgot to put the ":)" in my threads. I do apologize.
:)
Yeah. I'm sick of all those arguments too.
But... But.. My good necromancer paladin who's multiclassed into rogue and hunts monks down to kill them (because they are obviously evil, what with their weird mystic abilities, must be devil induced) wants to have a deep philosophical discussion on ways to maximize his SMITE MONK damage by taking penalties that he can bypass or generally ignore while getting the benefits of same!
:)
Maybe I'm crazy, but if someone doesn't like that play style/min-maxing/whatever in their game, why not have a GM to player chat sharing your concerns about it and if they want to continue the offending behavior simply not bring them back for the next session?
I get it is for the fun of the players but the moment it because stressful or not enjoyable for the GM is it really worth running it any more?
@Ciretose: Google "holistic" <- Scratch that. My intent with the term: Inclusive. Broader. Whole picture.
My argument is that unless it is specifically restricted as to not infringe on another skill/mechanic (as per your example AC, ranged to-hit etc), you should allow something that does "similar" things to cover what you want to do. No, the acrobatics +30 dude throws like a character of his level with dex 6, and his AC is two lower than most other folks.
And before "strength/con checks, why not charisma checks?": Strength/Con checks is a holdover from 2e's bend bars/lift gates stuff, system shock and so forth, where you have a separate mechanic for that, which was based off strength/con. But then again, no two stats were equal in 2e.
|
There are not any alignment, paladin, munchkin rule bending, monks suck, rogues do to much damage, spell X is ruining my game, My GM is a jerk or similar threads going on so I have to be entertained with this one.
.
Wraithstrike :
|
|
You asked for me to show what you said.
Maybe I should have asked for it in context.
You are trying to avoid dealing with low ability scores that you choose to have.
No, I'm not. I'm just running the game as it is.
You can say "entrainment purposes" all you like, but you posted that in a thread as a way to show examples of how you would apply skills "dynamically" as you say.
Of how you could apply them. It was a discussion that also involved ways of handling social encounters. Meanwhile, nothing was actually done contrary to the rules of the game, other than the the argument that Diplomacy takes a minute to use, but since they were talking IC for an undetermined amount of time, it wasn't important.
It was never intended as a description of how the game intends for you to play, nor was it arguing RAW, nor was it arguing anything at all. It had about as much to do with that argument as if I had said, "Dude, yeah, sorcerers have it hard compared to wizards. In my own games, I gave sorcerers the same spell progression as wizards, and it helped" only for someone to keep jumping up and shouting "you continue to argue that sorcerers have the same spell progression" like some illiterate who can't read what's in front of them.
You say Charisma doesn't apply to anything but what you say it applies to, despite the fact that it specifically says it applies to any check to influence.
Well yeah, pretty much. Read what you just wrote dude. "You say Charisma doesn't apply to anything but what you say it applies to, despite the fact that it specifically says it applies to any check to influence".
Which includes Diplomacy, Bluff, and even the raw Charisma check used with charm person. Here, lemme break it down a bit further for you, so you can get the gist of what I'm saying.
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
So yeah, it definitely applies to Checks to influence. It does not, however, create non-existent checks to influence starting NPC attitudes, nor does it function as some sort of street sign prompting NPCs to react differently to them without interaction.
In other words you take a narrow reading of the ability score (probably because it is low)
Or because that's how it is. I GM 90+% of the games I'm associated with, and have been doing so since I started playing (a large portion of this being there was little to no RPG community in my immediate area). So why would I intentionally try to narrowly read the effects simply because the ability score is low?
But you completely ignore the limitations, both for time and for application, of skills so that you can make NPCs act completely irrationally.
That's a load. The time thing was explained. Meanwhile, making requests and making people friendly are clearly defined under Diplomacy. Intimidate is used to threaten people (and don't you dare tell me the only way you can intimidate someone is to make them afraid of just you, and not what you may or may not do to them).
In other words you take a broad reading of skill ranks (probably because you can more easily raise them) and use that broad reading to usurp common sense and the GM playing the NPC.
No, I read them as doing what they can do. Meanwhile, even the post that you complain about didn't go against common sense, nor did it usurp control from the GM of the NPCs.
As noted, I'm a full-time GM when it comes to time spent GMing vs Playing, so why on earth would I advocate something to "usurp control from the GM"?
The GM, mind you, who is the only person who knows what is going on, why the NPCs are there, who they are, what their motivations are, etc...
Yeah. What's your point? Are you saying that NPCs cannot be influenced without the GM's permission? I suppose that's true to a point, but it would apply to that whole Charisma argument as well. I suppose if NPCs cannot be influenced without stabbing them to death, then you'd definitely have no good method for influencing the world other than making the most brutally efficient killing machine you could; since apparently using social attributes is out of the question.
Ridicule of the argument aside, you're arguing something I'm not.
You consistently dismiss what is written under the rule for Charisma as fluff, while arguing that things not under diplomacy are obvious.
No, I'm arguing about what Diplomacy does. It allows you to change an NPC's attitude towards you, even to "friendly".
friend
/frɛnd/ Show Spelled[frend] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2. a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter: friends of the Boston Symphony.
3. a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?
Your argument throughout has been completely inconsistent and self contradictory, because you are arguing for the outcome you want, not the logical conclusions of your arguments.
Meanwhile, you've been arguing that Charisma does more than it does, because you think it should based on its fluff, which doesn't actually define or do anything.
It's not like I'm saying "You can make them your friend with a successful Climb check because that would really impress them", I'm saying "You can make them your friend with a successful Diplomacy check, modified by Charisma, because that's what it mechanically does".
It does not, however, create non-existent checks to influence starting NPC attitudes, nor does it function as some sort of street sign prompting NPCs to react differently to them without interaction.
This appears to be one of your issues with it working PRIOR to interaction. Charisma IS visible.
Just because you personally don't believe people can see it, doesn't mean that it does not affect people. There are unmistakable visible signs of Charisma, and I'm NOT even talking about beauty.
It can be seen in the way someone carries themselves with confidence, or the way someone just comes off as creepy with no explanation other than something just doesn't seem right about them. The way someone looks at others, subconsciously is a factor of Charisma. The way they exude a certain power even.
A Hag, as the arguments keep using, has a high Charisma. it could be her bearing of super confidence in her power over others, or her steely gaze that feels as if it is looking into your very soul. It could be just the way that despite her horrid appearance, her smile comes across as disarming or reassuring that lulls you into a false sense of safety.
These are all examples of VISIBLE Charisma, before ever even talking to someone. The example of the close-mouthed Dwarf, can even be seen by others in the way that he looks at people as they approach as if he doesn't want to be disturbed.
These are things that can be seen, that a PC is not going to describe the every little subconscious nuance of their personality as they walk down the street or into a bar. Instead we have the base Charisma score to show us the nuances, and if the PC wants to embellish them or play them up to reflect the specific reason they have a less than average Charisma, then even better.
|
|
It does not, however, create non-existent checks to influence starting NPC attitudes, nor does it function as some sort of street sign prompting NPCs to react differently to them without interaction.This appears to be one of your issues with it working PRIOR to interaction. Charisma IS visible.
Just because you personally don't believe people can see it, doesn't mean that it does not affect people. There are unmistakable visible signs of Charisma, and I'm NOT even talking about beauty.
It can be seen in the way someone carries themselves with confidence, or the way someone just comes off as creepy with no explanation other than something just doesn't seem right about them. The way someone looks at others, subconsciously is a factor of Charisma. The way they exude a certain power even.
A Hag, as the arguments keep using, has a high Charisma. it could be her bearing of super confidence in her power over others, or her steely gaze that feels as if it is looking into your very soul. It could be just the way that despite her horrid appearance, her smile comes across as disarming or reassuring that lulls you into a false sense of safety.
These are all examples of VISIBLE Charisma, before ever even talking to someone. The example of the close-mouthed Dwarf, can even be seen by others in the way that he looks at people as they approach as if he doesn't want to be disturbed.
These are things that can be seen, that a PC is not going to describe the every little subconscious nuance of their personality as they walk down the street or into a bar. Instead we have the base Charisma score to show us the nuances, and if the PC wants to embellish them or play them up to reflect the specific reason they have a less than average Charisma, then even better.
Yup.
Appearance is obviously visible.
If personal magnetism is by definition something others can detect.
Sensing someones ability to lead is something you should be able to detect, since it is how likely you are to follow them.
Personality is really the only aspect that is even debatable, and for the purposes of NPCs, it is something the GM should be taking into consideration.
The only real debate going on at this point is if diplomacy is limited to RAW or if it can be used more broadly.
Only Ashiel seems to be arguing charisma doesn't apply to...well...charisma.
Again, this is not just about diplomacy.
This is a FUNDAMENTAL disagreement in what the words "role playing" mean.
Ashiel and those who have been on her side appear to believe that "role playing" means to "act out a scene according to the player's desire for that scene to move in a certain direction with little or no regard to the character's actual ability scores, concept and stats."
Those who are on the other side believe that "role playing" means "act out a scene according to the character's actual ability scores, concept and stats, without attempting to overcome the character's mechanical limitations, but instead to factor those into the scene in a believable manner."
As I said before (perhaps in another thread) I am firmly in the second camp, and although I don't consider the first group to be "playing wrong" I do consider the first group to be misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) the core concept of "role playing" at its most basic level.
Since this is a fundamental disagreement about what role playing is, it is almost impossible to get the two sides to agree.
|
|
Again, this is not just about diplomacy.
This is a FUNDAMENTAL disagreement in what the words "role playing" mean.
Ashiel and those who have been on her side appear to believe that "role playing" means to "act out a scene according to the player's desire for that scene to move in a certain direction with little or no regard to the character's actual ability scores, concept and stats."
Those who are on the other side believe that "role playing" means "act out a scene according to the character's actual ability scores, concept and stats, without attempting to overcome the character's mechanical limitations, but instead to factor those into the scene in a believable manner."
As I said before (perhaps in another thread) I am firmly in the second camp, and although I don't consider the first group to be "playing wrong" I do consider the first group to be misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) the core concept of "role playing" at it's most basic level.
Since this is a fundamental disagreement about what role playing is, it is almost impossible to get the two sides to agree.
Yes, but since Ashiel appears to be the only one left on that side, we have moved on to the diplomacy issue :)
Yes, but since Ashiel appears to be the only one left on that side, we have moved on to the diplomacy issue :)
I sure wish you were right that Ashiel is the only one left on that side... I really do. Maybe she's the only one left on that side still ARGUING in this thread, but from what I've seen in plenty of other threads, the "other side" is still a large fraction, perhaps even a MAJORITY of RPGers based on comments I see all the friggn' time.
Yes, but since Ashiel appears to be the only one left on that side, we have moved on to the diplomacy issue :)
I would argue that this is a fundamentally wrong approach to take here. It isn't he's the 'only one left on that side' as in the others are vanquished or have left the field, it's that others have said their piece -- and moved on.
Quite frankly the conversation isn't worth the time anymore -- partly because of your (in my opinion) incorrect understanding of skills -- and partly because what your opinion is, on the internet, has not bearing on my life or table.
As such we have discussed and reached our mutual conclusion (as we had) so it is time to leave it.
Quite frankly I think that is the case with everyone present.
|
|
Yes, but since Ashiel appears to be the only one left on that side, we have moved on to the diplomacy issue :)
I would argue that this is a fundamentally wrong approach to take here. It isn't he's the 'only one left on that side' as in the others are vanquished or have left the field, it's that others have said their piece -- and moved on.
Quite frankly the conversation isn't worth the time anymore -- partly because of your (in my opinion) incorrect understanding of skills -- and partly because what your opinion is, on the internet, has not bearing on my life or table.
As such we have discussed and reached our mutual conclusion (as we had) so it is time to leave it.
Quite frankly I think that is the case with everyone present.
Probably.
I will however, try one more time, as I think mdt (I think it was him, it isn't on the screen here and I don't feel like closing this and starting over) made an excellent point last page. My position is that ability scores are who you are, and skills represent training.
The reason I take the position I take on skills is that I believe skills are the outcome of training a specific skill set.
If something falls outside of that skill set, it falls outside of your training.
If I am a math genius, it doesn't mean I am a philosophy genius. If I am a good diplomat, it doesn't mean I'm suave with the ladies.
When something doesn't fall under a skill, I default to the ability score. It seems like you and others try to default to a modification of the skill. And that can work if that is the consistent approach, which seems to be the case.
The issue arises when people try to do both, as in the example Ashiel has renounced where she used skill checks outside of their scope in place of role playing to force an NPC to do something completely irrational.
Skills checks, IMHO, can be too powerful when used outside of the intended context, specifically because they over-rule context. This is why they nerfed diplomacy so you can only go up 2 steps, you can't "rush it", and there is no "fanatic" anymore.
Here is the old version for reference, which also lays out the definitions for "Hostile" through "Fanatic" and what each meant.
http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Diplomacy_Skill
Many of us hand wave some skill checks. I know in my game I probably give more info for a high knowledge check on a monster than is intended by the game as written.
All of this is fine, there is no wrongbadfun, etc...
But when a skill has specific limits spelled out, it is done for a reason.
I think diplomacy has the 1d4 hour spelled out specifically because they don't want it to be a permanent/long term effect. Particularly when you combine it with the once per 24 part.
If you expand it's use out beyond this, you get examples like the one Ashiel posted.
There is a grey area here. There will always be a grey area in social interactions until someone can invent a turing machine. It will always come down to GM interpretation of context.
But if you need to expand something beyond it's written context, it should be the ability score, not the skill check.
A good example comes in the RoTRL AP
When going up the mountains to Xin Shalast, at some point you enter an area where the plane of leng and the material plane intersect.
This is kind of a planar knowledge check, but it also kind of isn't.It is basically the kind of experience no one would know about. So the designer went with a Wisdom check.
Why? Because when in doubt, default to the ability most closely related to the event.
I would apply the same concept to charisma. Context and role play as primary, charisma as something to consider, the tie-breaker, and if all else fails possibly a check.
Yes, but since Ashiel appears to be the only one left on that side, we have moved on to the diplomacy issue :)
I would argue that this is a fundamentally wrong approach to take here. It isn't he's the 'only one left on that side' as in the others are vanquished or have left the field, it's that others have said their piece -- and moved on.
Quite frankly the conversation isn't worth the time anymore -- partly because of your (in my opinion) incorrect understanding of skills -- and partly because what your opinion is, on the internet, has not bearing on my life or table.
As such we have discussed and reached our mutual conclusion (as we had) so it is time to leave it.
Quite frankly I think that is the case with everyone present.
This is pretty much it. Myself and Ciretose agree on certain things, and the things we don't agree on won't change. We resorted to an infinite cycle of repeating ourselves, but it really is not moving the debate any farther along so I am on the sidelines for the most part unless something new comes up.
edit: What does the following mean? Better yet, give an in game example.
"I would apply the same concept to charisma. Context and role play as primary, charisma as something to consider, the tie-breaker, and if all else fails possibly a check."
|
|
Yes, but since Ashiel appears to be the only one left on that side, we have moved on to the diplomacy issue :)
I would argue that this is a fundamentally wrong approach to take here. It isn't he's the 'only one left on that side' as in the others are vanquished or have left the field, it's that others have said their piece -- and moved on.
Quite frankly the conversation isn't worth the time anymore -- partly because of your (in my opinion) incorrect understanding of skills -- and partly because what your opinion is, on the internet, has not bearing on my life or table.
As such we have discussed and reached our mutual conclusion (as we had) so it is time to leave it.
Quite frankly I think that is the case with everyone present.
This is pretty much it. Myself and Ciretose agree on certain things, and the things we don't agree on won't change. We resorted to an infinite cycle of repeating ourselves, but it really is not moving the debate any farther along so I am on the sidelines for the most part unless something new comes up.
edit: What does the following mean? Better yet, give an in game example.
"I would apply the same concept to charisma. Context and role play as primary, charisma as something to consider, the tie-breaker, and if all else fails possibly a check."
Using Ashiel's example.
Guard approaches you in an alley demanding you come with them.
GM should know at minimum the following.
1. Why the guards approached you in the alley.
Are they under orders?
Are they approaching you specifically?
Are they good guards who follow orders?
Etc...
All of this will set initial attitude and the context of their motivations. They may not be willing to let you have a minute of interaction to discuss things. They may tell you to shut up and come with them.
Now if they are just randomly messing with people, you may be able to intimidate them to mess with someone else. Or if they are looking for you, you may be able to disguise or bluff them out of it (we are not the droids you are looking for...) or if they are able to be reasoned with and you can get the full minute you may be able to move two levels on the chart to get them to a point you can make a request of them to let you go.
This would be how you would use checks in that situation. But all of them are predicated on the context of why are the guards there in the first place. Which only the GM knows.
In a less aggressive setting, say a bar. Guy walks in, looks around.
GM should know why the guy walked in, what he is looking for.
If he is looking for some people to hire to fight, he looks for the toughest looking person in the room. If he's looking for love, he looks for the hottest gender appropriate person in the room. If he's looking to socialize, he looks for the most interesting person in the room...which is generally going to be the highest charisma character.
King is handing out titles to the party that just returned victorious from generic quest. Who is going to get which title? Depends on what titles are available, what the king has been told about each, etc...
I didn't do a charisma roll in any of these situations. Charisma did come into play in all but the first one (and may have depending on why they approached us in the alley.)
That same situation can be handled with skills depending on how the GM sets it up though. I don't see how the sentence I bolded applies.
Like I said before unless you are in a rushed situation the skill will be used. You can start talking while the guards are approaching. It will most likely take them more than a minute for them to escort you to where you are going. You can also deliberately go slow to stretch the time.
If the guards are in a mood to not listen then you being likeable won't change that. Well it might in your game, but people that are in "I won't listen" mode normally stay there.
Here is my reasoning:
If the NPC's work on absolutes such as they won't listen then you are out of luck. If they don't want to really hear what you have to say, but might talk then diplomacy can get them to ease up, most likely not enough to let you go free, but some info may be gained.
If being rushed is the only reason to go with a charisma check I would just take my chances since that is a corner case.
|
|
That same situation can be handled with skills depending on how the GM sets it up though. I don't see how the sentence I bolded applies.
Like I said before unless you are in a rushed situation the skill will be used. You can start talking while the guards are approaching. It will most likely take them more than a minute for them to escort you to where you are going. You can also deliberately go slow to stretch the time.
If the guards are in a mood to not listen then you being likeable won't change that. Well it might in your game, but people that are in "I won't listen" mode normally stay there.
Here is my reasoning:
If the NPC's work on absolutes such as they won't listen then you are out of luck. If they don't want to really hear what you have to say, but might talk then diplomacy can get them to ease up, most likely not enough to let you go free, but some info may be gained.If being rushed is the only reason to go with a charisma check I would just take my chances since that is a corner case.
The charisma check would apply to something other than negotiating, if you don't want to actually role play it out.
In my game, you describe your character in advance so I know where your charisma applies and use it for context. For the guard example, they are there for a purpose, charisma falls by the wayside to context.
For the bar example, Charisma is what they are perceiving that leads them to walk over to you, prior to any check.
For the king, your Charisma is a factor he considers.
Charisma checks are corner cases. When it doesn't fit a skill, that is when you would use it.
Where we differ is how broadly we apply skills. I take a much more narrow reading than you do.
But both of us agree on the main point, which is that Charisma applies to how you are perceived in the world and is part of the context NPCs apply to decisions.
The only way a dump stat, as most people think of them, can exist is if the GM doesn't use that stat for anything. If you are GMing a combat only game, then it is normal for people to dump stats like Cha, Int, or Wis. Why? Because the GM is not going to ever role play. Why invest points and effort in a stat and role to play if the GM is just going to read you boxed text and toss a few combat encounters at you? At that point the most you are going to be able to do is role play with the other players since none of the NPCs will be role played. And you can do that however you wish regardless of stats.
As I have said in whatever thread, if a GM uses social encounters then the players will probably want to invest points in those mental skills. Why? Because now there is a concrete return on your investment. Having positive modifiers on your Cha stat check while mixing with others at a ball thrown by the Governor will net you very real returns in both opportunities to role play and possibly even rewards such as new contacts or favors.
The opposite is true... if a GM avoids all combat in his games expect Str, Dex, and Con to be dumped. In such a game builds will look very different. Featuring high skill totals and favorable mental stats. In such builds Bards, Rogues, and spell casters will prevail rather than the Fighters, Barbarians, and spell casters of the previous All Combat model.
As far as playing your stat? That is up to the player. I suggest having the player define why they have a bonus or penalty to their stat and leaving it at that. Why? To encourage role play and get the player thinking about what makes their character the way they are. A 7 Cha can be played as charming although if you are using social encounters then your rolls may spoil your attempts to charm more often than than you would like. Remember a 7 Cha has a -2 on his d20 toss for a Cha check, while a 16 Cha person has a +3. If the 16 person rolls a 7 and the 7 person rolls an 18 then the that charming cha 7 person was the life of the party with a 16 final total, while the 16 person had an off night and went away with a lackluster 10 total. The difference between the two characters is 5 or about 25%. Depending on the DCs being used that can make a huge difference or not. Charming is how you are acting NOT the final result.
|
|
As far as playing your stat? That is up to the player. I suggest having the player define why they have a bonus or penalty to their stat and leaving it at that.
I agree, as long as you don't have a player who says "My 7 charisma means I am so beautiful that sometimes I intimidate people".
As to charming, you can play it however you like, but the NPCs will perceive you as someone with the charisma you have. If you do lots of heroic/nice things you can overcome that. But you will always be someone with the ability scores you choose/rolled.
As far as playing your stat? That is up to the player. I suggest having the player define why they have a bonus or penalty to their stat and leaving it at that.
I agree, as long as you don't have a player who says "My 7 charisma means I am so beautiful that sometimes I intimidate people".
As to charming, you can play it however you like, but the NPCs will perceive you as someone with the charisma you have. If you do lots of heroic/nice things you can overcome that. But you will always be someone with the ability scores you choose/rolled.
Can someone have a 7 Charisma and the body of Adonis? I say they can.
|
|
Can someone have a 7 Charisma and the body of Adonis? I say they can.
As far as playing your stat? That is up to the player. I suggest having the player define why they have a bonus or penalty to their stat and leaving it at that.
I agree, as long as you don't have a player who says "My 7 charisma means I am so beautiful that sometimes I intimidate people".
As to charming, you can play it however you like, but the NPCs will perceive you as someone with the charisma you have. If you do lots of heroic/nice things you can overcome that. But you will always be someone with the ability scores you choose/rolled.
They can. But they can't have the body of Adonis and be charming to boot.
If someone is pretty but annoying, that fits low charisma fine.
This issue is when you have a 7 and don't accept that means you are significantly less than average.