The only hard rules about Charisma are that it is a modifier to a handful of skills, used as a spell stat for certain classes, and that is is used in certain abilities/powers as a modifier.
EVERYTHING ELSE is merely GM Fiat or house rules.
Sure there is a bit of fluff under the description to use as a guideline but that is just a guideline. NO rule supports any of the fluff other than it's implication as a skill modifier. Any stat check for charisma is pure GM fiat in a system which doesn't even offer any suggestions for such stat checks.
Let people play their characters the way they want please. If you want to be unliked because of your bad charisma then you have the freedom to do so when you make a character, but not everyone feels that way.
I feel people should justify any modifiers with background or description. But that is just my house rule. And it leaves the player in charge of why they may have a -1 to charisma. I am sure there are a million reasons that could fit a million characters for a -1. DON'T make the mistake of stomping out player creativity simply because you want to punish anyone who puts a low score there. That's just poor GMing.
I feel people should justify any modifiers with background or description. But that is just my house rule. And it leaves the player in charge of why they may have a -1 to charisma. I am sure there are a million reasons that could fit a million characters for a -1. DON'T make the mistake of stomping out player creativity simply because you want to punish anyone who puts a low score there. That's just poor GMing.
I don't believe that anyone is trying to force a 'reason' on anyone or take away creativity -- I believe, however, some of us are objecting to the notion that a single skill point trumps 2 attribute points because, apparently, all interaction can be handled via that particular skill -- and, further, that many people who dump this particular attribute attempt to justify it in a way that minimizes the in-game impact.
In my game, if you have a -2 charisma modifier, people notice. I don't much care what the player selects that those people notice -- it can be anything from a smell, pox marks, unintentional sneering or leering, inappropriate laughter, a grating tone of voice, irritating mannerisms, there being "something about him that I can't put my finger on", or some combination of those -- or something else completely that actually exists.
And, until that person who may, in fact, have learned to be very persuasive, gets a chance to spend a whole minute with someone and making friends with them, people will react to what they've noticed.
I have no problem that person even being able to talk their way into the pants of someone of the opposite gender - however, they will not be suave and debonair -- and will, in fact probably end up as (when the 1d4 hours wear off..) a: "OMG, I can't believe I slept with him!" sort of thing.
That's not poor GMing - that's actually using the numbers on the sheet for something other than placeholding and/or spells per day.
Question for those who don't think that Charisma should be used as a factor in determining initial attitude from an NPC that has not heard of the PCs, how do you determine the initial attitude? What factors do you think should be used and why should Charisma not be a factor?
The only hard rules about Charisma are that it is a modifier to a handful of skills, used as a spell stat for certain classes, and that is is used in certain abilities/powers as a modifier.
When you say "handful" you may have missed that Charisma affects the second most number of skills and the most that are untrained. That's a big hand.
In my game, if you have a -2 charisma modifier, people notice.And, until that person who may, in fact, have learned to be very persuasive, gets a chance to spend a whole minute with someone and making friends with them, people will react to what they've noticed.
I have no problem that person even being able to talk their way into the pants of someone of the opposite gender - however, they will not be suave and debonair -- and will, in fact probably end up as (when the 1d4 hours wear off..) a: "OMG, I can't believe I slept with him!" sort of thing.
That's not poor GMing - that's actually using the numbers on the sheet for something other than placeholding and/or spells per day.
I am NOT saying it shouldn't be noticed! Quite the opposite. A good GM uses all those nifty details on the character's background and description. What I disagree with is in bold! A character from a Skyfander setting using a nefarious lineage as his reason for his -2 to Cha can be a suave individual (with plenty of social skill ranks). He may even get chances to sweep women off their feet with his dilopmacy. But the poor woman is probably going to try to keep their relationship on the down low for fear of being associated with his family. I could see her trying to sneak out of the room they shared and trying to keep future dates with him limited to more private venues so as to avoid the public.
When you say "handful" you may have missed that Charisma affects the second most number of skills and the most that are untrained. That's a big hand.
Sorry I did miss that.
I have no problem that person even being able to talk their way into the pants of someone of the opposite gender - however, they will not be suave and debonair -- and will, in fact probably end up as (when the 1d4 hours wear off..) a: "OMG, I can't believe I slept with him!" sort of thing.
That's not poor GMing - that's actually using the numbers on the sheet for something other than placeholding and/or spells per day.
What if the only thing the person can do is woo women? I know some guys that can seem to get whatever woman they want but when it comes to any other interaction, they aren't very good. Can you be suave and debonair only and have a low Charisma?
Question for those who don't think that Charisma should be used as a factor in determining initial attitude from an NPC that has not heard of the PCs, how do you determine the initial attitude? What factors do you think should be used and why should Charisma not be a factor?
Ask myself the following questions:
- Would the NPC react to obvious mannerisms? (Up to the player to attribute these)- Would the NPC react to apparent race? (Only 1 in 10000 dwarves will have a positive starting reaction to one of visible orc descent)
- Would the NPC react to visible armor/weapons? (Most people are put off by display of weapons, some might be impressed)
- Would the NPC react to class/faith identifications? (A weakling might react favorably to a similarly weak wizard, and a macho dude might react negatively)
- Does the PC seem like trouble? (A wizard or summoner in ustalav would likely be seen as such, and held in less favorable light)
And so forth.
Charisma CAN be one such factor. Remember that charisma is not always beneficial, as has been discussed, not all people respond well to someone who exudes confidence. You will impress some, but intimidate others.
However, in most cases, I let them start neutral. Because if I GM fiat even ONE step, it is like effectively giving the PC in question a bonus or penalty of 10 points of charisma. If you say that Cha14 dude automatically gets one step better (friendly: Dc10+mods), and Cha7 gets one step worse (unfriendly: DC20+mods), he does not have 7 more charisma effectively in terms of game mechanics. He has 27 more to make up for the 10 lower DC.
|
How does charisma make someone a better leader in your games?By allowing them to take the leadership feat :P
This is actually exactly what I meant. I think it's also what Aardvark Barbarian has been saying
If by initial impression you only mean the NPC initially shows more favoritism, as an example, toward the high cha PC then I agree,
Yes.
There are many, many factors in social interactions that are subjective. How much do they dislike half orcs and how will that effect the interaction? How afraid is the npc of ticking off the BBEG and how will that effect if they will help youM
This is not a problem, it is a feature. One that makes it different than a computer or board game. Something that makes it flexible and organic.
You can't roll everything. And you seem to want to expand the power of diplomacy beyond what it says it does so that you can roll play ore and role play less.
Role playing requires GM decision making. I hope a GM woud consider charisma in those interactions.
But skills are things you roll when the specific circumstances they apply to occur, not replacements for inconvienient ability scores.
|
|
If a low charisma dwarf can do a better job at leading does that not mean him the better leader?Hold up -- why is your hypothetical dwarf with low charisma able to do a "better job at leading"? Is it because he's the better tactician? Because he's smarter and better able to see the angles?
I ask only because knowing where people should go for optimal placement doesn't mean a thing if you can't convince them to actually go there. A brilliant guy with low charisma would have trouble with that part (especially since actually leading people is not covered by the diplomacy skill) -- maybe he's seen as a know-it-all, or an armchair general, or he's just the sort of person who yells everything and everyone around him shuts down.
Does that mean that in a party of 4-5 people who spend all their time together people won't eventually get past that and realize that the low-cha guy would make a good tactician and start listening to him? No. However, when the time comes for the group to lead the militia against the goblin invasion, they're way less likely to listen to low-cha guy (and will probably only do it because higher-cha guy is...)
Leadership isn't about knowing what people should do -- (heck, most of the time, they already know that) -- it's about making them willing to (or even wanting to) do it.
+ 1000
If charisma can literally command arcane power through sheer force of will, why is it so hard to understand how it could be used it lead people?
Let's not forget that using Charisma to determine initial attitudes towards someone is not only not realistic, but it's creating additional metagame penalties. The guy with a 7 Charisma is already going to have a harder time improving the attitude of someone because of their -10% to their skill, right?
So let's pretend that the GM says something like "Ok, despite having no interaction with this guy, who this NPC doesn't know from Adam, he's going to dislike him because of his low Charisma".
So the GM sets the starting attitude of the NPC to unfriendly.
By doing this, all the DCs for interacting with the NPC just increased by +5, meaning that the DC is now 35% more likely to fail.
If the character has a 14 Charisma (the opposite of a 7 Charisma), and the GM made the initial attitude Friendly, then the DCs drop by 5, and you have a +2 bonus, giving you an effective +35% chance to succeed.
This means that the difference of 7 and 14 is a 65% difference. You are effectively punishing and rewarding twice, out of some bizarre GM Fiat that has nothing to do with the rules. In short, it shows a terrible lack of understanding in the game system.
An analog would be to say "Well your character has 7 Strength, so he's bad at carrying stuff. He has to treat everything as if it weighed twice as much." even though he already has a handicap in carrying capacity.
=========
On another point is that Ciretose keeps backpedaling and saying that even though there are no rules for it, Charisma should be used to determine starting attitudes, except that other factors apparently mean more. He has noted that circumstances, race, reputation, NPC personality, and all the things that we have noted as being logical reasons to set initial attitude are apparently more important.
And then says that it's bad GMing to not take Charisma into consideration, even though it is apparently an incredibly minor aspect of his own methods for determining initial attitude (despite pretty much declaring that NPCs would ignore low-charisma characters in a party). However, if you are basing NPC reactions on all of those things, the Charisma bonus or penalty is then applied during the actual interaction (in the form of a +X/-X modifier).
But skills are things you roll when the specific circumstances they apply to occur, not replacements for inconvienient ability scores.
+Lots. This. No other attribute in the game can be so easily dismissed or completely replaced by a single skill, so why should this one?
If only there was a social save. That could help -- then everyone with low charisma would be gullible and there would be a pure-rule effect to the dump-stat... (which, to be fair, they already are [somewhat] assuming bad guys have Diplomacy...)
No other attribute in the game can be so easily dismissed or completely replaced by a single skill, so why should this one?
Good thing it isn't, huh?
Last I checked, someone mentioned that it has the second most associated skills in the game, which means if you want to try to pull up your deficiencies, you will spend all your skill points and likely still lack enough points.Secondly, skill points do not protect against Charisma damage putting you in a coma. Skill points do not allow you to influence or resist influence from spells like charm person. Skill points do not make your Sorcerer, Bard, Oracle, or Paladin spells stronger, or give you more of them. It doesn't improve class abilities, or spell-like abilities.
Skill points do not increase your hit points and fortitude saves if you are bitten by a vampire, or turned into a mummy, or a ghoul, or a lich, or anything of the sort (there's probably a lot of frail lich-wizards out there in the world).
Yeah, that's bein' real honest there, guys. How dare you be able to participate in social encounters by investing skill points in an area you are handicapped in? The travesty.
Question for those who don't think that Charisma should be used as a factor in determining initial attitude from an NPC that has not heard of the PCs, how do you determine the initial attitude? What factors do you think should be used and why should Charisma not be a factor?Ask myself the following questions:
- Would the NPC react to obvious mannerisms? (Up to the player to attribute these)
- Would the NPC react to apparent race? (Only 1 in 10000 dwarves will have a positive starting reaction to one of visible orc descent)
- Would the NPC react to visible armor/weapons? (Most people are put off by display of weapons, some might be impressed)
- Would the NPC react to class/faith identifications? (A weakling might react favorably to a similarly weak wizard, and a macho dude might react negatively)
- Does the PC seem like trouble? (A wizard or summoner in ustalav would likely be seen as such, and held in less favorable light)And so forth.
Charisma CAN be one such factor. Remember that charisma is not always beneficial, as has been discussed, not all people respond well to someone who exudes confidence. You will impress some, but intimidate others.
However, in most cases, I let them start neutral. Because if I GM fiat even ONE step, it is like effectively giving the PC in question a bonus or penalty of 10 points of charisma. If you say that Cha14 dude automatically gets one step better (friendly: Dc10+mods), and Cha7 gets one step worse (unfriendly: DC20+mods), he does not have 7 more charisma effectively in terms of game mechanics. He has 27 more to make up for the 10 lower DC.
How are the two bolded parts not exactly what the Charisma score dictates? Your example for the PC seeming like trouble doesn't have to be so specific. Sometimes you just get a vibe.
Not a single person has said that the only factor should be Charisma. It has been said over and over again that it is but one factor. It may not even be enough of a factor to change from Friendly to Indifferent. A combination of factors, to include Charisma is what would do that.
Let me give an example. A party of half-orcs comes into town. The party has a fighter (Cha 12), cleric of Cayden Cailean (Cha 12), rogue (Cha 14), and wizard (Cha 10). The players all thought that they should be related so they all took the Toothy Trait. They town needs help with a local tribe of orcs attacking them. The party has a reputation of working for the common good. They get into the town and seek out the local leaders. The fighter is the de facto leader but no one in town knows this. Who should the locals trust the most initially? What would make them (with no other information than what I have given) trust that one party member enough to tell them where their leaders are? What should the initial reaction be? What if the fighter had the Pass for Human feat?
On another point is that Ciretose keeps backpedaling and saying that even though there are no rules for it, Charisma should be used to determine starting attitudes, except that other factors apparently mean more. He has noted that circumstances, race, reputation, NPC personality, and all the things that we have noted as being logical reasons to set initial attitude are apparently more important.
There is no back pedaling. He has never, not one single time, made the claim that Charisma is the single most important or only factor. He has said that it is one of many factors that he takes into account. He has said that a GM that does not take it into account is allowing for players to have dump stats without any drawback. He has never claimed (no one in this thread has for that matter) that it is the sole factor in determining an NPC's initial attitude. He has made it clear many times that race, class, Charisma, wealth, etc. all play roles. Sometimes those attributes have more influence than others.
All of this stemmed from an innocuous statement where he claimed that he generally has NPCs approach the higher Charisma characters before the lower Charisma characters. He never said that the lower Charisma characters would trigger a lower initial attitude. He just said that the NPCs start with the one's they think are more approachable.
Last I checked, someone mentioned that it has the second most associated skills in the game, which means if you want to try to pull up your deficiencies, you will spend all your skill points and likely still lack enough points.
Except that based on how you're presenting the Diplomacy skill and how it completely allows you to overcome *any* social problems, well, the only other skill I might ever need put points in is UMD. [Which you can't use untrained anyway, so that's a special case.]
I mean, why waste ranks in Bluff? I'll just chat up the guy for a minute, and then he'll just agree with me -- no need to lie.
Secondly, skill points do not protect against Charisma damage putting you in a coma.
True. Now when's the last time you took Charisma damage?
Skill points do not allow you to influence or resist influence from spells like charm person.
No. But then, the extra WIS you bought and your higher WILL save does that for you, in terms of resisting the influence.
However - this is a good one for me - Since you seem to think that Diplomacy is the end-all-be-all of social interaction, then why is it that a Wizard can't use Diplomacy to ask someone they've charmed to do something for them? (So the only time your natural charisma matters is after you've enchanted someone? Really?)
Skill points do not make your Sorcerer, Bard, Oracle, or Paladin spells stronger, or give you more of them. It doesn't improve class abilities, or spell-like abilities.
True, and I've never argued that. But, here's the difference:
If you're a non-Int caster with a low int, you take the hit in skill points. There's an actual game effect to the low stat.
If you're a non-Wis caster with a low wis, you take the hit in Will saves. There's an actual game effect to the low stat.
If you're a non-Cha caster with a low Cha -- and all social interaction is done via Diplomacy -- well, the only hit you've taken is a need to spend 1 skill point. Nothing else happens.
Skill points do not increase your hit points and fortitude saves if you are bitten by a vampire, or turned into a mummy, or a ghoul, or a lich, or anything of the sort (there's probably a lot of frail lich-wizards out there in the world).
Really? You're justifying how useful Charisma is by saying "Well, if you're (un)dead, it's as vital as Con was when you're alive?" That's not usually a consideration at character design (any more than the number of spells I'm not getting because I'm not a Cha-cater).
Yeah, that's bein' real honest there, guys. How dare you be able to participate in social encounters by investing skill points in an area you are handicapped in? The travesty.
You set up a straw man and then say I'm not being honest in this debate? Really?
Again, at the risk of repeating myself, I've never said a low charisma individual can't participate in social encounters. In fact, if you look at my earlier posts, I even supported that this person could, by using ranks in social skills, learn to become somewhat persuasive and shift people's attitudes, get stuff from them, all that.
What I have said, however, is that one skill does not 100% completely undo the effects of that handicapping (for anyone who's not a caster). I used various examples of this - like when someone's too busy to talk to you for the minute it takes to change their attitude, or when you don't share a language, or... but, hey, keep attacking the strawman.
Question for those who don't think that Charisma should be used as a factor in determining initial attitude from an NPC that has not heard of the PCs, how do you determine the initial attitude? What factors do you think should be used and why should Charisma not be a factor?Ask myself the following questions:
- Would the NPC react to obvious mannerisms? (Up to the player to attribute these)
- Does the PC seem like trouble? (A wizard or summoner in ustalav would likely be seen as such, and held in less favorable light)
How are the two bolded parts not exactly what the Charisma score dictates? Your example for the PC seeming like trouble doesn't have to be so specific. Sometimes you just get a vibe.
Not a single person has said that the only factor should be Charisma. It has been said over and over again that it is but one factor. It may not even be enough of a factor to change from Friendly to Indifferent. A combination of factors, to include Charisma is what would do that.
Let me give an example. A party of half-orcs comes into town. The party has a fighter (Cha 12), cleric of Cayden Cailean (Cha 12), rogue (Cha 14), and wizard (Cha 10). The players all thought that they should be related so they all took the Toothy Trait. They town needs help with a local tribe of orcs attacking them. The party has a reputation of working for the common good. They get into the town and seek out the local leaders. The fighter is the de facto leader but no one in town knows this. Who should the locals trust the most initially? What would make them (with no other information than what I have given) trust that one party member enough to tell them where their leaders are? What should the initial reaction be? What if the fighter had the Pass for Human feat?
Mannerisms can manifest in many ways. Both high and low charisma can be loud and boisterous. If you hate such people, your reaction will be poorer. I run a game with a Oracle of Battle that has Cha20, and he is a boisterous, loud and noisy guy that loves the bottle. Some people take offense to that. But if someone sits down and talks to the guy, his Diplomacy +15 or intimidate +19 quickly alters their attitude.
If someone has a low charisma doesn't mean they need to have an offensive mannerism. They can also be the yes-men who do not talk back. Weak of spirit from being the eternal underdog.
Looking like trouble: Heavily armed dude in spiked armor will look like trouble. And people who shy from danger will likely give him a wide berth. Generally, I give PCs one lower category if they walk around looking like they are about to fend off a dragon. It is all a matter of presentation and representation.
As for the half-orcs: I think they would have been greeted with a volley of crossbow bolts before they got to talking if orcs attack all the time, because to the anxious guards, they look like orcs. If they somehow managed to communicate, people would be hostile across the board, anticipating trickery. If someone had the pass for human feat (silly feat if you ask me, you should be able to decide which side of the heritage your character favors without wasting such a precious resource) he would be able to enter town if he went alone and was not seen with a band of orcs, and most would be indifferent. If they learned of his heritage, people would likely be unfriendly or hostile.
Except that based on how you're presenting the Diplomacy skill and how it completely allows you to overcome *any* social problems, well, the only other skill I might ever need put points in is UMD. [Which you can't use untrained anyway, so that's a special case.]
I mean, why waste ranks in Bluff? I'll just chat up the guy for a minute, and then he'll just agree with me -- no need to lie.
Because Bluff is good for what it is used for. Diplomacy is nice, but if you need to lie. Diplomacy and Bluff are better with each other, when used in conjunction. "I'm not an intruder, I just started working here, in the kitchen!" can help you bluff your way past a guard, for example, whereas Diplomacy won't make the guard think you're not an intruder.
True. Now when's the last time you took Charisma damage?
Well, barring ego whip from psionics which have been updated for Pathfinder, things like leprosy, draining touch (ghost ability), ungol dust, etc, not often. Then again, I also don't suffer wisdom damage very often, but my paladin in my last game was dropped to 2 Wisdom by a lamia and some traps, down from 12.
It is a vulnerability. It just depends on how much you use such things. One could argue that having a low Strength wasn't a vulnerability because their GM doesn't use stuff like giant spiders or shadows.
No. But then, the extra WIS you bought and your higher WILL save does that for you, in terms of resisting the influence.
However - this is a good one for me - Since you seem to think that Diplomacy is the end-all-be-all of social interaction, then why is it that a Wizard can't use Diplomacy to ask someone they've charmed to do something for them? (So the only time your natural charisma matters is after you've enchanted someone? Really?)
Far from it. I also mentioned Bluff, and Intimidate. As for making friends and influencing people, Diplomacy is the way. And no, the only time natural charisma matters is not when you've enchanted someone. That's the only time only charisma matters. Big difference. For everything else, there's a modifier.
True, and I've never argued that. But, here's the difference:
If you're a non-Int caster with a low int, you take the hit in skill points. There's an actual game effect to the low stat.
If you're a non-Wis caster with a low wis, you take the hit in Will saves. There's an actual game effect to the low stat.
If you're a non-Cha caster with a low Cha -- and all social interaction is done via Diplomacy -- well, the only hit you've taken is a need to spend 1 skill point. Nothing else happens.
Yeah...your problem is what? If a Wizard has a 7 Strength, it means about as much as a Fighter with 7 Cha. You don't have to carry as much armor or weapons, a masterwork backpack is cheapsauce, handy haversack can hold everything a wizard needs to succeed, ever. His high Int gives him enough skill points to max Climb and Swim. Obviously, there is a problem with Strength! Not...
But yeah, are you saying that Strength is only used for breaking stuff (doors/objects)? Oh, of course. That means about as much to a wizard as using charm person charisma checks does for a Wizard.
Really? You're justifying how useful Charisma is by saying "Well, if you're (un)dead, it's as vital as Con was when you're alive?" That's not usually a consideration at character design (any more than the number of spells I'm not getting because I'm not a Cha-cater).
Actually, yeah. I've done so. My younger brother is playing an antipaladin who was eventually going to be undead (and has since become undead via a create undead spell), and he had a lower than average Constitution because of his consideration.
Just because you don't doesn't mean others won't. What a narrow view. I don't play barbarians very often, but that doesn't mean others don't, or that it's not an option.
Ashiel wrote:
Yeah, that's bein' real honest there, guys. How dare you be able to participate in social encounters by investing skill points in an area you are handicapped in? The travesty.
You set up a straw man and then say I'm not being honest in this debate? Really?
Again, at the risk of repeating myself, I've never said a low charisma individual can't participate in social encounters. In fact, if you look at my earlier posts, I even supported that this person could, by using ranks in social skills, learn to become somewhat persuasive and shift people's attitudes, get stuff from them, all that.
I left my comment in just so people can see the "straw man". I was also responding to the group (let's call them the Cha-side). The Cha-side basically seems to be trying to bust down Diplomacy and say it can't do what it can do, while providing nothing. Or outright saying that NPCs would ignore low-Charisma players (Ciretose said this, I can go get the quotes if you want). Then, the mechanical ramifications of adjusting starting attitudes down combined with the charisma penalty means you would have to have super-human levels to do even mundane tings, makes it bogus.
What I have said, however, is that one skill does not 100% completely undo the effects of that handicapping (for anyone who's not a caster). I used various examples of this - like when someone's too busy to talk to you for the minute it takes to change their attitude, or when you don't share a language, or... but, hey, keep attacking the strawman.
And that has anything to do with Charisma, how? If they're outright ignoring you, or can't speak your language, do you really think Charisma is going to help? I mean, do you have something to back that up?
Long story short: Cha is weak.
Invest lots in Cha, and get nothing (except for Cha-dependent caster classes). Your skills would be better off with Int.
Dump Cha, and lose nothing. You can still make skills work with Int.
The only classes that even need to acknowledge the existence of Cha are Bard, Cleric, Oracle, Paladin and Sorcerer. Because it does something mechanical for them.
Strength is a close second. It is good for the martial classes. Ok to have for some divine classes, but not key. Just like how the rogue can benefit from some cha since he has almost all the cha skills. But arcane casters can dump it no problem. Can't carry? Get a bag or ask the fighter to do it. Can't climb or swim? You can FLY. Can't CMB or CMD? No s~*%, you're an arcane caster! Would not matter if you had Str16, the CMB of monsters have the CMDs of martial characters in mind. Maybe they need a 4 instead of a 2. Well worth half your point buy, right?
Then you have Int. If you are all about messing stuff up with physical prowess anyway, who cares if you cannot do more than 2-3 skills? Acrobatic breaks after 5, so no point in having more than 3 ranks there. Climb can be useful, same with perception.
Wis/Dex/Con should never be dumped. They are the creme de la creme of stats. Saves, AC, HP, Initiative, Perception... all this is the good stuff(tm).
Stats are not equal. And cha is the least equal of all.
Long story short: Cha is weak.
Invest lots in Cha, and get nothing (except for Cha-dependent caster classes). Your skills would be better off with Int.
Dump Cha, and lose nothing. You can still make skills work with Int.
The only classes that even need to acknowledge the existence of Cha are Bard, Cleric, Oracle, Paladin and Sorcerer. Because it does something mechanical for them.
Strength is a close second. It is good for the martial classes. Ok to have for some divine classes, but not key. Just like how the rogue can benefit from some cha since he has almost all the cha skills. But arcane casters can dump it no problem. Can't carry? Get a bag or ask the fighter to do it. Can't climb or swim? You can FLY. Can't CMB or CMD? No s!~+, you're an arcane caster! Would not matter if you had Str16, the CMB of monsters have the CMDs of martial characters in mind. Maybe they need a 4 instead of a 2. Well worth half your point buy, right?
Then you have Int. If you are all about messing stuff up with physical prowess anyway, who cares if you cannot do more than 2-3 skills? Acrobatic breaks after 5, so no point in having more than 3 ranks there. Climb can be useful, same with perception.
Wis/Dex/Con should never be dumped. They are the creme de la creme of stats. Saves, AC, HP, Initiative, Perception... all this is the good stuff(tm).
Stats are not equal. And cha is the least equal of all.
So, now that we agree that MECHANICALLY Chr is amongst the lowest of the scores. Do you think it fair/balanced to be able to dump it and have very little effect, to bump up a score like in your example of Wis/Dex/Con that is a creme de la creme score?
For affecting intial favoritism, just a minor thing in a list of circumstances, yet people are adamant that they suffer no ill effects for this minor detail. All because they like the idea of cheating the system to bump stats like Wis/Dex/Con, by taking little to no penalty since they consider Chr even weaker than it is.
|
|
Long story short: Cha is weak.
Invest lots in Cha, and get nothing (except for Cha-dependent caster classes). Your skills would be better off with Int.
Dump Cha, and lose nothing. You can still make skills work with Int.
The only classes that even need to acknowledge the existence of Cha are Bard, Cleric, Oracle, Paladin and Sorcerer. Because it does something mechanical for them.
Strength is a close second. It is good for the martial classes. Ok to have for some divine classes, but not key. Just like how the rogue can benefit from some cha since he has almost all the cha skills. But arcane casters can dump it no problem. Can't carry? Get a bag or ask the fighter to do it. Can't climb or swim? You can FLY. Can't CMB or CMD? No s!~+, you're an arcane caster! Would not matter if you had Str16, the CMB of monsters have the CMDs of martial characters in mind. Maybe they need a 4 instead of a 2. Well worth half your point buy, right?
Then you have Int. If you are all about messing stuff up with physical prowess anyway, who cares if you cannot do more than 2-3 skills? Acrobatic breaks after 5, so no point in having more than 3 ranks there. Climb can be useful, same with perception.
Wis/Dex/Con should never be dumped. They are the creme de la creme of stats. Saves, AC, HP, Initiative, Perception... all this is the good stuff(tm).
Stats are not equal. And cha is the least equal of all.
So, now that we agree that MECHANICALLY Chr is amongst the lowest of the scores. Do you think it fair/balanced to be able to dump it and have very little effect, to bump up a score like in your example of Wis/Dex/Con that is a creme de la creme score?
For affecting intial favoritism, just a minor thing in a list of circumstances, yet people are adamant that they suffer no ill effects for this minor detail. All because they like the idea of cheating the system to bump stats like Wis/Dex/Con, by taking little to no penalty since they consider Chr even weaker than it is.
Kamelguru and Ashiel are trying to argue that you can't use Charisma to do exactly what it says it does, while at the same time arguing you can use other skills to do things they explicitly say they don't do. They are both A) fighting strawmen at this point and B) Moving the goal posts to criteria they can't themselves meet.
They want to play a game that ignores charisma for some reason, and more power to them. But the rules say charisma governs personal magnetism, ability to lead, personality and appearance. And everyone having a serious discussion of this issue agrees those things effect social interactions. To say they don't is just wrong.
Abraham and Wraithstrike (and others) are actually trying to discuss the issue, and while I disagree with them, they are the other side of the debate. Ashiel and Kamelguru...I'm not even reading their posts anymore at this point. They don't seem to have a position other than "Charisma doesn't do what it says it does, and other things do much more than they say they do, and you can't prove otherwise!"
I also can't prove that there is not a theme park inside of Donald Trumps colon, but I'm pretty sure there isn't. You can't prove a negative, or kill a strawman. It is the last vestige of a failed argument, and they are welcome to it.
The fact is there is very little mechanical "roll" playing in the social aspect of the game. For good reason. Social interactions aren't resolved in the same way as combat. You don't "beat" someone in a social interaction as you would in a combat.
If you play the DnD computer games, the social aspect generally sucks, specifically because it has to be based on mechanical factors and can't improvise as a GM would. It is the same reason cheese tactics work in video games while not so much with a good GM who will use them back against you (if they allow them in the first place)
If some people can't accept the GM decides social interactions, and that a characters personal magnetism, ability to lead, personality and appearance would factor heavily into those interactions, I don't know what to say.
If people can read a skill that has a very specific and defined use and still want to use it far beyond the scope of that specific and defined use, I also don't know what to say.
Rules exist to provide a framework for a game. If you don't agree with the fact that Charisma governs personal magnetism, ability to lead, personality and appearance, you are house ruling.
Which is fine.
But it is house ruling.
Long story short: Cha is weak.
Invest lots in Cha, and get nothing (except for Cha-dependent caster classes). Your skills would be better off with Int.
Dump Cha, and lose nothing. You can still make skills work with Int.
The only classes that even need to acknowledge the existence of Cha are Bard, Cleric, Oracle, Paladin and Sorcerer. Because it does something mechanical for them.
Strength is a close second. It is good for the martial classes. Ok to have for some divine classes, but not key. Just like how the rogue can benefit from some cha since he has almost all the cha skills. But arcane casters can dump it no problem. Can't carry? Get a bag or ask the fighter to do it. Can't climb or swim? You can FLY. Can't CMB or CMD? No s!~+, you're an arcane caster! Would not matter if you had Str16, the CMB of monsters have the CMDs of martial characters in mind. Maybe they need a 4 instead of a 2. Well worth half your point buy, right?
Then you have Int. If you are all about messing stuff up with physical prowess anyway, who cares if you cannot do more than 2-3 skills? Acrobatic breaks after 5, so no point in having more than 3 ranks there. Climb can be useful, same with perception.
Wis/Dex/Con should never be dumped. They are the creme de la creme of stats. Saves, AC, HP, Initiative, Perception... all this is the good stuff(tm).
Stats are not equal. And cha is the least equal of all.
So, now that we agree that MECHANICALLY Chr is amongst the lowest of the scores. Do you think it fair/balanced to be able to dump it and have very little effect, to bump up a score like in your example of Wis/Dex/Con that is a creme de la creme score?
For affecting intial favoritism, just a minor thing in a list of circumstances, yet people are adamant that they suffer no ill effects for this minor detail. All because they like the idea of cheating the system to bump stats like Wis/Dex/Con, by taking little to no penalty since they consider Chr even weaker than it is.
Are you implying that the stats have ever been equal? Or that the game is fair?
Having to "deal with charisma" is in and of itself a pretty terrible curse imo. I never play the cha-casters with a 15pb. Not only are they inherently weaker than the int/wis casters, the main stat is mechanically useless outside fueling spells and skills you don't have the int to fully cultivate.
Never said it was not garbage, nor that it was fair. That the rules do not consider it in terms of initial attitude is another flaw of the stat. But even then I am opposed to letting it play a big role, due to how clunky the initial attitude system is, with 5 point increments that are too huge to handwave on every step of the scale.
Personally, I would not mind reworking the ENTIRE social interaction system in order to make it more involving, rewarding and remove the "players are immune to charisma" BS.
As a GM, few things are more annoying that having to deal with a Cha26+ NPC with +30< in all social skills, knowing full well that the players will make up their opinions on how I present it then and there, and I cannot tell them "He is like, super charismatic and awesome, and the response you have can't be to tell him to suck your bratwurst."
But as it is written, who the heck cares? It's like the game is begrudgingly letting charisma come play, because he has no friends, and his mom nags your mom about it all the time, so you pretty much HAVE to take him along.
Seriously, remove Charisma, re-attribute the Cha-casters to other stats, and see how different the game is apart from them all being BETTER. Only difference is that people who can't speak for themselves properly IRL cannot affect much in-game.
So yeah, Cha sucks, and that is why everyone dumps it.
*attempt to shoot down the other side by calling them silly omitted*
The fact is there is very little mechanical "roll" playing in the social aspect of the game. For good reason. Social interactions aren't resolved in the same way as combat. You don't "beat" someone in a social interaction as you would in a combat.
Oh really?
Roll a d20, add your bonuses, try to beat ACvs
Roll a d20, add your bonuses, try to beat DC
Dat difference. And entire letter. The game provides sums to beat for most everything you do.
If you play the DnD games, the social aspect generally sucks, specifically because it has to be based on mechanical factors and can't improvise as a GM would. It is the same reason cheese tactics work in video games while not so much with a good GM who will use them back against you (if they allow them in the first place)
Read my last post, we actually agree here.
If some people can't accept the GM decides social interactions, and that a characters personal magnetism, ability to lead, personality and appearance would factor heavily into those interactions, I don't know what to say.
If people can read a skill that has a very specific and defined use and still want to use it far beyond the scope of that specific and defined use, I also don't know what to say.
Rules exist to provide a framework for a game. If you don't agree with the fact that Charisma governs personal magnetism, ability to lead, personality and appearance, you are house ruling.
Which is fine.
But it is house ruling.
There is no mechanic for stats (beyond the mantra you chant, which is a descriptive text, giving clues on what the stat is supposed to be about), and skills falls short.
Essentially, we are at the proverbial "Po-tay-to" vs "Po-tah-to" argument. I prefer to let the sum of ability scores and skill/feat/trait investment count, as the stat in and of itself is of small consequence compared.
The social rules (including charisma) allows you set up artificial encounters for social stuff, and disregard player input outside framework (are you asking for simple aid or dangerous aid?), the rickety half-assed system allows for a primitive social event that is about as engrossing and immersive as one of those japanese dating sims.
Easier to say that social stuff is borked in PF, as it was in D&D, and come to an agreement with the players for what works for you, and what doesn't work.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Charisma sucks.
Worked in 1-2e, where every stat was different and had different requirements for return. Now that everything is simplified and made "equal", the stats that give least mechanical return are least equal. Take a lesson from Animal Farm and know that Charisma is not pigs, and will never be pigs.
Now, with the agreement that Chr is a cruddy stat for ANYTHING outside of those that need it for their class. Do you consider it justifiable that people be allowed to give up the lowest of the less-effective stats, for the highest of more-effective stats, at an equal rate?
That to me is the real issue with dropping stats below the base. Once you take points away from a stat that has little to no effect on you, to add it to a stat that means the world to the PC, it is almost getting something for nothing.
(Below is just an example of giving up nothing for greater power and then being upset when the Dm has it affect Role-playing)
Min/maxer: Hey if I give up this poop sandwich, I can take 2 magic weapons.
DM: But, in your backstory you wrote that the poop sandwich has been in your family for 5 generations, and that it is very dear to them. Your family will be angry with you
Min/maxer: Show me where it says in the rules that they will be mad, DM FIAT!! BAD DM!! BAD DM!!
To me it all sounds like "wah wah I want to exploit a loophole and not be called on it".
It's the crybaby loophole lawyers that obsess about min/maxing that ruins gaming experiences for me every time. It needs to be one of the things that comes up when meeting new gamers.
P1: Oh, do you game?
Me: I do, I play PF (or 4E, or 3.5).
P1: Me too, I play Min/max loophole exploiters. What's your favorite?
Me: Oh, uh, look at the time, gotta go.
This is what I think about when people drop Chr low (7 or less), but RP like they don't have lower social capability than the average citizen. Int is a close second. RP-ing your low scores doesn't change your modifiers, so why are people so offended by the idea? Maybe, because they are trying to exploit a loophole, and since the rules don't specifically tell them they have to RP those low scores... mission successful, loophole exploited.
(this whole thing was getting me angry and ranty as I typed, I cut it down to what it is now as I cooled off. It was a lot worse.)
The fact is there is very little mechanical "roll" playing in the social aspect of the game. For good reason. Social interactions aren't resolved in the same way as combat.
Wait... your argument consists of, "That's the way 3.0 happened to be designed, and therefore that's the One True Way and the best way it can possibly be"? Permit me to continue to very strongly disagree.
The existence of detailed, balanced social mechanics would be a great boon to the people who want them, and would in no way be a disadvantage to you -- you could continue to ignore them.
But, faced with a win-win proposal, you're continuing to argue that win-lose is better... why, exactly?
|
|
There is no mechanic for stats (beyond the mantra you chant, which is a descriptive text, giving clues on what the stat is supposed to be about), and skills falls short.
There is no mechanic that says how many NPCs are in a given Inn at a set time.
There is no mechanic that says what bonus or penalties racial prejudices give.
There is no mechanic that says who the DM attacks first in combat, or how they attack using the skills of the creature they are running.
You and Ashiel, specifically, have the "no mechanic" mantra while constantly showing that your methods also have no basis in mechanics within the framework of the rules. In fact, you ask that skills that change initial impression be allow to be used to set initial impression, which makes about as much sense as a child selecting his mother after he is born.
By definition the GM is the "player who arbitrates the rules of the game and controls the actions of every game element that isn’t explicitly controlled by the other players."
I get you don't like the way what Charisma governs is defined, and how subjective it is.
But that doesn't mean it isn't defined that way, clearly, in the rule book.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
|
|
The fact is there is very little mechanical "roll" playing in the social aspect of the game. For good reason. Social interactions aren't resolved in the same way as combat.Wait... your argument consists of, "That's the way 3.0 happened to be designed, and therefore that's the One True Way and the best way it can possibly be"? Permit me to continue to very strongly disagree.
The existence of detailed, balanced social mechanics would be a great boon to the people who want them, and would in no way be a disadvantage to you -- you could continue to ignore them.
But, faced with a win-win proposal, you're continuing to argue that win-lose is better... why, exactly?
I don't think a defined mechanical social interaction system exists since so far no one has come up with a system that can pass the Turing test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
As I said, even combat is based on the terms the GM sets, and how the GM decides to use the abilities of the creatures they are running. It is still subjective.
And that is actually great.
If you want something completely defined with fixed outcomes, you can play a computer game or a board game. But if you want to have actual interactions with realistic NPCs, you need another human being to be running that NPC.
Otherwise you are in a look where dice rolling outweighs common sense, and this is especially problematic in social interactions.
The fix is allowing the human element to be the human element. It isn't a fault of the game, it's a feature.
A human GM adapts, while a computer will let you do the same glitch exploit over and over again.
This is a good thing.
My entire argument, from the beginning, has been that a GM should use all factors, including charisma, to create an NPCs initial impression.
And a GM should use all known circumstances to play the NPC as it would be player.
A player character can do whatever they want to do, the GM should play the NPCs as they would react based on what the character does and who they are. This includes charisma.
Designing a "roll" playing social system has no appeal to me. It is like a dating simulator, what is the point if the person on the other end isn't a real person who can respond to something other than dice rolls?
I am glad the system is the way it is. That is, until they can create a system that passes the Turing test.
Until then, that is the GM's job.
Tony Stark. Guy is an arse -- only reason people put up with him is he is dashing, and has lots of money -- and put a lot of ranks in perform if you know what I mean.I wasn't looking for real life. I was looking for literary or movie examples so I could further understand what an uncharismatic but dashing character would look like. I don't know of any off the top of my head but I'm sure there are some out there.The game is not real life and part of the issue is that people feel like skills are being used to avoid a stat.
As for a real life example there are people I have met that I have not liked until I got to know them. Some people, my brother as an example, are instantly likeable. I would say he has a high charisma. I have never seen it as a movie trope though.I disagree, he's very charismatic, it's why he can act like an arse and everyone just laughs it off. Only those who know him well and have gotten past his charming dashing exterior and realized that he doesn't have a lot of depth to his soul are immune to it. :)
Honestly, the best example I can think of is John Jones (Martian Manhunter). He's got no natural charisma, he doesn't impress at all, until he starts shape shifting and acting as someone else, then he's using disguise and diplomacy and bluff. But you wouldn't call him dashing. But it's a good example of someone with a low natural charisma who overcomes it with skill use and special abilities.
I think it's simply the perform ranks he has -- I mean once you get pass his skills in bed and public speaking, those that manage to like him do so for his wit, money, and good leanings.
His personality is definitely not what is attracting them -- it was is what they get over, "We like people for their virtues and love them for their flaws."
Anyone that actually spends more than a soundbite with Tony stark ends up hating him to at least a small degree.
Now He DOES give a good speech -- but again that's a skill (perform(oratory)) -- and he's good for a romp in the bed (perform(sexual) or profession(playboy)), but when it comes to really understanding or getting along with people -- he stinks.
Even Pepper can't stand him most of the time.
Witty sayings and quick insults come from his ability to deliver lines (perform(oratory)) and a sharp wit -- which charisma doesn't give you.
*Not actually back -- just got off work and kind of following and hitting a tangent real quick.
Now, with the agreement that Chr is a cruddy stat for ANYTHING outside of those that need it for their class. Do you consider it justifiable that people be allowed to give up the lowest of the less-effective stats, for the highest of more-effective stats, at an equal rate?
That to me is the real issue with dropping stats below the base. Once you take points away from a stat that has little to no effect on you, to add it to a stat that means the world to the PC, it is almost getting something for nothing.
Yes. That's how the game is designed. Many classes need certain stats more than others, and in lesser amounts. Wisdom is effectively a Paladin dump stat, because his Charisma can be applied to his Will saves and his Fortitude saves, and his Reflex saves. Intelligence is as well, and some would argue that Dexterity is due to heavy armor proficiency, but some like a bit for ranged weapons and what-not.
Meanwhile, wizards have no use for Strength and Charisma. Fighters likely have no use for Intelligence and Charisma, unless they're just trying to pad their skill points or going for something specific.
And please understand, when I say "no use", I mean no use worth considering in most cases. A mule is 8gp and can carry your stuff. A masterwork backpack is 50 gp. Even then, a wizard isn't going to care a whole lot about carrying around a lot of weapons and armor, or about breaking down doors (that's what his big meaty can-opener is for).
You're complaining about something that has always been, and something there is nothing wrong with. If all ability scores are needed equally, all of the time, by all of the classes, this is what you end up with.
15 PB: 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12.
(Below is just an example of giving up nothing for greater power and then being upset when the Dm has it affect Role-playing)
Min/maxer: Hey if I give up this poop sandwich, I can take 2 magic weapons.
DM: But, in your backstory you wrote that the poop sandwich has been in your family for 5 generations, and that it is very dear to them. Your family will be angry with you
Min/maxer: Show me where it says in the rules that they will be mad, DM FIAT!! BAD DM!! BAD DM!!To me it all sounds like "wah wah I want to exploit a loophole and not be called on it".
Which has nothing to do with our conversation. It's not a good analogy. If that's how you feel about it, then that would explain our lack of communication. You're seeing something for something wildly different.
It's the crybaby loophole lawyers that obsess about min/maxing that ruins gaming experiences for me every time. It needs to be one of the things that comes up when meeting new gamers.P1: Oh, do you game?
Me: I do, I play PF (or 4E, or 3.5).
P1: Me too, I play Min/max loophole exploiters. What's your favorite?
Me: Oh, uh, look at the time, gotta go.
That's amazingly specific. I for one am very big on roleplaying, and emphasis it heavily whenever I can. My favorite thing about the game is roleplaying, you see. Likewise, giving up a bit in an area that helps you little, to afford to raise something that helps you more is not a loophole or exploit. That's just making smart choices.
This is what I think about when people drop Chr low (7 or less), but RP like they don't have lower social capability than the average citizen. Int is a close second. RP-ing your low scores doesn't change your modifiers, so why are people so offended by the idea? Maybe, because they are trying to exploit a loophole, and since the rules don't specifically tell them they have to RP those low scores... mission successful, loophole exploited.
Except it's not a loophole, and it's not being exploited. That how it is, and how it has always been. It's a design feature. However, I'm curious as to what you mean by roleplaying your modifier.
If it means trying to act as you feel your character does, or try to explain why he's 10% less effective at dealing with people, then I think I understand you. In my iconic Dashing Fighter, Sigfried the Ruggedly Handsome warrior, he begins with a -2 penalty in Charisma. This is explained by his military training and lack of interaction outside of his studies. At 2nd level, he puts 2 ranks into Diplomacy and gets better about talking and relating to people, and coming off less blunt, rude, or boring. I try to incorporate this gradual change in my portrayal of Sigfried as it goes.
However, regardless, ability scores do not force people to roleplay. Low or high, and ultimately it comes down to the d20 roll if you're trying to get something. There is no dropping your Charisma to 7 and then ignoring the penalty because of how you roleplay your character. This, in effect, prevents people from ignoring the penalty they took.
For a further example, see my previous posts, as one details eloquent players vs non-eloquent players, and how in the end their result is based on the impartial d20, just like everything else. That's fair, and without loop-holes.
(this whole thing was getting me angry and ranty as I typed, I cut it down to what it is now as I cooled off. It was a lot worse.)
I'm sorry you're feeling angry. It wasn't my intention to get anyone angry. Honestly, I've had to fight off anger with Ciretose many times, because of both his posting format (honestly, it's hard to read his posts for all the gaps in them) and the fact it doesn't follow a logical map, and it basically leads him to parroting himself and citing a description that provably has no in-game effect in the way he says it does; then basically complaining that we're trying to prevent it from being used as it was intended, even though there is no rules even remotely governing how he describes it being used - outside of social skills and the leadership feat. Combined with his constant back-tracking, and adjusting his stance on how Charisma adjusts initial reaction, and still failing to cite anything that gives his point credulity, it gets old.
I'm sorry if I have made you feel this way. I'm trying to be polite, and civil, and sometimes it can admittedly be difficult in the cross-fire. I've tried to explain points sufficiently, and I've tried to be very precise with my examples, as well as my provided evidence from the rules, in hopes of doing service to all in this debate.
Once again, I'm sorry if I upset you.
Long story short: Cha is weak.
Invest lots in Cha, and get nothing (except for Cha-dependent caster classes). Your skills would be better off with Int.
Dump Cha, and lose nothing. You can still make skills work with Int.
The only classes that even need to acknowledge the existence of Cha are Bard, Cleric, Oracle, Paladin and Sorcerer. Because it does something mechanical for them.
Strength is a close second. It is good for the martial classes. Ok to have for some divine classes, but not key. Just like how the rogue can benefit from some cha since he has almost all the cha skills. But arcane casters can dump it no problem. Can't carry? Get a bag or ask the fighter to do it. Can't climb or swim? You can FLY. Can't CMB or CMD? No s*!*, you're an arcane caster! Would not matter if you had Str16, the CMB of monsters have the CMDs of martial characters in mind. Maybe they need a 4 instead of a 2. Well worth half your point buy, right?
Then you have Int. If you are all about messing stuff up with physical prowess anyway, who cares if you cannot do more than 2-3 skills? Acrobatic breaks after 5, so no point in having more than 3 ranks there. Climb can be useful, same with perception.
Wis/Dex/Con should never be dumped. They are the creme de la creme of stats. Saves, AC, HP, Initiative, Perception... all this is the good stuff(tm).
Stats are not equal. And cha is the least equal of all.
Your characters would not survive long in a different campaign. I can tell you for certain that social skills matter quite a bit in some campaigns. I know, without a doubt, that if you are putting ranks in Acrobatics in some games, it's because you want to do more than just jump or walk across a ledge.
In your games, Charisma may not play a large role. To assume that all games play the same way would be foolish at best.
If a low charisma dwarf can do a better job at leading does that not mean him the better leader?Hold up -- why is your hypothetical dwarf with low charisma able to do a "better job at leading"?
I was just using that as an example. I could replace dwarf with any other race, and the subject would not change. The point is that if the low charisma guy has whatever people think it takes to be a great leader except high charisma, but the other possible leader only has a high charisma how is the high charisma person a better leader?
So yeah, Cha sucks, and that is why everyone dumps it.
Have you tried playing with a different group with a different focus? I can tell you, without a doubt, that not everyone dumps Charisma. I know, for a fact, that Charisma doesn't suck across the board in all games. The game I am running, the fighter has the highest Charisma after the paladin (and the paladin is a new addition so for 16 levels, the fighter had the highest).
My players place their stats where they think the stats will represent the character concept. If someone wants to play a fighter who fancies himself as a knight, he will put more points into Charisma than another stat. If someone wants to play a fighter with a thorough understanding of his enemies, he will probably put more points into Intelligence.
The benefits they get are not just a few bumps in skills. The world reacts to you based on your stats.
Question for those who don't think that Charisma should be used as a factor in determining initial attitude from an NPC that has not heard of the PCs, how do you determine the initial attitude? What factors do you think should be used and why should Charisma not be a factor?
It is determined by the GM or storyline. This is done in most home games and AP's. The AP's don't say PC's with a charisma of less than X are disliked. It says the NPC's starting attitude is indifferent, hostile, helpful, and so on.
I don't see why it should be a factor. If you walk into a room and I don't know you then I don't know you. I might treat you better with regard in certain situations than another PC/NPC, but that as a whole you are all in the same boat until circumstance(you were recommended, race, sex, etc) comes into play.
What if the only thing the person can do is woo women? I know some guys that can seem to get whatever woman they want but when it comes to any other interaction, they aren't very good. Can you be suave and debonair only and have a low Charisma?I have no problem that person even being able to talk their way into the pants of someone of the opposite gender - however, they will not be suave and debonair -- and will, in fact probably end up as (when the 1d4 hours wear off..) a: "OMG, I can't believe I slept with him!" sort of thing.
That's not poor GMing - that's actually using the numbers on the sheet for something other than placeholding and/or spells per day.
Most of those guys are generally likeable as whole though. I would also think that real life is too complicated to be broken down into the game's skills.
A real life social interaction may include cha checks, bluffs, and diplomacy checks. Normally in a game the GM picks the best one that he thinks will work.
How does charisma make someone a better leader in your games?By allowing them to take the leadership feat :P
This is actually exactly what I meant. I think it's also what Aardvark Barbarian has been saying
If by initial impression you only mean the NPC initially shows more favoritism, as an example, toward the high cha PC then I agree,Yes.
There are many, many factors in social interactions that are subjective. How much do they dislike half orcs and how will that effect the interaction? How afraid is the npc of ticking off the BBEG and how will that effect if they will help youM
This is not a problem, it is a feature. One that makes it different than a computer or board game. Something that makes it flexible and organic.
You can't roll everything. And you seem to want to expand the power of diplomacy beyond what it says it does so that you can roll play ore and role play less.
Role playing requires GM decision making. I hope a GM woud consider charisma in those interactions.
But skills are things you roll when the specific circumstances they apply to occur, not replacements for inconvienient ability scores.
If you tell me I can't roll everything one more time, after I say I know that I am just going to ask you to for the quote where I said it. You also have yet to show where I put diplomacy past its limits.
The fear of the BBEG is a circumstance modifier which we have already agreed should apply. In my games if the NPC is afraid of his boss the PC's often have to make an opposed intimidate check. Yeah I know that is not the rule, but if the NPC is more afraid of the boss than he is of the NPC's then they may be out of luck with intimidate.Actually it seems they can replace low charisma scores. I have yet to also see a situation where a social skill would not work.
If a low charisma dwarf can do a better job at leading does that not mean him the better leader?Hold up -- why is your hypothetical dwarf with low charisma able to do a "better job at leading"? Is it because he's the better tactician? Because he's smarter and better able to see the angles?
I ask only because knowing where people should go for optimal placement doesn't mean a thing if you can't convince them to actually go there. A brilliant guy with low charisma would have trouble with that part (especially since actually leading people is not covered by the diplomacy skill) -- maybe he's seen as a know-it-all, or an armchair general, or he's just the sort of person who yells everything and everyone around him shuts down.
Does that mean that in a party of 4-5 people who spend all their time together people won't eventually get past that and realize that the low-cha guy would make a good tactician and start listening to him? No. However, when the time comes for the group to lead the militia against the goblin invasion, they're way less likely to listen to low-cha guy (and will probably only do it because higher-cha guy is...)
Leadership isn't about knowing what people should do -- (heck, most of the time, they already know that) -- it's about making them willing to (or even wanting to) do it.
+ 1000
If charisma can literally command arcane power through sheer force of will, why is it so hard to understand how it could be used it lead people?
Not even a valid comparison.
Getting people to do what you want is called a diplomacy check.Assuming someone knows what to just because they are in charge, is just that, an assumption.
Making them do it, but telling them to do it incorrectly makes you a bad leader in many people's eyes.
Not a good leader:
Leader:Charge(rolls 44 charisma check)
NPC:(rolls wisdom check of 45 to overcome cha check)Sir they have archers and their pikemen are ready for us.
Leader:Charge!!!
Except that based on how you're presenting the Diplomacy skill and how it completely allows you to overcome *any* social problems, well, the only other skill I might ever need put points in is UMD. [Which you can't use untrained anyway, so that's a special case.]I mean, why waste ranks in Bluff? I'll just chat up the guy for a minute, and then he'll just agree with me -- no need to lie.
Diplomacy is not mind control.
So, now that we agree that MECHANICALLY Chr is amongst the lowest of the scores. Do you think it fair/balanced to be able to dump it and have very little effect, to bump up a score like in your example of Wis/Dex/Con that is a creme de la creme score?
For affecting intial favoritism, just a minor thing in a list of circumstances, yet people are adamant that they suffer no ill effects for this minor detail. All because they like the idea of cheating the system to bump stats like Wis/Dex/Con, by taking little to no penalty since they consider Chr even weaker than it is.
I don't think it is fair, but it is possible. We were not debating fairness, only what is possible. There are many threads there on the issue of fairness.
So yeah, Cha sucks, and that is why everyone dumps it.
Obviously you've never made appropiate use of the leadership feat.
My interpretation and GMing style is better than yours, and you should feel bad
Sure, sparky. I am a terrible min/maxer and my otherwise effective characters would die in your game for not being socially oriented, because I am "doing it wrong".
You're in "rock falls" territory with that kind of speak. There is going to be some reeeeaaaaaaaaaaally heavyhanded railroading required to put me in a situation where my socially inept character cannot resolve things by ANY other means:
- Am I talking to the ruler? Most likely HE needs ME to go forth and kill something because he is a fat useless aristocrat, and his warrior1-3 soldiers can't beat anything stronger than a ogre. I will not be able to get him to sweeten the deal, but whatever, the reward money is usually a trifle anyway, the real bonanza is the recovered treasure. Do I need something from him?; Why in the nine hells am _I_ doing the talking when we have a face character with Cha14+ and all the right skills? You know why? Because when we make characters, we make sure we are well rounded as a group, instead of having 4 random guys that will get shoehorned into fighting monsters together.
- Did a half-fiendish advanced great red wyrm land before my lv5 fighter and demand I impress him? I HAD a GM that did that, and experience have taught me that the right response to that is to say "Choo choo, fail-conductor!" and pick up my dice as I take the first escape pod out of that waste of my spare time.
- Am I in a situation to talk down some brigands from taking my loot? They die and we get their loot, because they were dumb enough to attack the most dangerous force on the face of Golarion; an adventuring party.
- Am I trying to get my rod of lordly might wet? I buy the best prostitute in town for fifty gold-pieces. By lv6 that amount of coin is chicken feed to me anyway, and I am pretty sure that offering her 1000% of her normal asking price will get her past my horribly disfigured cyst-ridden corpse-face (aka Cha7)
If I am to play with a DIFFERENT group that have DIFFERENT approaches to things, then sure. I will make a character that is well rounded. And if he dies for being crap at his job, I will rise and make a dramatic pose and channel Brian Blessed as I bellow "HYPOCRISY!"
So yeah, Cha sucks, and that is why everyone dumps it.Obviously you've never made appropiate use of the leadership feat.
I have, and I do, whenever I play a character that NEEDS charisma (My favorite class is the paladin, followed by the cleric, one needs to max it, the other needs 13+ to make use of channeling).
As a fighter, wizard or ranger (the other classes I play) I hardly ever have a feat to spare, just like I don't have the Point Buy to spare for charisma.
You're complaining about something that has always been, and something there is nothing wrong with.
That's just it, It has not always been. I'm complaining that prior to 3.5 (maybe just Prior to PF, I never saw it in 3.5 but it doesn't mean it wasn't in one of the books.), there was no buying down stats to buy up others.
I believe PF is the first ruleset to have as a base the ability to buy down to bump up.
Others have had PB, maybe as far back as Skills and powers for 2E (at the earliest, cause it's not in the 2E PHB). But even those were start at 8's or 10's and buy UP, and UP only.
It is the inclusion of buy down, that allows people to exploit the social skills. Because if a DM doesn't enforce RP based off of stats, then they are giving up something that means nothing to them (i.e. a poop sandwich).
Trading next to nothing for something valuable, is like stealing.
The only times that I have ever seen players go to that level of abuse, is because they play with GM's that don't enforce the penalties.
A wizard takes 6 Str, but the Gm doesn't really pay attention to encumbrance, so the player is carrying a full adventurer's load = CHEATING
A fighter takes 6 Int, but the GM doesn't enforce RP of stats, so the player talks and plans as if he had the Int that he as a person has =CHEATING
There has got to be a certain amount of checks and balances. If the GM doesn't take into account every aspect of the characters in Encounters, Adventuring, and Role-playing, then the player that took the hindrance that the GM doesn't use, is exploiting the game.
You and I know full well, that if players know a GM doesn't have social encounters, to always Dump Cha (unless of course you're a Cha-class).
If you know the GM never takes monsters with will save effects, then you know that Wis is a safer dump.
If you know the GM doesn't enforce encumbrance, then Str is a safe dump.
You know full well that the reason a lot of people dump Chr, is because not only do they feel they don't need it, but GM's don't enforce the one aspect that has tied more strongly to the mental stats over the Physical, and that is the Role-playing (which NO rules adjudicate, unless you count alignment, but that just gums up the works).
Some people are just so afraid of failing at a Role-playing game, that they think they NEED the 2 pt difference. Never had a min/maxed character, and have had very few characters die (even then it would have been unavoidable min/maxed as well). If the defense is "Oh, well if we don't min/max then we will die", my answer is find a GM that isn't trying to compete with you.
You're complaining about something that has always been, and something there is nothing wrong with.
That's just it, It has not always been. I'm complaining that prior to 3.5 (maybe just Prior to PF, I never saw it in 3.5 but it doesn't mean it wasn't in one of the books.), there was no buying down stats to buy up others.
3.5 started you at an 8 instead of a 10. You could leave it at 8 to dump the stat or buy up. The end result is pretty much the same.
By the time you add in a racial penalty you can still end up with a six for 3.5 races so the "cheating" as you call it did not start with pathfinder. It is also not cheating*. It is just how the game is made. Strength has a numeric value. They kind of have to be quantified since they have big influence on combat in a combat based game. The mental scores are harder to adjudicate since they are more opinion based. In short it is what it is.
I am disagreeing with the idea of as a whole of using that word, not saying that certain things can not be considered cheating.
Maybe in 7 to 10 years when pathfinder 2 comes out your ability score can put a cap on the number of ranks in a skill or something if the community really feels like this is an issue at that point.
PS:I have no idea when a pathfinder 2 is coming out. I figured I had to state that before someone took it as a hard number and got mad at me.
Question for those who don't think that Charisma should be used as a factor in determining initial attitude from an NPC that has not heard of the PCs, how do you determine the initial attitude? What factors do you think should be used and why should Charisma not be a factor?It is determined by the GM or storyline. This is done in most home games and AP's. The AP's don't say PC's with a charisma of less than X are disliked. It says the NPC's starting attitude is indifferent, hostile, helpful, and so on.
I don't see why it should be a factor. If you walk into a room and I don't know you then I don't know you. I might treat you better with regard in certain situations than another PC/NPC, but that as a whole you are all in the same boat until circumstance(you were recommended, race, sex, etc) comes into play.
No one has said that they are disliked with a lower Charisma. It was said that the higher the Charisma score, the more likely someone is to find the PC to be more approachable. I don't think that Ceritose ever said that someone with a low Charisma is unlikeable. I know I haven't made that claim.
If you don't make it a factor, then you are ignoring part of the character that is supposed to drive his personality. Some people exude Charisma. Some have to go out of their way to flaunt it. Some people are just not approachable and you can tell in a matter of seconds.
When you ignore Charisma, you encourage it to be a dump stat. So the character ends up getting more by dumping it. If you make it important, even a little bit, then you have players who may not want to dump it or at least not dump it as deep.
If you tell me I can't roll everything one more time, after I say I know that I am just going to ask you to for the quote where I said it. You also have yet to show where I put diplomacy past its limits.
The fear of the BBEG is a circumstance modifier which we have already agreed should apply. In my games if the NPC is afraid of his boss the PC's often have to make an opposed intimidate check. Yeah I know that is not the rule, but if the NPC is more afraid of the boss than he is of the NPC's then they may be out of luck with intimidate.
Actually it seems they can replace low charisma scores. I have yet to also see a situation where a social skill would not work.
This is where Ceritose and I are going to disagree. Skills can, and should eventually, replace many of the ability checks. Ability scores represent raw potential. "These scores represent a creature's most basic attributes. The higher the score, the more raw potential and talent your character possesses." That's directly from the book. It makes sense that adding even a single skill point brings it from "raw potential and talent" to "skilled."
Ability scores should be used when a corresponding skill doesn't exist or wouldn't matter. Initial reactions from NPCs cannot be determined by skills.
For the most part, I think most NPCs start off as Indifferent. There may be some differences but they should have to be pretty steep to move a category. For example, a heroic elven paladin with a reputation for successfully destroying evil in his home town may start with Friendly. A new half-orc mercenary with a pension for slaughtering elves may start with Unfriendly.
My question then, if you have 4 PCs in a party. Let's say they are all human wizards with Charisma scores of 8. Which one would an NPC approach first? Let's say that one of the wizards actually has a 12 Charisma. Would he be approached first? We're not going to use this to change the starting attitude, we're just going to ask which PC is more approachable to the NPCs in general.
Sure, sparky. I am a terrible min/maxer and my otherwise effective characters would die in your game for not being socially oriented, because I am "doing it wrong".
You're in "rock falls" territory with that kind of speak. There is going to be some reeeeaaaaaaaaaaally heavyhanded railroading required to put me in a situation where my socially inept character cannot resolve things by ANY other means:- Am I talking to the ruler? Most likely HE needs ME to go forth and kill something because he is a fat useless aristocrat, and his warrior1-3 soldiers can't beat anything stronger than a ogre. I will not be able to get him to sweeten the deal, but whatever, the reward money is usually a trifle anyway, the real bonanza is the recovered treasure. Do I need something from him?; Why in the nine hells am _I_ doing the talking when we have a face character with Cha14+ and all the right skills? You know why? Because when we make characters, we make sure we are well rounded as a group, instead of having 4 random guys that will get shoehorned into fighting monsters together.
- Did a half-fiendish advanced great red wyrm land before my lv5 fighter and demand I impress him? I HAD a GM that did that, and experience have taught me that the right response to that is to say "Choo choo, fail-conductor!" and pick up my dice as I take the first escape pod out of that waste of my spare time.
- Am I in a situation to talk down some brigands from taking my loot? They die and we get their loot, because they were dumb enough to attack the most dangerous force on the face of Golarion; an adventuring party.
- Am I trying to get my rod of lordly might wet? I buy the best prostitute in town for fifty gold-pieces. By lv6 that amount of coin is chicken feed to me anyway, and I am pretty sure that offering her 1000% of her normal asking price will get her past my horribly disfigured cyst-ridden corpse-face (aka Cha7)
If I am to play with a DIFFERENT group that have DIFFERENT approaches to things, then sure. I will make a character that is well rounded. And if he dies for being crap at his job, I will rise and make a dramatic pose and channel Brian Blessed as I bellow "HYPOCRISY!"
You have taken the approach that your way is the only way. You said "everyone dumps Charisma." It may seem that way from your experience but it is certainly not the case in all games. Heck, there are at least 3 people in this thread who don't play with gamers who dump Charisma.
That was why I was suggesting you try a different group to see what others do.
I think the problem is that you are stuck in hyperbole mode and don't want to shift gears. You don't want to see that there are games where you will need more Charisma from some characters. I'm not talking about spell casting either. I'm talking about someone who can actually begin influencing NPCs early on in a campaign. My campaigns have things that happen in the beginning continue to affect what happens later on. My players actually send the person with the higher Charisma forward to be met first. They may not do much speaking, that might be for the guy who pumped his skills, but they do want to make a good initial impression.
I would also like to point out that in a game that puts more emphasis on Charisma (not necessarily a lot, but more), you are less likely to make a character who is crap at his job. The GMs that put more emphasis on Charisma tend to have a different style of game. Of course that's all going to depend on what you mean by "crap at his job." So far, the fighter in my game with the 14 Charisma is far from "crap at his job." He has been the one to save the party in and out of combat more than anyone else.
|
|
I was just using that as an example. I could replace dwarf with any other race, and the subject would not change. The point is that if the low charisma guy has whatever people think it takes to be a great leader except high charisma, but the other possible leader only has a high charisma how is the high charisma person a better leader?If a low charisma dwarf can do a better job at leading does that not mean him the better leader?Hold up -- why is your hypothetical dwarf with low charisma able to do a "better job at leading"?
Except if competence was the key to becoming a leader, why aren't our politicians geniuses.
Leadership is a quality, separate from competence. It is, in part, the appearance of competence.
Actually being someone you should follow is a different debate.
|
|
This is where Ciretose and I are going to disagree. Skills can, and should eventually, replace many of the ability checks. Ability scores represent raw potential. "These scores represent a creature's most basic attributes. The higher the score, the more raw potential and talent your character possesses." That's directly from the book. It makes sense that adding even a single skill point brings it from "raw potential and talent" to "skilled."Ability scores should be used when a corresponding skill doesn't exist or wouldn't matter. Initial reactions from NPCs cannot be determined by skills.
For the most part, I think most NPCs start off as Indifferent. There may be some differences but they should have to be pretty steep to move a category. For example, a heroic elven paladin with a reputation for successfully destroying evil in his home town may start with Friendly. A new half-orc mercenary with a pension for slaughtering elves may start with Unfriendly.
My question then, if you have 4 PCs in a party. Let's say they are all human wizards with Charisma scores of 8. Which one would an NPC approach first? Let's say that one of the wizards actually has a 12 Charisma. Would he be approached first? We're not going to use this to change the starting attitude, we're just going to ask which PC is more approachable to the NPCs in general.
All other things being equal, and assume the NPC wants to approach a single character...
1. In answer your first question, the one closest to him.
2. In answer to the 2nd question, they would generally approach the one with 12 charisma first, as his personal magnetism is better than to ones with 8 charisma.
Where we respectfully differ on skills is that I read skills as special training in specific areas completing a specific skill.
Perform Juggling doesn't make me more dexterous. Knowledge arcane doesn't increase spells known a day. Swim doesn't increase my encumbrance.
So why would any skill improve my personality, personal magnetism, appearance or ability to lead?
Now circumstances my demonstrate that it would benefit the NPC to overlook these traits. I may, through a demonstration of my various skills show my worth to the NPC.
I have many friends who aren't very charismatic. Once you get to know them, they are a lot of fun. But if you don't know them, or aren't interested in what they are interested in, not a lot of fun.
This is a link to the blog of one of my oldest and dearest friends, who is also probably my most charismatic friend, currently in Istambul I believe.
http://sweettravelblog.com/travels/antarctica-vii-penguins
He is insane. Anyone following him would likely die. But people love him, and he makes friends wherever he goes, even though he makes incredibly stupid decisions on a regular basis.
That is charisma. To the point even a penguin wanted to mate with him.
Designing a "roll" playing social system has no appeal to me.
The point is, and remains, that it might have considerable appeal to OTHER PEOPLE. Who exist, and who play the game. Your preferences are not the only ones in existence, or with merit. What appeals to you does not set the bar worldwide for what's "acceptable" in a game.
I am glad the system is the way it is. That is, until they can create a system that passes the Turing test.
Applying the Turing test to a social mechanics system is applying a standard much, much higher than the one already used for combat.
The combat system IN NO WAY simulates real combat. Should we scrap hp rules until we come up with a system that simulates every broken bone and sprain from a 40-ft. fall? By your logic, YES, we should -- and yet you don't, which means you're arguing from personal preference, not from logic or consistent standards.
Which is fine -- everyone is entitled to their own preferences -- but no one player is entitled to declare that others' preferences are not equally valid (which is exactly what you continue to do). You've already got things your way with the published rules; why spend all your time telling everyone else that they'd better like it, or else they're wrongbadnofun?
|
So why would any skill improve my peersonality, personal magnetism, appearance or ability to lead?
Why would any skill improve your agility, reflexes, and balance?
Why would any skill improve your willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition?
Why would any skill improve how well you learn and reason?
Aardvark Barbarian is wrong about cheating. I think that it's obvious that if a GM house rules away something (encumbrance) then it isn't cheating to ignore it. Also anyone can talk or plan... yes even people with limited to no skill. I think you can see enough of that in real life. The only way talking is cheating is if you metagame and then it doesn't matter what your Int is, you're still cheating.
Why are you getting so upset about a dump system built into the core game to the point of stripping all the fun out of the game by punishing anyone who doesn't make their character exactly the way you want? Don't you realize it is counter productive to stomp on people's fun. Let people play their own character.
A good GM will use the character's charisma low or high in a realistic way. A bad GM will cast the character with an 8 cha as a complete social retard even if they have traits or skills that say otherwise.