Ultimately, yes, we could make an eager, handsome, friendly fellow that actually rubs off on people the wrong way. He has his -2 from Charisma just like everyone else. We have decided how to flavor that -2, and he is now more interesting. However, everything about our character is what others might consider the opposite of a low charisma, and yet it works great.
I would have absolutely no problem with this, provided the player attempts to roleplay it (and/or the GM remembers to require rolls). Honestly, Ashiel, it's possible that you've been roleplaying so long that you do the things I and baboon desire out of habit. I've just required that there is SOME kind of negative (though one of baboon's examples was on the simplistic side).
Just like with Sigfried...he evolves past this.
This depends on how you mechanically handle the evolution. If it's through stat boosts (level-based or items), it's 100% fine. If it's through skill boosts, then he's offsetting certain aspects - the aspects described by the skills - not overcoming the base stat. Ciretose said it pretty well. If you prefer crunch, he's able to influence people's opinions and actions, but can't get people to follow him (even with a feat) like they would if he had boosted the base stat.
Considering that he's supposed to be part of a team of 20 PB characters, he's cheating someone. If I was the GM, I'd tell him to make a legal character and then come back, because he knew the rules and he wasn't the only one playing (other players will be relying on him as well).
The only way I intentionally nerf myself is after getting permission from the party...However, I wouldn't bring such a character to the table without making sure everyone else thought it was fine, and after assuring them that I'm going to take precautions to not hold them back.
Ok, let's assume he asks and everyone at the table is 100% fine with him bringing a 13-point character into the game. Do you still say he's cheating?
|
If I were Toz I would flag that comment.I actually do think TOZ is one of the best posters on here, btw.
Actually, it was more of a light joke about me not being included in the "best posters" category. I guess it's again the language frontier and the growing difficulty to discern humor from cynism on the Interwebs that came to punch me in the groin.
Sorry to ToZ and Cartigan if my post was interpreted as an insult, it wasn't intended as so.
Well yeah.In your game negative stats had a negative consequence.
Fancy that.
Of course they wouldn't be called negatives if they didn't come with a price. The difference is I let the player use that penalty to develop a person behind the numbers rather than simply automatically calling him crude.
In the end I think this is basically close to what Ashiel's side has been arguing all along. I may be mistaken but that's what I read in the various examples.
What you said is fine.
Ashiel took it to another level by then saying by putting ranks into Diplomacy you can completely remove the negative effects of being "smarmy" and simply have a -2 charisma perceived as a dashing Adonis.
Skill are not Abilities.
You can put points in Diplomacy so that when you are interacting with people they will overlook the fact that you are smarmy and work with you anyway, but you will still be smarmy.
You can wear a charisma modifying item to be less smarmy. It is an option, but you have to invest in it. And Ashiel doesn't want to use any resources, but wants outcomes.
What the rest of us are saying is the smarmy guy starts off less favorably and has to do more to be liked than the person who is charismatic.
Yep, he has a -2 to the skill. Whereas the person who is charismatic likely has a +2 or so. 4 point difference. That's 20%, which is quite a bit.
Right?
Because if not, the only alteration you can do is change the initial attitude (steps of 5) based on something that is already factored and giving him a -7 instead of -2, in which case you are doing the social equivalent of giving someone with Dex 7 a grand total of -7 to AC because you as a GM want him to be clumsy, and not let him get away with cheesing his character with heavy armor and shield.
And yes, hyperbole intended, and comparison is valid barring house rules.
|
Well yeah.In your game negative stats had a negative consequence.
Fancy that.
Of course they wouldn't be called negatives if they didn't come with a price. The difference is I let the player use that penalty to develop a person behind the numbers rather than simply automatically calling him crude.
In the end I think this is basically close to what Ashiel's side has been arguing all along. I may be mistaken but that's what I read in the various examples.
What you said is fine.
Ashiel took it to another level by then saying by putting ranks into Diplomacy you can completely remove the negative effects of being "smarmy" and simply have a -2 charisma perceived as a dashing Adonis.
Skill are not Abilities.
You can put points in Diplomacy so that when you are interacting with people they will overlook the fact that you are smarmy and work with you anyway, but you will still be smarmy.
You can wear a charisma modifying item to be less smarmy. It is an option, but you have to invest in it. And Ashiel doesn't want to use any resources, but wants outcomes.
What the rest of us are saying is the smarmy guy starts off less favorably and has to do more to be liked than the person who is charismatic.
Yep, he has a -2 to the skill. Whereas the person who is charismatic likely has a +2 or so. 4 point difference. That's 20%, which is quite a bit.
Right?
Because if not, the only alteration you can do is change the initial attitude (steps of 5) based on something that is already factored and giving him a -7 instead of -2, in which case you are doing the social equivalent of giving someone with Dex 7 a grand total of -7 to AC because you as a GM want him to be clumsy, and not let him get away with cheesing his character with heavy armor and shield.
And yes, hyperbole intended, and comparison is valid barring house rules.
Initial attitude is a factor.
Who the NPC approaches first is a factor.
Who they like best and give then best treasure to is a factor.
Lots of social interactions occur that fall outside of skill checks, unless you expand skill checks to cover everything you can shoehorn into it.
Do you use swim to bend bars?
If you could show me where "dashing" is included in a skill.
20% is quite a bit. Let's expand your math. There are 4 areas Charisma governs. Personality, Personal magnetism, Ability to lead, and Appearance.
You want to be an Adonis. Let's say that is an 18 Appearance, or a +4.
So now you have 3 other areas, and you've "moved" 6 points to appearance so you aren't ugly.
Ok, so where do you remove those 6 "points" from? Each starts at a -2, or 10% less than average.
How bad is your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead? If you just take the same from all, to balance you now have a -4 in each of the rest, or you are now %20 below average in Personality, Personal magnetism, and Ability to lead.
I will allow the Adonis, but now your personality is perceived as %20 below average by NPC's. NPC's are %20 less likely to be drawn to you or to be willing to follow you.
But they think you are really pretty.
That is role playing.
NPC actions are subjective. Diplomacy governs diplomatic interactions in the same way Knowledge(Religion) governs knowledge of religion.
You wouldn't argue high skill ranks (not checks, ranks) in other areas would improve mechanical numbers, but you are arguing that it should in Charisma.
You wouldn't argue a high spellcraft check would actually let you cast a spell with a higher save DC.
But you are, effectively, arguing that a DM should ignore appearance, personality, personal magnetism, and ability to lead when roleplaying NPC interactions.
Ashiel revealed the underlying problem in the post above when they said they would make a player re-roll a low score character, because it would be unfair to the group to have a "weak" character.
Ashiel wants to dump charisma and not have to have a character that NPC's perceive as smarmy, or any other negative modifier. Ashiel talks about evolution, but doesn't want to put any ability points or item resources into the area that needs to be improved to not be smarmy.
Ashiel wants one single skill to do everything so that Ashiel doesn't have to actually build a balanced character in order to play a balanced character.
I often dump charisma. I generally don't seek to be the party face. I mostly just sit back and let others do the talking while I make sure I'm ready for combat. It is more important to me in those builds to be combat effective than to be social effective. Each requires investment of resources, in the same way that taking a ton of ranks in knowledge requires you to sacrifice elsewhere.
Ashiel wants a single skill make up for an entire ability, because Ashiel wants to min/max without consequences.
And if that is the style of play, feel free. But that is a house rule.
Ultimately, yes, we could make an eager, handsome, friendly fellow that actually rubs off on people the wrong way. He has his -2 from Charisma just like everyone else. We have decided how to flavor that -2, and he is now more interesting. However, everything about our character is what others might consider the opposite of a low charisma, and yet it works great.I would have absolutely no problem with this, provided the player attempts to roleplay it (and/or the GM remembers to require rolls). Honestly, Ashiel, it's possible that you've been roleplaying so long that you do the things I and baboon desire out of habit. I've just required that there is SOME kind of negative (though one of baboon's examples was on the simplistic side).
Roleplaying happens naturally. If you have a player who tries to do stuff his character isn't naturally good at, he will either get lucky or - more likely - order is restored by the dice. This is no different than an a player who dramatically describes himself as making a broad cut with his sword to decapitate the goblin warlord, only for him to miss (or not deal enough damage) and the GM note "Your strike was close, but the warlord parried at the last moment, driving your blade off course just enough to catch the side of his face instead of his neck". In either case, they attempted to do something that may or may not happen, and the dice decided.
Likewise, forcing a RP-lite player to act a certain way because he has a -10% to a set of statistics isn't going to make them roleplay any better. It might make them want high stats in everything, and desire a higher rolling method or point buy, but you're not going to make them a better roleplayer for beating them with the GM-stiok because their stats aren't at least average.
Instead, this is an amazing opportunity to break a RP-lite person out of their shell. Let them try, and RP with them. They'll begin to look at their character as a lot more than a few statistics on a sheet of paper, and realize where all the lines are connecting. That frothing barbarian dude with the uber strength score might suddenly find that he really wants to impress an NPC and so he starts putting his skill points into Diplomacy instead of Intimidate. This is exactly what happened with a friend of mine who played a barbarian/frenzied berserker in a 3.x game of mine a few years ago. Built his character to kill everything that moves, and by the end of the campaign it was everything around the killing that he was interested in.
Sure, he still kind of thought it was cool that his strength score while raging was actually higher than all but the absolutely oldest gold dragon from the Monster Manual, but it took a back seat to the scene where he was deeply immersed in trying to stop a civil war.
Just like with Sigfried...he evolves past this.This depends on how you mechanically handle the evolution. If it's through stat boosts (level-based or items), it's 100% fine. If it's through skill boosts, then he's offsetting certain aspects - the aspects described by the skills - not overcoming the base stat. Ciretose said it pretty well. If you prefer crunch, he's able to influence people's opinions and actions, but can't get people to follow him (even with a feat) like they would if he had boosted the base stat.
No one offsets the stat. They offset the effects of that stat. It would be foolish to assume that to become better with people that you must also become better with using magic items, preforming interpretive dance and musical instruments, etc. Even with feats like Leadership being modified by your Charisma, you could go on to become a great leader (you can reach a 25 leadership score by 20th level, even if you start with a 5 Charisma and never put points into it). Even if you weren't the best naturally, being a 20th level character alone pretty much would give you a 17 leadership score, and that's without circumstance bonuses (such as having a guildhall, reputation of generosity, etc).
I've just said that having some low stats isn't crippling. Heck, my brother rocked socks using 3 point buy and playing an expert, and his highest stat was a 13. Admittedly, he never would have made it at high levels without really gaming like a beast, but he definitely enjoyed it and managed to survive and defeat a wyvern at 3rd level (mainly 'cause he used his money to purchase animals and train them as warbeasts, but he lost an ox or two in the process).
Ok, let's assume he asks and everyone at the table is 100% fine with him bringing a 13-point character into the game. Do you still say he's cheating?Considering that he's supposed to be part of a team of 20 PB characters, he's cheating someone. If I was the GM, I'd tell him to make a legal character and then come back, because he knew the rules and he wasn't the only one playing (other players will be relying on him as well).
The only way I intentionally nerf myself is after getting permission from the party...However, I wouldn't bring such a character to the table without making sure everyone else thought it was fine, and after assuring them that I'm going to take precautions to not hold them back.
If he checked it with everyone else and they were all cool with it, then I would probably accept it. It would have been the decision of the group together, as opposed to showing up with a character that everyone else will have to carry without regards to them. At this point, no, I would say it isn't cheating anyone, because it was offered as a choice.
EDIT: And when the entire group agrees to allow you to bend the rules, then it becomes a part of your game.
Ashiel revealed the underlying problem in the post above when they said they would make a player re-roll a low score character, because it would be unfair to the group to have a "weak" character.
Read the damned posts. I said I wouldn't allow it because he brought it knowing that the game was 20 point buy, and that intentionally making the character to be weaker than intended and then bringing it to the table to participate in what amounts to challenge based PFS games with people expecting him to carry his weight was cheating somebody (in this case, the other players).
Ashiel wants to dump charisma and not have to have a character that NPC's perceive as smarmy, or any other negative modifier. Ashiel talks about evolution, but doesn't want to put any ability points or item resources into the area that needs to be improved to not be smarmy.
Ashiel wants one single skill to do everything so that Ashiel doesn't have to actually build a balanced character in order to play a balanced character.
I often dump charisma. I generally don't seek to be the party face. I mostly just sit back and let others do the talking while I make sure I'm ready for combat. It is more important to me in those builds to be combat effective than to be social effective. Each requires investment of resources, in the same way that taking a ton of ranks in knowledge requires you to sacrifice elsewhere.
Ashiel wants a single skill make up for an entire ability, because Ashiel wants to min/max without consequences.
And if that is the style of play, feel free. But that is a house rule.
|
|
No one offsets the stat. They offset the effects of that stat.
off·set/ˌôfˈset/
Verb: Counteract (something) by having an opposing force or effect: "the deficit was offset by capital inflows".When you offset the effects, you offset the stat.
Note you ignored the rest of the post. Which is consistent.
No one offsets the stat. They offset the effects of that stat.
off·set/ˌôfˈset/
Verb: Counteract (something) by having an opposing force or effect: "the deficit was offset by capital inflows".When you offset the effects, you offset the stat.
Note you ignored the rest of the post. Which is consistent.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. The effects of that stat that apply to this one thing right here. Would that have avoided confusion?
Raising Charisma would not only require a level of superhuman investment which breaks verisimilitude, but it also would have stupid consequences, such as making us better at playing the tuba. *chuckles*
There are worse people to be compared to. :)
I meant it as a compliment, I assure you. I also noted the differences between you, Cartigan, and Ravingdork (whose posts always amuse me at least).
|
Sorry to ToZ and Cartigan if my post was interpreted as an insult, it wasn't intended as so.
I'm sorry to hear about your kitten. :)
For the record, I consider ciretose, mdt, and Ashiel to be some of the best posters as well. I can't comment on you yet Maxx, but stick around so I can mock you mercilessly too!
Sorry to ToZ and Cartigan if my post was interpreted as an insult, it wasn't intended as so.I'm sorry to hear about your kitten. :)
For the record, I consider ciretose, mdt, and Ashiel to be some of the best posters as well. I can't comment on you yet Maxx, but stick around so I can mock you mercilessly too!
Thank you, TOZ. ^.^
.
..
...
....
.....
Oooh! Oooooh! That tickles.
Whose hand was that?!
|
|
Perhaps I should have been more specific. The effects of that stat that apply to this one thing right here. Would that have avoided confusion?
Raising Charisma would not only require a level of superhuman investment which breaks verisimilitude, but it also would have stupid consequences, such as making us better at playing the tuba. *chuckles*
Here is the problem.
Charisma applies to 4 things: Personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Now, we both agree a player should have a say in how the Charisma manifests. You can be pretty with a low charisma modifier for example, if the low charisma is more focused on the other aspects of charisma.
The problem I have with your reading is that you are allowing diplomacy to offset personality, personal magnetism completely, and with the exception of how it effects the leadership Ability to lead as well.
So functionally through fluff you negated one aspect, and through loose rules reading you negated the other aspects, meaning you are arguing that a rank in a skill is functionally equal to an ability point.
Since definitions are ok now,
Definition of DIPLOMACY
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact
For our purposes, the second meaning applies. When you read the description for the skill it fits perfectly with the definition above.
“You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable
information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conf licts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.”
Being tactful is not the same as having a magnetic personality. Tactful isn’t Charismatic. If you are charismatic you are more likely to be tactful, if you are less charismatic you are less likely to be tactful. But you can be tactful without being charismatic.
Having a single skill offset the effects of an ability entirely would be the equivalent of allowing a single knowledge check to allow you to raise save DC for spells and increase skill points per level (imagine the circular reference on that…)
Diplomacy was not intended to replace charisma. It was intended to allow everyone to be tactful when interacting with NPCs, and making the interaction not entirely arbitrary and up to GM fiat.
Social interactions, by their nature, are going to be subjective. It is the GMs opinion how your actions will influence NPCs. You are basically saying “There are 4 aspects to this skill, I want you to allow me to modify my character to have a positive effect from one of these aspects, and then I want you to allow me to use skill points to completely negate the other three.”
It would be like going to your GM and saying “I’m not worried about lifting capacity, so can I say I have a bad back but I would like a +1 to my attack. Then later I would like my back to heal completely due to my learning to swim strengthening my back muscles.”
For the sake of role-playing, I am perfectly willing to allow you to choose how your Charisma manifests.
But I’m not willing to allow a player to fluff and skill away social interactions anymore than I would let them fluff and skill away combat encounters.
Sorry to ToZ and Cartigan if my post was interpreted as an insult, it wasn't intended as so.I'm sorry to hear about your kitten. :)
For the record, I consider ciretose, mdt, and Ashiel to be some of the best posters as well. I can't comment on you yet Maxx, but stick around so I can mock you mercilessly too!
I put that down to lack of familiarity with myself in the flesh and blood. If ToZ knew me in flesh and blood, he'd not be so sure about that whole best poster thing.
I mean, seriously, the last time someone tried to staple me to a wall, I didn't hang there more than 3 seconds before I tore the panelling loose and fell to the floor. Pretty poor excuse for a poster. Plus I'm lumpy, posters should be flat.
;)
|
I put that down to lack of familiarity with myself in the flesh and blood. If ToZ knew me in flesh and blood, he'd not be so sure about that whole best poster thing.
I mean, seriously, the last time someone tried to staple me to a wall, I didn't hang there more than 3 seconds before I tore the panelling loose and fell to the floor. Pretty poor excuse for a poster. Plus I'm lumpy, posters should be flat.
;)
Nah, they emply these "new" 3d posters now...you'd fit right in...You fall of the wall? Use bigger staples.
:D:D
I mean, seriously, the last time someone tried to staple me to a wall, I didn't hang there more than 3 seconds before I tore the panelling loose and fell to the floor. Pretty poor excuse for a poster. Plus I'm lumpy, posters should be flat.
Wow, mdt. Wow.
@Ashiel: you took away my fun by showing reason on the point buy. I had all sorts of plans if you didn't. Alas.
So potentially you've agreed that a 10- or 15-point character could be used in PFS, though you've suggested realistic restrictions. But a 25- or 30- or 42-point character has no business in PFS. That table would experience less risk for equal gain, which is not okay. If someone wants to play a challenge version of PFS, with equal gain, that's up to them - just like they can play with four sorcerers and no healing items if they really want to.
This is my example to you and Shadow that if someone wants less power, it can be okay, whereas if someone wants more power, it isn't. There is a definite distinction, and it's not a double standard.
Here is the problem.Charisma applies to 4 things: Personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Now, we both agree a player should have a say in how the Charisma manifests. You can be pretty with a low charisma modifier for example, if the low charisma is more focused on the other aspects of charisma.
The problem I have with your reading is that you are allowing diplomacy to offset personality, personal magnetism completely, and with the exception of how it effects the leadership Ability to lead as well.
You still have the -2 penalty. That's not just "not a bonus", it's a in the opposite direction of a bonus. That means you're patently worse at it than usual, but you can "offset" it to the point that you can reach decent measures in it over your career. If you have a -2 penalty, you have a -2 penalty. Even if it's a class skill, you have a +2 instead of a +6 if you were going in the other direction.
It doesn't, however, imply that you're not going to be able to get better, reach an average or even above average level in terms of socializing, and so forth. It means you're off to a poor start.
So functionally through fluff you negated one aspect, and through loose rules reading you negated the other aspects, meaning you are arguing that a rank in a skill is functionally equal to an ability point.
Since definitions are ok now,
Definition of DIPLOMACY
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tactFor our purposes, the second meaning applies. When you read the description for the skill it fits perfectly with the definition above.
“You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable
information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conf licts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.”Being tactful is not the same as having a magnetic personality. Tactful isn’t Charismatic. If you are charismatic you are more likely to be tactful, if you are less charismatic you are less likely to be tactful. But you can be tactful without being charismatic.
Having a single skill offset the effects of an ability entirely would be the equivalent of allowing a single knowledge check to allow you to raise save DC for spells and increase skill points per level (imagine the circular reference on that…)
Look, the majority of your argument basically comes from our disagreement on how Diplomacy works. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and we've done this dance. I've seen more people actually agree with the interpretation of Diplomacy that I use, but hey, just 'cause people agree doesn't make it wright - so maybe you're right. I just don't think you are, because the skill specifically does stuff outside of what you describe to be the limits.
I'm not going to argue with you over this again. There are no rules for Charisma determining NPC interaction AT ALL, so either way it's a wash. Either one works or they both don't. If you don't buy into the fact that Diplomacy is used for peaceful social interaction, there's nothing else in the core rules (which I have doubled checked, and asked you to provide on several occasions).
Likewise, your example of using knowledge checks to raise spell DCs is just stupid. Do you know how to draw parallels between things? On one hand, you have a social skill that is based off Charisma that is used for peaceful NPC interaction, contrasted by Intimidate for hostile NPC interaction, and how you can use skill points to improve one of those aspects of your character. Then you turn around and try to make the suggestion that it is akin to using skill points to up save DCs for spells. Do you ever listen to yourself? Are you just trolling? Are you seriously writing this stuff with a strait face? Do you not see where your comprehension of this subject is failing at a fundamental level?
Social interactions, by their nature, are going to be subjective. It is the GMs opinion how your actions will influence NPCs. You are basically saying “There are 4 aspects to this skill, I want you to allow me to modify my character to have a positive effect from one of these aspects, and then I want you to allow me to use skill points to completely negate the other three.”
Charisma, the stat, is not a skill. Likewise, it is not a matter of requesting a positive effect, as the net result is always negative. You are not getting a +1 to Diplomacy at a -1 Intimidate, Preform, and Bluff, for example. Again with your example failings.
Good day to you.
a lot of stuff
Hey Ashiel, now that's you're acknowledging that the Charisma stat has a semi-permanent effect on the character, do you mind if we ask people to roleplay it?
And you know, if the 5-CHR barbarian has the highest diplomacy check at the table, I don't mind so much if he's the party face. But if he and a 20-CHR character are both fully and equally invested in diplomacy, it seems a good roleplayer would strive to be "good, but not as good as that guy."
a lot of stuffHey Ashiel, now that's you're acknowledging that the Charisma stat has a semi-permanent effect on the character, do you mind if we ask people to roleplay it?
And you know, if the 5-CHR barbarian has the highest diplomacy check at the table, I don't mind so much if he's the party face. But if he and a 20-CHR character are both fully and equally invested in diplomacy, it seems a good roleplayer would strive to be "good, but not as good as that guy."
What's your point? Last I checked, that's exactly what happens naturally.
20th Level 5 Charisma Barbarian with 20 Ranks in Diplomacy = +17.
20th Level 20 Charisma Bard with 20 Ranks in Diplomacy = +28
That's a +55% difference. The difference is actually more noticeable at low levels because it takes the Barbarian is in the negatives until 3rd level, while the Bard is sporting some +11 at the same level.
Do we disagree?
EDIT: Compared to the average guy, the Barbarian is super-amazing awesome beyond normal comprehension of ability, turns everyone into potential friends, etc.
The Bard? He's got godly social ability. He could probably convince the queen of the drow to have a one night stand with him before they fought to the death, 'cause it was mutually beneficial to them both. *jokes*
ciretose after you made that impassioned post I was finally able to see past that mask you wear on the forums. It bothered me that while you want role play, you didn't want anyone using actual mechanics (skill system) to support that role play. It made little sense at first. I felt like you were shooting yourself in the foot. But I remember being in a game like that once. While role play was happening no one touched the dice. Not even to resolve issues. If they acted through it well they succeeded. If I am right and that is how you play ciretose, then I totally understand where you are coming from in your arguments. It would feel like cheating to allow someone to accomplish with a skill what you want them to act out.
I think I can help you see the other side of the argument. Those of us who use skill rolls during social interaction want to see player invest points into making themselves better at social things. It would feel like cheating to me to allow someone to simply toss a positive number in their charisma stat and never buy even a single rank of diplomacy, bluff, or perform, and yet expect all the NPCs to always react favorably to them.
|
|
I'm not going to argue with you over this again. There are no rules for Charisma determining NPC interaction AT ALL, so either way it's a wash. Either one works or they both don't. If you don't buy into the fact that Diplomacy is used for peaceful social interaction, there's nothing else in the core rules (which I have doubled checked, and asked you to provide on several occasions).
“You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to: that represent attempts to influence others.”
And of course.
“Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance”
And even if it didn’t specifically say, in the rules, that charisma governs attempts to influence others, and is the measurement for personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance it still isn’t a wash.
The ability score is the default used for things that fall outside of the rules of a skill.
Modifying a skill to fit your need because you don’t actually want to have to build a character that fits isn't the default.
Good day to you.
|
|
ciretose after you made that impassioned post I was finally able to see past that mask you wear on the forums. It bothered me that while you want role play, you didn't want anyone using actual mechanics (skill system) to support that role play. It made little sense at first. I felt like you were shooting yourself in the foot. But I remember being in a game like that once. While role play was happening no one touched the dice. Not even to resolve issues. If they acted through it well they succeeded. If I am right and that is how you play ciretose, then I totally understand where you are coming from in your arguments. It would feel like cheating to allow someone to accomplish with a skill what you want them to act out.
I think I can help you see the other side of the argument. Those of us who use skill rolls during social interaction want to see player invest points into making themselves better at social things. It would feel like cheating to me to allow someone to simply toss a positive number in their charisma stat and never buy even a single rank of diplomacy, bluff, or perform, and yet expect all the NPCs to always react favorably to them.
I have no issue with diplomacy being used in social interactions to de-escalate situations or to convince people to assist them. That is what the skill is for.
I don't even have a problem if, over time, NPCs grow to like and respect you due to your tactful diplomacy, despite your generally lack of charisma. Those are circumstances.
I do have a problem saying that someone is "dashing" or "charming" because you put points in diplomacy. Tact is not personal magnetism.
“You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to: that represent attempts to influence others.”
And of course.
“Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance”
And even if it didn’t specifically say, in the rules, that charisma governs attempts to influence others, and is the measurement for personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance it still isn’t a wash.
The ability score is the default used for things that fall outside of the rules of a skill.
Modifying a skill to fit your need because you don’t actually want to have to build a character that fits isn't the default.
Good day to you.
Yeah dude. We're still waiting for the citations. I know you're the absolute authority on it and all, but I'm funny like that. Pics or it didn't happen.
|
|
Yeah dude. We're still waiting for the citations. I know you're the absolute authority on it and all, but I'm funny like that. Pics or it didn't happen.“You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to: that represent attempts to influence others.”
And of course.
“Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance”
And even if it didn’t specifically say, in the rules, that charisma governs attempts to influence others, and is the measurement for personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance it still isn’t a wash.
The ability score is the default used for things that fall outside of the rules of a skill.
Modifying a skill to fit your need because you don’t actually want to have to build a character that fits isn't the default.
Good day to you.
Yiu mean the page numbers for the above quotes? I just assumed you own the core rulebook.
Yiu mean the page numbers for the above quotes? I just assumed you own the core rulebook.
Nah. I meant the checks you add those Charisma modifiers to influence characters, that don't include spell effects or social skills. Preferably with a table or similar detailing the expected DCs and all that. I can't seem to find them.
What I did find was the definition of ability scores.
Ability Score: Each creature has six ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These scores represent a creature's most basic attributes. The higher the score, the more raw potential and talent your character possesses.
Which is pretty nice.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
These are also good ones too.
However, I couldn't find anything in the entire PRD that notes Ability Checks being the thing you default to in circumstances. In fact, ability checks aren't even defined in the rules except as just another check called upon in specific circumstances. Even the glossary only mentions the scores as giving bonuses to particular things (such as skills based on them).
So it'd be helpful if you could point them out. You've been talking about them so much that I'm actually quite anxious to find out.
Put your rules where your mouth is.
Oh cool, the thread has cycled back here again.
I think I have asked this 3-4 times already. Sure, bad charisma should be implemented, but there is no direction on how unless you add to the rules.
Because changing initial attitude is a huge penalty (at least 5, which in effect makes the cha6 dude a cha-4 dude in terms of social ability), and there is no mechanic that tells you what happens except penalties on skill and ability checks. You get worse at talking, tricking, scaring, sorcery, turning undead and other holy stuff.
If you want to make charisma more important, make a house-rule. Heck, I had tons of house rules back in the day, and I still have a few to add to the game. Doesn't need to be something crunch-heavy either. For example: make people define an "aspect" when they have a bonus or penalty to charisma. If you have penalties, you have a negative aspect, if you have bonuses, you have a positive aspect. If an NPC would react to said aspect, you get approached/avoided, and get a +/- 2 to DCs.
Doesn't have to be harder than that.
|
|
Yiu mean the page numbers for the above quotes? I just assumed you own the core rulebook.Nah. I meant the checks you add those Charisma modifiers to influence characters, that don't include spell effects or social skills. Preferably with a table or similar detailing the expected DCs and all that. I can't seem to find them.
What I did find was the definition of ability scores.
Ability Score: Each creature has six ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These scores represent a creature's most basic attributes. The higher the score, the more raw potential and talent your character possesses.Which is pretty nice.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
These are also good ones too.
However, I couldn't find anything in the entire PRD that notes Ability Checks being the thing you default to in circumstances. In fact, ability checks aren't even defined in the rules except as just another check called upon in specific circumstances. Even the glossary only mentions the scores as giving bonuses to particular things (such as skills based on them).
So it'd be helpful if you could point them out. You've been talking about them so much that I'm actually quite anxious to find out.
Put your rules where your mouth is.
As far as I can tell your logic is as follows.
1. The statement “You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to: Checks that represent attempts to influence others.” Doesn’t mean that charisma is what you use when attempting to influence others.
Because if it did, you would have no argument. So the words can’t mean exactly what they say.
I honestly can’t think of a way to say that Charisma is the check that represents attempts to influence others than to say…well…that. Which is the rule. In the book. Under Charisma. Which I am citing. Again. Because it exists.
2. The words “Ability scores are the most basic attributes possessed by a character, describing his raw potential and ability.” Does not meat that ability scores are the base attributes, or most basic attribute.
Perhaps you don’t know the definition of the word “basic”
ba•sic
Show Spelled[bey-sik] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or forming a base; fundamental: a basic principle; the basic ingredient.
Making the ability scores the base, or baseline.
Now if you can provide a chart that says what you have to roll to be “Dashing”
Adj.1.dashing - lively and spirited; "a dashing hero" gallant spirited - displaying animation, vigor, or liveliness.
Maybe you would have a case. But when you argue it is the same as being diplomatic?
Would you like me to repost the definition for “Diplomacy” so you can compare? I can if you like?
Fortunately, the game allows you to buy a magic item to improve your charisma if you want your low charisma character to be dashing. Or you can put your ability points in Charisma.
The rules are helpful that way.
I think people are getting off base here.
"Dashing" is a personality trait. You don't need charisma or diplomacy to be lively or spirited.
So in essence, you have nothing. Gotcha. I thought so.
The statement “You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to: Checks that represent attempts to influence others.” Doesn’t mean that charisma is what you use when attempting to influence others.
Because if it did, you would have no argument. So the words can’t mean exactly what they say.
I honestly can’t think of a way to say that Charisma is the check that represents attempts to influence others than to say…well…that. Which is the rule. In the book. Under Charisma. Which I am citing. Again. Because it exists.
Reading failure. "You apply your Charisma modifier to: Checks that represent attempts to influence others." It doesn't mention a Charisma check. It doesn't say there is a Charisma check to influence others. It says you apply your Charisma modifier to checks made to influence others.
It's not rocket science.
EDIT:
I honestly can’t think of a way to say that Charisma is the check that represents attempts to influence others than to say…well…that. Which is the rule. In the book. Under Charisma. Which I am citing. Again. Because it exists.
And this is an outright lie. It doesn't once say that Charisma is the check that represents attempts to influence others. Nor is it the rule, in the book, under Charisma. You aren't citing. Because it doesn't exist. Liar.
EDIT 2:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
* Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
* Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
* Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.
Charisma: Temporary increases to your Charisma score give you a bonus on Charisma-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Charisma and the DC to resist your channeled energy.
The only flat Charisma check made to influence people is part of spells, such as charm person.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
|
|
I think people are getting off base here.
"Dashing" is a personality trait. You don't need charisma or diplomacy to be lively or spirited.
Except this is basically the core issue. There is a lot of smoke being thrown up, but this is the root of the matter, because we all agree on most of the other issues.
We (almost) all agree you should be able to choose how negative (or positive) charisma manifest in your character. And most of us agree that these things should actually have in game effects with NPC interactions.
We seem to all agree that circumstances get NPCs to overlook low charisma or high charisma (aka, if I help you then you will like me no matter how uncharismatic I am, if I hurt you will not like me no matter how charismatic I am).
We all agree that player characters can ignore charisma scores when they make choices, as they are players and not bound to such things. But most of us agree a good GM will try to play up the charisma when describing and playing NPCs.
And most of us agree that if you are going to say that if you don’t want to manifest one aspect of a negative charisma score, you have to manifest some negative aspect of a negative charisma score, and this negative aspect will effect how NPCs interact with you.
However Ashiel (specifically) is arguing that you can dump charisma, take a few points of diplomacy, and expect to be viewed by NPC’s virtually identically to someone with high charisma.
This is like saying I can take a few ranks of knowledge (arcane) and be able to cast spells as a Wizard even if I have 7 in intelligence.
Learning to be tactful and diplomatic simply is not the same as being “dashing” or “charming”. Learning to be tactful and diplomatic is not going to make you have a magnetic personality, it is not going to make people think you have an interesting personality. It isn’t going to make people think you are great leader. It isn’t going to make people think you are good looking.
It is going to allow you to get people to be willing to work with you, for a period of time, if you have a full minute to interact with them. Just like the rules say it does.
I think there is a lot of confusion about the various positions because of the strawmen that have been created, but the issues aren’t that complex.
Here is my stand on the various issues that others have argued against. I don’t think any of them are radical, and I suspect you will agree with most if not all of them.
1. NPCs can perceive the players personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance and this will be part of what they consider when acting. This will be a part of what forms the initial attitude of NPCs.
This was called “metagaming” by Ashiel and others.
2. Diplomacy doesn’t change your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Ashiel argued that if you put points in Diplomacy, it negates all negative effects of having a low charisma when interacting with NPCs
3. Ability scores are the default when there is no clear skill that fits a given situation.
Ashiel has said that there is no basis for this, and that you should expand the scope of that skill to fit the situation.
4. Charisma is the only ability that specifically says it applies to all checks that govern a type of action, specifically it says it should be applied to checks that represent attempts to influence others. This is unique to charisma. You can read all the other abilities and only Charisma has this addition. If you are in a “roll-playing” focused game vs a “role-playing” focused game it shows that Charisma checks should be used for situations outside of the skills.
Ashiel argues this only applies to spells and existing checks, and to nothing else, because this was meant only to cover a narrow area and not really cover “all” attempts to influence others…despite that being exactly what it says. However Ashiel simultaneously argues you should expand the scope of what skills can apply to beyond RAW.
5. Almost all social interactions are subjective. The GM is the only person who knows the motivations of the NPCs. The GM should take all circumstances, including charisma into consideration when considering NPC actions, and often these motivations and circumstances would make it difficult for a PC to use a diplomacy check, particularly against someone who is hostile to them and unwilling to allow them the uninterrupted minute of conversation to negotiate.
Ashiel posted an example scene where the players were approached by guards, presumable sent to take them in for questioning. Despite several failed rolls for various skill checks, in Ashiel’s game the players were able to get them to walk away without conflict as if they weren’t there for a specific purpose in what seemed to be instant rolls that didn’t have any consequences for failed checks and seemed to have guards with unlimited patience to stand and talk with the people they were sent to arrest.
If you allow players to cherry pick in order to be able to min/max without negative effects in the game, you might as well run the game without a GM and declare everyone a winner.
If you run a game as Ashiel described in the posted scenario, the players basically are running the NPCs as anything the NPCs bring to the table as far as background is superceded by skill checks, interpreted well beyond the scope of both their description and the rules as written.
If you permit a player to be able to have the benefits of high charisma without actually having high charisma, the balance of the game doesn’t work.
You can use skill to solve problems. You can lack charisma but have tact that allows you to resolve conflicts.
You can’t have low charisma and expect NPCs to interact with you as if you had high charisma simply because you know to say “please” and “thank you.” It isn’t just about conversation, it is about who you are.
It is, like all ability scores, the foundation of the character.
You wouldn’t argue that if Moe from the Simpsons took a lot of ranks in Diplomacy he would be perceived like the Dos Equis Guy, would you? Hell, Moe probably has a few ranks in diplomacy to avoid having bar fights all the time, and to be able to collect on bar tabs. But he isn’t charismatic. He’s just able to negotiate conflicts.
Ashiel wants to expand the effect of diplomacy so that it negates negative charisma. If you have negative charisma, you have negative personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, or some combination of those based on how you and your DM seek to manifest it. This effect will be perceived by anyone who interacts with you in the same way choosing to be a half orc would be perceived by anyone who interacts with you.
Taking a few ranks in skills doesn’t change this. But that is the argument Ashiel is making. You can sugar coat it any way you want, but that is the argument. And that is why it isn’t off topic to bring up the “dashing” issue.
It’s the only real issue. We agree on the rest.
.
..
...
....
.....
If only they added a new table named 'Initial Reactions'.
It would be akin to the Carrying Capacity table.
However, rather than translating the Strength attribute into the carrying capacity for a character it would show how Charisma was used to govern initial reactions - with +/- modifier depending on the attribute's value.
It would represent how every* GM in my area translates charisma into their game worlds and give them an actual rule mechanic to support said translation.
::
My personal take is:-
Charisma-based skills are active, charisma as a stat is passive.
If I want to utilise my learned abilities to influence others I must actively do so.
Without actively utilising learned behavior I must contend with the reactions of others - who react to my base charisma score.
So, while I can learn to influence others (actively) I, as lazy earth monkey, would find many situations and, some may argue, most social situations, easier if I could rely on others reacting to my imba-positve charisma score. Having to actively influence others, all the time, just to convince them I'm an ok-kinda dude, would get old, quickly.
With regards to Cha 7 character with +10 ranks in Diplomacy -- they've got to continually 'act' (i.e actively utilise his skill persuasion to offset there inherent charisma penalty) the part. Personally the concept of that, for me - personally, in RL, would get tiring very quickly. Viable - but tiring.
Now, as long as the player is happy to continually invest the energy to roleplay such active skill use - awesome!
Simply assigning a series of adjectives to a character and demanding others react accordingly is, to my mind, lazy role playing.
::
This is, of course, simply my personal take on charisma.
::
|
|
.
My personal take is:-
Charisma-based skills are active, charisma as a stat is passive.
If I want to utilise my learned abilities to influence others I must actively do so.
Without actively utilising learned behavior I must contend with the reactions of others - who react to my base charisma score.
^
This.THIS.
THIIIIS.
.
My personal take is:-
Charisma-based skills are active, charisma as a stat is passive.
If I want to utilise my learned abilities to influence others I must actively do so.
Without actively utilising learned behavior I must contend with the reactions of others - who react to my base charisma score.
^
This.
THIS.THIIIIS.
This plus circumstancial things.
Example
NPC innkeeper is an elf that dislikes dwarves.
Dwarf is filthy from the road.
Dwarf is supporting a wounded human as they stumble into the inn.
Dwarf looks up tiredly. "Room please? And a healer?"
Initial Reaction :
Dwarf : Unfriendly
Dirty Dwarf : More Unfriendly, not hostile
Dwarf is helping wounded person : Less Unfriendly (Assumes Good elf)
Dwarf asks for help politely : Indifferent
Dwarf has a CHA of 5 : Unfriendly
Initial Reaction :
Dwarf : Unfriendly
Dirty Dwarf : More Unfriendly, not hostile
Dwarf is helping wounded person : Less Unfriendly (Assumes Good elf)
Dwarf asks for help politely : Indifferent
Dwarf has a CHA of 16 : Mildly Helpful
|
|
^
This.
THIS.THIIIIS.
This plus circumstancial things.
+ Examples
^
THIS TOO.In a kind of way, charisma is from the beginning a circumstancial bonus or malus when meeting new people. How these people react depends mostly from culture, background and circumstances, but charisma still is part of the equation.
I feel like our hearts are merging then we are all imploding and exploding into ourselves again in a fairytale world.
But not in a real way, it would be gross.
This plus circumstancial things.
Example
NPC innkeeper is an elf that dislikes dwarves.
Dwarf is filthy from the road.
Dwarf is supporting a wounded human as they stumble into the inn.
Dwarf looks up tiredly. "Room please? And a healer?"Initial Reaction :
Dwarf : Unfriendly
Dirty Dwarf : More Unfriendly, not hostile
Dwarf is helping wounded person : Less Unfriendly (Assumes Good elf)
Dwarf asks for help politely : Indifferent
Dwarf has a CHA of 5 : UnfriendlyInitial Reaction :
Dwarf : Unfriendly
Dirty Dwarf : More Unfriendly, not hostile
Dwarf is helping wounded person : Less Unfriendly (Assumes Good elf)
Dwarf asks for help politely : Indifferent
Dwarf has a CHA of 16 : Mildly Helpful
Like the old 1ed racial compatibility chart...
(been watching this since the off...very interesting...)SPOILER
*re-enters lurk mode*
What stops a PC from always using his learned skills?
Depends on the skill...
Perception : Being unconscious? Being paralyzed?
Diplomacy : Being gagged? Being in a silence field? Being alone in a solitary confinement jail cell? Being under a compulsion to sing showtunes at the top of his lungs?
Slight of Hand : Being handless? Being Unconscious? Being tied to a post about to be burned at the post?
... and we're back again. Mechanics cannot be adequately balanced with fluff alone -- or with arbitrary checks with no set DCs and no guidelines except "an ability check and then just decide the results out of whole cloth however you want" (which amount to much the same as fluff).
Attempts at doing so lead to threads like this one, or to the infinite depths of animosity and bile spawned by "paladin's code" threads. They both boil down to the exact same argument, in either case.
.
My personal take is:-
Charisma-based skills are active, charisma as a stat is passive.
If I want to utilise my learned abilities to influence others I must actively do so.
Without actively utilising learned behavior I must contend with the reactions of others - who react to my base charisma score.
^
This.
THIS.THIIIIS.
Where would that chart go once you hit the upper 20's? All of a sudden you've hit the top of the reaction chart at CHA 18 and the bards 34 isn't doing him anything more then the rogues 18, unlike the carrying capacity table that keeps increasing.
.
My personal take is:-
Charisma-based skills are active, charisma as a stat is passive.
If I want to utilise my learned abilities to influence others I must actively do so.
Without actively utilising learned behavior I must contend with the reactions of others - who react to my base charisma score.
^
This.
THIS.THIIIIS.
This plus circumstancial things.
Example
NPC innkeeper is an elf that dislikes dwarves.
Dwarf is filthy from the road.
Dwarf is supporting a wounded human as they stumble into the inn.
Dwarf looks up tiredly. "Room please? And a healer?"Initial Reaction :
Dwarf : Unfriendly
Dirty Dwarf : More Unfriendly, not hostile
Dwarf is helping wounded person : Less Unfriendly (Assumes Good elf)
Dwarf asks for help politely : Indifferent
Dwarf has a CHA of 5 : UnfriendlyInitial Reaction :
Dwarf : Unfriendly
Dirty Dwarf : More Unfriendly, not hostile
Dwarf is helping wounded person : Less Unfriendly (Assumes Good elf)
Dwarf asks for help politely : Indifferent
Dwarf has a CHA of 16 : Mildly Helpful
I am pretty sure it is:
"Dwarf has Cha of 5, needs to roll 18 if he has no ranks in diplomacy."
and
"Dwarf has Cha of 16, needs to roll a 12 if he has no ranks in diplomacy."
Asking politely is a diplomacy check, however you turn it.
I don't feel like taking the time to read the entire lengthy thread, I just have one observation on the Diplomacy skill vs. raw Cha question. I can see the arguments of both sides and am not taking a side.
My observation is this: I've never seen a character dump Charisma and then heavily invest in social skills. It is theoretically possible, but I've never seen it happen and would bet it is rare. If you really cared about the social skills, you wouldn't have dumped Charisma in the first place. What is much more common, in my experience, is two other approaches: 1) dump Charisma, ignore social skills and assume the "party face" will handle all social interactions; or 2) dump Charisma, ignore social skills and then ignore this while roleplaying and accuse the GM of being a jerk if he insists those choices have consequences.